MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION FOR PROMOTING ADVOCACY AND RIGHTS (PAR) ACTIVITY APRIL 30, 2021 This document was produced by ME&A, Inc. at the request of the United States Agency for International Development. It was prepared independently by the USAID Bangladesh Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning (BMEL) Activity. MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION FOR PROMOTING ADVOCACY AND RIGHTS (PAR) ACTIVITY April 30, 2021 Contract No./Order No. GS-10F-154BA/72038819M00001 USAID Bangladesh Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning (BMEL) Activity Prepared by ME&A, Inc. 4350 East-West Highway, Suite 210 Bethesda, MD, 20814 USA DISCLAIMER This report is made possible by the support of the American people through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The contents are the sole responsibility of ME&A, Inc. and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United States Government. TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY................................................................................................................................................... i I. INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Political Background ................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 The Promoting Advocacy and Rights Activity...................................................................................... 2 1.3 Evaluation Purpose...................................................................................................................................... 3 1.4 Evaluation Questions.................................................................................................................................. 3 2. METHODOLOGY................................................................................................................................................. 4 2.1 Evaluation Limitations................................................................................................................................. 5 3. EVALUATION FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS...................................................................................... 5 3.1 EQ 1: To what extent is CI on course to meet PAR’s objectives and results based on progress achieved thus far?....................................................................................................................... 5 3.1.1 Findings............................................................................................................................................ 5 3.1.2 Performance Indicator Data....................................................................................................... 6 3.1.3 IR 1: Strengthened CS Capacity to Effectively Advocate for Improved Democratic Governance .................................................................................................................................................. 7 3.1.4 IR 2: Established Cross-Sector Partnerships to Improve Government Responsiveness to Citizen Needs.......................................................................................................................................13 3.1.5 Conclusions..................................................................................................................................15 3.2 EQ 2: To what extent has CI been able to improve the research, advocacy, legal framework, and digital capacity of targeted CSOs as a result of the PAR activity?.........................................15 3.2.1 Findings..........................................................................................................................................15 3.2.2 Conclusions..................................................................................................................................18 3.3 EQ 3: To what extent are the activity’s objectives still relevant for the current Bangladesh development and closing space context?.............................................................................................18 3.3.1 Findings..........................................................................................................................................18 3.3.2 Conclusions..................................................................................................................................19 3.4 EQ 4: Has CI assisted CSO partners to improve their sustainability prospects and how effective were they in achieving that?...................................................................................................20 3.4.1 Findings..........................................................................................................................................20 3.4.2 Conclusions..................................................................................................................................21 3.5 EQ 5: Has the theory of change or activity design been achievable thus far? If not, why?......21 3.5.1 Findings..........................................................................................................................................21 3.5.2 Conclusions..................................................................................................................................23 3.6 EQ 6: How effective has CI been at managing PAR’s performance? ............................................23 3.6.1 Findings..........................................................................................................................................23 3.6.2 Conclusions..................................................................................................................................24 4. RECOMMENDATIONS..............................................................................................................................25 4.1 Theory of Change .....................................................................................................................................25 4.2 IR 1: Strengthened CS Capacity to Effectively Advocate for Improved Democratic Governance ................................................................................................................................................25 4.3 IR 2: Established Cross-Sector Partnerships to Improve Government Responsiveness to Citizen Needs.............................................................................................................................................26 4.4 Increasing Awareness...............................................................................................................................26 4.5 Strengthening Advocacy ..........................................................................................................................27 4.6 Capacity Building .......................................................................................................................................27 4.7 Strengthening Networks .........................................................................................................................27 4.8 Management of PAR Activity..................................................................................................................28 ANNEXES .........................................................................................................................................................................29 Annex 1: Scope of Work....................................................................................................................................30 Annex 2: Data Collection Tools (KII and FGD GUIdes and Mini-Survey).............................................33 Annex 3: List of Stakeholders Interviewed ....................................................................................................70 Annex 4: Results of Mini-Survey With PAR Trainees .................................................................................73 Annex 5: Total Number of Trainings, Citizen Engagement Fora, and CSO Consultations*..............77 Annex 6: List of Sources Consulted ................................................................................................................78 Annex 7: Evaluation Team CVs, COI Forms, and NDAs...........................................................................81 Acronym Description BMEL Bangladesh Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning CAG Community Action Group CDCS Country Development Cooperation Strategy CEF Citizen Engagement Forum CI Counterpart International COP Chief of Party COVID-19 Coronavirus Disease 2019 CS Civil Society CSO Civil Society Organization DC Deputy Commissioner DNC Department of Narcotics Control DO Development Objective DSA Digital Security Act EQ Evaluation Question ET Evaluation Team FCDO United Kingdom’s Foreign, Commonwealth, and Development Office FGD Focus Group Discussion GBV Gender-Based Violence GOB Government of Bangladesh ICT Information and Communication Technologies IR Intermediate Result KII Key Informant Interview M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MEL Monitoring, Evaluation , and Learning MELP Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning Plan MP Member of Parliament NGO Non-Governmental Organization PAR Promoting Advocacy and Rights PEA Political Economy Analysis PIRS Performance Indicator Reference Sheets SPL Strengthening Political Landscapes Sub-IR Sub-Intermediate Result TOC Theory of Change USAID United States Agency for International Development VSC Victim Support Center YPSA Young Power in Social Action ACRONYMS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) in Bangladesh issued a Tasking Request for the USAID/Bangladesh Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning (BMEL) activity to conduct a mid-term performance evaluation of the Promoting Advocacy and Rights (PAR) Activity, co-funded by the United Kingdom’s Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) and implemented by Counterpart International (CI). The PAR Activity began implementation in April 2018. PAR strives to maintain an open civic space by finding windows of opportunity for encouraging policy dialogue between civil society organizations (CSOs) and government and by strengthening the capacity of CSOs to advocate for the promotion of rights, become more resilient, and continue to press for greater political freedom, political accountability, and improved governance. The period of performance for this mid-term evaluation covered the timeframe from the activity inception in April 2018 to December 2020. This mid-term performance evaluation aimed to answer the following six questions: 1. To what extent is CI on course to meet PAR’s objectives and results based on progress achieved thus far? 2. To what extent has CI been able to improve the research, advocacy, legal framework, and digital capacity of targeted CSOs as a result of the PAR activity? 3. To what extent are the activity’s objectives still relevant for the current Bangladesh development and closing space context? 4. Has CI assisted CSO partners to improve their sustainability prospects and how effective were they in achieving that? 5. Has the theory of change (TOC) or activity design been achievable thus far? If not, why? 6. How effective has CI been at managing PAR’s performance? The evaluation team (ET) used a combination of qualitative and quantitative data collection methodologies to conduct this evaluation, including a desk review, key informant interviews (KIIs) with 45 stakeholders, 33 focus group discussions (FGDs) with 147 participants, and 212 mini-surveys with PAR FGD participants, trainees, and beneficiaries. Fieldwork was conducted from March 7-25, 2021 in Dhaka City and in six districts: Rajshahi, Natore, Khulna, Jessore, Barishal, and Pirojpur. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS EQ 1: To what extent is CI on course to meet PAR’s objectives and results based on progress achieved thus far? According to indicator performance data, PAR has been successful in reaching 90 percent or higher on its targets in six of its 12 performance indicators.1 However, most of PAR’s indicators (10 out of 12) measure outputs, not outcomes, and data on the latter were not reported. Indicator data reveal that PAR has been active in all performance areas, but not whether it is on track to meet its objectives and results. The ET’s most important finding is that, while according to its indicator performance data PAR engaged 136 CSOs in advocacy interventions in 18 districts, convened more than 30 government officials in good 1 PAR originally had 13 indicators to measure PAR’s performance. One indicator (Indicator 3) was eliminated in Y2, because USAID and PAR decided it feel outside PAR’s manageable interests. Of the remaining 12 indicators, no data were reported for three indicators (Indicators 2, 11, 13). Two indicators (8 and 10) achieved less than 35 percent of their targets, and one indicator (Indicator 5) achieved 77 percent of its target. This information is based on the most recent performance data obtained by CI. i governance workshops, established two civil society (CS) networks, trained more than 400 individuals and met its targets in terms of increasing CSOs technical capacities, PAR’s advocacy activities have lacked a strategic focus. They have not been targeted to different audiences; have not been designed to persuade government officials at the local or the national levels, to address key policy gaps and reform laws to improve the lives of citizens; and they have not been consistent. The problem stems from CI’s inability to articulate from the outset a clear and consistent message on its advocacy goals and strategies across its different partners and beneficiaries. The PAR partners and beneficiaries interviewed by the ET understood their advocacy activities as raising awareness about key issues, not promoting policy change, improved service delivery, changes in government practices, or increased government responsiveness to citizen needs. Moreover, PAR’s grantees and sub-grantees understood PAR’s approach to policy dialogue as collaborating with the Government of Bangladesh (GOB), mostly by disseminating government messages and by connecting citizens to existing public services. PAR’s CSO networks have engaged hundreds of citizens in multiple activities and meeting with government officials, but the overall goal of these efforts has been not clearly articulated by PAR or its beneficiaries. While PAR has been supporting CSOs at the local level, on its current trajectory it will be difficult for PAR to achieve its overall objectives and results of advancing democratic governance, promoting advocacy, defending rights, and improving government responsiveness. EQ 2: To what extent has CI been able to improve the research, advocacy, legal framework, and digital capacity of targeted CSOs as a result of the PAR activity? In both interviews with the ET and in responses to the mini-survey, PAR trainees reported being satisfied with the quality of the training provided by CI. Yet, they also said trainings were too short and there was virtually no follow up after the training. Most trainees interviewed said they are not practicing the skills they learned during the training sessions. After one year of implementation, PAR concluded that the research and advocacy trainings were too broad in scope and had not been effective in promoting greater evidence-based advocacy. As a result, PAR decided to modify its approach to capacity building and focus more on direct coaching and “on-the-job” training with CSOs. PAR continued to offer trainings in digital security and legal framework. PAR produced a CSO legal manual for Bangladeshi CSOs and an Advocacy Toolkit. The first was widely disseminated, the second was not because PAR terminated its relationship with the WAVE Foundation, which had been responsible for disseminating the tool.2 However, according to the results of the mini￾survey, only 21 percent of all respondents had seen or consulted the legal manual. At the time of this evaluation, there is little evidence that PAR CSO affiliates have increased their research, advocacy, legal framework, or digital capacities as a result of PAR training efforts. While individual trainees reported having gained knowledge after the training, said they are using some of the skills they learned in their daily jobs, and believed PAR contributed to improving the capacity of their organization to advocate for democratic governance and citizen participation, there is no evidence to suggest learned skills have been incorporated or institutionalized into the CSOs’ practices, and most importantly, the ET found no evidence that PAR CSO affiliates are engaged in advocacy efforts. Importantly, notwithstanding respondents’ positive opinions about PAR and its trainings, less than half of mini-survey respondents (46 percent) said that agreed or strongly agreed that they were applying what they learned in training in their daily jobs. Furthermore, most of the trainees, particularly those who participated in advocacy and research training modules during year 1 and year 2 of the project, are not involved in PAR activities. 2 The new PAR partner, Young Power in Social Action (YPSA) is now responsible for posting the Advocacy Toolbox on its website and maintaining it after the life of the project. When the ET visited YPSA’s website, the toolbox was still not available. ii EQ 3: To what extent are the activity’s objectives still relevant for the current Bangladesh development and closing space context? According to academic and journalistic reports, as well as PAR’s documents, there is little doubt that the civic space in Bangladesh is closing. Many CSO leaders, journalists, bloggers, and opposition leaders have been harassed by the government, if not sent to prison. Yet, according to journalists and some CSO leaders, government harassment and intimidation against CS seems to be targeted to issues related to elections, Bangladesh’s founding father Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, the Digital Security Act (DSA), and to some extent the ruling party—Awami League. To the extent these issues are not raised, CSOs can operate more freely. On PAR-selected policy issues—gender-based violence (GBV) and drug abuse—it is possible to conclude that the civic space is not closed. From interviews with CSO leaders, journalists, and government officials, space for critical discussion on protection of rights of victims of violence and drug abuse is possible and relevant at the local level. Yet, PAR’s strategic decision to seek collaboration with the GOB and prioritize government approval has weakened its ability to distance itself from the government to adopt a more critical perspective on the GOB’s performance and advocate for the advancement of democratic reforms, even in those narrow policy areas of drug abuse and GBV. Most importantly, the redesign of the PAR Activity and its TOC is problematic because by eliminating governance elements from sub-results, USAID de facto assumes the objectives are no longer relevant. EQ 4: Has CI assisted CSO partners to improve their sustainability prospects and how effective were they in achieving that? It is too early to assess the financial sustainability of PAR CSO partners, particularly those at the grassroots level. In interviews with PAR staff, CI has specific plans to conduct granular financial assessments of the CSOs PAR has engaged in its activities and make recommendations on methodologies to increase their ability to generate income and increase their financial sustainability. Beyond the financial sustainability of PAR grantees and sub-grantees, there is no evidence to suggest PAR’s research-based advocacy activities will survive after the conclusion of the activity, because there is no evidence these organizations have engaged in advocacy interventions, as per PAR’s definition of the term. EQ 5: Has the TOC or activity design been achievable thus far? If not, why? In December 2019, USAID and CI decided to rescope and redesign the activity, based on an analysis of the political situation and an internal assessment of the results achieved more than a year after PAR began. The TOC modification entailed modifying PAR’s Sub-Intermediate Results (Sub-IRs) and the activities under each Sub-IR Result. The overall Objective and the Intermediate Results (IRs) did not change. Despite the closing political space after the 2018 elections, PAR’s original TOC was logically better articulated, and was achievable. By removing the governance outcomes from the Sub-IRs while leaving the Objective and IRs unchanged, the new TOC is less feasible as a governance activity. EQ 6: How effective has CI been at managing PAR’s performance? CI has confronted problems with high levels of personnel turnover, both in its home office and in the PAR office in Bangladesh. Since April 2018, when PAR began implementation, the activity has had three Chiefs of Party (COPs), one Acting COP, and has finally hired its new (and fourth) COP. PAR’s office staff have also experienced high levels of turnover and some interviewees alleged the office staff felt disempowered. Beyond its office in Dhaka, PAR’s staff presence at the district and sub-district level has been very limited. The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic further impacted PAR’s management capacity. The third COP was hired at the onset of the pandemic. She traveled to Bangladesh but had to leave to resolve iii a visa issue and then had to extend her stay due to a travel ban during the onset of COVID-19 pandemic. During this time, the COP operated remotely. After her return to Bangladesh, she had to leave the job due to a prolonged health issue. Finally, PAR has also faced serious challenges in the management and tracking of its performance indicator data. Furthermore, the quality and reliability of the data reported are questionable, as many indicators rely on subjective criteria or imprecise measurement parameters. RECOMMENDATIONS IR 1: Strengthened CS Capacity to Effectively Advocate for Improved Democratic Governance 1. Be more strategic in designing advocacy interventions by identifying the audience PAR seeks to persuade (local administration and local government elected representatives, national government officials, citizens) and what objective is being pursued. 2. Move beyond primarily focusing on raising awareness on policy issues; instead, focus on shaping public agendas, changing practices, and influencing established norms. 3. Promote policy discussions with GOB officials based on evidence to improve collaboration and contribute to opening the civic space. 4. Provide a working definition of terms like “awareness” and “advocacy” in Bangla to better inform PAR grantees and sub-grantees of the overall objective of their activities. IR 2: Established Cross-Sector Partnerships to Improve Government Responsiveness to Citizen Needs 5. Identifying what citizens care about most and what motivates them to engage in collective action are empirical questions that can be investigated (rather than assumed) using appropriate social science methodologies. While GBV and drug abuse may be universally condemned in Bangladesh, young drug users may not be afraid of going to prison for consuming drugs, men may not be afraid of being convicted for hurting their wives, and families may not be afraid of the police when arranging marriages for underage children. Learning citizens’ incentives and motivations is crucial in mobilizing citizens effectively and sustainably in social networks and in identifying specific government actions that should be promoted to address these needs. 6. Be more strategic about the organization and integration of networks; engage research institutions, think tanks, established non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and other donor-funded programs, depending on the area and issue being addressed. 7. Engage CS networks in joint advocacy activities, not just discussion and awareness-raising meetings. Networks of CSO leaders and academics could be engaged in assessing legal loopholes in existing legislation or successful interventions in other countries based on existing evidence. Increasing Awareness 8. Build awareness on the root causes of the problem being discussed, whether it is drug abuse, GBV, uncontrolled urbanization, environmental pollution, lack of economic opportunities for marginalized people, etc. Awareness is not likely to be increased by repeating what is already known by most people, but by explaining why the problem exists and what is needed to address it. 9. Use existing evidence to craft awareness messages. This can help to articulate the desirable norm, or the change that is expected. 10. Avoid scared straight tactics because they are ineffective and can be potentially harmful. Instead, disseminate positive messages promoting desirable norms sought to be achieved. Strengthening Advocacy 11. CI should communicate clear and consistent messaging to grantees, sub-grantees, and GOB officials on PAR’s advocacy objectives. iv 12. Advocacy requires having some distance from the government. Be prepared to evaluate the GOB’s performance in priority policy areas and use the findings in advocacy campaigns. 13. Build on the previously established communication channels with the GOB to advocate for policy reforms or changes in government practices. Advocacy need not be combative or confrontational; it could be amicable and conciliatory especially, if it is grounded in evidence. 14. Engage different GOB officials depending on the change being sought. Policy change requires engagement of national level officials, service delivery requires engagement of district and Upazila level officials, and changing social norms requires working at all levels and engaging CS. 15. Be more strategic selecting which stakeholders to engage with government officials. Identify which are the most influential and persuasive for the task at hand. Capacity Building 16. Provide more follow-up trainings, and support trainees with more mentoring and coaching. Focus research trainings on social auditing skills rather than research skills more appropriate for academics or students. 17. Build CSOs’ capacity to conduct research on the target audiences’ motivations (the factors that may motivate the audience to engage in the desired behaviors) and barriers (the factors that may keep them from altering the status quo) to develop more effective user-centered messaging, messages that take into consideration what the audiences care about. Understanding these social networks is important in designing messaging campaigns that could more effectively stimulate behavior change. Consider engaging behavioral scientists to guide this effort. Strengthening Networks 18. Promote synergies between PAR grantees and sub-grantees. Regardless of the specific policy area, grantees should be working together to foster public debate about policy areas, increase GOB responsiveness towards citizen needs, and maintain the democratic open space. 19. Avoid duplicating the efforts of other CSOs working on same policy areas. Management of PAR Activity 20. Improve PAR performance indicator management and reporting systems. 21. Consider conducting a quality assessment on indicator data, especially for those indicators based on imprecise or subjective measurement criteria (Indicators 1, 3, 6, 7, 11, and 13). 22. Improve databases and information management systems to track activities, beneficiaries, outputs, and outcomes. 23. Increase in-person visits of PAR activities by PAR Dhaka-based CI staff at the district and sub-district levels to provide more direction and guidance to grantees and sub-grantees and engage more directly with GOB officials. PAR staff should also review and monitor grantees’ and sub-grantees’ performance more closely, particularly reporting on indicators and management of performance indicator tracking systems. 24. Consider reducing the number of grantees to increase quality and depth and provide more adequate funding levels to sub-grantees. 25. Disseminate the legal manual and the advocacy toolbox designed by PAR more broadly among Bangladesh’s CSOs, both by distributing print copies and sharing links to access the documents online. 26. Improve coordination with other USAID projects, such as the Strengthening Political Landscapes (SPL) project. v I. INTRODUCTION The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) in Bangladesh issued Tasking Request S026 for the USAID/Bangladesh Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning (BMEL) activity to conduct a mid￾term performance evaluation of the Promoting Advocacy and Rights (PAR) Activity, co-funded by the United Kingdom’s Foreign, Commonwealth, and Development Office (FCDO) and implemented by Counterpart International (CI) under the Bangladesh Mission’s Country Development Cooperation Strategy (CDCS) Development Objective (DO) 1: Citizen Confidence in Governance Institutions Increased. The period of performance for this evaluation was February 15 to May 30, 2021. Fieldwork was conducted in Dhaka City and in six districts: Rajshahi, Natore, Khulna, Jessore, Barishal, and Pirojpur.3 1.1 POLITICAL BACKGROUND The year 2018 marked a political turning point in Bangladesh. Two large student protests, the first in April and the second in July and August, resulted in a wave of severe responses from government officials and other ruling party activists that still have political repercussions today. The first protest, organized by senior university students, was against the quota system for government jobs. The second protest, led by junior students’ schools and colleges, demanded public transportation safety reforms. Although the Government of Bangladesh (GOB) initially agreed to the requests from the first protest, it later responded with what many international observers regard as highly repressive measures, with excessive use of force by law enforcement officials and other ruling party activists. Long after the protests stopped, the attacks against journalists, student activists, and human rights leaders have continued. The mobilizations and ensuing repression set the stage for the Parliamentary elections in December 2018 (largely considered by the opposition and most international observers to have been fraudulent and rigged in favor of the ruling party). According to a recent report by Civicus and the South Asians for Human Rights organization, the crackdown that followed the student protests seemed to be motivated not only to “get protesters off the streets, but to shut down civil activism into the future” and “Civil society in Bangladesh is facing unprecedented pressure as civic space is shrinking and as various state and non-state actors pose real danger to the lives and work of human rights defenders and civil society organizations.”4 Over the past three years, bloggers, journalists, and organizations opposed to the government have met with increased repression by legal and non-legal means, such as arbitrary detentions and, allegedly, torture. On the legal front, the GOB has introduced draconian legislation, such as the 2018 Digital Security Act (DSA). The law restricts the freedom of citizens and journalists to express themselves by criticizing the government and the ruling party in public spaces online. Access to some websites and critical news sites has been blocked by the government. The government closing the civic space for citizens/civil society (CS) is not a new phenomenon in Bangladesh. For example, in 2007, CS and the military initially backed the unelected caretaker government, which, despite the mandate to stay in power for three months, circumvented the constitution and continued in power for two years, until 2008. At that time, the regime declared a state of emergency, delaying the election and suspending fundamental rights. After the current party in power assumed office in 2009, with massive public support, many citizens hoped the country would see the end of these undemocratic practices. However, the GOB resorted to repressive measures against social and political 3 The evaluation team (ET) included Yemile Mizrahi, Ph.D., Team Leader, Shantanu Majumder, Ph.D., Senior Evaluation Specialist, Christopher Coffman, J.D., Evaluation Specialist, Nasir Uddin, M.S.S., Evaluation Specialist, and Munshi Mahabubur Rhaman and Sanjida Akhter, Research Assistants. 4 CIVICUS and South Asians for Human Rights (SAHR), “Crushing Student Protests. Bangladesh’s repression of the quote reform and road safety movements.” June, 2020. https://civicus.org/documents/BangladeshCrushingStudentProtests2020.pdf Mid-Term Performance Evaluation for Promoting Advocacy and Rights (PAR) Activity 1 movements. These measures and the enactment of laws like the DSA highlighted the underlying weaknesses of Bangladesh’s democratic institutions and its vulnerability to authoritarian reversals. In 2019, Freedom House rated Bangladesh as “partly free” in its Global Freedom Score. The report, however, acknowledges that although some non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have continued to operate and avoid the increasing onerous restrictions, the political environment has been closing. The report alleges that the main opposition party has been weakened and its members have suffered regular harassment and arrests. Civil society organizations (CSOs) and media outlets, especially those exposing government corruption at the highest levels, have been severely restricted; and journalists have continued to face harassment, lawsuits, and death threats.5 After the adoption of the DSA, these types of incidents have increased, causing many organizations to self-censor to avoid harassment. 1.2 THE PROMOTING ADVOCACY AND RIGHTS ACTIVITY The PAR Activity, which began implementation in April 2018, strives to maintain an open civic space by finding windows of opportunity to encourage policy dialogue between CSOs and the GOB and by strengthening the capacity of CSOs to advocate for the promotion of rights, become more resilient, and continue to press for greater political freedom, political accountability, and improved governance. Within the USAID/Bangladesh CDCS framework, the PAR Activity supports DO 1: Citizen Confidence in Governance Institutions Increased. PAR also contributes toward the achievement of Intermediate Result (IR) 1.1: Strengthened Political Processes; IR 1.2: Greater Accountability and Transparency in Public Institutions; and the Cross-Cutting (CC) Sub-IR: Informed Citizenry Actively Engaging in Democratic Processes. PAR’s technical approach recognizes the challenges CSOs face in Bangladesh, as the government has restricted civic spaces and limited public discussions on topics related to democratization, civic and human rights, accountability, and transparency. Additionally, PAR acknowledges the existing low levels of trust between CSOs and the GOB, and the timidity of CSOs to confront and challenge the government to promote democratic governance reforms. Yet, despite this restrictive environment, USAID and CI believed there were still opportunities for CSOs in Bangladesh to engage in advocacy activities to improve democratic governance and demand greater government responsiveness to citizen needs. As the Results Framework in Figure 1 shows, the PAR Activity has two IRs: • IR 1: Strengthened CS Capacity to Effectively Advocate for Improved Democratic Governance • IR 2: Established Cross-Sector Partnerships to Improve Government Responsiveness to Citizen Needs 5 See Freedom House, Freedom in the World Report 2021, Bangladesh. https://freedomhouse.org/country/bangladesh/freedom￾world/2021 Mid-Term Performance Evaluation for Promoting Advocacy and Rights (PAR) Activity 2 Figure 1: PAR Activity Results Framework - IR 1. Strengthened Civil Society Capacity to Effectively Advocate for Improved Democratic Governance IR2: Established Cross- Sector Partnerships to Improve Government Responsiveness to Citizen Needs 1.1. Increased civil society engagement on democratic governance issues 1.2 Improved CS ability of monitor and raise awareness of legal and policy reform 1.3 Enhanced CS capacity to operate in a closing democratic space 2.1 Enhanced CS Networks advocating for policy reform 2.2 Improved CS/GOB platforms for dialogue between civic and public stakeholders ACTIVITY GOAL To strengthen the enabling environment for sustained civil society institutions advancing democratic governance and citizen participation in Bangladesh. To contribute to a more inclusive, resilient, and evidence-driven Bangladeshi civil society. 1.3 EVALUATION PURPOSE The overall purpose of this evaluation was to 1) assess PAR’s effectiveness in achieving expected results and determine whether PAR is on course to meet its stated objectives; 2) evaluate CI’s management of the PAR Activity; and 3) identify opportunities for adaptation and formulate actionable recommendations to maximize results. The period of performance for this mid-term evaluation covered the time frame from the activity inception in April 2018 to December 2020. The primary intended audience for the evaluation findings and recommendations is the Office of Democracy, Human Rights, and Governance (DRG) of USAID/Bangladesh. The findings of this external and independent evaluation are intended to provide CI with feedback on PAR’s overall performance, provide recommendations to improve implementation by making appropriate adjustments to the activity, and inform future CS programming. 1.4 EVALUATION QUESTIONS This mid-term performance evaluation answers the following six evaluation questions (EQs): 1. To what extent is CI on course to meet PAR’s objectives and results based on progress achieved thus far? 2. To what extent has CI been able to improve the research, advocacy, legal framework, and digital capacity of targeted CSOs as a result of the PAR activity? 3. To what extent are PAR’s objectives still relevant for the current Bangladesh development and closing space context? 4. Has CI assisted CSO partners to improve their sustainability prospects and how effective were they in achieving that? 5. Has the theory of change (TOC) or activity design been achievable thus far? If not, why? 6. How effective has CI been at managing PAR’s performance? Mid-Term Performance Evaluation for Promoting Advocacy and Rights (PAR) Activity 3 Mid-Term Performance Evaluation for Promoting Advocacy and Rights (PAR) Activity - - 2. METHODOLOGY The evaluation team (ET) used a combination of qualitative and quantitative data collection methodologies to conduct this evaluation. During its inception period, the ET conducted a thorough desk review, which included PAR’s quarterly and annual reports, its Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning Plan (MELP), the Political Economy Analysis (PEA) and Gender Analysis it conducted in 2018 and updated in 2020, and the Situational Analysis of Drug Abuse and the Baseline Gender-Based Violence (GBV) analysis PAR grantees conducted in 2020. In addition, the ET reviewed academic and journalistic articles related to the political context in Bangladesh, survey reports on Bangladeshis’ political attitudes and opinions about the current situation in Bangladesh, and reports on GBV and drug abuse published by Bangladeshi organizations and international donors. Annex 6 includes a full list of articles reviewed by the ET. Once the Evaluation Work Plan was approved by USAID, the ET conducted fieldwork from March 7-24, 2021. Outside of Dhaka City, the team visited six additional districts: Rajshahi, Natore, Khulna, Jessore, Barishal, and Pirojpur. The ET selected sites in coordination with USAID and CI, based on the locations where PAR had worked most intensely. As Table 1 shows, over the course of 15 days of fieldwork, the ET conducted 45 key informant interviews (KIIs) with PAR stakeholders, including USAID, FCDO, CI staff, CI’s implementing partners, PAR grantees and grantee consortium partners, CSOs and NGOs, journalists, lawyers, academics, and government officials and 33 focus group discussions (FGDs) with participants in PAR advocacy, research, legal management, and digital security trainings, participants in PAR’s Civic Engagement Fora (CEFs), and members of CSO networks and advocacy platforms established by PAR’s grantees, Rupantar and Light House, and their sub-grantees. A total of 147 people participated in the FGDs. Combining the KIIs, FGDs, and the online mini-survey, the total number of respondents/participants was 257. Please see Annex 3 for a full list of KII and FGD participants. The ET administered a mini-survey in person to all FGD participants to collect additional quantitative data to help triangulate participant responses. Additionally, the team emailed the mini-survey to more than 300 PAR beneficiaries who did not participate in FGDs. The ET received a total of 64 responses to the online mini-survey. Table 1: Total of KII, FGD, and Mini-Survey Respondents Locations District KIIs FGDs (Mini Surveys at end) Mini Surveys (Online) Total Number of Respondents Dhaka City Dhaka City 13 12 10 Rajshahi Rajshahi 5 23 15 Nature 5 24 4 Khulna Khulna 6 24 11 Jessore 5 21 7 Barishal Barishal 4 26 11 Pirojpur 4 17 2 United States 3 Others (Sylhet, Rangpur, Chittagong divisions) 4 Total 45 147 64 257 The ET was gender sensitive in its integration of FGD participants by making sure that they achieved a balance of male and female participants in all discussions.6 6 FGDs included 71 male, 73 female, and three third gender participants. KIIs included 24 male and 21 female participants. 4 3.1.1 Findings Upon completion of the fieldwork, the ET coded the KII and FGD transcriptions to synthesize and analyze the information. The team presented its preliminary findings, conclusions, and recommendations to USAID/Bangladesh in an out-brief on April 8, 2021. This evaluation report develops those initial findings. 2.1 EVALUATION LIMITATIONS The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic presented the most serious challenge for this evaluation. Although Mr. Christopher Coffman, was able to travel to Bangladesh to conduct fieldwork with Dr. Shantanu Majumder and Mr. Nasir Uddin, Dr. Yemile Mizrahi was not able to travel and led the ET remotely. The team overcame the limitation by meeting on Zoom on a daily basis. COVID-19 restrictions also limited the number of people who could be invited to participate in FGDs to five. The ET distributed masks and hand sanitizer to all FGD participants. In addition to the COVID-19 limitation, the evaluation faced several potential common performance evaluation limitations. The first is selection bias, which would take place if only individuals with positive opinions about PAR were invited to participate in interviews. To mitigate this limitation, the ET randomly selected the list of FGD participants from databases of all PAR activity beneficiaries. The team also triangulated data collected through KIIs, FGDs, and the mini-survey to assess overall reliability of responses. Whenever the ET found inconsistencies, it conducted additional research by calling individuals who had already been interviewed to ask follow-up questions. A second common limitation is social desirability or “halo” bias, where respondents answer questions to conform with what they believe the interviewer wants to hear or with what is acceptable to their community. The ET mitigated this potential bias by promising confidentiality before FGD sessions commenced, having FGD participants fill out mini-surveys individually, on an anonymous basis, and reassuring participants that their identities would not be revealed. In KIIs, the ET mitigated this bias by explaining the evaluation’s purpose and reiterating the importance of participants expressing their true opinions. Finally, the ET minimized halo bias by triangulating information, ensuring that evaluation findings collected through one method would act as a check on findings from other data collection methods. Finally, the evaluation had a short time frame and limited resources to collect more extensive data. Although the ET conducted 33 FGDs, the team was only able to interview a limited number of individuals for each category of FGD. For example, participants invited to discuss the results of advocacy trainings totaled 13.7 To mitigate this limitation, the ET used different data collection methodologies and selected FGD participants with diverse profiles and from different geographical locations to help ensure a wider range of perspectives. 3. EVALUATION FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 3.1 EQ 1: TO WHAT EXTENT IS CI ON COURSE TO MEET PAR’S OBJECTIVES AND RESULTS BASED ON PROGRESS ACHIEVED THUS FAR? The PAR Activity began implementation in an adverse political environment. Despite the challenges, however, both USAID and CI believed there were some opportunities for CSOs in Bangladesh to advance democratic reforms and promote citizen participation in democratic processes. PAR sought to identify specific policy areas that, while relevant and important for citizens’ lives, were not politically charged or polarizing in Bangladesh so that they could more easily work with the government by focusing on issues 7 Please see Annex 3, which lists the number of FGD participants by respondent category and location. Mid-Term Performance Evaluation for Promoting Advocacy and Rights (PAR) Activity 5 of mutual interest. As a CEF participant noted in an FGD, “the Government has the same objectives as NGOs, so we need to identify the gaps and where NGOs should work to supplement the Government’s areas of action.” After holding a series of consultations with CSOs and conducting CEFs throughout the country, PAR selected five broad focus areas: GBV, drug abuse, environmental pollution, unplanned urbanization, and economic opportunities for marginalized people. During the first two and a half years of implementation, PAR focused its activities on GBV and drug abuse. It awarded two grants, one to Rupantar and the other to Light House, to work on these focus areas8 and strengthen CSOs’ capacity to advocate for improved democratic governance and strengthen citizens’ ability to press the government to respond more effectively to citizen needs. During the project inception period, PAR commissioned a PEA which further recommended that PAR focus its advocacy activities at the local level, where the assessment identified greater opportunities for policy dialogue. PAR and USAID assumed that by focusing at the local level on areas perceived to be less controversial, the activity could build CSO resiliency and better counteract the closing civic space. In addition to the challenges in the inception period stemming from the increasingly restricted democratic space, PAR had a slow start-up implementation process. Despite having previous activities in the country, CI obtained its registration renewal in September 2018, five months after activity start. Yet, and most significantly, PAR was only approved by the government in May 2019, more than a year after the start of the activity. Although PAR did conduct activities during this year (some of which the government regarded as controversial because they entailed working on the electoral front, promoting civic engagement and voter turnout), the absence of an official government approval slowed the pace of implementation.9 During the second year of implementation, in 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic forced PAR and its partners to cancel many planned activities and conduct most of its trainings and meetings virtually. The pandemic has been difficult for all USAID implementing partners around the world, and it is not surprising that CI was also negatively affected, most significantly, by not being able to deploy its Chief of Party (COP) to Bangladesh during most of 2020. Despites these obstacles, from April 2018 to December 2020, PAR was successful in training more than 800 individuals. In addition, it engaged 136 CSOs in different activities across the country, including meetings between government officials and CSOs; it created two broad CSO networks, one working on drug-abuse and the second on GBV; and it commissioned several studies, including a PEA, a gender analysis, a situational analysis on drug addiction, and a baseline analysis on GBV. 3.1.2 Performance Indicator Data PAR’s Performance Indicator data, although not fully complete, show that for the most part, PAR has been meeting its targets in terms of number of people trained and meetings organized. However, these are all output level indicators that do not directly measure whether PAR is on course to achieve its overall objectives and results based on progress thus far. In its MELP, PAR did identify two outcome level indicators to measure results at the Objective level: 1) the CSO Advocacy Index and 2) the Operating Civic Space Index. 8 Although these grants were issued through a competitive process, neither Rupantar nor Light House had participated in the CEFs organized by PAR during the first year of the activity to identify the policy areas they were going to focus on. Moreover, neither Rupantar nor Light House specialize in addressing GBV or drug abuse, respectively. According to its webpage, Rupantar is an NGO working in Bangladesh on issues of democracy, peace, disaster management, children’s rights, and popular media. Light House, according to its website, works on health, nutrition, HIV perspective, governance and justice, poverty reduction and sustainable livelihoods, environment, and climate change. One interviewee reported: “I’m not sure why they are working on those issues. The selection of issues is being done by Counterpart and then they go to the partner. So, they might not have a great understanding about what they are working on and why.” (KII 22) 9 During the second year, after PAR obtained its approval from the government, the electoral activities were suspended. Eventually, PAR also suspended efforts to support the establishment of regional CSO networks, linkages with international networks, and activities focusing on the implementation of the National Integrity Strategy. Mid-Term Performance Evaluation for Promoting Advocacy and Rights (PAR) Activity 6 USAID and PAR decided to eliminate Indicator 3, judging that it was outside PAR’s manageable interests. Data for Indicator 2 have not been provided in PAR’s indicator data tracking reports. Data are available only for the first indicator, which show an achievement of 94 percent. However, this indicator lacks precision. It measures the number of issues raised in meetings with government officials, not whether policy reforms were discussed, suggested, or introduced, nor whether action items for policy reform process came out of those meetings. More importantly, the Performance Indicator Reference Sheets (PIRS) offer no clear parameters for reporting criteria; instead, PAR monitors observing the meeting are left to report on the outputs of the meeting using their own subjective indicator tracking criteria. At the IR level, PAR identifies two indicators, both of which measure outputs, not outcomes. Both indicators show successful achievements, especially considering the slow start-up period and the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic for much of 2020 (see Table 2). Table 2: PAR Intermediate Result Indicators Indicator Target Actual Achievement IR.1: Number of CSOs receiving United States Government (USG) assistance engaged in advocacy interventions 150 CSOs engaged in advocacy interventions 136 CSOs engaged in advocacy intervention in 18 districts under eight divisions 90% IR.2: Number of newly created mechanisms for CS and government engagement to respond to citizen needs 1 mechanism established by 2020 2 mechanisms were created: GBV and drug abuse networks 200% Without a doubt, engaging CSOs and establishing CSO networks where CS and government can engage in policy discussion and CS can exert pressure on government to respond to citizen needs is positive, but it is not indicative of whether the results are being accomplished. Indicator data reveal that PAR has been active, but not whether it is on track to promote advocacy and defend rights—or even strengthen the capacity of CS to endure and become more resilient to an adverse political environment. 3.1.3 IR 1: Strengthened CS Capacity to Effectively Advocate for Improved Democratic Governance In its MELP, PAR defines advocacy as a “means for individuals, constituencies, or organizations to shape public agendas, change public policies, and influence other processes that impact their lives. Advocacy does not involve one march, meeting, or poster, but a series of strategic, interconnected, integrated activities designed to achieve a goal.” It further acknowledges that advocacy interventions tend to be strategic, are designed to persuade, are targeted, involve sustained actions to build direct pressure, and require alliance building.10 PAR’s advocacy activities, however, have lacked a strategic focus, have not been targeted to different audiences, and have not been designed to persuade GOB officials (local or national) to address key policy gaps and reform laws to improve the lives of citizens. PAR’s quarterly and annual reports describe a range of advocacy activities without articulating a clear and consistent objective, either with respect to the policy areas where PAR decided to focus its interventions, or the broader objective of contributing to opening the civic space. The absence of strategic focus was also evident in interviews with PAR’s partners and beneficiaries who, while able to describe their activities, could not articulate how these activities were related to PAR’s overall objective or, more specifically, how their activities could contribute to stimulate policy discussions, promote policy changes, improve service delivery, increase government responsiveness towards citizen needs, or change citizens’ attitudes and perceptions about GBV and drug abuse in Bangladesh. In a KII, one of PAR’s partners explicitly expressed this saying “we don’t know how all of the PAR activities are linked and come together to achieve PAR’s overall goals.” (KII 10) 10 PAR Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning Plan, p. 119. Mid-Term Performance Evaluation for Promoting Advocacy and Rights (PAR) Activity 7 The problem stems from the inability of CI to articulate from the outset a clear and consistent message on its advocacy goals and strategies across its different partners and beneficiaries. Even in the two policy areas of GBV and drug abuse, where both PAR and USAID believed there was an opportunity to engage CS in advocacy interventions, interviewees and FGD participants did not identify a single, specific policy or piece of legislation that PAR activity beneficiaries are working to change, reform, enact, or prevent from being enacted to advance the rights of GBV and drug abuse victims. While CSOs unaffiliated with PAR and three of PAR grantees provided specific examples of policies or legislation that could be reformed,11 the ET found no evidence these policy issues are part of advocacy activities. On the drug abuse front, with a single notable exception,12 people interviewed agreed that the 2018 Narcotics Control Act, which regulates drug trafficking and drug abuse in Bangladesh, was adequate and did not require amendments. At most, some of PAR grantees were able to articulate the need for increasing budgetary allocations for prevention and rehabilitation of drug addicts. Yet, this identified gap was not reflected in any of the advocacy campaigns organized for PAR and its partners. Similarly, with regard to GBV, most PAR grantees, sub-grantees, and participants in platforms and CSO networks expressed that the laws regulating GBV were adequate, the problem was faulty implementation.13 Since 2000, Bangladesh has introduced several landmark pieces of legislation on GBV, the Women and Children Repression Prevention Act 2000, which has been amended several times, the last time in 2020; the Domestic Violence (Prevention and Protection) Rules, introduced in 2013; the Child Marriage Restraint Act in 2017; the Child Marriage Restraint Rules introduced in 2018; and the Dowery Prohibition Act, introduced in 2018.14 Most interviewees acknowledged the prevalence of GBV in Bangladesh despite the existence of what they considered a robust legislative framework, and specifically referred to the inability of the police to stop the practice of child marriage.15 In part, by deciding to focus its activities at the local level, PAR has hampered its ability to work most effectively on policy reform, which would entail engaging Members of Parliament (MPs), political party leaders, and central government officials. However, largely, PAR’s inability to focus on policy gaps in its advocacy efforts stems from grantees and sub-grantees’ association of advocacy with awareness raising and not with policy reform. Out of 85 mini-survey participants who were asked what the main objectives of their advocacy efforts were, 74 percent, the highest percentage of any response, said they agree or strongly agree that the main objective was raising awareness because citizens do not have enough knowledge about an issue; 7 percent of participants disagreed with that option. Furthermore, only 31 percent said they agreed or strongly agree that advocacy’s main objectives were reforming policy due “Participants didn’t work on addressing the gaps in the law. We realized we need to do advocacy to reform the laws, but they [PAR] didn’t work with us on how to do that. Without having the follow-up, no initiative has taken place to reform policy.” – FGD participant, Legal skills trainee 11 Examples included defining more precisely the “special circumstances” in the Women and Child Abuse Prevention Act that permit child marriage without any minimum legal age in, identifying gender biases in the Muslim Family Law Ordinance or the Hindu Marriage Registration Act, acknowledging in the Narcotics Control Act that drug addiction is not just a criminal problem but a public health issue. 12 The Director of DAM, one of the sub-grantees working on the Drug Abuse consortium, was able to articulate gaps in the current legislation when he said that the 2018 Narcotics Control Act regards drug abuse only as a criminal offence and not a public health problem. He also said that budgetary allocations for prevention or rehabilitation are limited because most resources go to enforcement. In the interview he acknowledged that although PAR’s grant is appreciated, “it is not a big grant.” 13 Only the directors of Rupantar and Rights Jessore identified specific legislative gaps with regards to underage marriage. However, when asked what type of activities they were doing with PAR, they mentioned only awareness-raising activities. 14 Human Rights Watch (2020). “I Sleep in My Own Deathbed” Violence against Women and Girls in Bangladesh: Barriers to Legal Recourse and Support. https://www.hrw.org/report/2020/10/29/i-sleep-my-own-deathbed/violence-against-women-and-girls-bangladesh-barriers# 15 Although the different pieces of legislation mention several authorities involved in the implementation of the legislation, in interviews, people only referred to the police as the authority responsible for enforcing the law. Mid-Term Performance Evaluation for Promoting Advocacy and Rights (PAR) Activity 8 to inadequate or non-existent laws, by far the lowest response percentage. A larger percentage of repondents, 40 percent, disagreed with this advocacy objective (see Figure 2). Figure 2: Mini-Survey Results – Main Objectives of Advocacy Efforts (n=85) Change Underlying Societal Issues/Address Root Causes 69% Change Citizens' Behavior 69% Improve Citizen Sensitization/Awareness about Issues 15% 7% 7% 16% 7% 13% 9% 14% 9% 1 1 13% 6% 6% 40% 24% 31% 65 67% % 74% Improve Citizens' Information about Laws/Policies 71% Improve Government Service Provision Promote Better Implementation of Existing Laws Reform Policy Framework 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Disagree/Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree/Strongly Agree The unintended outcome of failing to engage grantees and sub-grantees in policy discussions and not advocating for policy reform is conveying the message to activity participants and beneficiaries that 1) the current laws are adequate, 2) well-documented policy gaps and legal loopholes that negatively affect the rights of individuals do not need to be addressed, and/or 3) the main purpose of government advocacy by CS in Bangladesh is to help the GOB enforce laws that often negatively impact rights, which runs against PAR’s overall stated objective of promoting democratic governance and maintaining the open civic space, instead helping to close it further. For example, FGD participants from the Community Action Group (CAG) under PAR’s drug abuse grant described working with local law enforcement and alerting them about alleged incidents of drug abuse without apparent regard for the democratic principles of evidential police procedure and due process. Describing a local anti-drug campaign hotline, an FGD participant said: “As a CAG member, I pasted posters about the hotline on the wall as part of the awareness building activities. I made the youths and other drug abusers aware of the message and asked them to remember the message written on the poster about calling the police to inform them about drug abusers and that the complaints will be undisclosed. The posters are supplied by Light House. If we make phone calls using that number, the administration will come and intervene. One day I threatened a drug abuser young boy. I told him that If I saw him again abusing drugs, I would call the police using the hotline.” In this case, awareness raising and community action seem to mean simply making police “aware” of alleged drug addicts so that they can take punitive “action” in a community. This process can also put citizens at risk of the “cross-fire” incidents referenced in PAR’s PEA: “…media coverage on extrajudicial killings related to the government’s anti-drug campaign is often reported as a ‘cross-fire’ incident—referring to the shootout between law enforcement and suspected criminals that led to the death of the alleged offender.” It is also worth noting that three FGD participants who attended a Local Government Advocacy Meeting expressed support for extrajudicial killings of alleged drug dealers and traffickers.16 Light House did tell the ET that they are addressing the issue of extrajudicial killings, but the outcomes of this are unclear. 16 A recent unpublished study on identity politics in Bangladesh, shows that extrajudicial killings are considered an effective option to overcome the problems of drugs, violence, and hooliganism. Shantanu Majumder, Unpublished study on “Identity, Identity Politics and Elections in Bangladesh.” USAID. March 2019. Mid-Term Performance Evaluation for Promoting Advocacy and Rights (PAR) Activity 9 “We had to focus on a pro-government advocacy agenda because the government doesn’t mind the focus on drug abuse and GBV…PAR is creating awareness at the community level.” – PAR Bangladesh “There are thousands of platforms at district and sub district level…our platform is nothing new. But there is a difference in our work…If any GBV incident happens, we do protest and work with concerned duty bearers.” – PAR Grantee/Khulna “Advocacy is awareness building with public, administration and related people.” – CSO Beneficiary, Rajshahi This kind of approach to addressing Bangladesh’s deeply complex societal problem of drug abuse is also completely detached from research-based advocacy that PAR committed to in the original Activity design: conducting “research to support the development of evidence-based advocacy campaigns.”17 To date, PAR’s advocacy campaigns have not been based on any new research or built on existing evidence on the root causes of GBV and/or drug addiction, nor on the coverage and quality of services available for victims. For example, there is evidence on the dearth and inadequacy of services for drug addicts and victims of violence,18 the weakness of the justice system to protect the rights of victims, and the high rates of impunity (for perpetrators of violence and drug traffickers). Yet, PAR has not encouraged its grantees to monitor local service providers to investigate why less than 2 percent of drug addicts have received rehabilitation services,19 why only 2.3 percent of victims of domestic violence take any legal action, or why only 1.3 percent of cases that are filed in court result in convictions.20 This evidence could then be used to articulate PAR’s advocacy messages and engaging government officials in constructive policy dialogues. The meetings between CSOs and government authorities promoted by PAR have been mostly designed to obtain GOB recognition, approval, and support and not to provide government officials new information or persuade them to change government practices or behaviors. Indeed, PAR’s partners have offered to disseminate government messages regarding drug abuse and GBV, essentially directed at citizens and families to encourage them to refrain from negative and harmful behaviors, alerting about the consequences, and helping the GOB to connect citizens with available services. Advocacy activities include putting up posters on walls with information about hotlines for victims of violence, rehabilitation centers for drug addicts, and numbers people can call to alert the police about drug abuse for the government’s anti-drug campaigns; organization of human chains to celebrate the international women’s day or the anti-drug day (days adopted by the GOB to raise awareness about these issues); and other awareness-raising activities like public rallies and demonstrations, meetings with government officials, and what PAR calls “public dialogue” sessions. In some cases, CSOs have also offered to collaborate with the GOB by alerting the police whenever they witness cases of underage marriage or incidence of drug abuse. To date, no PAR grantee or sub-grantee has attempted to analyze what happens when victims of violence or drug addicts call the hotline numbers in the billboards; what types of services 17 PAR, First Year Work Plan, April 2018-April 2019. 18 Many domestic abuse survivors literally have nowhere they can go to escape the violence because Bangladesh has too few shelter spaces. There are only 13 longer-term government shelters for women and girls in Bangladesh. In addition, there are eight Victim Support Centers (VSCs), which technically offer short-term shelter for up to five days, run in coordination between the Bangladesh police and NGOs. But shelter services at VSCs are inconsistent and unreliable, and activists say that in reality they often do not allow stays beyond one night in case of emergency. Finally, there are an estimated 15 additional NGO-run shelters. In total, therefore, there are a mere estimated 36 shelters in a country with over 80 million women and over 64 million children. Human Rights Watch (2020), "I Sleep in My Own Deathbed. Violence against Women and Girls in Bangladesh: Barriers to Legal Recourse and Support.” https://www.hrw.org/report/2020/10/29/i-sleep-my-own-deathbed/violence-against-women-and-girls￾bangladesh-barriers#. See also data published by the Multi-Sectoral Programme on Violence Against Women, a program introduced by the Danish agency in cooperation with the GOB. They have compiled statistics on services for drug addicts and victims of GBV. www.mspvaw.gov.bd 19 According to data provided by the DNC, a total of 98,437 people with addiction underwent treatment at the four government rehabilitation centers and 44,836 at the 323 private registered centers. There are an estimated 7 million drug addicts in the country. www.dnc.gov.bd 20 Data from Multi-Sectoral Programme on Violence Against Women. Op.cit. Mid-Term Performance Evaluation for Promoting Advocacy and Rights (PAR) Activity 10 “NGOs are the helping hands of the government…Rupantar has a very good awareness program at very root level.” – Government Official, Khulna “NGOs are assisting us through citizen awareness…We need to sort out, what we can do and what NGOs can do. More collaboration is necessary.” – Government Official, Barishal “DARAU and the Community Action Group (CAG) is also working, they are informing us about drug peddlers in the locality.” – DNC Local Representative, Rajshahi, Natore are available for them and for how long; the extent to which users are satisfied with the quality of service they receive; or whether they believe GOB’s efforts to curb drug use and GBV in the country are effective. Thus, it is unsurprising that GOB officials approve and support PAR efforts, especially since CSOs refrain from providing any criticism on government performance, disseminate government messages, and assist the GOB to “enforce the law,” by collaborating with the police, even if informally. At the national level, GOB officials seemed to be less informed about PAR activities, some could only name their grantees and identified them for their “awareness programs.” Those national GOB officials who knew about PAR, in KII claimed they are “having difficulty understanding what PAR is doing” particularly with regards with what one official considered “governments concerns” which should be left in their entirety to the government, not to CS, like helping drug abusers, who in this government official’s opinion, “are criminal and should be sent to jail,” or organizing a seminar to talk about the National Integrity Strategy (NIS), which this official considered a “government task” (KII 7). While awareness is an essential element of advocacy efforts, which the PAR MELP acknowledges in its own definition of the term, it is not sufficient on its own. Increasing awareness about a social problem, its causes, and possible solutions is critical for generating increased social pressure on government or specific sectors of the population to change policies, practices, or behaviors. Yet, advocacy requires identifying the audiences that need to be persuaded or convinced to change the status quo; and awareness messages need to be designed with that strategic objective in mind. Disseminating existing information about a problem, without paying attention to whom these messages are directed and for what purpose, is not likely to generate policy or behavioral change. Information on the high prevalence of GBV and the problem of underage marriage in Bangladesh is widespread and readily available in academic publications, donor reports, and journalist articles. For example, the most recent United Kingdom’s Country Policy and Information Note on GBV in Bangladesh, reports that, according to the latest official Survey on Violence Against Women conducted in 2015, 72.6 percent of ever-married women experienced one or more forms of violence (physical, sexual, economic, and emotional abuse, and controlling behavior) by their husband at least once in their lifetime.21 During the COVID-19 pandemic, rights activists in Bangladesh have alleged that during the lockdown, rates of violence against women have further increased. The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR), a United Nations 18-member international committee monitoring the compliance of international human rights conventions, reported the high incidence of child marriages in Bangladesh, with an estimate of more than half of girls under the age of 18 being married.22 Although less information is available on the increasing rates of drug trafficking and drug abuse, predominantly among the youth, several public opinion surveys, journalists’ reports, and academic articles have highlighted the public’s concern with drugs and particularly the impact of recent migration of Rohingya refugees from Myanmar on drug trafficking. For example, in a public opinion survey conducted by the International Republican Institute (IRI) in Bangladesh in 2019, citizens identified drugs as the second most important problem in the country, with rape identified in fifth place. In 2018, the Asia Foundation survey reported that, at the local level, 10 percent of respondents identified drug addiction as the most 21 UK, Country Policy and Information Office, “Bangladesh: Women fearing gender-based violence.” June 2020, p. 24. 22 Ibid, p. 30. Mid-Term Performance Evaluation for Promoting Advocacy and Rights (PAR) Activity 11 “Drug use will decrease when people’s awareness is raised about the health hazards of drugs and if the drug users get better treatment in rehab centers.” – PAR Grantee, Rajshahi “To stop child marriage the law needs to be better enforced…If you work on GBV/child marriage, you should have direct activity with law enforcement authority.” – PAR Grantee, Khulna important problem, the fourth on the list after poor conditions of roads, law and order, and unemployment. In this survey, GBV came in tenth place.23 In both policy areas, therefore, there is no evidence to suggest people lack awareness about the prevalence of the problems, the negative consequences of drug abuse or GBV, or the illegality and immorality of these behaviors. PAR’s own Situational Assessment on Drug Abuse reports that most drug abusers know drugs are illegal and harmful for their health, and yet, they continue to use them because they are addicted to them.24 Importantly, youth are driven to drugs out of “curiosity and peer pressure,” precisely because they know drugs are illegal and dangerous. PAR’s baseline gender report shows that citizens are aware of the prevalence of GBV, even when they are unaware of the specific legislation that addresses this problem or are unable to identify different hotline numbers they can call to obtain assistance.25 Most importantly, families are aware child marriage is illegal, which is why they try to hide these marriages or decide to bribe notary public officials to falsify their daughters’ birth certificates. In addition to disseminating information about the severity of the problem of drug addiction and GBV, which many other organizations not related to PAR are already doing in the country,26 PAR’s awareness campaigns emphasize the harmful and negative consequences of engaging in illicit behavior, particularly in the case of drug use. PAR’s grantees and sub-grantees perceive their role as deterring prospective drug users and/or families intending to arrange marriage for underage girls. Although many participants in PAR activities are aware of the need to offer rehabilitation services to drug addicts, many perceive drug addicts as criminals first and foremost, instead of victims of a disease deserving of advocacy support to promote their rights and help protect them from marginalization in their communities. Similarly, PAR’s activities focus largely on the criminal and punitive issues of GBV and child marriage. While in KIIs and FGDs PAR stakeholders and beneficiaries extensively discussed many of the root causes of both issues, such as patriarchal culture, conservative religious traditions, poverty, and lack of independence and economic opportunity, PAR does not emphasize advocacy to address women’s empowerment issues and deal with the negative effects of policies that perpetuate disempowerment, such as the Muslim Family Law Ordinance and the Hindu Marriage Registration Act. Indeed, the focus on punishment is so prevalent that PAR’s grantees and sub-grantees talk about ways of engaging citizens in community monitoring activities to facilitate the enforcement of punitive measures, collaborating with law enforcement agencies, and working with religious leaders to appeal to people’s 23 The Asia Foundation, “Bangladesh Democracy according to its people. A Survey of the Bangladesh People,” 2018, p. 23. 24 Situational Assessment of Drug Addiction, p. 26. 25 The Baseline Survey for Promoting CSOs Engagement and Action Against Gender-Based Violence surveyed 175 people in total, a non-representative sample. The survey asked respondents to identify specific legislation regarding GBV, which the ET believe is unlikely these respondents would know. These respondents were citizens living in the districts where PAR is working on GBV. They were also asked to address policy gaps, but given the unfamiliarity with the legislation, these questions were not appropriate for these respondents. Respondents were also asked if they had participated in “advocacy meetings,” without a clear definition or understanding of the word advocacy, which they seem to understand as any consultation meeting where a government official is present. It is not surprising that the recommendations offered by the baseline study are generic and fail to identify the objective of engaging women in advocacy interventions. The most illustrative example is the first recommendation for increasing opportunities for women’s participation, namely “create opportunities for women to participate accompanied by family,” p. 26. 26 The ET interviewed established CSOs that are working on gender issues or offer drug rehabilitation services in Bangladesh who are not working with PAR. The purpose of these KIIs was to assess whether PAR is doing anything different, innovative, or unique with respect to GBV or drug abuse. Despite PAR’s focus on evidence-based advocacy, the ET did not find any evidence that PAR is articulating different messages from those other organizations already disseminating or promoting policy and legal reforms to address gaps in legislation. Mid-Term Performance Evaluation for Promoting Advocacy and Rights (PAR) Activity 12 beliefs about the immorality of drug addiction or GBV. The punitive approach is also reflected in PAR’s quarterly reports, where “scared straight” tactics are endorsed to prevent criminal behavior.27 While these tactics are popular and have been used in many different countries, rigorous evaluations of scared straight tactics in the United States have demonstrated that such tactics are not only ineffective in preventing drug abuse or criminal violence but can be potentially harmful.28 Scaring people about the worst dangers they face if they engage in criminal behavior is premised on the belief that fear and anxiety will prevent or stop risky behavior. The evidence, however, shows that fear alone is not likely to change behavior, and in some cases, may increase the attractiveness of risky behavior. Scared straight or highly punitive messaging focuses on “what not to do,” but fails to offer alternatives or identify rewards for behaving differently. People may know drug addiction is harmful and illegal, men know beating their wives is wrong, immoral, and illegal, and families know underage marriages are illegal, but they are unlikely change their behavior if they do not believe they will get caught, are not afraid of going to jail, perceive that the behavior is normalized, even if illegal, and therefore tolerated, and do not have specific incentives or alternatives showing the benefits of a modified behavioral pattern. 3.1.4 IR 2: Established Cross-Sector Partnerships to Improve Government Responsiveness to Citizen Needs The establishment of cross-sectoral partnerships through the creation of CS networks was a strategic choice to strengthen the ability of civil society to exert influence on the GOB to respond to citizen needs while reducing the effectiveness of the government to target and retaliate against individual CSOs. In an environment where the civic space is closing, “seeking strength in numbers” is in principle a relevant and appropriate approach. One journalist who participates with PAR, when interviewed by the ET in Barishal, expressed this clearly when he said that the “Government administration does not care about a single person’s request, but they give value to joint initiatives.” (KII 35) According to PAR reports, the GBV and drug abuse networks included 60 committees with a total of 1,587 members.29 Network activities reached out to thousands of individuals, through text messages, dialogue meetings between CSOs and local government authorities, and public rallies. While PAR has engaged a large number of people in these activities, the lack of strategic focus in its advocacy approach, as described above under IR 1, has, logically, produced networks that lack a strategic focus in doing advocacy. PAR reports on network activities give larger priority to the numbers of people engaged or the number of meetings organized rather than to the substantive issues discussed in these meetings. There is little evidence that these meetings have served to discuss issues related to the protection of rights of victims of violence or drug abuse through advocacy for policy reform or to increase CS pressure on the GOB to improve the quality of services offered to victims of violence, reduce the rate of impunity, or expand rehabilitation services for drug addicts. Discussions seem to center on raising awareness about the issues and essentially putting the onus of change on the citizens, not the government. That is, trying to persuade youth not to consume drugs, men not to hit their wives, or families not to marry their underage girls. 27 PAR, Second Annual Report. 28 Anthony Petrosino, et. al. “Scared Straight Tactics and other Juvenile Awareness Programs for Preventing Juvenile Delinquency. A Systematic Review. “The Campbell Collaboration, 2012. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.4073/csr.2013.5. See also, Joanne Csete, “Scared Straight Anti-Drug Programs are not scaring kids at all.” Open Society Foundation Report, 2015. https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/voices/scared-straight-anti-drug-programs-aren-t-scaring-kids-all 29 The Rupantar consortium established 25 committees (21 sub-district level platforms and four district-level women brigades) with 856 members. The Light House consortium formed 35 committees (23 CAG, 10 Youth Brigades, and two district level CSO-led networks) with 731 members. Mid-Term Performance Evaluation for Promoting Advocacy and Rights (PAR) Activity 13 In FGDs with members of these networks, some participants were able to identify governance problems related to drug abuse or GBV. For example, in one FGD in Natore, participants talked about the suspected collusion of GOB officials and party leaders in the drug trafficking business, resulting in the prosecution of only small drug peddlers, while the “big fish” are never arrested. Yet, these issues are never raised in meetings with government authorities. More importantly, members of the network themselves expressed frustration with the activities of their committees, saying they did not believe committee meetings are effective to address the problem of drug addiction. “The big men (higher level drug businessmen) are always out of risk; they are not being arrested. Even police are very much helpless in this regard.” “Police and concerned government offices are corrupted, drug dealer has strong communication with police.” “This network was formed to stop drug abuse in Natore and Rajshahi district…To be honest, local people have no faith in this committee; they are thinking, all institutions organize meeting and form this type of committee, but effective is almost zero.” “All have been working with drug issue for long time, but PAR has no remarkable contribution in this respect. Only participants/network members enhanced their knowledge on drug abuse a bit.” – FGD, Natore, Rajshahi In the case of GBV, members of the networks interviewed by the ET were able to identify the problem of corruption in relation to the falsification of birth certificates, the lack of access to justice, or the problem of impunity with regards to the punishment of perpetrators arranging child marriages. Yet, these issues were not raised in policy dialogue discussions with government officials. Similarly, while network member participants in FGDs were able to identify some of the root causes of GBV, namely the lack of economic and educational opportunities for women, these issues are not integrated into their platform activities. When asked to describe their activities, they talked about participating in rallies, distributing leaflets, posting banners, and organizing meetings in schools and marketplaces to raise awareness about GBV.30 At most, they allege contributing to stopping child marriages by calling the police. It is questionable, however, whether calling the police is an effective strategy for addressing the problem. The police may stop a child marriage the first time, but families might then go to a different location and arrange the marriage, often by falsifying their daughters’ birth certificates. “First time, we motivate family member to stop child marriage. If they are not convinced, then we take action in collaboration with law enforcement agencies and stop child marriage.” – FGD in Khulna “The most important side of the meeting is that we get some clearer/ updated/new understanding/ideas about the services, acts, policies and ways of solving cases from the Government officials/ administrations. We can even go to their offices if there are more confidential cases to be taken care of.” – FGD in Barishal Furthermore, when network participants were asked what was discussed in meetings with public officials, they responded that they obtained information about government services. These meetings did not serve to advocate for improved quality of services, greater access to justice, or reduced impunity. Finally, by focusing on number of people participating in the networks and not on the substance of discussion or messaging, PAR has lost an opportunity to be more strategic about selecting who should participate in meetings with public officials, based on their ability to articulate advocacy messages and demand greater government responsiveness to citizen needs. For example, convening a meeting with poor women, victims of violence, and prostitutes together with CSOs leaders and government officials may be effective for increasing the visibility of marginalized groups, but not for delivering specific and more targeted messages on governance failures or persuading the GOB to alter its practices towards victims of violence. Similarly, PAR has not been effective in engaging political party leaders, MPs, and local government elected representatives—who arguably have more leverage in promoting policy reforms or 30 It is important to note that most of the focus of the GBV network is underage marriage. The ET found that sub-grantees, consortium members, and participants perceived GBV mostly in terms of underage/child marriage. For this reason, the entire campaign/awareness concentrates on stopping child marriage. Mid-Term Performance Evaluation for Promoting Advocacy and Rights (PAR) Activity 14 improving service delivery. Most of PAR public dialogues are confined to the Upazila level, but there are issues that could be more appropriately discussed at the district level, for example, declaring a municipality/Upazila a safe place for women, or a municipality/Upazila that offers better rehabilitation services or better care to victims of GBV. 3.1.5 Conclusions Given PAR’s lack of strategic focus in its advocacy approach and activities, on its current trajectory it will be difficult for PAR to achieve its overall objectives and results. Strengthening CS capacity to effectively advocate for improved democratic governance and establishing cross-sector partnerships to improve government’s responsiveness to citizens needs necessitates, at a minimum, taking some distance from the government. That is critical to effectively monitor government performance, generate new evidence (e.g., on gaps of service delivery or barriers for gaining access to justice), and use the evidence to engage public officials in policy dialogues about legal reforms, improvements in service delivery, or the protection of rights. More importantly, improving democratic governance, particularly in the context of a closing civic space, requires a deliberate and more strategic effort to persuade GOB officials to respond to citizen needs by improving service delivery and protecting citizens’ rights, even if these rights are more narrowly defined as the rights of victims of violence or drug abuse. By placing most of its focus on changing individual attitudes and behavior and not government practices, PAR has in fact refrained from promoting political outcomes, a central element of advocacy in a democratic society. While PAR has engaged and supported many CSOs at the local level, PAR’s approach to CS participation is not likely to contribute to keeping the civic space open or making CSOs more resilient. PAR may help CSOs to maintain their operations and survive as organizations, but that is different from their ability to contribute to policy discussions on governance issues, even in the narrower policy areas of focus. Finally, by scattering their activities among many small CSOs in many districts, PAR has reduced CSOs’ ability to exert a more significant and aggregated impact. Organizations working on GBV and drug abuse are each working on their specific locations, conducting their activities without realizing their overall objective of exerting pressure on the GOB to attend to citizen needs and promote a more accountable and responsive government even when the national government is exerting firmer control on power and limiting the opportunities for opposition parties and outward critics of the government to organize, mobilize, and challenge the government’s increasing authoritarian tendencies. 3.2 EQ 2: TO WHAT EXTENT HAS CI BEEN ABLE TO IMPROVE THE RESEARCH, ADVOCACY, LEGAL FRAMEWORK, AND DIGITAL CAPACITY OF TARGETED CSOS AS A RESULT OF THE PAR ACTIVITY? 3.2.1 Findings According to PAR’s indicator performance data, CSOs increased their research and advocacy capabilities, as well as their knowledge on legal rights and responsibilities following PAR research and legal trainings. Three indicators (Indicators 4, 6, and 7) were identified to measure these results. For all three indicators, PAR shows an achievement of 90 percent or higher with respect to its targets. Data were collected through follow-up calls with trainees after the training was conducted to assess whether their organizations were engaged in advocacy activities and evidence-based research activities, and whether trainees increased their knowledge about their legal rights, obligations, or how to navigate the political environment. No indicator was identified to measure increased digital capacity. However, as discussed above, these indicators measure outputs and are based on vague or subjective data collection methods. Indicators measure how many organizations and participants received trainings and how many organizations were reached by PAR after six months of the training.31 PAR asked trainees 31 For example, for Indicator 6, number of CSOs reporting increased research capabilities after PAR research training, PAR reports that in Y2, it organized two research trainings for CSOs, for a total of 33 participants. Six months after the trainings, PAR Mid-Term Performance Evaluation for Promoting Advocacy and Rights (PAR) Activity 15 whether they are conducting research-based or advocacy activities, without triangulating the information provided, specifying what evidence, research, or advocacy mean, or defining more precisely the types of activities these trainees and their organizations are engaged in, e.g., the number of investigations or legal actions (including registrations) completed by CSOs. In interviews with individuals who participated in training events, trainees reported being highly satisfied with the quality of the training and with the training materials. This finding was corroborated by the mini￾survey, including both FGD participants and other PAR beneficiaries who did not participate in FGDs (see Figure 3 and Annex 4 for additional results of the mini-survey). Yet, in FGDs, more than one-third of training participants expressed that the trainings were too short, and that there was virtually no follow up after the first training.32 At most, trainees received a phone call from PAR staff to inquire whether they retained the knowledge they received and if and how their organizations were using the knowledge in their advocacy initiatives. PAR reports acknowledge, however, that the callback process was found to be ineffective. “Respondents did not want to engage for the entire time of the call and did not want to talk about sensitive issues such as civic space, advocacy efforts, good governance over the phone.”33 During COVID-19, trainings were conducted online, and participants expressed they found online trainings less satisfactory than in-person trainings. Figure 3: Mini-Survey Results Training Ratings Communication/Follow-up (n=87) Relevance (n=113) Usefulness (n=113) Materials (n=69) Trainer/Facilitator (n=113) Content (n=112) 1% 6% 15% 7% 8% 33% 12% 10% 23% 52% 50% 45% 46% 49% 34% 38% 37% 13% 36% 35% 14% 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 Excellent Good Mediocre Poor Very Poor Similarly, although more than half of mini-survey respondents (55 percent) believed PAR contributed to improving their organization’s capacity to advocate for democratic governance and citizen participation, reached out to 25 participants via callbacks to obtain additional information about their engagement in evidence-based research activities. Of the 25 contacted, 16 participants responded. This is the number that was entered into the indicator tracking performance sheet. This information was provided by PAR in Y2 Annual Report, p. 27. Yet, in this same document, PAR reports that although 100 percent of participants perceived the trainings to be effective for generating evidence to support advocacy interventions, only 31 percent were involved in their organization’s research efforts, p. 32. 32 In FGDs with PAR trainees, 27 FGD participants (37 percent) expressed that the duration of trainings they attended was not long enough, including five of nine (56 percent) FGD participants who attended peer education training for Youth Brigade members, five of nine who attended capacity building training for CSO Platform members, seven of 15 (47 percent) who attended digital security trainings, six of 13 (46 percent) who attended advocacy campaign trainings, three of eight (38 percent), and six of 18 (33 percent) legal management trainees. In addition, 20 training attendees reported in FGDs that there was virtually no follow up after the first training, including five of seven (71 percent) FGD participants who attended research trainings, six of 13 (46 percent) of advocacy campaign trainees, and four of nine (44 percent) of CSO Platform member capacity building trainees. 33 PAR Second Annual Report, p. 25. Mid-Term Performance Evaluation for Promoting Advocacy and Rights (PAR) Activity 16 less than half of respondents who received trainings from PAR (46 percent) agreed or strongly agreed that they were applying what they learned in their daily jobs (see Figure 4). Moreover, even when these trainees reported to be applying what they learned, the ET saw no evidence CSOs affiliated with the PAR project have adopted new research or advocacy practices at the organizational level. Most importantly, the majority of training participants during year 1 and year 2 of the project are not currently engaged in PAR activities at the district and sub-district levels. Figure 4: Mini-Survey Results Responses on Being Able to Apply the Skills/Knowledge Learned in PAR’s Training Activities in Daily Jobs (N=105) 60% 48% 50% Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disatree 14% 32% 5% 1% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% The legal trainings aimed at informing and sensitizing CSOs about their civic rights, like freedom of association and freedom of speech, and helping them navigate through the legal requirements to register in Bangladesh. Similarly, the digital security trainings were originally designed to explain CSOs how to comply with the DSA, helping them to use online and digital platforms to communicate safely, without facing government harassment. In FGDs with participants of these trainings, the ET learned that the legal trainings focused more on legal registration requirements for CSOs in the context of a closing space environment than on freedom of speech or the legal protection of rights. Similarly, digital security trainings focused more on how to use information technology34 than on the DSA and information and communication technologies (ICT) policy and its implications for freedom of expression and citizen participation. PAR produced a CSO legal manual for Bangladeshi CSOs, which contained information on CSO-specific laws, an overview of registration requirements and statutory obligations, sources of funding, and information on dissolution and liquidation. The manual has been widely distributed among PAR CSO affiliates and FGD participants who used it believe it to be an excellent resource. However, according to the mini-survey with PAR beneficiaries, only 30 percent had seen or consulted the legal manual (see Annex 4). The research and awareness trainings were designed to teach CSOs how to generate evidence and use it for advocacy purposes. The research trainings focused on qualitative and quantitative data collection methodologies.35 The advocacy trainings focused on strategies to mobilize constituencies, design campaigns, and facilitate dialogue about issues among a broad range of community stakeholders. After one year of implementation, PAR concluded the research and advocacy trainings were too broad in scope and 34 The contents of the trainings focused on protection from malware, internet browsing, password protection, social media use, keeping anonymity, computer maintenance, and mobile phone security. 35 The research trainings focused on different research methods, data collection methods, the potential for source-based bias, and evaluation skills to ensure data validity. Annual Report, Y2, p. 12. Mid-Term Performance Evaluation for Promoting Advocacy and Rights (PAR) Activity 17 had been not effective in promoting greater evidence-based advocacy. As a result, PAR decided to modify its approach to capacity building and focus more on direct coaching and “on-the-job” training with CSOs.36 During Y3, PAR did not conduct any advocacy or research trainings.37 In interviews and FGDs, the ET did not see evidence of existing coaching or mentoring activities with CSO organizations in 2020. Yet, in an interview with PAR’s Acting COP, PAR’s change of focus towards direct mentoring and coaching was mentioned as the approach for the remainder of the activity. PAR produced an Online Advocacy Toolbox for CSOs, but this manual has not been well distributed by PAR and its partners and virtually none of the people interviewed for this evaluation had seen this toolbox. The main reason was PAR’s termination of its partnership with the WAVE Foundation, who was the repository of this online tool. The tool has now been transitioned to PAR’s new partner, Young Power in Social Action (YPSA). The contents of the toolbox, however, are not yet available online. During 2020, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, providing more direct training and coaching for CSOs was difficult to implement. 3.2.2 Conclusions At the time of this evaluation, there is no evidence that PAR CSOs affiliates are using social methodologies appropriate for CSOs, such as social auditing methodologies (rather than research methodologies used by academics and university students) to generate new evidence that could be used for advocacy efforts.38 Although individual trainees may have increased their knowledge on the different topics covered by the training workshops, there is little evidence these individuals are applying learned skills in their organizations or that their CSOs are doing anything different, particularly with regards to research and advocacy, because of PAR trainings. PAR grantees and sub-grantees are engaged in awareness-raising activities, and they are not using evidence to promote changes in government policies, practices or services. Individual trainees expressed they know how to use digital technology more safely and learned about the legal requirements their organizations need to comply with to obtain registration. Yet, there were no data showing the number of CSOs that obtained their registration after the training or the number of CSOs that are posting information digitally after their members participated in the trainings. 3.3 EQ 3: TO WHAT EXTENT ARE THE ACTIVITY’S OBJECTIVES STILL RELEVANT FOR THE CURRENT BANGLADESH DEVELOPMENT AND CLOSING SPACE CONTEXT? 3.3.1 Findings The objective of PAR’s Activity, as stated in its results framework is to “strengthen the enabling environment for sustained civil society institutions advancing democratic governance and citizen participation in Bangladesh. To contribute to a more inclusive, resilient, and evidence-driven Bangladeshi civil society.” Given the current political background, the key words in this objective are advancing democratic governance and citizen participation in Bangladesh and contributing to civil society’s resilience. PAR seeks to accomplish this by finding policy areas where CS can advocate for the protection of democratic rights, including citizen participation, government accountability and responsiveness, and freedom of speech, even in narrower policy areas that do not question or threaten the authority of the ruling party. 36 Annual Report, Y2, p. 32. 37 Rupantar conducted 14 day-long capacity building trainings. Light House organized one two-day Training of Trainers (TOT) training for project staff and two peer education trainings for youth brigades. These were awareness-raising trainings, not advocacy or research training workshops. PAR Report, PY3 Q3, pp. 10-12. 38 For example, CSOS could have learned how to generate evidence on the quality and coverage of services offered to victims of violence or drug abusers, on the budget that is allocated for these services, on the barriers for accessing the justice system, or the performance of the justice system in prosecuting and convicting perpetrators of violence or drug traffickers. This evidence could then be used for advocacy purposes. Mid-Term Performance Evaluation for Promoting Advocacy and Rights (PAR) Activity 18 There is no doubt that the civic space in Bangladesh is closing. Many CSO leaders, journalists, bloggers and opposition leaders have been harassed by the government, if not sent to prison. CSOs are intimidated by the crackdown and tend to self-censor for fear of retaliation on the part of GOB. Yet, government harassment and intimidation against CS seems to be targeted to issues related to elections, Bangladesh’s founding father Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, the DSA, and, to some extent, the ruling party—Awami League. To the extent these issues are not raised, CSOs can operate more freely. This is particularly the case at the local level, where many small CSOs are mostly working on local-level issues, the majority of them in providing services or offering micro-credit to citizens. Neither Rupantar nor Lighthouse, the two grantees working with PAR at the local level, have been intimidated or harassed by the government. In fact, most media outlets have remained free to express criticism of the GOB, as long as the authority of the ruling party or concerns about the elections remain off limits. For example, in 2020 and 2021, there has been ample criticism on the GOB’s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic and the distribution of relief packages. Similarly, Transparency International released its annual report on corruption in Bangladesh (2018–2019) and its webpage contains several articles describing cases of government corruption.39 Further, scandals of corruption are featured in the media on a regular basis. These criticisms are tolerated by the GOB, even in a closing civic space. In a KII with one of PAR’s partners, the Right to Information Act was mentioned as a powerful tool that can be used by CSOs to demand greater government accountability. If CSOs knew how to use this tool, they could “work with the government and advocate based on their needs.” Yet, this is not happening. “We are doing activities, but they are not linked to one another….Activities do not have a common vision and direction.” (KII 10) 3.3.2 Conclusions On the PAR-selected policy issues, GBV and drug abuse, it is possible to conclude that the civic space is not closed. At the local level, space for critical discussion on protection of rights of victims of violence and drug abuse is possible and relevant. Yet, PAR’s strategic decision to seek collaboration with the GOB and prioritize government approval, has weakened its ability to distance itself from the government to adopt a more critical perspective on the GOB’s performance and advocate for the advancement of democratic reforms, even in those narrow policy areas of drug abuse and GBV. Advancing democratic governance and citizen participation and contributing to CS resilience is relevant in the current political context in Bangladesh. It only requires more determination and commitment on the part of PAR and its grantees to pursue these objectives. In this sense, as elaborated in greater detail in EQ 5 below, the redesign of the PAR Activity is problematic, because it appears that by eliminating governance elements from its sub-results, PAR de facto assumes its objectives are no longer relevant. “We need to provide more [capacity building] to CSOs but we have not enough resources. Giving them technical support to carry over our advocacy initiatives. We have not been able to give them more technical support to carry over our advocacy initiatives. They expect us to be more engaged. Every engagement incurs costs. The type of engagement they want, we cannot give…CSOs cannot take initiatives without financial support. PAR is also giving technical assistance on mobilizing local resources (a new concept in Bangladesh) but it needs time.” – PAR/Bangladesh 39 https://www.ti-bangladesh.org/beta3/index.php/en/ Mid-Term Performance Evaluation for Promoting Advocacy and Rights (PAR) Activity 19 3.4 EQ 4: HAS CI ASSISTED CSO PARTNERS TO IMPROVE THEIR SUSTAINABILITY PROSPECTS AND HOW EFFECTIVE WERE THEY IN ACHIEVING THAT? 3.4.1 Findings It is too early to assess the financial sustainability of PAR CSO partners, particularly those at the grassroots level. In interviews with PAR staff, CI has a plan to promote the financial sustainability of the CSOs PAR has engaged in its activities. In Year 4, PAR plans to conduct granular financial assessments of CS partners to design revenue generation activities and allow them to become more autonomous from foreign donors. PAR is also planning to engage private enterprises to explore opportunities for philanthropic activities as part of their corporate social responsibility projects. Both PAR grantees, Rupantar and Light House, are well-established organizations likely to survive beyond the conclusion of PAR. Indeed, one of the criteria for selecting these organizations was the organization’s reputation and their entrenchment in their communities. Moreover, in its quarterly reports, PAR believes that the two networks that have already been established will contribute to the survival of PAR’s activities beyond the life of the PAR’s implementation. In KIIs and FGDs, PAR’s CSO partners expressed enthusiasm for participating in activity events, but it is uncertain whether they will be able to continue these activities on their own, without additional funding and more direct capacity building from PAR. When PAR grantees and sub-grantees were asked to identify the most important challenges CSOs face in Bangladesh, more than two-thirds of mini-survey respondents identified inadequate access to financial resources, insufficient technical capacity, citizen apathy towards what CSOs do, and insufficient managerial capacity as the top four challenges (see Figure 5 and Annex 4). Figure 5: Mini-Survey Results – PAR Grantee and Sub-Grantees Participants (percentages) Most Important Challenges for CSOs in Bangladesh Restrictions from other non-government groups Citizens are apathetic, not interested in what civil 67% 16% 7% 7% 71% 11% 6% 8% 6% 11% 62% 21% 68% 15% 76% society organizations do 75% Dependence on donors/foreign aid Inadequate/lack of human resources Not sufficient organizational technical capacity 77% (technical skills, tools) Agree 75% Not sufficient organizational management capacity Disagree Inadequate or little access to sufficient financial 78% resources 72% Inadequate access to knowledge/information Digital Security Act and ICT policy Government restrictions by law enforcement agencies 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Some of these challenges, such as increasing CSOs’ financial, managerial, and technical skills are directly related to PAR’s Activity. CI has committed to providing more direct support to CSOs through coaching Mid-Term Performance Evaluation for Promoting Advocacy and Rights (PAR) Activity 20 and mentoring; however, based on KIIs with PAR staff and CI home office staff, it is likely they do not have the necessary resources to accomplish this goal.40 Most importantly, advocacy interventions particularly in a closing political environment, take time to yield results. Expecting CSOs who have no research or advocacy experience to become strong advocates for democratic reforms and motivate larger numbers of citizens in these efforts necessitates more funding and more time. This is possible, even in the current political context, but it requires adopting a more strategic approach and a longer-term perspective. Results will not materialize in two or three years. 3.4.2 Conclusions Beyond the financial sustainability of PAR grantees and sub-grantees, there is no evidence to suggest PAR’s research-based advocacy activities will survive after the conclusion of the activity, precisely because, as previously discussed, there is no evidence these organizations have engaged in advocacy interventions, according to PAR’s own definition of the term. 3.5 EQ 5: HAS THE THEORY OF CHANGE OR ACTIVITY DESIGN BEEN ACHIEVABLE THUS FAR? IF NOT, WHY? 3.5.1 Findings In December 2019, USAID and CI decided to rescope and redesign the activity, based on an analysis of the political situation and an internal assessment of the results achieved after more than a year after activity start. As the second annual report shows, PAR conducted two learning workshops with their key stakeholders at the end of the first and second quarters. Based on conversations with stakeholders, PAR realized the activity scope was too broad, both in terms of the number of districts (18 at that time), and in terms of the number and range of CSOs engaged in multiple activities. PAR concluded that the research and awareness trainings, as they had been conducted, were not having the expected impact, and decided to offer more direct, hands-on, technical assistance to a targeted number of CSOs. It also proposed to focus on four divisions and have limited program interventions in eight districts. Most significantly, PAR concluded they needed an activity description modification to reflect these changes, as well as a modification of PAR’s TOC. The modification of the TOC was conducted by USAID in collaboration with CI and approved in August 2020. The modification of the TOC entailed the modification of PAR’s Sub-IRs and the activities under each Sub￾IR. The overall Objective and the IRs did not change (see Table 3). Table 3: Comparing PAR’s Old and the New Theory of Change GOAL: To strengthen the enabling environment for sustained civil society institutions advancing democratic governance IR. 1: Strengthened Civil Society Capacity to Effectively Advocate for Improved Democratic Governance IR 2: Established Cross-Sector Partnerships to Improve Government Responsiveness to Citizen Needs OLD NEW IF CS can effectively mobilize diverse constituencies for improved governance; and IF CS advocacy is grounded in contextual and research￾informed analysis; and IF CS has the resources, capacity, and technical assistance to continue operating in a closing civic space; and 40 In interviews with the ET, both CI home office staff and staff in PAR Bangladesh mentioned they had a limited budget to complete all their activities. Providing direct mentoring and on the job coaching requires hiring more personnel to work directly with grantees. Mid-Term Performance Evaluation for Promoting Advocacy and Rights (PAR) Activity 21 GOAL: To strengthen the enabling environment for sustained civil society institutions advancing democratic governance IR. 1: Strengthened Civil Society Capacity to Effectively Advocate for Improved Democratic Governance IR 2: Established Cross-Sector Partnerships to Improve Government Responsiveness to Citizen Needs OLD NEW IF CS can effectively monitor government actions and generate data and analysis to craft policy proposals; and IF CS has the tools and technology to continue operating in a closing civic space; and IF CS can build multi-sector advocacy networks; and IF CS and government work together on platforms to increase transparency and service quality; THEN Bangladesh will increasingly have a more tolerant, inclusive, and stable democracy. IF CS can establish coalitions and partnerships across diverse constituencies; and IF CS and government foster cross-sectoral collaboration; THEN Bangladesh will increasingly have an active and stronger CS and improved citizen participation in governance and advocacy. “We changed the theory of change to be in line with the activities being done in the current context.” – PAR Partner The TOC included governance related Sub-IRs, such CS engagement in democratic governance issues; CS ability to monitor government performance and generate data analysis to promote policy reforms; establishing multi-sector advocacy networks and increasing transparency and service quality (please note: these words are bolded in the table). The new TOC, in contrast, no longer mentions issues associated with democratic governance, such as strengthening citizen participation to advocate for policy reforms and monitoring government performance to demand increased transparency and improved quality of public services. More importantly, the new TOC stresses establishing CSO coalitions and partnerships and fostering CS and government collaboration, but the purpose grounding advocacy in research informed analysis, fostering greater collaboration with the government and promoting stronger CSO coalitions remains undetermined and is no longer logically connected to the expected change.41 In short, the new TOC seems to reflect the self-censorship approach many national CSOs have adopted in Bangladesh. By aligning the theory to the activities, rather than aligning the activities to the theory, the new TOC is no longer consistent with the promotion of democratic governance or the opening of the civic space. In the redesign of the PAR Activity, the activities under each Sub-IR were also changed: some were eliminated, others were modified, and some are new. At the activity level, three new or modified activities (Activities 1.2.1, 1.2.2, and 2.1.1) refer to improving transparency and mutual accountability and strengthening CSOs’ capacity to implement social accountability and watchdog activities, yet, these activities are no longer logically connected to the Sub-IRs they are trying to achieve, since the latter no longer reference the promotion of democratic governance reforms. 41 The old TOC had a logical connection between the activities and the outcomes. For example, monitoring government actions and generating data and analysis will be used to craft policy proposals. In contrast, the new TOC eliminates the outcomes. What will grounding contextual and research-informed analysis do? What will fostering cross-sectoral collaboration do? What will establishing coalitions and partnerships do? The absence of strategic focus was woven into the TOC, rather than using the TOC to help focus on the outcomes and allow PAR to adopt a more strategic approach. Mid-Term Performance Evaluation for Promoting Advocacy and Rights (PAR) Activity 22 3.5.2 Conclusions Despite the closing political space after the 2018 elections, the old TOC was logically articulated, and it was achievable. By removing the governance outcomes from the Sub-IRs while leaving the Objective and the IRs unchanged, the new TOC is less feasible as a governance activity. As redesigned, the new TOC prioritizes collaboration and cooperation with the GOB, rather than strengthening the central role of CS in a democracy: monitoring and checking the government, defending the rights of citizens, and demanding accountability and improved service delivery. “I feel in most of the cases USAID or Counterpart head office control the program. We provide documents for review and it takes a long time sometimes. The PAR project office isn’t comfortable giving their feedback and decisions without consulting with headquarters.” – PAR Partner “Counterpart had a communication problem at the country level and their field level understanding from Counterpart International home office is a big gap.….” – PAR Partner 3.6 EQ 6: HOW EFFECTIVE HAS CI BEEN AT MANAGING PAR’S PERFORMANCE? 3.6.1 Findings CI has faced problems with high levels of personnel turnover, both in its home office and in the PAR office in Bangladesh. Since April 2018, when PAR began implementation, the activity has had three COPs, one Acting COP, and it has finally hired its new (and fourth) COP. Similarly, there has been a high level of turnover in the home office. For example, the Project Manager and the Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Officer who were assigned to PAR in the home office, left CI after less than two years of being hired.42 Although some of the staff in the PAR office in Bangladesh have remained since the beginning of implementation, like the Grant Manager, Finance Manager, and Security Officer, many other staff have left the office. The ET did not reach out to staff that had left PAR office, but in interviews with PAR staff and several of PAR partners, they said local staff were frustrated because they did not feel empowered and supported by PAR management in CI headquarters in the United States. The COVID-19 pandemic further impacted PAR’s management capacity. The third COP was hired at the onset of the pandemic, but faced travel restrictions during much of 2020 and had to operate remotely for most of that year. A few months after arriving in Bangladesh, however, she resigned from her post. In a KII, the Acting COP stated PAR has been working hard on team building and improving the working conditions in the office. With the new COP in place, she was optimistic these management challenges related to personnel would improve. In addition to the personnel issues, another management challenge is PAR’s scant presence at the local level. Greater presence at the district level could help PAR articulate clear, consistent messaging to grantees and sub-grantees on the activity’s overall goal and objectives and provide more direction to its partners on how to engage in advocacy interventions and use PAR’s leverage with the GOB as well as CI’s international reputation to empower grantees and sub-grantees and motivate them to demand improved government responsiveness to citizen needs. In KIIs with local grantees, they expressed a lack of understanding or knowledge of what PAR’s objectives were or what other PAR grantees were doing. For example, one sub-grantee working on the GBV network, and Secretary of the Women Brigade in Barishal said “…Some members of the Women Brigade do not know about the objectives of the events we are holding, what is the objective behind the establishment of Women Brigade.” Similarly, in Rajshahi, a member of the drug abuse network said, “They called me and made me…the President of something. However, I am ever moderately aware of the initiative that this committee should be taking. Even though I cannot remember what the name of the 42 Interviews with CI home office staff. Mid-Term Performance Evaluation for Promoting Advocacy and Rights (PAR) Activity 23 “We need a clear understanding about PAR’s goals and objectives. We have a huge paper on their project, but we sometimes aren’t able to relate to their project, understand what relationship PAR has with GBV, drugs, and other things. Our limitation is that we don’t know how all of the PAR activities are linked and come together to achieve PAR’s overall goals. We want to better understand the entire PAR project, and then that will better contribute to our initiatives and activities. There is a need for synergy and better integration of activities.” – PAR Grantee platform was, I guess the committee would work for Preventing Drug Abuse. Occasionally they contact me, but [often] I am called over the phone one and half an hour or two hours before an event/meeting. As a result, I [often] cannot attend.” (KII 15) In addition to the problem of communication between PAR and its grantees and the scant presence of PAR officials at the local level, some of PAR sub-grantees also complained about not having received sufficient training and not having adequate levels of funding to conduct their activities. Grantees and sub￾grantees expressed that while they have received some training on financial management and M&E, they have not received training on advocacy or research methodologies. Moreover, they also expressed frustration with the numerous reporting requirements they are asked to submit to PAR (within a day after an event) while not receiving sufficient funds to cover transportation costs for participants who attend events or rental costs for event venues. PAR has also faced serious challenges in the management and tracking of its performance indicator data. Until the Acting COP took control, indicator performance data were scattered across multiple documents. She began to consolidate the existing data, but performance data are still incomplete.43 It is also not clear how grantee reporting data are used to inform PAR’s performance indicators. For example, the ET could not find a single document (such as the one elaborated by the ET in Annex 5) consolidating the number of people trained or participants to different activities organized by PAR. Listings of participants were given to the team in PDF formats, often photocopies of hand-written attendance lists. In large part, the challenges PAR has faced with the management of information and performance indicator data result from the absence of a M&E Officer in PAR’s office. After this staff member resigned, PAR has not been able to find a replacement. When the ET requested information from PAR about data management and tracking of participants, activities, or indicators, the information came fragmented, in many different formats, including PDF scans. Despite the ET asking interviwees about their data management systems, no interviewees provided evidence of the existence of a robust and integrated data management system in place. Finally, several PAR performance indicators rely on subjective or imprecise measurement parameters. For example, Indicator 1, Civic Report Card on District Deputy Commissioner Meetings is based on civic partners perceptions about “the conduct and level of engagement as well as the number of issues of public importance CSOs are able to raise in their monthly districts meetings for the previous year.” The PIRS further state that these CSOs have to rate “the level of public outreach demonstrated at the Deputy Commissioner’s (DC) Meetings with the NGOs as well as the ability of NGOs to raise issues of public importance at those meetings.” Other than the number of public issues raised during meetings, there is no further guidance or parameters provided in the PIRS to establish the rating scale on the DC’s level of civic engagement. Similarly, Indicator 6, Number of CSOs demonstrating increased capabilities after PAR Research Training, is based on follow-up telephone conversations with training participants who are asked whether they are applying their skills and knowledge. Yet, the PIRS offer no metrics to rank increased capabilities other than “ability to provide evidence that the organization is accessing or creating research to support their advocacy priorities.” 3.6.2 Conclusions Despite the many management challenges faced by PAR, PAR was successful in mobilizing an impressive number of citizens and organizing many and different activities. However, indicator data are not good measures of PAR’s performance, as they mostly measure outputs, not outcomes, and indicator data are 43 Three performance indicators report no data: Indicators 2, 11, and 13. Mid-Term Performance Evaluation for Promoting Advocacy and Rights (PAR) Activity 24 not complete. Furthermore, the quality and reliability of the data reported are questionable, as many indicators rely on subjective criteria or imprecise measurement parameters. Since August 2020, CI has taken significant measures to improve management of PAR, including consolidation of performance indicator data, team building efforts, and hiring a new COP. However, based on the quality of the information submitted to the ET in response to specific requests for indicator data or consolidated data on the number of participants and trainees by region and by type of activity, there is no evidence that a more robust data management and information system has been put in place. 4. RECOMMENDATIONS The following recommendations are organized by Objective and IR, and then by activities. 4.1 THEORY OF CHANGE 1. If still possible, consider re-incorporating governance outcomes into the Sub-IRs and articulating the TOC as follows: IF CS can effectively mobilize diverse constituencies for improved governance; and IF CS can effectively monitor government actions and generate data and analysis to craft policy proposals; and IF CS has the tools and technology to continue opening a closing civic space; and IF CS can build multi-sector advocacy networks to strengthen the voice and influence of CS; and IF CS and government work together on platforms to increase transparency and service quality THEN Bangladesh will increasingly have an active and stronger CS and improved citizen participation in governance and advocacy. 4.2 IR 1: STRENGTHENED CS CAPACITY TO EFFECTIVELY ADVOCATE FOR IMPROVED DEMOCRATIC GOVERNANCE 2. Be more strategic in designing advocacy interventions by identifying the audience PAR seeks to persuade (local administration and local government elected representatives, national government officials, citizens) and the objective being pursued: changes in public policies, specific regulations, government practices (for example with regards to quality-of-service delivery, access to justice, deployment of law enforcement), citizen attitudes, or all of the above. 3. Move beyond primarily raising awareness on the prevalence or severity of a social problem (in this case, the problems of GBV and drug abuse). Focus instead on generating evidence about the causes of the problem and their endurance. For example, raise awareness on alternative understandings of the problem of drug addiction, by proposing that drug addiction is not only a criminal issue but a public health issue, or suggesting that GBV is not likely to be reduced without more direct support for victims of violence and greater empowerment of women. 4. Promote policy discussions with government officials based on evidence; that will improve collaboration and contribute to opening the civic space. For example, PAR could engage government officials at the local level to discuss gaps in legislation which generate negative incentives for parents to continue to arrange underage marriages or for drug addicts to continue to use drugs. Additionally, PAR could engage CS with government authorities to discuss evidence on government services, e.g., what happens when victims of violence or drug addicts call the hotline numbers where they can get assistance? How satisfied are these individuals with the service or assistance they receive? PAR could then also use this evidence to engage government officials in discussions on level of funding for women shelters or rehabilitation services. Mid-Term Performance Evaluation for Promoting Advocacy and Rights (PAR) Activity 25 5. Provide a working definition of terms like “awareness” and “advocacy” in Bangla, so that PAR grantees and sub-grantees can be better informed of what the overall objective of their activities are. 4.3 IR 2: ESTABLISHED CROSS-SECTOR PARTNERSHIPS TO IMPROVE GOVERNMENT RESPONSIVENESS TO CITIZEN NEEDS 6. Identifying what citizens care most and what motivates them to engage in collective action are empirical questions that can be investigated (rather than assumed) using appropriate social science methodologies. Learning citizens’ incentives and motivations is crucial for mobilizing citizens effectively and sustainably in social networks and identifying specific government actions that should be promoted to address these needs. While GBV and drug abuse may be universally condemned in Bangladesh, young drug users may not be afraid of going to prison for consuming drugs, men may not be afraid of being convicted for hurting their wives, and families may not be afraid of the police for arranging marriages for underage children. For sustained and consistent efforts to mobilize citizens in social networks it is important to assess what citizens need and want and identify specific government actions that should be promoted to address these needs. This will make CS coalitions more persuasive and increase their power to demand greater government responsiveness to citizens’ needs. 7. Be more strategic about the organization and integration of networks; engage research institutions, think tanks, established NGOs, and other programs (e.g., Strengthening Political Landscapes [SPL], Platforms for Dialogue [P4D], Multi-Sectoral Programme on Violence Against Women) to intensify CS pressure and demand for improved government responsiveness. 8. Engage CS networks in joint advocacy activities, not just discussion and awareness-raising meetings. For example, networks of CSOs could be engaged in social auditing initiatives, monitoring quality of women shelters or drug rehabilitation centers. Networks of CSO leaders and academics could be engaged in assessing legal loopholes in existing legislation or in assessing successful interventions elsewhere based on existing evidence. 4.4 INCREASING AWARENESS 9. Build awareness on the root causes of the problem being discussed, whether it is drug abuse, GBV, uncontrolled urbanization, environmental pollution, lack of economic opportunities for marginalized people, etc. Awareness is not likely to be increased by repeating what is already known by most people, but by explaining why the problem exists and what is needed to address it. More importantly, messages that convey the prevalence of a problem may backfire. Depicting what is already happening, or what behavior scientists call “descriptive norms”44 often normalizes the undesired behavior. For example, messages informing the public about how prevalent GBV is in Bangladesh or how common drug abuse is among the youth, may have the unintended consequence of making people believe that, while condemned, the behavior is the norm, so deviating from it would make them outliers. 10. Use existing evidence to craft awareness messages, e.g., rate of victims who receive support from government or NGOs, court records on rates of convictions for perpetrators of GBV, budget allocations for rehabilitation programs, drug prevention, or women’s shelters. This evidence can help to articulate the desirable norm or the change that is expected. 11. Avoid scared straight tactics because they are ineffective and can be potentially harmful. Instead, disseminate positive messages promoting desirable norms, e.g., cases of non-violent men in the community who are respected by their social peers, and youth not resorting to drugs despite facing similar problems as those drug addicts confront in their communities, such as unemployment, extreme poverty, or lack of parental supervision. 44 For more information on the risks highlighting descriptive norms, see Bicchieri and Dimant, “Nudging with care: the risks and benefits of social information.” Public Choice, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-019-00684-6 Mid-Term Performance Evaluation for Promoting Advocacy and Rights (PAR) Activity 26 4.5 STRENGTHENING ADVOCACY 12. CI should communicate clear and consistent message to grantees, sub-grantees, and government officials on PAR’s advocacy objectives: what are the changes being sought and who is the audience that needs to be persuaded? 13. Advocacy requires taking some distance from the government. Be prepared to evaluate government performance on the selected policy areas, for example, the GOB’s protection of victims of violence and drug abuse. Social auditing initiatives can provide innovative data which can then be used in advocacy campaigns. 14. Build on the good communication channels already established with the GOB to advocate for policy reforms or changes in government practices. Advocacy need not be combative or confrontational; it could be amicable and conciliatory especially if it is grounded in evidence. PAR can use its leverage to arrange regular events, bringing politicians, local government elected representatives, and CS to one table. 15. Engage different government officials depending on the change being sought. Policy change requires engagement of national level officials; service delivery requires engagement of district and Upazila level officials; and changing social norms requires working at all levels and engaging CS. Importantly, at the local level, consider engaging political parties and local government elected representatives, particularly those who are from the ruling party. Given that unlike government officials, MPs and other local elected government officials are “local people,” they may have more incentives to keep the civil space open. Keeping an open dialogue with CS may turn out to be effective in maintaining voter support and increasing their public support in the community. 16. Be more strategic about selecting which stakeholders are the most influential and persuasive to engage with government officials. For example, destitute women and prostitutes may not be well positioned to engage public officials in a policy dialogue about loopholes in the legal framework or the policy towards gender. 4.6 CAPACITY BUILDING 17. Provide more follow-up trainings and support trainees with more mentoring and coaching. Focus research trainings on social auditing skills rather than research skills more appropriate for academics or students. Focus advocacy trainings on explaining the difference between awareness and advocacy and offer specific examples of advocacy interventions that resulted in policy or practice change. 18. Build the capacity of CSOs to conduct research on the target audiences’ motivations (the factors that may motivate the audience to engage in the desired behaviors) and barriers (the factors that may keep them from altering the status quo) to develop more effective user-centered messaging—messages that take into consideration what the audience cares about. This could be done through focus groups to learn what people in the community believe, who the social influencers are, and what their relevant peer groups are (the groups that people in the community identify with, compare themselves to, and trust). Understanding these social networks is important for designing messaging campaigns that could be more effective in stimulating behavior change. Consider engaging behavioral scientists to guide this effort. 4.7 STRENGTHENING NETWORKS 19. Promote synergies between PAR grantees and sub-grantees. Drug abuse and GBV may be interrelated, as many men who beat their wives can be under the influence of drugs. Similarly, lack of economic opportunity for marginalized people, GBV, and drug abuse are interrelated issues in which PAR might seek to create more synergy and activity integration. More importantly, regardless of the specific policy area, grantees should be working together to foster public debate about policy areas, increase government responsiveness towards citizen needs, and maintain the open democratic space. Mid-Term Performance Evaluation for Promoting Advocacy and Rights (PAR) Activity 27 20. Avoid duplicating efforts of other CSOs working on same policy areas; in the case of GBV and drug abuse, PAR grantees are replicating awareness-raising activities other CSOs and government officials at the local level are already doing in Bangladesh. 4.8 MANAGEMENT OF PAR ACTIVITY 21. Improve the PAR performance indicator management and reporting systems. 22. Consider conducting a quality assessment on indicator data, especially for those indicators based on imprecise or subjective measurement criteria (Indicators 1, 3, 6, 7, 11, and 13). 23. Improve PAR’s databases and information management systems to track activities, beneficiaries, outputs, and outcomes. 24. Increase the presence of PAR staff at the district and sub-district levels to provide more direction and guidance to grantees and sub-grantees and engage more directly with government officials. PAR staff should also review and monitor grantees’ and sub-grantees’ performance more closely, particularly reporting on indicators and management of performance indicator tracking systems. 25. Consider reducing the number of grantees to increase quality and depth and to provide more adequate funding levels to sub-grantees. 26. Disseminate the legal manual and the advocacy toolbox designed by PAR more broadly among Bangladesh’s CSOs, both by distributing print copies and sharing links to access the documents online. 27. Improve coordination with other USAID projects in Bangladesh, such as the SPL Project. Mid-Term Performance Evaluation for Promoting Advocacy and Rights (PAR) Activity 28 ANNEXES Mid-Term Performance Evaluation for Promoting Advocacy and Rights (PAR) Activity 29 ANNEX 1: SCOPE OF WORK Intake Form Template USAID/Bangladesh Tasking Request: Democracy, Human Rights and Governance (DRG) Date of Request: October 18, 2020 Type of Task: Mid-term Performance Evaluation for “Promoting Advocacy and Rights (PAR)” activity. Description of Activity: (Guidance – please provide a short summary of the activity that will receive service/s; it should contain at minimum the objectives of the activity, anticipated results (or results if available) major challenges to implementation, and major successes); (Guidance – if this an assessment or special study, please provide topic, necessary explanation, and rationale for undertaking) Promoting Advocacy and Rights (PAR) is a five-year, $7.10 million civil society activity implemented by Counterpart International (CI). The PAR activity aims to strengthen the enabling environment for sustained civil society institutions that advocate for advancing democratic governance and citizen participation in Bangladesh. The PAR activity also contributes to a more inclusive, resilient, and evidence￾driven civil society. By the end of the activity, targeted civil society organizations (CSOs) will have the skills, technology, financial resources, and connections to networks enabling it to work in partnership with the Government of Bangladesh (GOB) and other key stakeholders to advance good governance. USAID and the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO) co-fund the PAR activity. The objective of this mid-term performance evaluation is to assess PAR’s overall technical and programmatic relevance and the effectiveness in strengthening civil society organizations in key activity areas and to assess CI’s progress in achieving the sustainability of the activity. The evaluation will also assess CI and its sub-grantees’ performance in achieving targeted results; determine if the program is on course to meet the stated objectives; evaluate CI’s effectiveness in managing the activity; and examine the current opportunities and challenges of CSOs working with the Government of Bangladesh (GOB) and CSO actors. The findings of the report will be used to improve CI’s implementation of PAR by making appropriate adjustments to the activity and to inform future civil society programming. Research Question: (Guidance – If an evaluation, please provide at least 3 research questions the evaluation team will consider) Proposed evaluation questions are: • To what extent is Counterpart International on course to meet PAR’s objectives based on progress achieved thus far? • To what extent has Counterpart International been able to improve the capacity of targeted CSOs as a result of the PAR activity? • To what extent are the activity’s objectives still relevant for the current Bangladesh development and closing space context? • How effective has Counterpart International been at managing PAR’s performance? • Has Counterpart International achieved the sustainability goals of the activity so that the targeted CSOs will be less dependent on USAID and FCDO (UKaid) support in the future? • Was the theory of change or activity design achievable? If not, why? Geographic Coverage (Guidance – If this is third-party monitoring, please provide locations of sites to be visited) The evaluation should cover implementation sites in at least three districts, including Barishal, Khulna and Rajshahi. Mid-Term Performance Evaluation for Promoting Advocacy and Rights (PAR) Activity 30 Dates of performance and timeline: (Guidance – Please provide an anticipated start date and or completion date. Please note that, depending on the complexity of the requested services, the period of performance, from initiation to completion, can be significant) The period of performance for the evaluation is roughly 12 weeks, based on a five-day work week, from on or about mid-January 2021 to on or about mid-April 2021. This period includes the literature review, field work in, mid and out-briefing for USAID, report writing and the final report submission. Team Composition/Qualifications of Consultants: The Evaluation Team will be comprised of five or six key personnel: a team leader (US/TCN Evaluation Specialist), three team members (one US/TCN Sectoral CS Specialist and two Local Sectoral Specialists), and one or two evaluation assistant/translator/note taker. Qualifications: 1. Team Leader: An international Senior Evaluation Specialist with Ph. D. or equivalent degree and relevant experience in evaluating civil society/advocacy and governance programs and research in developing countries. The Team Leader will direct the team, finalize the evaluation design and methodology, coordinate activities, meetings, group discussions and the Key Informant Interviews, consolidate individual input from team members, coordinate the process of assembling the key findings, and develop appropriate recommendations. S/he also will lead in the preparation and presentation of key evaluation findings and recommendations to USAID/Bangladesh. The evaluation team leader is required to have a background in working with civil society and should have a good knowledge about Democracy, Human Rights and Governance (DRG) sector. At least ten (10) years of experience in conducting and managing complex evaluations is required. Experience in conducting assessments of projects/programs/activities relevant to the civil society sector and advocacy is an advantage; and designing evaluations on the international level or in developing countries is required. Ability to produce high-quality evaluation report in English is essential. 2. International Team Member: A mid-level evaluation specialist with an advanced degree in a relevant discipline and at least five (5) years of experience. Experience in program design, management monitoring and evaluation of civil society and DRG programs in developing countries is required. Prior experience and ability to conduct evaluation and to write well in English are required. S/he will work with the national team members to manage focus group discussions and other data collection methods, analyze findings and draft the evaluation report. 3. Two National Team Members: Senior or mid-level evaluation specialists should have at least seven years of experience in designing and conducting field-based evaluations and assessments of programs related to civil society and DRG. Relevant experience in Bangladesh is preferred, especially related to civil society, and advocacy. Overall, the team will need expertise in USAID practices and experience in program evaluation; program design and analysis; quantitative and qualitative data collection and analysis; survey design and analysis; and DRG program issues. Deliverables: (Guidance – In a bullet format, please provide a list of anticipated deliverables (e.g., Design proposal; Draft questionnaires, protocols and other data collection instruments; Updated SOW, if applicable; Draft Report; Mission Presentation; Final Report in electronic version that incorporates comments, statements of difference (if applicable) and appendices; Data sets; etc.). • Literature Review • Evaluation Team planning meetings • Evaluation Design and Work Plan • Evaluation Design Matrix and Data Collection instrument Mid-Term Performance Evaluation for Promoting Advocacy and Rights (PAR) Activity 31 • In-brief meeting with USAID • Mid-term briefing and interim meetings with USAID (as required) • Debriefing with USAID and FCDO • Debriefing with Partners • Draft Evaluation Report • Final Report (due within two weeks after USAID provides comments on the draft report; total length, excluding references and annexes, should not exceed 30 pages.) Mid-Term Performance Evaluation for Promoting Advocacy and Rights (PAR) Activity 32 KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEW GUIDES ANNEX 2: DATA COLLECTION TOOLS (KII AND FGD GUIDES AND MINI-SURVEY) KII Guide – PAR Partners, Grantees, and Sub-grantees Name/s: Sex: Type of Stakeholder: Position: Organization: Division: District: Date: Code: Interviewers: Note Taker/Research Assistant: 1. What is the mission of your organization? When was your organization founded? Since when have you been operating in Bangladesh? 2. What has been your organization’s role in implementing PAR’s activities? What activities have you implemented? Please describe. 3. What is advocacy? 4. What are the roles of the organizations in your consortium in implementing PAR activities? 5. Is your organization doing direct advocacy of government officials under the PAR grant? If so, how? 6. Which of the following types of advocacy is Counterpart/Rupantar/Light House focused on with their PAR grant trainings and networks? Please describe. • Reform Policy framework: the laws protecting GBV/child marriage or drug abuse victims/vulnerable people are inadequate or do not exist. • Promote implementation of the legal framework: the laws protecting GBV/child marriage or drug abuse victims/vulnerable women are adequate, but they are not being followed or implemented. • Improve Government Service Provision: government protection services for GBV/child marriage or drug abuse victims/vulnerable people (treatment, shelter, etc.) are inadequate, non-existent or poor quality • Improve citizens’ awareness/information of the issues: citizens do not know the laws protecting GBV/child marriage or drug abuse victims/vulnerable people or, do not know where to seek help • Change Citizens’ Behavior: Reduce prevalence of GBV/child marriage or drug abuse by changing behavior • Change underlying societal issues that might lead to illegal or disagreeable citizens’ behavior: for example, people will be less likely to become victims of GBV/child marriage or drug abuse if they Mid-Term Performance Evaluation for Promoting Advocacy and Rights (PAR) Activity 33 have better education, better access to economic opportunity, or experience less social marginalization 7. How do you select and hire the facilitators for the trainings and the network meetings? Do they have specialized expertise to conduct these? 8. How did you select the participants for the trainings and networks? 9. Are you following up with your activity participants? If so, how? What is your communication with them after you do an activity with them? 10. How are you measuring success for your activities? What are the outcome indicators for GBV/child marriage or drug abuse advocacy? 11. How does your approach to the GBV/child marriage or drug abuse advocacy lead into the following results: • Strengthened CS Capacity to Effectively Advocate for Improved Democratic Governance? • Established Cross-Sector Partnerships to Improve Government Responsiveness to Citizen Needs? • Enhanced CS networks advocating for policy reforms? • Increased CS engagement on democratic governance issues? 12. Did you attend the Monitoring and Evaluation Training provided by Counterpart? If so, can you tell us about it? What did they train you on and how have you used the training for Rights Jessore’s M&E? 13. Has your organization used M&E data to learn and adjust activities accordingly? If so, how? 14. Are you providing activity participants with training materials? What about the advocacy toolbox? Is the advocacy toolbox relevant and useful? 15. What is your organization’s approach to GBV/child marriage or drug abuse advocacy and what research have you done to support/justify your approach? How do you know your approach works? 16. How has the working relationship been with Counterpart/Rupantar/Light House? How does Counterpart/Rupantar/Light House manage the consortium? What have been the challenges working with Counterpart/Rupantar/Light House? What kind of oversight do they provide for your grant activities? How do you work with them? How is the management and communication? What was the grant proposal/procurement process like? 17. Since you began implementation, what has been the most challenging aspect of your work? What has 18. Can you describe what it is like working with the government on the issue of GBV/child marriage or drug abuse advocacy? What is your interaction/relationship with the government and how has the closing democratic space affected your ability to operate on the issue of GBV/child marriage or drug abuse in terms of policy reform, etc.? What have been the challenges? 19. Working in a closing environment. How difficult is it for the NGO to work on these issues in the current political context? Do they interact with government officials? Are there any opportunities for collaboration with government officials at the local level? Are officials open to talk about these issues? Would they recommend how best to engage officials? Can you describe what it is like working with the government on the issue of GBV/child marriage or drug abuse advocacy? What is your interaction/relationship with the government and how has the closing democratic space affected your ability to operate on the issue of GBV/child marriage or drug abuse in terms of policy reform, etc.? What have been the challenges? 21. What, if anything, can a local government official do to stop GBV/child marriage or drug abuse? 22. Do you belong to international or domestic CSO networks? Which ones? Has PAR helped your organization to establish linkages to these networks? Mid-Term Performance Evaluation for Promoting Advocacy and Rights (PAR) Activity 34 23. To what extent has PAR contributed to improving your organizational capacity and the organizational capacity of your consortium members to conduct research, use research findings to carry out advocacy campaigns, and monitor government performance? 24. Sustainability. What does Counterpart/Rupantar/Light House do to enable/ensure sustainability of activities? Do you have any recommendations to better ensure sustainability of PAR activities? 25. Do you have any recommendations for Counterpart/Rupantar/Light House management to better implement the project? KII Guide – Counterpart International Name/s: Sex: Type of Stakeholder: Position: Organization: Division: District: Date: Code: Interviewers: Note Taker/Research Assistant: 1. The two IRs of the Activity imply that if civil society organizations have more skills (more capacity) and are able to establish partnerships, they will succeed in promoting or advocating for improved democratic governance. How realistic are these IRs and the logic behind it? 2. Is there a difference between maintaining the civic space and promoting democratic governance? If there is a difference, how is PAR navigating between these two objectives? 3. Who is PAR seeking to influence through its different advocacy initiatives? Citizens? Organizations? Local Government officials? Local councils? International Organizations? And how successful have these advocacy efforts been? (Some examples?) What policies do they seek to reform? 4. Are they building on the existing governance structures or creating new ones? Fx the local councils 5. What types of capacity and skills has the project been most able to improve among targeted CSOs? Research capacities? Advocacy capacity? Legal/compliance capacities? Organizational capacity? Digital security? 6. Synergy. After all the trainings that were offered to CSO beneficiaries, what happened with those trainees? Do you know if they have been able to use the skills they learned in their work? Have you been able to keep track of them? Do they continue to work with PAR in other activities? Are these CSOs collaborating with the grantees in conducting research and organizing advocacy campaigns? 7. Do you know how much trainees use the manuals? 8. What type of research have CSOs been able to conduct regarding GBV and drug use in Bangladesh? To what extent have findings from this research been used in advocacy campaigns? Mid-Term Performance Evaluation for Promoting Advocacy and Rights (PAR) Activity 35 9. What are the awareness campaigns based on? 10. How effective has PAR been in engaging GOB officials at the district level? Is the approach of engaging GOB officials in policy dialogues around specific issues proven successful? 11. Is collaboration with USAID (primarily with AOR) cordial and productive? Is it easy to communicate Counterpart International’s views and desires for future efforts and to have frank discussions over plans with USAID? 12. What have been the most important implementation challenges you have faced since you started to implement this Activity and how have you overcome them? 13. What has been particularly rewarding since you started to implement? What works well? Why? 14. After two years of implementation, has PAR introduced some modifications in its activities. We understand PAR re-scoped its Activity during 2019. Please explain what led to this re-scoping. What are the consequences of not working on the electoral front? And not working with WAVE? 15. How can civil society organizations continue to operate in Bangladesh without foreign aid? Are they able to generate income? 16. What is Counterpart’s plan to enable/ensure sustainability of the PAR Activity and what has PAR already done to better enable/ensure sustainability ? 17. How would you know if the capacity of civil society organizations to conduct governance research, perform government watchdog functions, and carry advocacy campaigns has been built? KII Guide – PAR-related NGOs/CSOs working on GBV/Child Marriage or Drug Abuse Name/s: Sex: Type of Stakeholder: Position: Organization: Division: District: Date: Code: Interviewers: Note Taker/Research Assistant: 1. How long has he been working on the specific issue of GBV/child marriage or drug abuse? 2. Have you participated in any of the PAR/Rupantar/Light House activities? How did you participate or how were you selected? 3. What was the format/content of the activity? What did they do? 4. How satisfied were you with the content and quality of the activity? 5. Is there any collaboration between you and Rupantar or Light House on the issue of GBV/child marriage or drug abuse? Mid-Term Performance Evaluation for Promoting Advocacy and Rights (PAR) Activity 36 6. What is advocacy? 7. To what extent has PAR/Rupantar/Light House contributed to improving your or your organization’s capacity to carry out advocacy? 8. What is the main objective of your advocacy efforts? What are the main policies and policy gaps regarding this issue? [probe if the group does not answer; the objective is to understand how participants understand what is it that they are trying to change with their advocacy efforts. The options are not mutually exclusive] Are you trying to: • Reform Policy framework: the laws protecting GBV/child marriage or drug abuse victims/vulnerable people are inadequate or do not exist. • Promote implementation of the legal framework: the laws protecting GBV/child marriage or drug abuse victims/vulnerable women are adequate, but they are not being followed or implemented. • Improve Government Service Provision: government protection services for GBV/child marriage or drug abuse victims/vulnerable people (treatment, shelter, etc.) are inadequate, non-existent or poor quality • Improve citizens’ awareness/information of the issues: citizens do not know the laws protecting GBV/child marriage or drug abuse victims/vulnerable people or, do not know where to seek help • Change Citizens’ Behavior: Reduce prevalence of GBV/child marriage or drug abuse by changing behavior • Change underlying societal issues that might lead to illegal or disagreeable citizens’ behavior: for example, people will be less likely to become victims of GBV/child marriage or drug abuse if they have better education, better access to economic opportunity, or experience less social marginalization 9. What are CSOs/NGOs doing to address the problems and how? a. Are they working on public awareness campaigns? In their experience, what works best? Who are the audiences they are trying to influence with their campaigns? What messages are they transmitting in their campaigns? What kind of research is informing these messages? What kind of research are they using to ground their campaigns? What is the approach to influencing citizens? Appealing to morality, etc. b. Are they working to advocate policy or governance reforms? Who are they trying to influence? What policies need to be changed? If not policies, what practices need to change to address the problems? Are they trying to change the policy or are they trying to affect behavior? If it’s behavior, who is the target audience that they are trying to influence? Are they trying to affect both behavior and policy? Are they addressing service gaps/providing services to victims? c. Do they conduct advocacy and awareness training and capacity building? How are the trainees using their skills? If you train people once and give them the training and manuals, it’s difficult to build their capacity that way. Are they following up? How are they supervising their training? How do they know they are putting learning to practice in daily work if they aren’t continuously working with these people? Mid-Term Performance Evaluation for Promoting Advocacy and Rights (PAR) Activity 37 d. Are they conducting any research to gain a deeper understanding of these issues? In case they have conducted research, can they share some publications? 10. Working in a closing environment. How difficult is it for the NGO to work on these issues in the current political context? Do they interact with government officials? Are there any opportunities for collaboration with officials at the local level? Are officials open to talk about these issues? Would they recommend how best to engage officials? 11. What are the most effective ways to increase/enhance the ability of civil society organizations/NGOs to effectively navigate the CSO legal environment/framework in Bangladesh and advocate in their area of concentration? 12. What is the best way to work with local administration/local government on the issue of GBV/child marriage or drug abuse? 13. How do you collaborate or engage with government officials? What are your experiences working with them? 14. What is the best way for the government to work with and support the sustainability/improve the sustainability of CSOs and NGOs working on the issue of GBV/child marriage or drug abuse? Does your office have a sustainability plan for civil society? If so, what are the elements of the plan? What is your office’s buy-in for civil society? 15. Do you have recommendations for the PAR/Rupantar/Light House activities you/your organization have been involved in? 16. Networks. Do you belong to a network of NGOs? Do you think this is useful? If there are networks? KII Guide – Non-PAR-related NGOs/CSOs working on GBV/Child Marriage or Drug Abuse Name/s: Sex: Type of Stakeholder: Position: Organization: Division: District: Date: Code: Interviewers: Research Assistant: 1. How long have they been working on the specific issue? 2. What is the government doing to address the issues? What are the policies in place to address the issue? What are the service gaps for victims? a. Do they think the public policies are adequate or do they believe there are policies that need to be changed? In case changes are perceived as necessary, what are the specific policies or Mid-Term Performance Evaluation for Promoting Advocacy and Rights (PAR) Activity 38 legal reforms that need to be revised or introduced? What exactly in the law needs to change? Or are the laws just not being implemented? What part needs to be implemented? Or is the problem the enforcement? Or even if people are punished, do they still do it, so is it people’s behavior that is the issue? Is there any space for grassroots advocacy? b. If public policies do not need to change, what in their opinion is needed in terms of government practice? Are the policies in place but they are not being implemented? Is the problem more on the quality and coverage of services, not so much on policies? For example, if government is supposed to provide shelters for abused women or drug abuse victims, are these shelters working? Are they safe? Or if GBV is already considered a crime, are people reporting incidents of GBV to the police? If not, why? And what happens when they do report the incidents? In other words, what and where are the main bottlenecks? Is it a question of public policies that are not in place, or a problem of lack of implementation, or a problem of lack of citizens’ trust or compliance with the existing regulations? 3. What are they doing to address the problems and how? a. Are they working on public awareness campaigns? In their experience, what works best? Who are the audiences they are trying to influence with their campaigns? What messages are they transmitting in their campaigns? What kind of research is informing these messages? What kind of research are they using to ground their campaigns? What is the approach to influencing citizens? b. Are they working to advocate policy or governance reforms? Who are they trying to influence? What policies need to be changed? If not policies, what practices need to change to address the problems? Are they trying to change the policy or are they trying to affect behavior? If it’s behavior, who is the target audience that they are trying to influence?Are they trying to affect both behavior and policy? Are they addressing service gaps/providing services to victims? c. Do they conduct capacity building in advocacy and awareness? How are the trainees using their skills? If you train people once and give them the training and manuals, it’s difficult to build their capacity that way. Are they following up? How are they supervising their training? How do they know they are putting learning to practice in daily work if they aren’t continuously working with these people? d. Are they conducting any research to gain a deeper understanding of these issues? In case they have conducted research, can they share some publications? e. Do they know what Counterpart/Rupuntar/Light House does? What is their opinion? 4. How difficult is it for the NGO to work on these issues in the current political context? Do they interact with government officials? Are there any opportunities for collaboration with government officials at the local level? Are government officials open to talk about these issues? Would they recommend how best to engage government officials? 5. Do they belong to a network of NGOs? Do they think this is useful? If there are networks, are PAR grantees part of these networks? 6. What does your organization do to enable/ensure sustainability of activities? Mid-Term Performance Evaluation for Promoting Advocacy and Rights (PAR) Activity 39 KII Guide – Government Officials Name/s: Sex: Type of Stakeholder: Position: Organization: Division: District: Date: Code: Interviewers: Note Taker/Research Assistant: 1. Can you describe the work you do on GBV/child marriage or drug abuse issues? 2. What is the policy focus of your office on the issues of GBV/child marriage or drug abuse at the local level? What are the goals and objectives? What are you doing to deal with the issues? In terms of punishment for crimes/law enforcement, treatment for victims, prevention and working with victims, etc.? 3. Have you heard of any PAR/Rupantar activities? Do you know what the overall goal of their activity is? What are those activities? 4. Have you participated in any PAR/Rupantar activities or worked with Rupantar? How have you worked with Rupantar? Which activities and can you describe them? What was your role? (guest, etc.?) 5. What was the format/content of the activity? What did they do? 6. How satisfied were you with the content and quality of the activity? 7. What is the relationship with Rupantar? What is the level of communication? How does Rupantar interact with/engage with you? What do they do to facilitate the relationship between CSOs and local government? 8. To what extent do you interact with civil society organizations working on the issue of GBV/child marriage or drug abuse? What has been your experience in your interaction with them? What is your relationship with them? 9. To what extent do civil society organizations advocate for reforming public policies (such as punitive laws, law enforcement approach, access to treatment for victims, etc.), improving public Mid-Term Performance Evaluation for Promoting Advocacy and Rights (PAR) Activity 40 services (such as treatment for victims and preventative measures for vulnerable women), and promoting changes in citizens’ behaviors? 10. What does your office do for CSOs/NGOs to improve their capacity to work with your office? Is there any initiative from the government to help with this? 11. Do you have any recommendations to improve the capacity of CSOs working on GBV/child marriage or drug abuse? Do you have any recommendations for Rupantar or Light House? Do you have any recommendations for CSOs wishing to improve their engagement with the government on the issue of GBV/child marriage or drug abuse? How can the your office improve its engagement with CSOs on the issue of GBV/child marriage or drug abuse? 12. What are the main policies and policy gaps regarding this issue? Do they think the public policies are adequate or do they believe there are policies that need to be changed? In case changes are perceived as necessary, what are the specific policies or legal reforms that need to be revised or introduced? What exactly in the law needs to change? Or are the laws just not being implemented? What part needs to be implemented? Or is the problem the enforcement? Or even if people are punished, do they still do it, so is it people’s behavior that is the issue? 13. (To Local Government) How do you work with CSOs? What is the importance of working with CSOs? Do CSOs bring value to the democratic process? 14. Can civil society work with local administration effectively? If so, how? 15. Are there challenges for your office in collaboration with civil society organizations on the issue of GBV/child marriage or drug abuse? Are there challenges for CSOs in collaboration with the DNC on the issue of GBV/child marriage or drug abuse? 16. What is the main objective of advocacy efforts between CSOs and Local Government? [probe if the group does not answer; the objective is to understand how participants understand what is it that they are trying to change with their advocacy efforts. The options are not mutually exclusive] Are you trying to: • Reform Policy framework: the laws are inadequate or do not exist. • Promote implementation of the legal framework: the laws exist, but they are not being followed or implemented. • Improve Government Service Provision: government services are inadequate, non-existent or poor quality • Improve citizens’ information: citizens do not know the laws, do not know where to seek help • Change Citizens’ Behavior: Reduce prevalence of gender based violence/drug abuse • Change underlying societal issues that might lead to illegal or disagreeable citizens’ behavior: for example, people will be less likely to engage in gender-based violence if they have better education, better access to economic opportunity, or experience less social marginalization 17. Working in a closing environment. How difficult is it for CSOs to work on issues with local government in the current political context? What are the opportunities for collaboration with local government officials? Are local government officials open to talk about these issues? Would they recommend how best to engage local government officials? Mid-Term Performance Evaluation for Promoting Advocacy and Rights (PAR) Activity 41 18. What is the best way for the government to work with and support the sustainability/improve the sustainability of CSOs and NGOs working on the issue of GBV/child marriage or drug abuse? Does your office have a sustainability plan for civil society? If so, what are the elements of the plan? What is your office’s buy-in for civil society? 19. What is the best way to work with local administration/local government on the issue of GBV/child marriage or drug abuse? 20. What is advocacy? Mid-Term Performance Evaluation for Promoting Advocacy and Rights (PAR) Activity 42 FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION GUIDES FGD Guide – Sub-Grantee Networks Working on GBV Identifier Code: Topic for the FGD: Moderator Name: Note Taker: Sex of Respondents: (SEE BELOW) Age of Respondent (if appropriate): (SEE BELOW) Division: District: Upazila: Union: Respondent #: 1 2 3 4 5 Sex of respondent: 18 or above? (Y/N) Illustrative FGD/SGD Guide Questions Facilitator Guide: 1. Make sure all participants have signed their names and understand and agree the discussion will be recorded and transcribed. 2. The discussion is confidential, no one outside the Evaluation Team will have access to the information and individual names of participants are not identified in the transcript. 3. Explain the objective of this FGD: The discussion is part of a larger study commissioned by USAID in Bangladesh to learn the results of PAR activities, particularly with regards to their efforts to strengthen civil society organizations in Bangladesh. The ET is visiting several districts and talking to different people who have interacted with this project. We want to learn your opinions, contributions, and recommendations. The overall purpose of this study is to assist PAR and USAID, the donor, to identify the activities that are being successful and make recommendations on what they need to adapt to help them achieve their goals. 4. Some rules of engagement: • Everyone has the same right to participate; all of your opinions are valuable. • We want all of you to participate, please allow everyone to express their point of view. • We don’t have the answers and we don’t expect you to answer in any specific way, please be as honest as possible in your responses. • There are no wrong or right answers; all are good answers. • You do not need to agree with the others; everyone can express their own opinions. • Only one person talks each time; we need to be able to hear the others. 1. What is the main problem with GBV and Child Marriage in your community? 2. What activities did you participate in under the PAR/Rupantar/Rights Jessore/AVAS? Mid-Term Performance Evaluation for Promoting Advocacy and Rights (PAR) Activity 43 3. Can you please tell us about the formation/selection process of CSO platform members? What were criteria, how members were selected, etc? 4. Can you please give an overview/breakdown of the training you attended? How was the training conducted (format, etc.)? What activities were involved, etc.? What exactly did they teach you to do, and how? Did they provide any training materials? 5. What do you think are the main objectives for the training you attended? 6. Did you learn anything useful at the training you attended? If so, what? (What skills, knowledge, or capacity have been improved?) Please give examples. 7. Have you used or been able to implement what you learned in your organization or your work or your community? If so, how? (How has the training been useful in your work?) Please give an example. 8. What has happened since the training? Have you been engaged by PAR/Rupantar/Rights Jessore? since? If so, in what way? (For example, has Rupantar/Rights Jessore? offered some coaching or mentoring services? Have they followed up with you to ask about if you are using the training and how?) Have you been able to participate in other activities? 9. What are your impressions/opinions about how the meetings/training were run/organized by Rupantar/Rights Jessore? 10. What about the training do you consider to be less effective? 11. Are you aware of the training manuals that have been developed by PAR/CI? (Provide an example, such as The Advocacy Toolbox, Handout for Advocacy Training, Training Module, Advocacy Campaign Training and Implementation, etc.) Have you consulted these manuals? If so, are they useful and easy to understand? 12. What recommendations do you have for PAR/Rupantar/Rights Jessore regarding the training/future trainings (What can be improved, how can the training be more effective, etc.?) 13. What is advocacy? 14. What is the objective/purpose/function of the CSO platform? What does the platform do? 15. What is the main objective of your advocacy efforts? 16. How are you accomplishing the platform’s objectives/purposes? 17. What is your target audience? Who are you trying to influence? 18. Have you engaged with government officials in your advocacy activities? How? 19. How can the CSO Platform advocate with local government representatives and government officials to improve policy implementation on GBV? Closing the FGD Thank you for participating. This has been a very rewarding discussion and your opinions will be a valuable asset to our assessment of the PAR program. We hope you have found the discussion interesting too. Thank you. Mid-Term Performance Evaluation for Promoting Advocacy and Rights (PAR) Activity 44 FGD Guide – Advocacy Training Identifier Code: Topic for the FGD: Moderator Name: Note Taker: Sex of Respondents: (SEE BELOW) Age of Respondent (if appropriate): (SEE BELOW) Division: District: Upazila: Union: Respondent #: 1 2 3 4 5 Sex of respondent: 18 or above? (Y/N) Illustrative FGD/SGD Guide Questions Facilitator Guide: 1. Make sure all participants have signed their names and understand and agree the discussion will be recorded and transcribed. 2. The discussion is confidential, no one outside the Evaluation Team will have access to the information and individual names of participants are not identified in the transcript. 3. Explain the objective of this FGD: The discussion is part of a larger study commissioned by USAID in Bangladesh to learn the results of PAR activities, particularly with regards to their efforts to strengthen civil society organizations in Bangladesh. The ET is visiting several districts and talking to different people who have interacted with this project. We want to learn your opinions, contributions, and recommendations. The overall purpose of this study is to assist PAR and USAID, the donor, to identify the activities that are being successful and make recommendations on what they need to adapt to help them achieve their goals. 4. Some rules of engagement: ● Everyone has the same right to participate; all of your opinions are valuable. ● We want all of you to participate, please allow everyone to express their point of view. ● We don’t have the answers and we don’t expect you to answer in any specific way, please be as honest as possible in your responses. ● There are no wrong or right answers; all are good answers. ● You do not need to agree with the others; everyone can express their own opinions. ● Only one person talks each time; we need to be able to hear the others. Mid-Term Performance Evaluation for Promoting Advocacy and Rights (PAR) Activity 45 [Note: Tailor the questions to the topic] 1. What are the main objectives for the training you attended? 2. What does advocacy mean to you? 3. Can you please give an overview/breakdown of the Planning and Conducting Advocacy Campaigns training? How did Counterpart conduct the training (format, etc.)? What activities were involved, etc.? Did they provide any training materials? Basically, what was the experience? What happened? 4. Did you learn anything useful at the training? If so, what? (What skills, knowledge, or capacity have been improved?) Please give examples. 5. Have you used or been able to implement what you learned in your organization or your work? If so, how? (How has the training been useful in your work) Please give an example. 6. Has your ability to monitor and raise awareness for legal and policy reform improved? If so, how? If not, why not? Has your capacity to operate in a closing democratic space been enhanced? If so, how? 7. What has happened since the training? Have you been engaged by PAR/Counterpart since? If so, in what way? (For example, has PAR offered some coaching or mentoring services? Have they followed up with you to ask about if you are using the training and how?) Have you been able to participate in other activities? 8. Are you aware of the training manuals that have been developed by PAR? (Provide an example, such as The Advocacy Toolbox, Handout for Advocacy Training, Training Module, Advocacy Campaign Training and Implementation, etc.) Have you consulted these manuals? If so, are they useful and easy to understand? 9. What do you consider to be most valuable and the most effective about the training? And what do you consider to be less effective? 10. And what do you consider to be less effective about the training? 11. Was the content and format of the training effective or ineffective for you? How so? 12. What recommendations do you have for Counterpart/PAR regarding the training/future trainings (What can be improved, how can the training be more effective, etc.?) 13. Given the recent developments in Bangladesh and the closing space context, did the training include information/training on running advocacy campaigns to navigate the closing space context? If so, how has it been relevant to your advocacy work? 14. How has COVID-19 impacted your advocacy work? Were new policies introduced? 15. What are the most effective ways to increase/enhance the ability of civil society organizations to effectively operate in Bangladesh? 16. Can civil society work with political parties effectively at the national and local level? If so, how? 17. Can civil society work with local administration effectively? If so, how? Closing the FGD Thank you for participating. This has been a very rewarding discussion and your opinions will be a valuable asset to our assessment of the PAR program. We hope you have found the discussion interesting too. Thank you. Mid-Term Performance Evaluation for Promoting Advocacy and Rights (PAR) Activity 46 FGD Guide – Digital Security Training Identifier Code: Topic for the FGD: Moderator Name: Note Taker: Sex of Respondents: (SEE BELOW) Age of Respondent (if appropriate): (SEE BELOW) Divisio: District: Upazila: Union: Respondent #: 1 2 3 4 5 Sex of respondent: 18 or above? (Y/N) Illustrative FGD/SGD Guide Questions Facilitator Guide: 1. Make sure all participants have signed their names and understand and agree the discussion will be recorded and transcribed. 2. The discussion is confidential, no one outside the Evaluation Team will have access to the information and individual names of participants are not identified in the transcript. 3. Explain the objective of this FGD: The discussion is part of a larger study commissioned by USAID in Bangladesh to learn the results of PAR activities, particularly with regards to their efforts to strengthen civil society organizations in Bangladesh. The ET is visiting several districts and talking to different people who have interacted with this project. We want to learn your opinions, contributions, and recommendations. The overall purpose of this study is to assist PAR and USAID, the donor, to identify the activities that are being successful and make recommendations on what they need to adapt to help them achieve their goals. 4. Some rules of engagement: • Everyone has the same right to participate; all of your opinions are valuable. • We want all of you to participate, please allow everyone to express their point of view. • We don’t have the answers and we don’t expect you to answer in any specific way, please be as honest as possible in your responses. • There are no wrong or right answers; all are good answers. • You do not need to agree with the others; everyone can express their own opinions. • Only one person talks each time; we need to be able to hear the others. [Note: Tailor the questions to the topic] 1. What do you think are the main objectives for the training you attended? 2. Can you please give an overview/breakdown of the training you attended? How did Counterpart conduct the training (format, etc.)? What activities were involved, etc.? What exactly did they Mid-Term Performance Evaluation for Promoting Advocacy and Rights (PAR) Activity 47 teach you to do, and how? Did they provide any training materials? Basically, what was the experience? What happened? 3. Did you learn anything useful at the training you attended? If so, what? (What skills, knowledge, or capacity have been improved?) Please give examples. 4. What did you learn specifically about digital security laws such as the DSA, GBV online, and digital hygiene? 5. Have you used or been able to implement what you learned in your organization or your work? If so, how? (How has the training been useful in your work) Have you encountered a specific situation in which the digital security training has helped you? Please give an example. 6. Has your ability to monitor and raise awareness of legal and policy reform improved? If so, how? If not, why not? Has your capacity to operate in a closing democratic space been enhanced? If so, how? 7. What has happened since the training? Have you been engaged by PAR/Counterpart since? If so, in what way? (For example, has PAR offered some coaching or mentoring services? Have they followed up with you to ask about if you are using the training and how?) Have you been able to participate in other activities? 8. Are you aware of the training manuals that have been developed by PAR? (Provide an example, such as The Advocacy Toolbox, Handout for Advocacy Training, Training Module, Advocacy Campaign Training and Implementation, etc.) Have you consulted these manuals? If so, are they useful and easy to understand? 9. What about the training do you consider to be less effective? 10. Was the content and format of the training effective or ineffective for you? How so? 11. What recommendations do you have for Counterpart/PAR regarding the training/future trainings (What can be improved, how can the training be more effective, etc.?)? 12. Given the recent developments in Bangladesh and the closing space context, to what extent is the training on digital security relevant to helping your advocacy work? To what extent did it include information/training on helping CSOs navigate the closing space context? What are the DSA￾related obstacles for you in the closing space context? 13. How has COVID-19 impacted your advocacy work? Were new policies introduced? 14. What are the most effective ways to increase/enhance the ability of civil society organizations/NGOs to effectively operate in Bangladesh and advocate in your area of concentration? 15. Can civil society work with political parties effectively at the national and local level? If so, how? 16. Can civil society work with local administration effectively? If so, how? Closing the FGD Thank you for participating. This has been a very rewarding discussion and your opinions will be a valuable asset to our assessment of the PAR program. We hope you have found the discussion interesting too. Thank you. Mid-Term Performance Evaluation for Promoting Advocacy and Rights (PAR) Activity 48 FGD Guide – Research Training Identifier Code: Topic for the FGD: Moderator Name: Note Taker: Munshi Sex of Respondents: (SEE BELOW) Age of Respondent (if appropriate): (SEE BELOW) Divisio: District: Upazila: Union: Respondent #: 1 2 3 4 5 Sex of respondent: 18 or above? (Y/N) Illustrative FGD/SGD Guide Questions Facilitator Guide: 1. Make sure all participants have signed their names and understand and agree the discussion will be recorded and transcribed. 2. The discussion is confidential, no one outside the Evaluation Team will have access to the information and individual names of participants are not identified in the transcript. 3. Explain the objective of this FGD: The discussion is part of a larger study commissioned by USAID in Bangladesh to learn the results of PAR activities, particularly with regards to their efforts to strengthen civil society organizations in Bangladesh. The ET is visiting several districts and talking to different people who have interacted with this project. We want to learn your opinions, contributions, and recommendations. The overall purpose of this study is to assist PAR and USAID, the donor, to identify the activities that are being successful and make recommendations on what they need to adapt to help them achieve their goals. 4. Some rules of engagement: ● Everyone has the same right to participate; all of your opinions are valuable. ● We want all of you to participate, please allow everyone to express their point of view. ● We don’t have the answers and we don’t expect you to answer in any specific way, please be as honest as possible in your responses. ● There are no wrong or right answers; all are good answers. ● You do not need to agree with the others; everyone can express their own opinions. ● Only one person talks each time; we need to be able to hear the others. [Note: Tailor the questions to the topic] 1. What do you think are the main objectives for the training you attended? Mid-Term Performance Evaluation for Promoting Advocacy and Rights (PAR) Activity 49 2. Can you please give an overview/breakdown of the training you attended? How did Counterpart conduct the training (format, etc.)? What activities were involved, etc.? What exactly did they teach you to do, and how? Did they provide any training materials? Basically, what was the experience? What happened? 3. Did you learn anything useful at the training you attended? If so, what? (What skills, knowledge, or capacity have been improved?) Please give examples. 4. Have you used or been able to implement what you learned in your organization or your work? If so, how? (How has the training been useful in your work) Please give an example. Have you used the research skills you learned to inform your advocacy efforts? 5. Has your ability to use research skills to advocate for legal and policy reform for certain issues improved/been enhanced? (Are you able to use your research skills to improve your advocacy ability)? If so, how? If not, why not? Has your capacity to operate in a closing democratic space been enhanced? If so, how? 6. What has happened since the training? Have you been engaged by PAR/Counterpart since? If so, in what way? (For example, has PAR offered some coaching or mentoring services? Have they followed up with you to ask about if you are using the training and how?) Have you been able to participate in other activities? 7. Are you aware of the training manuals that have been developed by PAR? (Provide an example, such as The Advocacy Toolbox, Handout for Advocacy Training, Training Module, Advocacy Campaign Training and Implementation, etc.) Have you consulted these manuals? If so, are they useful and easy to understand? 8. What about the training do you consider to be less effective? 9. Was the content and format of the training effective or ineffective for you? How so? 10. What recommendations do you have for Counterpart/PAR regarding the training/future trainings? (What can be improved, how can the training be more effective, etc.?) 11. Given the recent developments in Bangladesh and the closing space context, to what extent is the training still relevant? To what extent did it include information/training on conducting research in the closing space context? What are the advocacy obstacles for you in the closing space context? If you have been doing research, how have your research efforts been affected by the closing space context? 12. How has COVID-19 impacted your advocacy work? Were new policies introduced? 13. What are the most effective ways to increase/enhance the ability of civil society organizations/NGOs to effectively use research for advocacy in your area of concentration? Closing the FGD Thank you for participating. This has been a very rewarding discussion and your opinions will be a valuable asset to our assessment of the PAR program. We hope you have found the discussion interesting too. Thank you. Mid-Term Performance Evaluation for Promoting Advocacy and Rights (PAR) Activity 50 FGD Guide – Legal Management Training Identifier Code: Topic for the FGD: Moderator Name: Note Taker: Sex of Respondents: (SEE BELOW) Age of Respondent (if appropriate): (SEE BELOW) Divisio: District: Upazila: Union: Respondent #: 1 2 3 4 5 Sex of respondent: 18 or above? (Y/N) Illustrative FGD/SGD Guide Questions Facilitator Guide: 1. Make sure all participants have signed their names and understand and agree the discussion will be recorded and transcribed. 2. The discussion is confidential, no one outside the Evaluation Team will have access to the information and individual names of participants are not identified in the transcript. 3. Explain the objective of this FGD: The discussion is part of a larger study commissioned by USAID in Bangladesh to learn the results of PAR activities, particularly with regards to their efforts to strengthen civil society organizations in Bangladesh. The ET is visiting several districts and talking to different people who have interacted with this project. We want to learn your opinions, contributions, and recommendations. The overall purpose of this study is to assist PAR and USAID, the donor, to identify the activities that are being successful and make recommendations on what they need to adapt to help them achieve their goals. 4. Some rules of engagement: ● Everyone has the same right to participate; all of your opinions are valuable. ● We want all of you to participate, please allow everyone to express their point of view. ● We don’t have the answers and we don’t expect you to answer in any specific way, please be as honest as possible in your responses. ● There are no wrong or right answers; all are good answers. ● You do not need to agree with the others; everyone can express their own opinions. ● Only one person talks each time; we need to be able to hear the others. [Note: Tailor the questions to the topic] 1. What are the main objectives for the training you attended? 2. Can you please give an overview/breakdown of the training you attended? How did Counterpart conduct the training (format, etc.)? What activities were involved, etc.? What exactly did they Mid-Term Performance Evaluation for Promoting Advocacy and Rights (PAR) Activity 51 teach you to do, and how? Did they provide any training materials? Basically, what was the experience? What happened? 3. Did you learn anything useful at the training you attended? If so, what? (What skills, knowledge, or capacity have been improved?) Please give examples. 4. Have you used or been able to implement what you learned in your organization or your work? If so, how? (How has the training been useful in your work) Please give an example. 5. What do you consider to be most valuable and the most effective about the training? 6. What about the training do you consider to be less effective? Is there anything you wish you learned how to do in the training? 7. Has your capacity to advocate for legal and policy reform in a closing democratic space been enhanced? If so, how? 8. What has happened since the training? Have you been engaged by PAR/Counterpart since? If so, in what way? (For example, has PAR offered some coaching or mentoring services? Have they followed up with you to ask about if you are using the training and how?) Have you been able to participate in other activities? Are there any future plans for your involvement in PAR activities? 9. Are you aware of the training manuals that have been developed by PAR? (Provide an example, such as The Advocacy Toolbox, Handout for Advocacy Training, Training Module, Advocacy Campaign Training and Implementation, etc.) Have you consulted these manuals? If so, are they useful and easy to understand? 10. Given the recent developments in Bangladesh and the closing space context, to what extent is the training still relevant? To what extent did it include information/training on navigating the CSO legal advocacy environment/framework in the closing space context? What are the advocacy obstacles for you in the closing space context? 11. How has COVID-19 impacted your advocacy work? 12. What recommendations do you have for PAR/Counterpart regarding the training/future trainings (What can be improved, how can the training be more effective, etc.?)? 13. What does advocacy mean to you? 14. What are the most effective ways to increase/enhance the ability of civil society organizations/NGOs to effectively navigate the CSO legal environment/framework in Bangladesh and advocate in your area of concentration? 15. To what extent do civil society organizations advocate for: • Reforming Policy framework: the laws are inadequate or don’t exist • Promoting better implementation of the legal framework: the laws are adequate, but they are not being followed or implemented. • Improving Government Service Provision: government services fo are inadequate, non￾existent or poor quality • Improving citizens’ awareness/information of the issues: citizens do not know the laws or do not know where to seek help • Changing Citizens’ Behavior: Reduce prevalence of bad behavior by changing behavior • Changing underlying societal issues that might lead to illegal or disagreeable citizens’ behavior. 16. Can civil society work with political parties effectively at the national and local level? If so, how? 17. Can civil society work with local administration effectively? If so, how? Mid-Term Performance Evaluation for Promoting Advocacy and Rights (PAR) Activity 52 Closing the FGD Thank you for participating. This has been a very rewarding discussion and your opinions will be a valuable asset to our assessment of the PAR program. We hope you have found the discussion interesting too. Thank you. FGD Guide – Grantee and Sub-Grantee Networks Working on Drug Abuse Identifier Code: Topic for the FGD: Moderator Name: Note Taker: Sex of Respondents: (SEE BELOW) Age of Respondent (if appropriate): (SEE BELOW) Division: District: Upazila: Union: Respondent #: 1 2 3 4 5 Sex of respondent: 18 or above? (Y/N) Illustrative FGD/SGD Guide Questions Facilitator Guide: 1. Make sure all participants have signed their names and understand and agree the discussion will be recorded and transcribed. 2. The discussion is confidential, no one outside the Evaluation Team will have access to the information and individual names of participants are not identified in the transcript. 3. Explain the objective of this FGD: The discussion is part of a larger study commissioned by USAID in Bangladesh to learn the results of PAR activities, particularly with regards to their efforts to strengthen civil society organizations in Bangladesh. The ET is visiting several districts and talking to different people who have interacted with this project. We want to learn your opinions, contributions, and recommendations. The overall purpose of this study is to assist PAR and USAID, the donor, to identify the activities that are being successful and make recommendations on what they need to adapt to help them achieve their goals. 4. Some rules of engagement: • Everyone has the same right to participate; all of your opinions are valuable. • We want all of you to participate, please allow everyone to express their point of view. • We don’t have the answers and we don’t expect you to answer in any specific way, please be as honest as possible in your responses. • There are no wrong or right answers; all are good answers. • You do not need to agree with the others; everyone can express their own opinions. • Only one person talks each time; we need to be able to hear the others. Mid-Term Performance Evaluation for Promoting Advocacy and Rights (PAR) Activity 53 1. What is the main problem with Drug Abuse in your community? 2. What activities did you participate in under the PAR/Light House/APOSH/DARAU? Please describe the activities (CSO Network Formation and Orientation Meetings, etc.) you took part in. What happened? What did you discuss? What was the format and content, etc.? 3. What is the objective/purpose/function of the CSO Network? What does the CSO Network do? 4. What is advocacy? 5. What is the main objective of your advocacy efforts? [probe if the group does not answer; the objective is to understand how participants understand what is it that they are trying to change with their advocacy efforts. The options are not mutually exclusive] Are you trying to: • Reform Policy framework: the laws are inadequate or do not exist. • Promote implementation of the legal framework: the laws exist, but they are not being followed or implemented. • Improve Government Service Provision: government services are inadequate, non-existent or poor quality • Improve citizens’ information: citizens do not know the laws, do not know where to seek help • Change Citizens’ Behavior: Reduce prevalence of drug abuse • Address Underlying/Root Causes of drug abuse 6. What are your impressions/opinions about how the meetings were run/organized by Light House? 7. How are you accomplishing the CSO Network’s objectives/purposes? 8. What is the relationship with Light House? What is the level of communication? How does Light House interact with/engage with CSO Network? What do they do for the CSO Network? 9. Are you aware of the training manuals that have been developed by PAR? (Provide an example, such as The Advocacy Toolbox, Handout for Advocacy Training, Training Module, Advocacy Campaign Training and Implementation, etc.) Have you consulted these manuals? If so, are they useful and easy to understand? 10. What are the main policies and policy gaps regarding this issue? 11. What is your target audience? Who are you trying to influence? 12. What do you think about people who are using drugs? 13. Have you engaged with government officials in your advocacy activities? How? 14. What recommendations do you have for Light House/PAR regarding their activities (such as the formation/orientation/operation of CAG, etc.) Mid-Term Performance Evaluation for Promoting Advocacy and Rights (PAR) Activity 54 FGD Guide – CEF and CSO Consultation Participants Identifier Code: Topic for the FGD: Moderator Name: Note Taker: Sex of Respondents: (SEE BELOW) Age of Respondent (if appropriate): (SEE BELOW) Division: District: Upazila: Union: Respondent #: 1 2 3 4 5 Sex of respondent: 18 or above? (Y/N) Illustrative FGD/SGD Guide Questions Facilitator Guide: 1. Make sure all participants have signed their names and understand and agree the discussion will be recorded and transcribed. 2. The discussion is confidential, no one outside the Evaluation Team will have access to the information and individual names of participants are not identified in the transcript. 3. Explain the objective of this FGD: The discussion is part of a larger study commissioned by USAID in Bangladesh to learn the results of PAR activities, particularly with regards to their efforts to strengthen civil society organizations in Bangladesh. The ET is visiting several districts and talking to different people who have interacted with this project. We want to learn your opinions, contributions, and recommendations. The overall purpose of this study is to assist PAR and USAID, the donor, to identify the activities that are being successful and make recommendations on what they need to adapt to help them achieve their goals. 4. Some rules of engagement: • Everyone has the same right to participate; all of your opinions are valuable. • We want all of you to participate, please allow everyone to express their point of view. • We don’t have the answers and we don’t expect you to answer in any specific way, please be as honest as possible in your responses. • There are no wrong or right answers; all are good answers. • You do not need to agree with the others; everyone can express their own opinions. • Only one person talks each time; we need to be able to hear the others. 1. What activities did you participate in under PAR? Please describe the activity you took part in. 2. What happened? What did you discuss? What was the format and content, etc.? 3. What is the objective/purpose of the activity? Mid-Term Performance Evaluation for Promoting Advocacy and Rights (PAR) Activity 55 4. What are your impressions/opinions about how the activity was run/organized by Counterpart/PAR? 5. What have the outcomes of the activity been? 6. What has happened since the activity? Have you been engaged by PAR/Counterpart since? If so, in what way? (For example, has PAR offered some coaching or mentoring services? Have they followed up with you and how?) Have you been able to participate in other activities? 7. What do you consider to be most valuable and the most effective about the activity? 8. And what do you consider to be less effective about the activity? 9. What does advocacy mean to you? 10. To what extent do civil society organizations advocate for: • Reforming Policy framework: the laws are inadequate or don’t exist • Promoting better implementation of the legal framework: the laws are adequate, but they are not being followed or implemented. • Improving Government Service Provision: government services fo are inadequate, non￾existent or poor quality • Improving citizens’ awareness/information of the issues: citizens do not know the laws or do not know where to seek help • Changing Citizens’ Behavior: Reduce prevalence of bad behavior by changing behavior • Changing underlying societal issues that might lead to illegal or disagreeable citizens’ behavior 11. What are the most effective ways to increase/enhance the ability of civil society organizations to effectively operate in Bangladesh? 12. (To CSOs) Have you engaged with government officials in your advocacy activities? How? 13. What challenges to CSOs/NGOs face in working with government at 1) the local level; and 2) the national level 14. What challenges does the government face in working with CSOs/NGOs at 1) the local level; and 2) the national level? 15. (To Government) How do you work with CSOs? What is the importance of working with CSOs? Do CSOs bring value to the democratic process? 16. What are the most effective ways to increase/enhance the ability of civil society organizations/NGOs to effectively navigate the CSO legal environment/framework in Bangladesh and advocate in their area of concentration? 17. Can civil society work with political parties effectively at the national and local level? If so, how? 18. Can civil society work with local administration effectively? If so, how? 19. What is the best way for the government to work with and support the sustainability/improve the sustainability of CSOs and NGOs working on the issue of GBV/child marriage? Does your office have a sustainability plan for civil society? If so, what are the elements of the plan? What is your office’s buy-in for civil society? 20. What recommendations do you have for CI/PAR regarding the Government-CS Dialogue or other activities? Mid-Term Performance Evaluation for Promoting Advocacy and Rights (PAR) Activity 56 21. When you hear the words strengthening “Democratic governance” or “Good Governance,” what do you understand? 22. What are the main challenges civil society organizations face today in Bangladesh? Closing the FGD Thank you for participating. This has been a very rewarding discussion and your opinions will be a valuable asset to our assessment of the PAR program. We hope you have found the discussion interesting too. Thank you. Mid-Term Performance Evaluation for Promoting Advocacy and Rights (PAR) Activity 57 MINI-SURVEY Mini-Survey – Grantees Survey Instructions ME&A is an implementing partner of the United States Agency for International Development in Bangladesh (USAID/Bangladesh), implementing the USAID Bangladesh Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning (BMEL) Activity. Recently, ME&A, through the BMEL Activity, was assigned to conduct the mid￾term evaluation of the Promoting Advocacy and Rights (PAR) Activity. This online survey/in-person survey is a major part of the evaluation’s data collection activities. The data derived from it will be used to conduct analysis and inform the findings and recommendations about future DRG programming. You and/or your organization have been recommended to us as one of the key stakeholders able to provide expert insights on this topic. Although your participation in this online survey is voluntary, we believe it is crucial for the evaluation team to gain a greater understanding of the PAR’s activity impact. The survey will take approximately 15 minutes to complete. Any information that you provide will be confidential and your name will not be linked in any way to your responses. The survey link/questionnaire that you received is unique to you and will not be shared with others. If you know of someone who is directly involved in your project and who you feel should also be included in the survey, please feel free to share their contact details with us. We would appreciate it if you could complete the survey as soon as possible or by Close of Business 31 March 2021 at the latest. Should you have any queries about the survey, require any technical support (e.g., unable to connect and complete the survey online) please contact Dr. Yemile Mizrahi, Team Leader, at: ymizrahipe@gmail.com Thank you and we look forward to your response. o Name of District: Dhaka=1, Rajshahi=2, Natore=3, Khulna=4, Jessore=5, Barisal=6, Pirojpur=7 o Nature/type of participation: PAR grantee=1, Sub-grantee=2, Leader of CSO=3, Member of a CSO who participated in a training activity=4, Other, Please specify o Age: o Gender: o Time/frequency of participation (during last two years): More than five times=5, Four times=4, Three times=3, Two times=2, One time=1, None=0 1. Please tell us how much you agree or disagree about each of the following being a main reason for the problem we are addressing today. Please rank your response according to a scale of 1 to 5 where 5 is Strongly Agree and 1 is Strongly Disagree. Mid-Term Performance Evaluation for Promoting Advocacy and Rights (PAR) Activity 58 Questions Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree Citizens do not know the law 5 4 3 2 1 Citizens do not understand the legal consequences of their behavior 5 4 3 2 1 Citizens are immoral 5 4 3 2 1 There are gaps in the law or existing regulations 5 4 3 2 1 Laws exist, but they are not implemented 5 4 3 2 1 Services are inadequate and/or insufficient to address the problem 5 4 3 2 1 People are not afraid/ do not care laws and social norms 5 4 3 2 1 2. The following questions ask about your agreement with the following statements. Please choose a number on a scale of 1-5 that corresponds with how you feel about these statements (1 = Very poor, 5 = Excellent). You are welcome to elaborate on your response after choosing the number. Questions Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree I believe I and/or my organization has sufficient capacity to mobilize citizens 5 4 3 2 1 I believe I and/or my organization has gained a deeper understanding on the problem my organization is addressing 5 4 3 2 1 I believe I and/or my organization has sufficient power to influence local government’s decisions 5 4 3 2 1 I believe I and/or my organization has been successful in engaging with Government officials to promote changes in policies or legislation. 5 4 3 2 1 I believe I/and or my organization has the freedom to mobilize citizens and conduct its activities 5 4 3 2 1 I have continued to work with PAR/Counterpart or their grantees (Rupantar/Light House) after the CEF or the CSOs consultations 5 4 3 2 1 3. Please tell us how much you agree or disagree that the following are main objectives of the advocacy efforts between you/your CO and Local Government. Please rank your response according to a scale of 1 to 5 where 5 is Strongly Agree and 1 is Strongly Disagree. Mid-Term Performance Evaluation for Promoting Advocacy and Rights (PAR) Activity 59 Questions Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree To reform policy framework, because the laws are inadequate or do not exist. 5 4 3 2 1 To promote implementation of the legal framework, because the laws exist but they are not being followed or implemented. 5 4 3 2 1 To improve government service provision, because government services are inadequate, non-existent or poor quality 5 4 3 2 1 To improve citizens’ information about laws/policies, because citizens do not know the laws and/or do not know where to seek help 5 4 3 2 1 To improve citizen sensitization/raise awareness about issues because, because citizens do not have enough knowledge about a problem/issue to enable them to contribute to advocacy efforts 5 4 3 2 1 To change citizens’ behavior, to reduce prevalence of gender based violence/drug abuse 5 4 3 2 1 To change underlying societal issues that might lead to illegal or disagreeable citizens’ behavior, because, for example, people will be less likely to abuse drugs or engage in gender-based violence if they have better education, better access to economic opportunity, or experience less social marginalization 5 4 3 2 1 4. Now please tell us how much you agree or disagree that the following factors are serious problems or challenges Civil Society organizations face today. in Bangladesh. Please rank your response according to a scale of 1 to 5 where 5 is Strongly Agree and 1 is Strongly Disagree. Questions Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree Government restrictions by Law Enforcement agencies 5 4 3 2 1 Digital Security Act, ICT policy 5 4 3 2 1 Inadequate access to knowledge/information 5 4 3 2 1 Inadequate or little access to sufficient financial resources 5 4 3 2 1 Mid-Term Performance Evaluation for Promoting Advocacy and Rights (PAR) Activity 60 Not sufficient organizational management capacity 5 4 3 2 1 Not sufficient organizational technical capacity (Technical skills, tools) 5 4 3 2 1 Inadequate/lack of human resources 5 4 3 2 1 Dependance on donors/foreign aid 5 4 3 2 1 Citizens are apathetic, not interested in what civil society organizations do 5 4 3 2 1 Restrictions from other non￾government groups 5 4 3 2 1 5. Have you reviewed the Online Advocacy Toolkit? Yes No I have never heard of it 6. Have you reviewed the Legal Manual for Civil Society Organizations in Bangladesh? Yes No I have never heard of it 7. Did you receive any kind of training from PAR, Counterpart International, Rupantar or Light House to conduct research regarding the problem or to improve your advocacy strategies? Yes No If you answered YES, please answer the following questions: 8. How would you rate the quality of the training you received? Instructions for Survey Respondents: Please choose a number on a scale of 1-5 that corresponds with how you feel about the following statements (1 = Very poor, 5 = Excellent). You are welcome to elaborate on your response after choosing the number. Indicators Excellent Good Mediocre Poor Very poor Content 5 4 3 2 1 Trainer/facilitator 5 4 3 2 1 Usefulness 5 4 3 2 1 Relevance 5 4 3 2 1 Others, please specify 5 4 3 2 1 9. Please choose a number on a scale of 1-5 that corresponds with how intensely you feel about your response). For example, in addition to inquiring whether you have been able to apply the skills you have learned, we would like to know how often you have been able to apply them. You are welcome to elaborate on your response after choosing the number. Mid-Term Performance Evaluation for Promoting Advocacy and Rights (PAR) Activity 61 Questions Always Frequently Sometimes Rarely Never N/A To what extent have you been able to apply the skills/knowledge you learned in Counterpart International/PAR’s training activities in your daily job? 5 4 3 2 1 0 To what extent have you consulted the Advocacy Tool Kit manuals that are available online? 5 4 3 2 1 0 To what extent have you consulted the legal manual for civil society in Bangladesh? 5 4 3 2 1 0 To what extent do you use evidence generated through research in your advocacy work? 5 4 3 2 1 0 To what extent are you able to reach out to citizens in your community through new outreach methodologies? 5 4 3 2 1 0 10. Now please tell us how much you agree or disagree with the following statements. Please rank your response according to a scale of 1 to 5 where 5 is strongly agree and 1 is strongly disagree. Questions Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree N/A Because of the training, I believe myself and/or my organization has stronger abilities to interact/engage with government officials. 5 4 3 2 1 0 Because of training, I believe I have improved my capacity to collaborate with government officials to promote changes in policies or legislation. 5 4 3 2 1 0 Because of the training, I believe I have stronger capacities to motivate citizens in my community to mobilize to defend their social rights, e.g., to assist women who are victims of violence or to assist drug addicts. 5 4 3 2 1 0 I believe Counterpart International/ PAR has contributed to improving the capacity of my organization to advocate for democratic governance and citizen participation. 5 4 3 2 1 0 I and/or my organization have sufficient freedom to operate/advocate in my community. 5 4 3 2 1 0 11. Is there anything you would like to recommend to PAR/Counterpart International as they work to improve CSO capacity and promote democratic governance and citizen participation? Mid-Term Performance Evaluation for Promoting Advocacy and Rights (PAR) Activity 62 Mini-Survey – Trainees Survey Instructions ME&A is an implementing partner of the United States Agency for International Development in Bangladesh (USAID/Bangladesh), implementing the USAID Bangladesh Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning (BMEL) Activity. Recently, ME&A, through the BMEL Activity, was assigned to conduct the mid￾term evaluation of the Promoting Advocacy and Rights (PAR) Activity. This online survey/in-person survey is a major part of the evaluation’s data collection activities. The data derived from it will be used to conduct analysis and inform the findings and recommendations about future DRG programming. You and/or your organization have been recommended to us as one of the key stakeholders able to provide expert insights on this topic. Although your participation in this online survey is voluntary, we believe it is crucial for the evaluation team to gain a greater understanding of the PAR’s activity impact. The survey will take approximately 15 minutes to complete. Any information that you provide will be confidential and your name will not be linked in any way to your responses. The survey link/questionnaire that you received is unique to you and will not be shared with others. If you know of someone who is directly involved in your project and who you feel should also be included in the survey, please feel free to share their contact details with us. We would appreciate it if you could complete the survey as soon as possible or by Close of Business 31 March 2021 at the latest. Should you have any queries about the survey, require any technical support (e.g., unable to connect and complete the survey online) please contact Dr. Yemile Mizrahi, Team Leader, at: ymizrahipe@gmail.com Thank you and we look forward to your response. o Name of District: Dhaka=1, Rajshahi=2, Natore=3, Khulna=4, Jessore=5, Barisal=6, Pirojpur=7 o Nature/type of participation: PAR grantee=1, Sub-grantee=2, Leader of CSO=3, Member of a CSO who participated in a training activity=4, Other, Please specify o Age: o Gender: o Time/frequency of participation (during last two years): More than five times=5, Four times=4, Three times=3, Two times=2, One time=1, None=0 1. Please choose a number on a scale of 1-5 that corresponds with how you feel about the following statements (1 = Very poor, 5 = Excellent). You are welcome to elaborate on your response after choosing the number. Indicators Excellent Good Mediocre Poor Very poor Content 5 4 3 2 1 Trainer/facilitator 5 4 3 2 1 Training Materials 5 4 3 2 1 Usefulness 5 4 3 2 1 Mid-Term Performance Evaluation for Promoting Advocacy and Rights (PAR) Activity 63 Relevance 5 4 3 2 1 Communication and follow￾up 5 4 3 2 1 2. Please choose a number on a scale of 1-5 that corresponds with how intensely you feel about your response). For example, in addition to inquiring whether you have been able to apply the skills you have learned, we would like to know how often you have been able to apply them. You are welcome to elaborate on your response after choosing the number. Questions Always Frequently Sometimes Rarely Never N/A To what extent have you been able to apply the skills/knowledge you learned in Counterpart International/PAR’s training activities in your daily job? 5 4 3 2 1 0 To what extent have you consulted the Advocacy Tool Kit manuals that are available online? 5 4 3 2 1 0 To what extent have you consulted the legal manual for civil society in Bangladesh? 5 4 3 2 1 0 To what extent do you use evidence generated through research in your advocacy work? 5 4 3 2 1 0 To what extent are you able to reach out to citizens in your community through new outreach methodologies? 5 4 3 2 1 0 3. Now please tell us how much you agree or disagree with the following statements. Please rank your response according to a scale of 1 to 5 where 5 is strongly agree and 1 is strongly disagree. Questions Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree N/A Because of the training, I believe myself and/or my organization has stronger abilities to interact/engage with government officials. 5 4 3 2 1 0 Because of training, I believe I have improved my capacity to collaborate with government officials to promote changes in policies or legislation. 5 4 3 2 1 0 Because of the training, I believe I have stronger capacities to motivate citizens in my community to mobilize to defend their social rights, e.g., to assist women who are victims of violence or to assist drug addicts. 5 4 3 2 1 0 Mid-Term Performance Evaluation for Promoting Advocacy and Rights (PAR) Activity 64 I believe Counterpart International/ PAR has contributed to improving the capacity of my organization to advocate for democratic governance and citizen participation. 5 4 3 2 1 0 I and/or my organization have sufficient freedom to operate/advocate in my community. 5 4 3 2 1 0 4. Now please tell us how much you agree or disagree that the following factors are serious problems or challenges Civil Society organizations face today. in Bangladesh. Please rank your response according to a scale of 1 to 5 where 5 is Strongly Agree and 1 is Strongly Disagree. Questions Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagre e Strongly Disagre e N/A Government restrictions by Law Enforcement agencies 5 4 3 2 1 0 Digital Security Act and ICT policy 5 4 3 2 1 0 Inadequate access to knowledge/information 5 4 3 2 1 0 Inadequate or little access to sufficient financial resources 5 4 3 2 1 0 Not sufficient organizational management capacity 5 4 3 2 1 0 Not sufficient organizational technical capacity (technical skills, tools) 5 4 3 2 1 0 Inadequate/lack of human resources 5 4 3 2 1 0 Dependance on donors/foreign aid 5 4 3 2 1 0 Citizens are apathetic, not interested in what civil society organizations do 5 4 3 2 1 0 Restrictions from other non￾government groups 5 4 3 2 1 0 5. Is there anything you would like to recommend to PAR/Counterpart International as they work to improve CSO capacity and promote democratic governance and citizen participation? Mid-Term Performance Evaluation for Promoting Advocacy and Rights (PAR) Activity 65 Mini-Survey – CEF and CSO Consultation Participants Survey Instructions ME&A is an implementing partner of the United States Agency for International Development in Bangladesh (USAID/Bangladesh), implementing the USAID Bangladesh Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning (BMEL) Activity. Recently, ME&A, through the BMEL Activity, was assigned to conduct the mid￾term evaluation of the Promoting Advocacy and Rights (PAR) Activity. This online survey/in-person survey is a major part of the evaluation’s data collection activities. The data derived from it will be used to conduct analysis and inform the findings and recommendations about future DRG programming. You and/or your organization have been recommended to us as one of the key stakeholders able to provide expert insights on this topic. Although your participation in this online survey is voluntary, we believe it is crucial for the evaluation team to gain a greater understanding of the PAR’s activity impact. The survey will take approximately 15 minutes to complete. Any information that you provide will be confidential and your name will not be linked in any way to your responses. The survey link/questionnaire that you received is unique to you and will not be shared with others. If you know of someone who is directly involved in your project and who you feel should also be included in the survey, please feel free to share their contact details with us. We would appreciate it if you could complete the survey as soon as possible or by Close of Business 31 March 2021 at the latest. Should you have any queries about the survey, require any technical support (e.g., unable to connect and complete the survey online) please contact Dr. Yemile Mizrahi, Team Leader, at: ymizrahipe@gmail.com Thank you and we look forward to your response. o Name of District: Dhaka=1, Rajshahi=2, Natore=3, Khulna=4, Jessore=5, Barisal=6, Pirojpur=7 o Nature/type of participation: PAR grantee=1, Sub-grantee=2, Leader of CSO=3, Member of a CSO who participated in a training activity=4, Other, Please specify o Age: o Gender: o Time/frequency of participation (during last two years): More than five times=5, Four times=4, Three times=3, Two times=2, One time=1, None=0 1. Please tell us how much you agree or disagree with the following statements about civil society organizations (CSOs) in your community. Please rank your response according to a scale of 1 to 5 where 5 is Strongly Agree and 1 is Strongly Disagree. Questions Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree CSOs are effective and able to affect policy or decision-making at the local level 5 4 3 2 1 Mid-Term Performance Evaluation for Promoting Advocacy and Rights (PAR) Activity 66 Questions Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree CSOs are effective at mobilizing people, but not able to influence decision-making 5 4 3 2 1 CSOs are effective at mobilizing people but not able to change their behavior or change their attitudes about problems 5 4 3 2 1 CSOs are ineffective despite their good intentions because they are too weak to organize and mobilize people 5 4 3 2 1 CSOs are completely ineffective 5 4 3 2 1 2. Please tell us how much you agree or disagree that the following factors are serious problems or challenges Civil Society organizations face today. in Bangladesh. Please rank your response according to a scale of 1 to 5 where 5 is Strongly Agree and 1 is Strongly Disagree. Questions Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree Government restrictions by Law Enforcement agencies 5 4 3 2 1 Digital Security Act, ICT policy 5 4 3 2 1 Inadequate access to knowledge/information 5 4 3 2 1 Inadequate or little access to sufficient financial resources 5 4 3 2 1 Not sufficient organizational management capacity 5 4 3 2 1 Not sufficient technical capacity (Technical skills, tools) 5 4 3 2 1 Inadequate/lack of human resources 5 4 3 2 1 Dependance on donors/foreign aid 5 4 3 2 1 Citizens are apathetic, not interested in what civil society organizations do 5 4 3 2 1 Restrictions from other non￾government groups 5 4 3 2 1 3. The following questions ask about your agreement with the following statements. Please choose a number on a scale of 1-5 that corresponds with how you feel about these statements (1 = Strongly Disagree, 5 = Strongly Agree). You are welcome to elaborate on your response after choosing the number. Mid-Term Performance Evaluation for Promoting Advocacy and Rights (PAR) Activity 67 Questions Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree I believe I and/or my organization has sufficient capacity to mobilize citizens 5 4 3 2 1 I believe I and/or my organization has gained a deeper understanding on the problem my organization is addressing 5 4 3 2 1 I believe I and/or my organization has sufficient power to influence local government’s decisions 5 4 3 2 1 I believe I and/or my organization has been successful in engaging with Government officials to promote changes in policies or legislation. 5 4 3 2 1 I believe I/and or my organization has the freedom to mobilize citizens and conduct its activities 5 4 3 2 1 I have continued to work with PAR/Counterpart or their grantees (Rupantar/Light House) after the CEF or the CSOs consultations 5 4 3 2 1 4. Please tell us how much you agree or disagree about each of the following being a main reason for the problem we are addressing today. Please rank your response according to a scale of 1 to 5 where 5 is Strongly Agree and 1 is Strongly Disagree. Questions Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree Citizens do not know the law 5 4 3 2 1 Citizens do not understand the legal consequences of their behavior 5 4 3 2 1 Citizens are immoral 5 4 3 2 1 There are gaps in the law or existing regulations 5 4 3 2 1 Laws exist, but they are not implemented 5 4 3 2 1 Services are inadequate and/or insufficient to address the problem 5 4 3 2 1 People are not afraid/ do not care laws and social norms 5 4 3 2 1 5. Please tell us how much you agree or disagree that the following are main objectives of the advocacy efforts between you/your CO and Local Government. Please rank your response according to a scale of 1 to 5 where 5 is Strongly Agree and 1 is Strongly Disagree. Mid-Term Performance Evaluation for Promoting Advocacy and Rights (PAR) Activity 68 Yes No Yes No I have never heard of it Yes No I have never heard of it Questions Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree To reform policy framework, because the laws are inadequate or do not exist. 5 4 3 2 1 To promote implementation of the legal framework, because the laws exist but they are not being followed or implemented. 5 4 3 2 1 To improve government service provision, because government services are inadequate, non-existent or poor quality 5 4 3 2 1 To improve citizens’ information about laws/policies, because citizens do not know the laws and/or do not know where to seek help 5 4 3 2 1 To improve citizen sensitization/raise awareness about issues because, because citizens do not have enough knowledge about a problem/issue to enable them to contribute to advocacy efforts 5 4 3 2 1 To change citizens’ behavior, to reduce prevalence of gender based violence/drug abuse 5 4 3 2 1 To change underlying societal issues that might lead to illegal or disagreeable citizens’ behavior, because, for example, people will be less likely to abuse drugs or engage in gender-based violence if they have better education, better access to economic opportunity, or experience less social marginalization 5 4 3 2 1 6. Did you receive any kind of training from PAR, Counterpart International, Rupantar or Light House to conduct research regarding the problem or to improve your advocacy strategies? 7. Have you ever seen the Online Advocacy Toolkit? 8. Have you ever reviewed the Legal Manual for Civil Society Organizations in Bangladesh? 9. Is there anything you would like to recommend to PAR/Counterpart International as they work to improve CSO capacity and promote democratic governance and citizen participation? Mid-Term Performance Evaluation for Promoting Advocacy and Rights (PAR) Activity 69 Key Informant Interviews ANNEX 3: LIST OF STAKEHOLDERS INTERVIEWED Name Designation Organization Location/District Monica O’Hearn PAR Project Manager Counterpart International Washington DC Ferdous Faisal Senior Program Manager Prothom Alo Anti-Drugs Movement Dhaka Peter Halder National Director Bangladesh Youth First Concerns (BYFC) Dhaka M. Nurezaman Shorif Director Department Of Narcotics Control Dhaka Iqbal Masud Director (Health Sector) Dhaka Ahsania Mission Dhaka Mohsin Ali Executive Director The WAVE Foundation Dhaka Shilu Ray Assignment Officer-3 (Senior Assistant Secretary) NGO Affairs Bureau Dhaka Nur Khan General Secretary Ain o Salish Kendro (ASK) Dhaka Shahid Hossain PAR Deputy Chief of Party Counterpart International Dhaka Sharmin Khan Legal Consultant International Center for Not￾for-Profit Law (ICNL) Dhaka Sibel Herzog PAR Chief of Party Counterpart International Washington DC Sumana Binte Masud PAR AOR and Project Management Specialist-Civil Society Advisor USAID Dhaka Hasan Mahmud Managing Director Innovative Research & Consultancy (IRC) Dhaka Shahnaz Sumi Deputy Director Bangladesh Nari Progati Sangha (BNPS) Dhaka MST Aysha Kahtun Women Councilor Rajshahi City Corporation Rajshahi Professor Dr. Dipkendra Nath Das President Community for Concerned Citizens-TIB Rajshahi Dr. Aynal Haque, Senior Reporter Bangladesh Sangbad Shangstha (BSS) Rajshahi Md. Zafrullah Kazal Additional Director Department of Narcotics Control, Rajshahi Rajshahi Tanvir Mahmud Governance Adviser FCDO/UKAID Dhaka S.M. Monwar Hossain Project Manager Light House Rajshahi Advocate Khogendra Nath Roy Senior Lawyer District Judge Court Nature Ronen Sen President SONAC Natore Md. Alamgir Hossain Assistant Director Department of Narcotics Control (DNC), Natore Md. Asaduzzaman Asad Chairman Noldanga Upazila Parishad Natore Ashraful Alam Project Officer Nari-o-Shishu Kallayan Sangstha (NSKS) Natore Md. Abul Alam District Child Affairs Officer Women and Child Affairs Department Khulna Shaikh Mamata Shirin Moyna Vice Chairman Dighalia Upazilla Parishad Khulna Ad. Shamima Sultana Shilu Executive Director MASUS Khulna Mid-Term Performance Evaluation for Promoting Advocacy and Rights (PAR) Activity 70 Name Designation Organization Location/District Pradip Kumar Saha General Secretary Teachers Association, Khulna District Khulna Rafiqul Islam Khokan Executive Director Rupantar Khulna Raj Kumar Pal Upazila Women Affairs Officer Women and Child Affairs Department, Abhaynagar Jessore Ms. Anju Monowara Upazila Youth Development Officer Youth Development Department, Abhaynagar Jessore Abdul Latif Principal Sundali College Jessore Ms. Bithika Biswas Vice Chairman Bagherpara Upazila Parishad Jessore Binoy Krishna Mallick Executive Director Rights Jessore Jessore Gias Uddin Journalist BCC Barishal Dilara Khanam Deputy Director District Women and Child Affairs Department Barishal Dipika Rani Sen Upazila Women Affairs Officer Women and Child Affairs Department, Banaripara Barishal Rahima Sultana Kazal Executive Director Association of Voluntary Actions for Society (AVAS) Barishal Rowsanara Begum Upazila Women Affairs Officer Women and Child Affairs Department, Barishal Sadar Barishal Nur-E- Jannat Ferdousi Upazila Women Affairs Officer Women and Child Affairs Department, Indurkani Pirojpur Aparna Halder Vice President; Member Secretary Bangkadesh Mohila Parishad; and Women Brigade Pirojpur Nusrat Jahan Upazila Women Affairs Officer Women and Child Affairs Department, Kawkhali and Nesarabad Pirojpur Shajadi Rebeka Shahin Chaiti Member; Teacher Zila Parishad; and Kawkhali Mahila Degree College Pirojpur Dana Olds Chief of Party Strengthening Political Landscape (SPL), Democracy International Washington, DC Mid-Term Performance Evaluation for Promoting Advocacy and Rights (PAR) Activity 71 Focus Group Discussion Participants Respondent Categories Rajshahi Division Khulna Division Barisal Division Dhaka Total Rajshahi Natore Khulna Jessore Barisal Pirojpur Dhaka City Respondents from training beneficiaries 14 - 14 - 13 - 12 53 a. Advocacy training 5 - 4 - - - 4 13 b. Digital security training 5 - 5 - 5 - - 15 c. Legal skills training 4 - 5 - 4 - 5 18 d. Research training - - - - 4 - 3 7 Respondents from Civic Engagement Forum (CEF) Participants - 10 - 9 - 8 - 27 a. CEF - 5 - 4 - 4 - 13 b. Thematic CEF - 5 - 5 - 4 - 14 Respondents from Sub-grantees on Anti-drug (Light House Consortium) 9 14 - - - - - 23 a. Youth Brigade 4 5 - - - - - 9 b. Community Action Group (CAG) 5 - - - - - - 5 c. CSO-led Networks and - 5 - - - - - 5 d. Advocacy Meeting with LG - 4 - - - - - 4 Respondents from Sub-grantees on GBV (Rupantar Consortium) 10 9 13 9 41 a. Women Brigade - - - 4 - 5 - 9 b. Task Force Working Group - - 5 - 5 - - 10 c. Sub-district level Platforms (Formation and training) - - 5 5 4 4 - 18 d. Government-CS Dialogue - - - - 4 - - 5 Respondents from Electoral grants - - - 3 - - - 3 Total 23 24 24 21 26 17 12 147 Mid-Term Performance Evaluation for Promoting Advocacy and Rights (PAR) Activity 72 ANNEX 4: RESULTS OF MINI-SURVEY WITH PAR TRAINEES Because of the training, I and/or my organization has/have stronger abilities to interact/engage with government officials. (n=81) 45% 41% Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree 7% 4% 33% 15% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% Because of the training, I have stronger capacities to motivate citizens in my community to mobilize to defend their social rights (n=80) 40% 35% Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree 8% 4% 31% 23% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% PAR has contributed to improving the capacity of my organization to advocate for democratic governance and citizen participation (n=83) 50% 43% 6% 4% 25% 22% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree Mid-Term Performance Evaluation for Promoting Advocacy and Rights (PAR) Activity 73 I have consulted the Advocacy Tool Kit manuals that are available online (n=92) 38% 40% Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree 35% 9% 12% 7% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% I use evidence generated through research in my advoacy work (n=90) 35% 32% Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree 23% 6% 29% 10% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% I have continued to work with PAR/Counterpart or their grantees after the activity I was involved in. (n=80) 40% 35% 34% 23% 6% 16% 21% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree Mid-Term Performance Evaluation for Promoting Advocacy and Rights (PAR) Activity 74 Have you reviewed the Legal Manual for CSOs in Bangladesh? (n=103) 60% 30% 21% 49% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Yes No Never heard of it I have consulted the Legal Manual for CSOs in Bangladesh (n=69) 36% 40% Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree 23% 14% 13% 9% 0% 10% 20% 30% I have consulted the legal manual for CSOs in Bangladesh (n=69) 40% 36% Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree 23% 14% 13% 9% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% Mid-Term Performance Evaluation for Promoting Advocacy and Rights (PAR) Activity 75 - Serious Problems or Challenges Faced by CSOs in Bangladesh Training Participants (percentages) Challenges Disagree Agree Total Number Government restrictions by law enforcement agencies 32 67.9 75 Digital Security Act and ICT policy 42.8 57.1 70 Inadequate access to knowledge/information 46.1 53.9 63 Inadequate or little access to sufficient financial resources 36 62 79 Not sufficient organizational management capacity 33.8 66.2 71 Not sufficient organizational technical capacity (technical skills, tools) 35.6 64.5 73 Inadequate/lack of human resources 43.1 56.9 58 Dependence on donors/foreign aid 50 50 60 Citizens are apathetic, not interested in what CSOs do 34.4 65 60 Restrictions from other non-government groups 27.5 72.4 69 Serious Problems or Challenges Faced by CSOs in Bangladesh Responses from PAR Grantees and Sub Grantees (Percentages) Challenge Disagree Agree NA Total Number Government restrictions by law enforcement agencies 14.9 68.2 17 47 Digital Security Act and ICT policy 21.3 61.7 17 47 Inadequate access to knowledge/information 11.1 71.7 17.8 45 Inadequate or little access to sufficient financial resources 6 78 16 50 Not sufficient organizational management capacity 8.2 75.4 16.3 49 Not sufficient organizational technical capacity (technical skills, tools) 6.3 77.2 16.7 48 Inadequate/lack of human resources 11.1 71.1 17.8 45 Dependence on donors/foreign aid 6.8 75 18.2 44 Citizens are apathetic, not interested in what CSOs do 6.6 75.5 17.8 45 Restrictions from other non-government groups 15.5 66.6 17.8 45 Mid-Term Performance Evaluation for Promoting Advocacy and Rights (PAR) Activity 76 ANNEX 5: TOTAL NUMBER OF TRAININGS, CITIZEN ENGAG EMENT FORA, AND CSO CONSULTATIONS* Category Y1 Y2 TOTAL Sessions Participants Sessions Participants Sessions Participants Advocacy 5 170 2 53 7 223 Research 2 25 2 33 4 58 Legal 5 172 5 172 Digital security 2 31 2 31 Total (only training) 18 484 CEF 9 311 7 272 16 583 Government-Civil Society Dialogues 3 74 3 74 CSO Consultations 1 40 1 40 Total 38 1181 *Elaborated by the ET from PAR’s reports. Mid-Term Performance Evaluation for Promoting Advocacy and Rights (PAR) Activity 77 ANNEX 6: LIST OF SOURCES CONSULTED PAR Project Documents Counterpart International. Gender Analysis of Promoting Advocacy and Rights (PAR) Activity in Bangladesh, Dhaka, August 2018. Counterpart International. Gender Analysis of Promoting Advocacy and Rights (PAR) Activity in Bangladesh. Dhaka, December 2020, Counterpart International. Political Economy Analysis of Promoting Advocacy and Rights (PAR) Activity in Bangladesh. Dhaka, December 2020. Counterpart International. Political Economy Analysis of Promoting Advocacy and Rights (PAR) Activity in Bangladesh. Dhaka, August 2018. Light House Consortium and USAID/Bangladesh. Situational Assessment of Drug Abuse Resistance and Understanding at Rajshahi and Natore Districts of Bangladesh. Dhaka, 2020. ME&A, Inc and USAID/Bangladesh. BMEL Third Party Monitoring Report: Promoting Advocacy and Rights (PAR) Activity. USAID, June 2019. ME&A, Inc and USAID/Bangladesh. BMEL Third Party Monitoring Report: Promoting Advocacy and Rights (PAR) Activity. USAID, July 2019. ME&A, Inc and USAID/Bangladesh. BMEL Third Party Monitoring Report. Promoting Advocacy and Rights (PAR) Activity. USAID, September 2019. Rupantar and USAID/Bangladesh. Baseline Survey for Promoting CSOs Engagement and Action Against Gender-Based Violence under Promoting Advocacy and Rights Activity (PAR). December 2020. Social Impact, Inc. and USAID/Bangladesh. Site Visit Report. Promoting Advocacy and Rights (PAR) Activity. December 2018. USAID. Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO), Promoting Advocacy and Rights (PAR) Activity in Bangladesh. December 2017 USAID/Bangladesh. Addendum to Program Description, Promoting Advocacy and Rights (PAR). USAID/Bangladesh. Annual Report – Y1 (April 2018-April 2019): Promoting Advocacy and Rights (PAR) Activity. Washington, D.C.: USAID, 2019. USAID/Bangladesh. Annual Report – Y2 (April 2018-April 2019): Promoting Advocacy and Rights (PAR) Activity. Washington, D.C.: USAID, 2020. USAID/Bangladesh. Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning Plan (MELP): Promoting Advocacy and Rights (PAR) Activity. Washington, D.C.: USAID, July, 2018; May, 2019. USAID/Bangladesh. Project Description (ATTACHMENT B): Promoting Advocacy and Rights (PAR) Project USAID/Bangladesh. Quarterly Report – Q1 (April-June 2018): Promoting Advocacy and Rights (PAR) Activity. Washington, D.C.: USAID, 2018. USAID/Bangladesh. Quarterly Report – Q2 (July-September 2018): Promoting Advocacy and Rights (PAR) Activity. Washington, D.C.: USAID, December 2018. USAID/Bangladesh. Quarterly Report – Q3 (October-December 2018): Promoting Advocacy and Rights (PAR) Activity. Washington, D.C.: USAID, January 2019. Mid-Term Performance Evaluation for Promoting Advocacy and Rights (PAR) Activity 78 USAID/Bangladesh. Quarterly Report – Q4 (January-March 2019): Promoting Advocacy and Rights (PAR) Activity. Washington, D.C.: USAID, April 2019. USAID/Bangladesh. Quarterly Report – Y3 Q1 (April-June 2020): Promoting Advocacy and Rights (PAR) Activity. Washington, D.C.: USAID, July 2020. USAID/Bangladesh. Quarterly Report – Y3 Q2 (July-September 2020): Promoting Advocacy and Rights (PAR) Activity. Washington, D.C.: USAID, October 2020. USAID/Bangladesh. Quarterly Report – Y3 Q3 (October-December 2020): Promoting Advocacy and Rights (PAR) Activity. Washington, D.C.: USAID, January 2021. USAID/Bangladesh. Work Plan Narrative - Year 1(April 2018-April 2019): Promoting Advocacy and Rights (PAR) Activity. August 2018. USAID/Bangladesh. Work Plan Narrative - Year 2 (April 2019-April 2020): Promoting Advocacy and Rights (PAR) Activity. March, 2019. Secondary Sources Amnesty International. “Guarantee the Right to Freedom to Artistic Expression and Released Detained Artists.” Amnesty International Public Statement, January. 2021. Bicchieri, Cristina, and Eugen Dimant, "Nudging with care: The risks and benefits of social information." Public choice (2019), pp. 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-019-00684-6 Chaney, Paul, and Sarbeswar Sahoo. "Civil society and the contemporary threat to religious freedom in Bangladesh." Journal of Civil Society 16, no. 3 (2020), pp. 191-215. CIVICUS and South Asians for Human Rights (SAHR). “Crushing Student Protests. Bangladesh’s repression of the quote reform and road safety movements.” June, 2020. https://civicus.org/documents/BangladeshCrushingStudentProtests2020.pdf Csete, Joanne. “Scared Straight Anti-Drug Programs aren’t Scaring Kids at all.” Open Society Foundation, November 2015. https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/voices/scared-straight-anti-drug￾programs-aren-t-scaring-kids-all Elizabeth J. Reid. “Understanding the Word Advocacy. Context and Use.” In Structuring the Inquiry into Advocacy. Non-Profit Advocacy and the Policy Process. Urban Institute, 2000. Faguet, Jean-Paul. "Transformation from below in Bangladesh: Decentralization, local governance, and systemic change." Modern Asian Studies vol. 51, no. 6 (2018), pp. 1668-1694. Freedom House. “Freedom in the World Report 2021”. Bangladesh. https://freedomhouse.org/country/bangladesh/freedom-world/2021 Government of Bangladesh. Multi-Sectoral Programme on Violence Against Women. Ministry of Women and Children Affairs. www.mspvaw.gov.bd. Government of Bangladesh. Narcotics Control Act, 2018. Government of Bangladesh. Prevention of Violence against Women and Children Act, 2000. Hassan, Mirza M. and Mannan, Sadiat. “Upazila and Union Parishad Governance: A Study on Institutional Relationships and Linkages.” BRAC Institute of Governance and Development (BIGD), Special Publication Series, N.01, BRAC University, 2016. Hossain, Akhand Akhtar, Islamic Resurgence in Bangladesh’s Culture and Politics: Origins, Dynamics and Implications. Journal of Islamic Studies vol. 23, no. 2 (2012), pp. 165-198. Mid-Term Performance Evaluation for Promoting Advocacy and Rights (PAR) Activity 79 Human Rights Watch. "I Sleep in My Own Deathbed” Violence against Women and Girls in Bangladesh: Barriers to Legal Recourse and Support. 2020. https://www.hrw.org/report/2020/10/29/i-sleep-my-own￾deathbed/violence-against-women-and-girls-bangladesh-barriers# Human Rights Watch. World Report 2021. Events of 2020. International Republican Institute (IRI). “National Survey of Bangladeshi Public Opinion”. Centers for Insight in Survey Research, August-September, 2019. https://www.iri.org/sites/default/files/bangladesh_2019_poll_final_public_release_1_0.pdf International Republican Institute (IRI). “National Survey of Bangladeshi public opinion”. August 1- September 16, 2019 Jahan, Rounaq. “Political Parties in Bangladesh.” CPD-CMI. Working Paper Series 8. 2014 Joanne Csete. “Scared Straight” Anti-Drug Programs Aren’t Scaring Kids at All”. November 2015. Open Society Foundation Majumder, Shantanu. “People’s Participation in Local Government.” In Abul Barkat et al, Local Governance and Decentralization in Bangladesh: Politics and Economic, Dhaka: Pathak Shamabesh, 2015 Majumder, Shantanu. “Identity, Identity Politics and Elections in Bangladesh.” USAID. March 2019. Odhikar. Annual Human Rights Report. Bangladesh. 2020. Petrosino A, Turpin-Petrosino C, Hollis-Peel M, Lavenberg JG. “Scared Straight and Other Juvenile Awareness Programs for Preventing Juvenile Delinquency: A Systematic Review”. Campbell Systematic Reviews 2013:5. DOI: 10.4073/csr.2013.5 The Asia Foundation. “Bangladesh Democracy according to its People. A Survey of the Bangladesh People”, 2018. Transparency International Bangladesh. Annual Report (2018-2019). https://www.ti￾bangladesh.org/beta3/index.php/en/ Uddin, Nasir. “Empowerment through Participation in Local Governance: the Case of Union Parishad in Bangladesh.” Public Administration and Policy, vol. 22 no. 1, 2019. pp. 40-54. DOI 10.1108/PAP-10-2018- 0002. Uddin, Nasir. “Inquiring Autonomy of Local Governance in Bangladesh: The Case of Union Parishad.” Dynamics of Public Administration, vol. 36 Issue 1, January-June, 2019 pp. 30-39. UK Government, Home Office. “Country Policy and Information Note: Bangladesh: Women fearing gender-based violence (Version 3.0)”. London, 2020. UN Women. Combating Gender Based Violence in Bangladesh. Project Description, 2020. USAID/Bangladesh. “Validation of the OBIRODH National Youth Survey, 2019”. World Bank. “Bangladesh Right to Information Survey 2019”. World Bank, Washington, DC, 2020. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/33734. Mid-Term Performance Evaluation for Promoting Advocacy and Rights (PAR) Activity 80 ANNEX 7: EVALUATION TEAM CVS, COI FORMS, AND NDAS Candidate: Yemile Mizrahi, Ph.D. Position: Team Leader – Mid-term Performance Evaluation for “Promoting Advocacy and Rights (PAR)” Activity (BMEL S026) Key Qualifications Dr. Yemile Mizrahi is a Governance Expert with more than 25 years of experience in international development. Her areas of expertise are Monitoring and Evaluation, capacity building, institutional strengthening, governance assessments, anti-corruption programming, conflict, and violence prevention. Dr. Mizrahi has designed, conducted and supervised multiple evaluations and assessments in the governance sector. She has collaborated with governments, civil society organizations, the private sector and the international donor community in Africa, Eurasia, Latin America, and South East Asia. As Director of Analytical Services at Democracy International (2014-2019), Dr. Mizrahi successfully managed and supervised over 40 analytical products, including evaluations of USAID-funded governance projects, political economy analysis, conflict, democracy, justice, and civil society assessments. Dr. Mizrahi provided technical guidance and ensured the highest quality and timely submission of all deliverables. During this time, Dr. Mizrahi designed innovative methodologies and data collection approaches to evaluate USAID-funded interventions in data-poor locations such as Cote d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of Congo, Nicaragua, Rwanda and Sri Lanka. As an independent consultant, during the past year Dr. Mizrahi has worked with Tetratech in Guatemala, providing direct assistance to Tetratech staff and its grantees working on crime and violence prevention initiatives to improve their monitoring and evaluation systems and increase the evaluability of their interventions. Among other innovative approaches, Dr. Mizrahi has introduced a new tool to assess the level of risk of violence of grantees beneficiaries. This evidence-based approach will allow grantees to establish a baseline and objectively assess reductions of risk levels after their interventions. Dr. Mizrahi continues to consult for Democracy International as co-technical director of the Latin America Youth Violence Prevention Program, a Program funded by USAID/Office of Regional Sustainable Development and Latin American and the Caribbean. This is an analytical services program to understand the drivers of youth violence in Latin America, evaluate results of crime and violence prevention interventions and make evidence-based recommendations. Dr. Mizrahi’s most recent experience as Team Leader include: Democracy and Governance Assessment in Timor-Leste (2020); Political Economy Assessment of Venezuelan Migration to Northeast Colombia (2019); Assessment of Youth Violence in Colombia (2018); Assessment of Honduras’ Tertiary Crime and Violence Prevention Programs in Honduras (2016); Performance Evaluation of the Municipal Crime and Violence Prevention Program in Central America and the Dominican Republic (2016); Evaluation of Pillar IV Crime Prevention Models in Mexico (2015); and Mid-Term Performance Evaluations of NEXOS and DEE programs in Honduras (2014). In addition to her consulting experience, Dr. Mizrahi is the author of From Martyrdom to Power: The Partido Acción Nacional in Mexico. Published by Notre Dame University Press, 2004. In 1999-2000 she was a Resident Fellow at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington, DC. From 1991 to 2001, Dr. Mizrahi was professor of Political Science at the Centro de Investigación y Docencia Económicas (CIDE) in Mexico City. Dr. Mizrahi holds a Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of California, Berkeley, and a Bachelor’s Degree in Social Studies from the Instituto Tecnológico Autónomo de México (ITAM) in Mexico City. Education Ph.D., Political Science. University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, 1994 B.A., Social Studies, Instituto Tecnológico Autónomo de México, Mexico City, Mexico, 1985 Mid-Term Performance Evaluation for Promoting Advocacy and Rights (PAR) Activity 81 Selected Professional Experience Team Leader; Tetratech, Inc., Democracy and Governance Assessment, Timor-Leste, February–April 2020. Led a team of five to assess the five elements of democracy and formulate recommendations for USAID as it prepares its Country Strategy for the next five years. Team Leader, MSI/Tetratech, Political Economy Assessment of Venezuelan Migration to Northeast Colombia, October–December 2019. Analysis of the structure of incentives and constraints government officials at national and local face to address the migration crisis. Formulated actionable and programmatic recommendations for USAID to support the GOC address the migration crisis, particularly at the local level. Director of Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning, Democracy International, USA, January 2014-July 2019. Managed Democracy International’s analytical services portfolio. Responsible for providing technical direction, guaranteeing the quality and timely submission of deliverables, and ensuring client satisfaction. Collaborated in business development activities and served as Team Leader and/or Technical Director on individual analytical projects, including: Complexity Awareness Monitoring and Evaluation Project in Colombia; USAID Alliances for Reconciliation in Colombia; and Assessment of Youth Violence in Colombia; Performance Evaluation of the USAID Municipal Crime and Violence Prevention Program (AMUPREV) in Central America and the Dominican Republic; USAID Evaluation of Pillar IV Crime Prevention Models in Mexico: Monterrey, Ciudad Juarez, and Tijuana; Evaluation Services for Democracy, Rights and Governance (DRG) portfolio of USAID Mission in Tanzania; and USAID Mid-Term Performance Evaluations of NEXOS and DEE programs in Honduras. Team Leader, Tetratech, Inc., 2012–2013. Final Performance evaluation of the International Republican Institute’s Expanding Electoral and Civic Education Program and mid-term performance evaluation of the National Democratic Institute’s Democratic Leadership Development Program in Nicaragua; Democracy and Governance Assessment for USAID/Honduras; Democracy and Governance Assessment for USAID/Indonesia. Chief of Party, Development and Training Services, Inc., January 2011–September 2012. Monitoring and Evaluation Program, USAID/Bureau for Latin America and Caribbean’s Office of Cuban Affairs. Program designed to provide technical assistance and training on performance management, monitoring and evaluation to USAID’s Office for Cuban Affairs, as well as to all of the Office’s implementing partners. Assisted the client in complying with USAID regulations. Team Leader, Final Performance Evaluation of the Elections and Electoral Processes Program in Colombia, IRG International, March–April 2012. Evaluation of results achieved by the EPP Program implemented by the National Democratic Institute (NDI) and the International Republican Institute (IRI) in Colombia from 2007–2012. Team Leader, Civil Society Sector Assessment in Honduras, Counterpart International, USA, June 2011. The Assessment examined the cleavages among civil society organizations in the aftermath of the 2009 coup, identifying civil society organizations that could effectively work in anti￾corruption reform and advocacy and making programmatic recommendations. Team Leader, Democracy and Governance Assessment in Guatemala, Tetratech, Inc., February 2011. Led a three-member team to conduct fieldwork and write an assessment of Guatemalan democratic institutions, with a focus on citizen security, rule of law, transparency and accountability, as USAID/Guatemala prepared its five-year country strategy Team Leader, Political Economy Assessment of Freedom of Information Law in Mexico, World Bank Institute, August–September 2010. Analytic study of incentives, opportunities, and constraints conditioning the passage and implementation of the Freedom of Information Law in Mexico, assessing lessons learned and providing recommendations for passage of similar legislation in other Latin American countries. Mid-Term Performance Evaluation for Promoting Advocacy and Rights (PAR) Activity 82 Team Leader, Performance Evaluation of the Consortium for Electoral and Political Process Strengthening Program (CEPPS), USAID/Nicaragua, June 2010. Assessed the effectiveness, adaptability, impact, and sustainability of a program implemented by the International Republican Institute, the National Democratic Institute and the International Foundation for Electoral Systems. Deputy Director, America’s Accountability and Anti-Corruption (AAA) Project. Casals and Associates, May 2005–September 2009. Promoted innovative analytical and practical approaches for improving government transparency and accountability in Latin America and the Caribbean. Responsible for managing small grants to civil society organizations in several countries to pilot projects in areas such as social auditing, environmental corruption, political party finance, and compliance with the Inter￾American Convention against Corruption. Provided technical assistance to field projects, designed training modules for civil society organizations and journalists on good governance, accountability and transparency. Team Leader, Anti-Corruption Program Briefs, Casals and Associates, 2008. Wrote Program Briefs for USAID’s Office of Democracy and Governance, titled “Strengthening Freedom of Information: Challenges of Implementation and Best Practices Around the World” and “Social Auditing: A Participatory Tool to Strengthen Transparency and Accountability.” Team Leader, Mainstreaming Anti-Corruption Training Workshops, Casals and Associates, 2007–2008. Responsible for designing, organizing, and conducting mainstreaming anti-corruption training workshops for USAID personnel in 12 African countries. Dr. Mizrahi replicated this training module in Armenia. The overall objective was to educate and sensitize USAID staff about the effects of corruption on development, analyze problems of corruption in different sectors, design effective strategies to detect, prevent and combat corruption, and identify viable and measurable results and indicators. Evaluation Expert, World Bank Institute, 2004. Capacity Enhancement and Institutional Development Projects. Evaluated and assessed World Bank projects with a concentration in capacity enhancement and institutional development in 10 countries including Egypt, Iran, Morocco, Mexico, Russia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Turkey, Tajikistan, and Yemen. Principal Investigator, World Bank Institute, 2003. Capacity Enhancement and Institutional Development. Wrote Evaluation Brief “Capacity Enhancement: A Framework for Indicators,” World Bank Institute. Languages Spanish (native language), English (fluent), Hebrew (good) Mid-Term Performance Evaluation for Promoting Advocacy and Rights (PAR) Activity 83 Mid -Term Performance Evaluation for Promoting Advocacy and Rights (PAR) Activity 84 Mid -Term Performance Evaluation for Promoting Advocacy and Rights (PAR) Activity 85 Candidate: Christopher Coffman Position: Mid-level Evaluation Specialist - Mid-term Performance Evaluation for “Promoting Advocacy and Rights (PAR)” Activity (BMEL S026) Key Qualifications Christopher Coffman, a Project Manager/Evaluation Specialist at ME&A, has eight years of experience providing technical input and management for USG-funded monitoring and evaluation initiatives, including significant experience managing, designing, and implementing performance evaluations and experience monitoring and evaluating interventions focused on training and supporting civil society and protecting the rights and social inclusion of marginalized and vulnerable populations. He has field experience in Iraq, Democratic Republic of Congo, Kenya, Jordan, Southeast Turkey (Gaziantep), Tanzania, Kazakhstan, and Jamaica. Mr. Coffman recently served as Evaluation Specialist on the Mid-Term Performance Evaluation of the USAID/DRC Strengthening Value Chains (SVC) activity, which provides technical assistance and capacity building for dozens of agricultural civil society organizations (CSOs) and community-based groups (CBOs) in South Kivu to facilitate legal and policy advocacy interventions for improved land rights and access for smallholder farmers, women, and vulnerable groups and for an improved business enabling environment for value chain actors. Mr. Coffman is currently an Evaluation Specialist on the Evaluation of the Effectiveness of the U.S. Department of State (DoS) Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration (PRM)-funded Programs for Refugees and Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) in the Caucasus, which focuses on the performance of NGO partners providing programming for refugees and IDPs in Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan, including support to and capacity building of CSOs in Abkhazia engaged in advocacy for and assisting victims of gender-based violence (GBV) and strengthening victim support services and protection mechanisms, and informing best practices for addressing the humanitarian needs of the most vulnerable persons. Mr. Coffman recently managed and provided technical assistance to the Evaluation of the USAID Dignity and Rights (DAR) in Central Asia activity, focused on awareness raising for citizens and migrants on their labor rights, building the capacity of CSOs and NGOs to protect the human rights of migrants, addressing challenges related to human rights violations and countering trafficking in persons (CTIP) as a regional public policy and civic culture response, and designing sustainable, contextualized, gender￾sensitive interventions. On the Evaluation of the USAID/Jamaica Social Enterprise Boost Initiative, Mr. Coffman conducted several KIIs in Kingston with local CSOs focused on government advocacy for improving the business enabling environment for social enterprises. Mr. Coffman was also Evaluation Specialist on the six-month Meta￾Evaluation of Foreign Assistance Evaluation Efforts at the U.S. Department of State, a policy implementation assessment that included an in-depth analysis of DoS efforts to institutionalize evaluation under the department-wide Evaluation Policy. On the USAID Office of U.S. Foreign Disaster Assistance (OFDA) and Office of Food for Peace (FFP) Somalia Monitoring Project (SMP), Mr. Coffman wrote dozens of monitoring and verification site visit reports on OFDA and FFP humanitarian assistance activities serving the most vulnerable and marginalized populations, including significant activities focused on protection of GBV victims and the promotion of human rights through CSO-led public awareness and advocacy campaigns. For the USAID/Iraq Performance Management and Support Program (PMSP), Mr. Coffman designed, and trained PMSP’s team of Iraqi Field Monitors on the use of site visit tools to monitor activities under the Funding Facility for Immediate Stabilization (FFIS). Mr. Coffman holds a J.D. with a concentration in International and Comparative Law from Michigan State University. While completing his legal studies, Mr. Coffman served as a Research Assistant at the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF), focusing on the causal effects of anti￾conversion legislation on religious freedom in India and Sri Lanka. Education J.D., International and Comparative Law, Michigan State University College of Law, East Lansing B.A., Political Science, University of Mary Washington, Fredericksburg, VA Mid-Term Performance Evaluation for Promoting Advocacy and Rights (PAR) Activity 86 Selected Professional Experience Senior Project Manager/Evaluation Specialist, Monitoring and Evaluation Division, ME&A, Bethesda, MD, 2017–Present. Manage and provide technical assistance to USAID and DoS evaluations and M&E support services programs. • Served as Evaluation Specialist on the Mid-Term Performance Evaluation of the USAID/DRC Strengthening Value Chains (SVC) activity, designed to increase household incomes and access to nutrient-rich crops by linking smallholder farmers in South Kivu to strengthened and inclusive value chains and supportive market chain services. SVC provides technical assistance and capacity building for dozens of agricultural civil society organizations (CSOs) and community-based groups (CBOs) to facilitate legal and policy advocacy interventions for improved land rights and access for smallholder farmers, women, and vulnerable groups and for an improved business enabling environment for value chain actors. Helped with the design of discussion guides and the online survey, participated in the desk review and stakeholder interviews, led the qualitative data analysis, and wrote a significant portion of the evaluation report, including the section analyzing the challenges and sustainability of SVC’s technical assistance and capacity building activities in government advocacy for CSOs and CBOs. • Currently serving as Evaluation Specialist on the Evaluation of the Effectiveness of the U.S. Department of State Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration (PRM)-funded Programs for Refugees and Internally Displaced Persons in the Caucasus, taking part in a comprehensive desk review assisting in the drafting of the desk review report, contributing to the design of data collection, analysis, and reporting tools, and conducting KIIs. The evaluation focuses on the performance of NGO partners providing programming for refugees and IDPs in Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan, including support to and capacity building of CSOs in Abkhazia engaged in advocacy for and assisting victims of gender￾based violence and strengthening victim support services and protection mechanisms, and informing best practices for addressing the humanitarian needs of the most vulnerable persons. • Managed and provided technical assistance on the Evaluation of the USAID Dignity and Rights (DAR) in Central Asia activity, participating in the desk review and design of data collection tools, contributing qualitative data analysis, and assisting in the writing of the evaluation work plan. Working in Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan, DAR focused on awareness raising for citizens and migrants on their labor rights, building the capacity of CSOs and NGOs to protect the human rights of migrants, addressing challenges related to human rights violations and countering trafficking in persons (CTIP) as a regional public policy and civic culture response, and designing sustainable, contextualized, gender-sensitive interventions. • Served as Assessment Specialist on the Assessment of the Impact of COVID-19 in Tanzania: A Qualitative and Quantitative Assessment of the Epidemic in Tanzania, contributing to the desk review, conducting KIIs (including with 12 individuals from CSOs) and providing data analysis and writing for the final report, including a section about USAID’s assistance to CSOs to 1) monitor human rights issues, particularly concerning the risks to democratic in a shrinking space for free speech and political participation, particularly for women, youth, and marginalized groups, in the lead-up to the October elections; 2) participate in the health response; and 3) resume their activities in advocacy for the communities they serve. • On the Final Performance Evaluation of the USAID/Jamaica Social Enterprise Boost Initiative (SEBI), participated in the design of the beneficiary survey tool; conducted KIIs with key stakeholders in Kingston, including civil society actors focused on government advocacy for improving the business enabling environment for social enterprises. • Managed and served as Evaluation Specialist on The Examination of Foreign Assistance Evaluation Efforts at the Department of State: A Combined Performance and Meta-Evaluation, conducting KIIs and FGDs at DoS headquarters; providing qualitative and quantitative analysis of evaluation quality checklist, FGD, KII, and open- and close-ended survey data; participating in the desk review; contributing to the drafting of research tools and data collection instruments; creating data visualization products, including network maps; and writing the qualitative analysis in the final report. Mid-Term Performance Evaluation for Promoting Advocacy and Rights (PAR) Activity 87 • Served as Project Manager on the five-year, $28 million USAID/Tanzania Data for Development project. Provided data analysis for the Youth Assessment. Facilitated the USAID/Tanzania Mission’s first Learning Summit, in Dar es Salaam, serving as rapporteur for workshop on data-driven decision making and managing and creating technical content for conference presentations, including activity maps using GIS data. • Provided technical assistance to the development of the initial Third-Party Monitoring Plan for the five-year USAID/Bangladesh Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning (BMEL) Project. Senior Program Associate, Crisis, Conflict, and Governance (CCG), International Business and Technical Consultants, Inc. (IBTCI), Vienna, VA, 2014–2017. Provided project management and technical support to USAID-funded monitoring and evaluation (M&E) initiatives in democracy and governance, stabilization, and cross-sectoral humanitarian assistance in conflict countries. • Managed and provided technical assistance to the three-year, $7 million USAID OFDA and FFP Somalia Monitoring Project (SMP), which established a third-party system to monitor and verify the impact of, and provide recommendations for, OFDA and FFP Somalia humanitarian aid programs serving the most vulnerable and marginalized populations, including significant activities focused on protection of gender-based violence victims and the promotion of human rights through CSO-led public awareness and advocacy campaigns. Oversaw SMP’s knowledge management systems and organized SMP’s activity monitoring and verification data from all regions of Somalia. Acted as the project’s primary communications interface for third-party monitors and OFDA’s and FFP’s IPs in Somalia and Nairobi. Served as primary data analyst of activity monitoring indicator data, using Atlas.ti qualitative analysis software. Contributed content to monthly monitoring reports and yearly recommendations reports. • Managed the four-year, $21 million USAID/Iraq Performance Management and Support Program (PMSP), which supports USAID in the development and implementation of the Mission’s Performance Management Plan (PMP) and provides independent M&E of the Mission’s governance and stabilization programs and activities. Managed project start-up operations, drafted activity monitoring tools for Funding Facility for Stabilization (FFS), designed to lay the foundations for the return of Iraqis displaced by conflict with the Islamic State and revitalize public trust in the Iraqi government through local government service provision, and provided site visit training for PMSP’s team of Iraqi Field Monitors. • Provided support to the USAID/Yemen Monitoring and Evaluation Project by conducting social network analysis (using Maltego) and GIS spatial analysis (using ArcGIS) of all NGOs and CSOs working in Yemen. • Coordinated a three-year program in Syria to establish a third-party system to monitor and verify the impact of, and provide recommendations for, Syria humanitarian aid programs in the relief commodities/non-food items (NFI), health and nutrition, agriculture and food security, protection/GBV, and WASH sectors. Traveled to Jordan and Southeast Turkey (Gaziantep) for project activities. • Managed project start-up for the five-year, $25 million USAID/Democratic Republic of Congo Monitoring, Evaluation, and Coordination Contract (MECC), which provides performance management, coordination, monitoring, evaluation, analytic, and research services for the USAID/DRC Mission’s Country Development Cooperation Strategy (CDCS) and a Joint Education program between USAID/DRC and DFID. Contributed sections of writing to the Data Collection Plan, MEL Plan, and first year Work Plan. Business Development Assistant, Performance Evaluation, Social Impact, Inc., Arlington, VA, 2013. Prepared, coordinated, recruited for, and wrote sections of proposals for USAID and the U.S. Department of State M&E projects. Facilitated proposal kickoff meetings. Recruited, interviewed, and corresponded with local and expat consultants. Helped secure partnerships. Contributed to work plans. Proposal Coordinator for several evaluation awards, including the Performance Evaluation of the USAID/Serbia Judicial Reform and Government Accountability (JRGA) project; the Evaluation of the U.S. Department of State Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization Operations (CSO) Kenya Engagement; and the Mid-Term Performance Evaluation for Promoting Advocacy and Rights (PAR) Activity 88 Performance Evaluation of the USAID/Zimbabwe Maternal, Neonatal and Child Health (MNCH) Program - End of Project Evaluation of Maternal and Child Health Integrated Program (MCHIP); and the Evaluation of the U.S. Department of State European Union Accession project. Temporary Operations Associate, Contracts, Chemonics International, Washington, DC, 2012–2013. Assisted compliance and grants teams with the review of contracts, subcontracts, grants, and modifications for execution. Maintained contract, subcontract, and grant database. Prepared weekly reports on year-to-date contract actions and award forecasts for Executive Management Team. Assisted in the completion of all administrative activities. Wrote sections for three proposals. Research Assistant, United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF), Washington, DC, 2009. Researched and wrote legal briefs and memos concerning religious freedom issues in South Asia, particularly the causal effects of anti-conversion legislation on religious freedom in India and Sri Lanka. Contributed writing to the India and Sri Lanka sections of the USCIRF 2009 Annual Report to Congress. Languages English (native) Mid-Term Performance Evaluation for Promoting Advocacy and Rights (PAR) Activity 89 Mid -Term Performance Evaluation for Promoting Advocacy and Rights (PAR) Activity 90 Mid -Term Performance Evaluation for Promoting Advocacy and Rights (PAR) Activity 91 Candidate: Dr. Shantanu Majumder Nationality: Bangladeshi Affiliation: ME&A Position: Senior Evaluation Specialist Key Qualifications Shantanu Majumder is a professor in the Department of Political Science, University of Dhaka. He has also been working in the development field, conducting research and evaluations since 1998. His areas of expertise include human rights, civil society, democratic governance, local governance, political violence, political institutions, and social movements. Prof Majumder currently teaches Problems and Issues of Bangladesh Politics, Human Rights & Political Violence, Democracy and Democratization, Religion and Politics, and South Asian Politics. Moreover, he is supervising PhD and MPhil students. He received his PhD from the University of London, UK, where he held a Commonwealth Scholarship. Dr. Majumder has undertaken a series of evaluations, assessments, and research activities in recent years for several donor and international agencies including USAID, SDC, ILO, WFP, UN Women, Social Impact and The Asia Foundation. In the last six years he has also served as a national expert conducting mid-term and final performance evaluations of several USAID-funded activities including Democratic Participation and Reform (DPR), Strengthening Political Landscape (SPL), Workers Empowerment Program (WEP), Political Economy of Labor in the Readymade Garments (RMG) Sector, Leadership Development Program (LDP) and Democracy, Human Rights and Governance (DRG) activity. During those evaluations, he contributed to planning, designing and conducting data collection, analyzing data, and drafting evaluation reports. Education Ph.D., Institute of Commonwealth Studies (ICS), University of London, UK, 2012 M.Sc., State, Society & Development, University of London, UK, 2002 M.A., Political Science, University of Dhaka, Bangladesh, 1996 B.A., Political Science, University of Dhaka, Bangladesh, 1994 Evaluation and Research Experience • August 2020- January 2021. Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung (FES) Bangladesh commissioned a paper on the “Post-Corona Future of Democracy in Bangladesh.” The paper deals with several ongoing and long￾lasting obstacles in attaining a liberal democratic order in Bangladesh. Issues like closing space for civil society, self censorship in the media, and arbitrary use of draconian laws. The paper also examines human rights violations by the state, political opposition, social and religious forces, and several misconceptions about civil society and the basics of democracy. • November 2020-November 2021. Research-lead, The Asia Foundation (TAF) funded Institute for Environment and Development (IED) project on “Strengthening Traditional Civil Society to Combat Digital Disinformation in Bangladesh.” Seven months of training for 80 civil society members in four locations. They will form 80 groups which will include 800 youths in the localities. Wrote the project proposal, developed the activity’s details, and wrote the training manual. Emphasizes skill building of civil society members in identifying and combating digital disinformation by different actors (anti￾democratic political parties, violent extremists, political parties, ultra-conservative religious and social forces, and others). • Since March 2020. Research paper (first draft completed) on “One State Two Civil Societies: A Case Study of Bangladesh.” This article is a revised version of a paper presented at the Workshop on Civil Society in South Asia, organized by The Aga Khan University Institute for the Study of Muslim Civilizations (AKU-ISMC), (UK) in 2018. This article shows several differences in the aims and objectives of NGO-based civil society and traditional civil society in Bangladesh. • April- December 2020. Country Expert. Mid-Term Evaluation of ILO’s Ready-Made Garment Sector RMGP – Phase II and Better Work Bangladesh (BGB) programs. One component of the evaluation Mid-Term Performance Evaluation for Promoting Advocacy and Rights (PAR) Activity 92 was to examine the worker rights (safety, wages, and health and sanitation, etc.) in the Ready-Made Garment Sector in Bangladesh. • November 2019 – January 2020. Team Leader. Validation of the Obirodh/USAID National Youth Survey on Democracy, Election, Violent Extremism, Religion and related issues. • March-May 2019. Country Expert. Final evaluation of USAID funded Democracy International (DI) program Democracy, Human Rights and Governance (DRG). Evaluation conducted by Social Impact, Washington D.C. • January-March 2019, Country Expert. Mid-term evaluation of the USAID funded Democracy International (DI) program Strengthening Political Landscape (SPL) in Bangladesh. • June 2018 – March 2019. Key Researcher. USAID funded Management Systems International (MSI) study on “Identity, Identity Politics and Elections in Bangladesh.” One section of the study covers public opinion regarding extra-judicial killings, forceful disappearances and freedom of expression. • February - December 2018. Team Leader. Health Economics Unit, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, GOB funded Dev Resonance study on “Gender Analysis of Operation Plans (OP) in Health, Population and Nutrition (HPN) sector in Bangladesh”. • December 2017- January 2018. Country Expert. Mid-Term Evaluation of USAID-funded Workers Empowerment Program (WEP). • June 2017 – March 2018. Co-Team Leader. UN Women funded BNPS study on “Violent Extremism, Gender Equality and Social Cohesion: The Bangladesh Case.” • April – June 2017. Country Expert. USAID study on “Political Economy of Labor in the Readymade Garments (RMG) Sector.” • February – May 2017. Country Expert, Final performance evaluation of the USAID funded Democracy International (DI) program Democratic Participation and Reform (DPR) in Bangladesh. • Since 2015. Country Expert. Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) project, University of Gothenburg, Sweden. Topics include elections, political parties, civil society, media freedom, civic and academic space. • November 2014 - January 2015. Country Expert. Mid-term evaluation of the USAID-funded Leadership Development Program (LDP) conducted by Social Impact, Washington D.C. • August – November 2014. Country Expert. Mid-term evaluation of the USAID funded Democracy International (DI) program Democratic Participation and Reform (DPR) in Bangladesh. • April - July 2014. Country Expert. Mid-term evaluation of the USAID funded Democracy International (DI) program on Democracy, Human Rights and Governance (DRG) in Bangladesh. • December 2011 - January 2015. Team Member. Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC) funded study on “Political Economy of Local Governance and Decentralization in Bangladesh” conducted by the Human Development Research Centre (HDRC). • August – December 2013. Team member. The Institute for Environment and Development (IED) study titled “Perception Study on the Flashback of Youths Involvement in Previous Election Manifesto in the Area of Employment, Education and Environment.” • January – March 2012. Team Member. Institute for Environment and Development (IED) study titled “Mukho-Mukhi: MPs and Constituents Working Face-to-Face in Eradicating Poverty and Strengthening Primary Education Project.” Mid-Term Performance Evaluation for Promoting Advocacy and Rights (PAR) Activity 93 Relevant Publications • “Three Mandatory “M” in the Elections of Bangladesh,” The Indian Journal of Political Science, Vol. LXXX. No. 3, July-September, 2019, pp. 451-458. • “Factors Affecting Consumption of Water from a Newly Introduced Safe Drinking Water System: The Case of Managed Aquifer Recharge (MAR) Systems in Bangladesh,” Water, Vol. 11, Issue 12, November 2019. • “Apparently Insignificant: A Brief Analysis of Less Discussed Obstacles to Bangladesh-India Relationship,” Bangladesh Political Science Review, Volume 13, Number 1, June 2017, pp. 32-38 . • “It Will Take Time for Sure: An Analysis of Democracy Deficit in South Asia,” Bangladesh Political Science Review, Volume 12, Number 1, December 2016, pp. 70-83. • “Secularism and Anti-secularism,” Ali Riaz edited The Routledge Handbook of Contemporary Bangladesh, London: Routledge. 2016, pp. 40-51. • “What was Wrong in Bangladesh Before the Army Intervention in Politics and State Affairs in 2007” in Imtiaz Ahmed et. al edited. 2015. Political Institutions and Conflict: Essays from Bangladesh and India, New Delhi: RCSS, pp. 207-222. • “Rastra Vasa Andolone Tajuddin Ahmad: Ekti Sankhiptha Parjalochana” (in Bangla), Samaj, Orthonity o Rastra, Number 9, October 2015, pp. 123-130. • “People’s Participation in Local Governance” and “Local Government Election: Instrument for Governance” in Abul Barakat et al, Local Governance and Decentralization in Bangladesh, Dhaka: HDRC, 2015, pp. 205-233. • “Tottabodhyak Sarker Prosonge Sushil Samaj: Ekti Parjalochana” (in Bangla) [Bangladesh Civil Society on Caretaker Government: A Review], Samaj Nirikkhon, No. 128, January - March 2014, pp. 1-17. • “Understanding Political Secularism in a Comparative Perspective: analyses of the experiments in France, the USA, Turkey and India,” Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bangladesh, Vol. 58, No. 2, December 2013, pp. 217-237. • “NGO-Donors Partnership and Decaying of the Traditional Civil Society: The Experience of Bangladesh in the Post-military Era,” Identity, Culture, Politics: an Afro-Asian Dialogue, Vol. 7, Number 1 & 2, 2006, pp. 150-189. Printed in late 2007, pp. 150-158. • “Soldiers and the Myth of Democracy: A study of the democratic transition program in Nigeria and Pakistan,” The Dhaka University Studies, Vol. 59-60, No. 1, December 2003, pp. 145-162. (Printed in September 2004). • “Parbatya Chattagram Jana Shanhati Somity (PCJSS)” (in Bengali), PCJSS is the main political organization of the indigenous people in the South-Eastern Hill tracts area of Bangladesh, Banglapedia, Bengali Encyclopedia, Dhaka: Asiatic Society of Bangladesh, 2003. • “Sreni Tatta: Nicos Poulantzas O Erik Olin wright ar Tatta Bishlashan,” (in Bengali), Class Theory: Analysis of the Theory of Nicos Poulantzas and Erik Olin Wright, Samaj Nirikhaan Journal, No. 79, February 2001, pp. 52-63. • “Working of the Parliament of Bangladesh,” Bangladesh Political Science Review, Vol. 1, No. 1, June 2000, pp. 151-166. • “Adhunikata o Uttar Adhunikata” (Modernism and Post-modernism), Rajnity-Orthonity Journal, 5th issue, January-June 1999, pp. 11-17. Mid-Term Performance Evaluation for Promoting Advocacy and Rights (PAR) Activity 94 • “The Role of Civil Society in Bangladesh: an Overview,” Social Science Review, Vol. XV, No. 2, December 1998, pp. 133-141. • “Response to Post-modernism in Bangladesh,” Journal of Asian Studies, No. 17, August 1997. Conferences/Workshops/Seminars/Lectures • Political Science Teacher’s Training Programme, National University Bangladesh, February 16 & 27, 2020. Lecture: (i) Democracy, Democracy-deficit and Civil society (ii) Religion and Politics. • “The National Conference on Preventing/ Countering Violent Extremism in Bangladesh-2019,” organized by Counter Terrorism and Transnational Crime Unit (CTTCU) of Bangladesh. Speech: Identity, Identity politics and Elections in Bangladesh. • “Urbanizing Deltas Worldwide” Annual Meeting, organized by the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO), March 21-22, 2019. Discussant. • “Civil Society in South Asia” workshop, organized by the Aga Khan University (International), UK, held in Hyderabad, March 2-3, 2018. Presentation: “NGO-ised Civil Society and Democratic-deficit: A Case Study of Bangladesh.” • “Indo-Bangladesh Relationship in 21st Century” Conference, November 8-10, 2017, University of Kalyani, India. Presentation: “Apparently Insignificant: Re-examining the Less Discussed Impediments to Bangladesh-India Relationship.” • Democracy: Global, Regional and Bangladesh Context, November 28, 2016, Madrid. Organized by the Bangladeshi Journalist Forum in Spain. Key Speaker. • Urbanizing Deltas Worldwide (UDW), Mid Term Review (MTR) and Theories of Change (ToC) seminar, November 21-23, 2016, The Hague. Organized by the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO). Discussant. • Human Rights Situation in Mekhong Sub-Region: Challenges and Advocacy, September 17-18, 2016, Bangkok, Thailand. Organized by the May18 Foundation and Mahidol University. Presentation: “Minimum Accountability Endless Impunity: An Analysis of State Violence against Democracy and Democratic Movements in Bangladesh.” • International Conference on “Elections and Political Parties in South Asia: A 21st Century Perspective,” December 07-09, 2015. Organized by Department of Political Science, University of Kalyani and International Political Science Association (IPSA). Kalyani University, India. Paper in the first business session: Three “M”: Role of Money Muscle and use of Muslim sentiment in the elections in Bangladesh in the 21th century. • Bangladesh Mahila Parishad (BMP) Certificate Course on Gender, Women Empowerment and Development, Lecture on “Gender and Politics,” 2012-2019. • The May18 Memorial Academy, Gwangju, South Korea, September 06-20, 2015. Presentation: State/ Government is not the only Perpetrator: Examining Human Rights Violation in Bangladesh. • International Seminar on An Appraisal of India’s Neighborhood Policy: Way Forward, November 6-7, 2014 at the Maulana Abul Kalam Azad Institute of Asian Studies (MAKAIAS), Kolkata. Paper: Apparently Insignificant: a Brief Analysis of Less Discussed Obstacles in the Way to Bangladesh￾India Relationship. • Project-meeting on The Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO) Urbanizing Deltas of the World (UDW) and Conference on Deltas In Times of Climate Change II, October 23-26, 2014, Netherlands. Mid-Term Performance Evaluation for Promoting Advocacy and Rights (PAR) Activity 95 • Workshop on Peace, Security and Democracy, January 18, 2014 at the Department of Peace and Conflict, DU. Organized by the Department of Peace and Conflict, DU and Oxfam Bangladesh. Discussant: Attack on religious minorities by the anti secular forces during the national election on January 5, 2014. • YMCA Gender Awareness workshop, Savar, Dhaka, September 28, 2013. • Lecture: Gender Sensitivity: Every Day Life. • YMCA National Youth Conference, Birishiri, Bangladesh, July 10-13, 2013. Lecture: Understanding the Concept of Globalization in the Context of Bangladesh. • Summer School on Religion, Culture and Society, August 26–September 02, 2012, Universitair Centrum Sint-Gnatius Antwerpen (UCSIA), Belgium. Paper: An Analysis of the Views of the Educated Elites and the Lawmakers in Bangladesh on Secularism and Related Issues. • Political Science Teacher’s Training Programme, National University Bangladesh, May 09 & June 07, 2012. Lecture: “Human Rights and Political Violence,” “Arab Spring or Fundamentalist Cold?,” “State and Secularism.” • ILO Summer Camp on Indigenous Rights, ILO Convention 169, Leadership Development and Confidence Building of the Indigenous and Mainstream Youth, BRAC CDM, Savar, Dhaka, July 01-03, 2012. Lecture: Neo Liberalism in Local and Global Context. • Institute of Commonwealth Studies (ICS), University of London, Research seminar series, March 24, 2010. Paper: Decay of Secularism in Bangladesh. • First Annual Democracy and Democratization Conference, University of Connecticut, February 27- 28, 2009. Paper: What was wrong? State of Liberal Democracy in Bangladesh before the Army intervention in politics and state affairs in 2007. • Workshop on ‘Bangladesh Under Caretaker Government’, Jointly by the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) and the Institute of Commonwealth Studies (ICS), November 17, 2007, Discussant. • Midwest Political Science Association (MPSA) Conference, Chicago, April 12-15, 2007. Paper: Religious Fundamentalism and De-secularization of State: Role of Urban Civil Society in Bangladesh. • ‘Bringing the World Home’, Americans for Informed Democracy (AID) Summit, Madrid, May 12-14, 2006. Discussant. • ‘Dialogue on Democracy: Majorities and Minorities’, Chittagong, Bangladesh, July 29-30, 2004. Organizes by the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies (CSDS). Discussant. • Research Methodology Course of the School of Advance Studies (SAS), University of London, September 2004 - September 2005. • Globalizations, New Regionalism, Development Workshop, Institute of Commonwealth studies, December 15-16, 2002. Paper: Problems of Donor-NGO Generalization and the Decaying of the Old Civil Society in Bangladesh in the Post-military Regime, 1990-2002. • OECD conference, Paris, May 13-15, 2002, Participant. • The16th European Conference on Modern South Asian Studies. Edinburgh, September 5-8, 2000. Paper: The Problems and the Prospects of Civil Society in Bangladesh. Mid-Term Performance Evaluation for Promoting Advocacy and Rights (PAR) Activity 96 Editor • Pauraniti and Shushason (Civics and Good Governance), First and Second papers, Gazipur: Bangladesh Open University, 2016 & 2017. Mid-Term Performance Evaluation for Promoting Advocacy and Rights (PAR) Activity 97 Mid -Term Performance Evaluation for Promoting Advocacy and Rights (PAR) Activity 98 Mid -Term Performance Evaluation for Promoting Advocacy and Rights (PAR) Activity 99 Candidate: Nasir Uddin Nationality: Bangladeshi Affiliation: ME&A Position: Mid-level Evaluation Specialist Key Qualifications Nasir Uddin is currently serving as Assistant Professor in the public administration department at the University of Chittagong (CU). He obtained his BSS and MSS degree in Public Administration from the University of Dhaka. He has ten year of extensive teaching and research experience. As a faculty member teaching public administration, he has a vast understanding of civil society organizations. He teaches several courses for graduate students in judicial administration, electronic governance, human rights, ICT policy/act, and the role of civil society. He has published papers in around 20 peer-reviewed publications with renowned publishers like Elsevier, Springer, Sage, Wiley, and Brill. His papers have covered a range of issues including democratic governance, participation, empowerment, open government, innovation and reform, access to justice, local governance, and the role of civil society. Mr. Uddin has also initiated and conducted numerous CU funded research projects on social protection programs, access to local justice and e-Governance, where he has conducted hundreds of interviews and FGDs with civil society representatives. Mr. Uddin also served at Social Impact as a national team member for the final performance evaluation of the USAID-funded “Democratic Participation and Reform (DPR)” project in 2017, and as a team meber on the mid-term evaluation of “Strengthening Political Landscape (SPL)” activity in 2019. In both evaluations he conducted data collection performing numerous KIIs and moderating focus group discussions, conducted data analysis, and assisted in drafting the evaluation reports. Education M.S.S., First Class, Department of Public Administration, Dhaka University, 2010 B.S.S., First Class, Department of Public Administration, Dhaka University, 2009 Evaluation and Research Experience Team Member of Mid-Term Performance Evaluation of the Strengthening Political Landscape (SPL) in Bangladesh Activity, conducted for USAID/Bangladesh (Social Impact/USA, 2019). Project Director of Empowerment of Marginalized Communities through Access to Formal Justice in Rural Bangladesh: A Study on Village Courts, funded by the Research and Publication Office of the University of Chittagong (2018-2019). Team Member of Final Performance Evaluation of the Democratic Participation and Reform (DPR) Project, conducted for USAID/Bangladesh (Social Impact/USA, 2017). Project Director of Effectiveness of Social Safety Net Programs in Accelerating Employability in Rural Bangladesh: A Select Study on Employment Generation Programs, funded by CU Research Cell (2017- 2018). Team Member of Self-Assessment Committee of Public Administration Department, funded by IQAC￾CU, UGC and World Bank (2015-2016). Co-Researcher of “Baseline Study on Role of Solar Energy in implementing ‘Digital Bangladesh’ in the Coastal Areas: A Study on Kutubdia Island” Project, funded by the SSRC under Planning Division, Ministry of Planning, Government of Bangladesh (2015-2016). Research Associate of “Political Economy of Local Governance and Decentralization in Bangladesh,” conducted for the SDC, Embassy of Switzerland/Dhaka (2012-2013). Research Associate of “Household Survey in 3 Districts of Bandarban, Khagrachari and Rangamati in Chittagong Hill Tracts,” conducted for CHTDF-UNDP/Bangladesh (2013). Mid-Term Performance Evaluation for Promoting Advocacy and Rights (PAR) Activity 100 Research Associate of “Knowledge, Attitude and Practice (KAP) of University Students about Sexual Reproductive Health and Rights (SRH-R),” conducted for UNFPA/Bangladesh (2013). Work Experience Assistant Professor, Department of Public Administration, University of Chittagong (Bangladesh), Aug. 2016-Present. Lecturer, Department of Public Administration, University of Chittagong (Bangladesh), Jun. 2011-Present. Publications • Uddin, N. (2021). Open government: conceptual underpinnings, benefits and relationship with SDGs. In: Leal Filho W., Azul A., Brandli L., Lange Salvia A., Wall T. (eds). Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71066-2_86-1 • Uddin, N., & Doullah, S.U. (2021). Electronic government for trust building. In: Leal Filho W., Azul A.M., Brandli L., Lange Salvia A., Özuyar P.G., Wall T. (eds) Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71066-2_119-1 • Ferdous, J., & Uddin, N. (2020). Societal innovation and the impact of the infrastructural development agenda. In: Leal Filho W., Azul A., Brandli L., Lange Salvia A., Wall T. (eds). Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71059-4_125-1 • Ferdous J., & Uddin N. (2020) Women in decision-making positions: developments and stumbling blocks. In: Leal Filho W., Azul A., Brandli L., Lange Salvia A., Wall T. (eds) Gender Equality. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-70060-1_144-1. • Doullah, S. U., & Uddin, N. (2020). Public trust building through electronic governance: an analysis on electronic services in Bangladesh. Technium Social Sciences Journal, 7(1), 28-35. https://doi.org/10.47577/tssj.v7i1.509 • Uddin, N. (2019). Empowerment through participation in local governance: evidence from union parishad in Bangladesh. Public Administration and Policy, 22 (1), 40-54 (Emerald).https://doi.org/10.1108/PAP-10-2018-0002 • Uddin, N. (2019). Rationale for access to local justice systems: the case of village court in Bangladesh. Public Affairs and Governance, 7(2), 160-175 (IndianJournals.com). https://doi.org/10.5958/2321- 2136.2019.00012.2 • Uddin, N., Faisal, H. M., & Zannat, R. (2019). Solar energy for ICT advancement: an empirical study on coastal areas in Bangladesh. Asiascape: Digital Asia, 6(1-2), 35-57 (Brill Publication). https://doi.org/10.1163/22142312-12340101 • Uddin, N. (2019). Inquiring autonomy of local governance in Bangladesh: the case of union parishad. Dynamics of Public Administration, 36 (1), 47-56 (University of Lucknow) https://doi.org/10.5958/0976- 0733.2019.00005.1 • Uddin, N. (2018). Assessing urban sustainability of slum settlements in Bangladesh: Evidence from Chittagong city. Journal of Urban Management, 7(1), 32-42 (Elsevier). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jum.2018.03.002 • Uddin, N. (2017). Empowerment through decentralization: conceptions, contrivances and connections. Dynamics of Public Administration, 34 (1), 86-101(University of Lucknow). https://doi.org/10.5958/0976-0733.2017.00008.6 • Uddin, N., & Doullah, S.D. (2017). Paradox of conceptualizations, measurements and causes of urban poverty: Context evidence from Bangladesh. International Journal of Social and Economic Research, 7(2), Mid-Term Performance Evaluation for Promoting Advocacy and Rights (PAR) Activity 101 54-73 (National Center for Inclusive Growth and Development Trust). https://doi.org/10.5958/2249- 6270.2017.00013.7 • Uddin, N. (2016). Recent trends of local government elections in Bangladesh: an analysis on profile and politics. Public Affairs and Governance, 4 (2), 166-184 (IndianJournals.com) https://doi.org/10.5958/2321-2136.2016.00014.X • Mashreque, M.S.., Doullah, S.U., & Uddin, N. (2016). Global warming and climate change phobia: increasing worries of the most vulnerable counties (MVC). Social Change 6 (1&2), 1-9 (YPSA) • Doullah, S.U., Uddin, N. & Mashreque, M.S. (2015). Urban Governance in Bangladesh: Contemporary Policy Issues Dhaka: Millennium Publication • Mozumder, M.A.K, Mashreque, M.S., & Uddin, N. (2014). Public administration reform in bangladesh: an endless quest for good governance. Jahangirnagar Journal of Administrative Studies, 7 (June), 01-10 (Jahangirnagar University) Publications: Revised submitted and waiting for acceptance • Uddin, N. Empowerment through Access to Local Justice: A Study on Village Court in Bangladesh, Public Administration and Development (Wiley) • Uddin, N. and Kaiser, Z.R.M.A. Accelerating Employability through Social Safety Net Programme in Rural Bangladesh: A Study on Employment Generation Program for the Poorest (EGPP), The International Journal of Community and Social Development (Sage) Papers Presented in Seminar/Conference • Uddin, N. (2020, February). Governance of rural justice system in Bangladesh: an analysis on village court. International Conference on Governance and Public Policy, 2020, GEDY and RGIYD, Tamil Nadu, India. • Uddin, N. (2020, February). Electronic government for public trust building: focus on e-services in Bangladesh. International Conference on Governance and Public Policy, 2020, GEDY and RGIYD, Tamil Nadu, India • Uddin, N. (2020, February). Empowerment through access to local justice: a study on village court in Bangladesh. 7th International Conference on Public Administration and Development (ICPAD), Bangladesh Public Administration Training Centre, Dhaka, Bangladesh • Uddin, N. and Kaiser, Z.R.M.A. (2019, October). Employment generation programs for accelerating employability in rural Bangladesh: a study on employment generation program for the poorest (EGPP). International Conference on Religion, Culture and Governance in the Contemporary World (ICRCG2018). KIRKHS, IIUM, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. • Uddin, N. (2019, October). Rationale for access to local justice systems: the case of village court in Bangladesh. International Conference on Religion, Culture and Governance in the Contemporary World (ICRCG2018). KIRKHS, IIUM, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. • Uddin, N. (2018, January). Assessment of livelihood condition of urban poor in slum areas: concern for sustainable urban development in Bangladesh. 14th International Asian Urbanization Conference. King Mongkut’s Institute of Technology Ladkrabang and Khon Kaen University, and Asian Urban Research Association, Bangkok, Thailand. • Uddin, N. and Yaqub, M. (2016, November). Local government elections in Bangladesh: an assessment in recent experiences. International Conference on Inclusive Economic Growth and Sustainable Development. SDMIMD, Mysore, India. Mid-Term Performance Evaluation for Promoting Advocacy and Rights (PAR) Activity 102 Mid -Term Performance Evaluation for Promoting Advocacy and Rights (PAR) Activity 103 Mid -Term Performance Evaluation for Promoting Advocacy and Rights (PAR) Activity 104 Candidate: Sanjida Akhter Position: Research/Evaluation Assistant Mid-Term Performance Evaluation for Promoting Advocacy and Rights (PAR) Activity 105 Mid -Term Performance Evaluation for Promoting Advocacy and Rights (PAR) Activity 106 Candidate: Munshi Rahman Position: Research/Evaluation Assistant Mid-Term Performance Evaluation for Promoting Advocacy and Rights (PAR) Activity 107 Mid -Term Performance Evaluation for Promoting Advocacy and Rights (PAR) Activity 108