1 DATA-DRIVEN ADVOCACY MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION June 2021 This publication was produced at the request of the United States Agency for International Development by ME&A, Inc. i DATA-DRIVEN ADVOCACY MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION FINAL REPORT JUNE 2021 Contract Number: AID-OAA-I-15-00024/AID-621-TO-17-00005 Activity Start Date and End Date: November 16, 2020 to June 8, 2021 Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) Name: Michael McBroom Alt COR: Nathan Tenny Prepared by Washington Katema, Team Lead, STTA, Data for Development Victoria Lihiru, Subject Matter Expert, STTA, Data for Development Bernard Kindoli, Subject Matter Expert, STTA, Data for Development Rose Aiko, Survey Specialist, Data for Development Jacob Laden, Evaluation Advisor, Data for Development Submitted by David Hughes, Chief of Party ME&A (Mendez England & Associates) 4350 East-West Highway, Suite 210 Bethesda, MD 20814 Tel: 301-652-4334 Email: dhughes@engl.com Cover Photo: DDA capacity-building session organized by Freedom House and Internews on social media and media relations for 13 alternative media actors, July 5–6, 2019. Provided by Freedom House. DISCLAIMER The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for International Development or the United States Government. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS II LIST OF FIGURES II LIST OF TABLES III ACRONYMS IV EXECUTIVE SUMMARY VI 1. INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 CONTEXT 1 1.2 ACTIVITY BACKGROUND 2 2. EVALUATION PURPOSE AND QUESTIONS 4 2.1 EVALUATION PURPOSE 4 2.2 EVALUATION QUESTIONS 4 3. EVALUATION DESIGN, METHODOLOGY, AND LIMITATIONS 5 3.1 OVERVIEW 5 3.2 EVALUATION PHASES 5 3.2.1 Phase 1: Planning and desk review 5 3.2.2 Phase 2: Qualitative and Quantitative Data Collection 5 3.2.3 Phase 3: Data Analysis 7 3.3 LIMITATIONS 7 3.3.1 Bias 7 3.3.2 Data sources and availability 7 4.0 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 9 4.1 EVALUATION QUESTION 1 9 4.1.1 Findings 9 4.1.2 Sub-Question 1 Findings and Conclusions 11 4.1.3 Sub-Question 2 Findings and Conclusions 13 4.1.2 Overall Conclusions for EQ1 18 4.2 EVALUATION QUESTION 2 18 4.2.1 Findings 18 4.2.2 Sub-Question 1 Findings and Conclusions 20 4.2.3 Sub-Question 2 Findings and Conclusions 22 4.2.4 Overall Conclusions for EQ2 25 4.3 EVALUATION QUESTION 3 26 4.3.1 Findings 26 4.3.2 Sub-Question 1 Findings and Conclusions 29 4.3.3 Overall Conclusion for EQ3 29 4.4 EVALUATION QUESTION 4 29 4.4.1 Findings 29 4.4.2 Sub-Question Findings and Conclusions 31 4.4.2 Overall Conclusion for EQ4 32 5. RECOMMENDATIONS 32 5.1 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR USAID/TANZANIA 32 5.2 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPLEMENTING PARTNER(S) 32 REFERENCES 35 ANNEXES 37 ANNEX 1: APPENDIX OF ADDITIONAL TABLES FOR FINDINGS 38 ANNEX 2: SUMMARY OF RECENT GOT LAWS AND ACTIONS TAKEN THAT LIMIT THE ABILITY OF HUMAN RIGHTS–FOCUSED CSOS TO OPERATE IN TANZANIA 45 ANNEX 3: ASSESSMENT SCOPE OF WORK 48 ANNEX 4: ASSESSMENT APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY 50 ANNEX 5: DATA COLLECTION PROTOCOLS 63 ANNEX 6: LIST OF INSTITUTIONS/DEPARTMENTS INTERVIEWED IN KIIS 83 ANNEX 7: CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURE FORMS 84 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: DDA Midterm Performance Evaluation Data Collection Locations.................................................. 6 iii Figure 2: Number of CSOs Receiving U.S. Government Assistance Engaged in Advocacy Interventions........... 9 Figure 3: Number of Human Rights Defenders Trained and Supported........................................................19 LIST OF TABLES Table 1: KII Respondent Organizations........................................................................................................ 6 Table 2: Extent of New Skills Gained from the Training, % of Respondents .................................................10 Table 3: Support Received by Respondent Organizations Apart from Training .............................................10 Table 4: Most Relevant/Important DDA Support, % of Respondents ...........................................................14 iv ACRONYMS Acronym Definition ACHPR African Court on Human and People’s Rights ACT-Wazalendo Alliance for Change and Transparency ANGOZA Association of NGOs in Zanzibar APEA Applied Political Economy Analysis APC Arusha Press Club BRADEA Basic Rights and Duties Enforcement Act CHADEMA Chama Cha Demokrasia Na Maendeleo CCM Chama Cha Mapinduzi CCT Christian Council of Tanzania CEPPS Elections and Political Process Strengthening CHRAGG Commission for Human Rights and Good Governance CSO Civil Society organization DDA Data-Driven Advocacy Activity DO Development Objective DRG Democracy, Human Rights, and Governance EQ Evaluation Question GoT Government of Tanzania GNU Government of National Unity ICCPR International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ICESCR International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights IRI International Republican Institute KII Key Informant Interview LGBTIQ Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Intersex, and Queer LHRC Legal and Human Rights Center M&E Monitoring and Evaluation NACONGO National Council of NGOs NEC National Electoral Commission NCA Ngorongoro Conservation Area NDI National Democratic Institute NGO Non-Governmental Organization MHOLA Mama's Hope Organization For Legal Assistance OCAT Organizational Capacity Assessment Tool ONA Organizational Network Analysis OPI Organizational Performance Index PINGOs Pastoralists Indigenous Non-governmental Organizations Forum PWC Pastoral Women’s Council RFA Request for Application SADC Southern Africa Development Community SQ Sub-Question TANLAP Tanzania Network of Legal Aid Providers TENMET Tanzania Network for Education THRDC Tanzania Human Rights Defenders’ Coalitions v Acronym Definition TPCF Tanzania Pastoralist Community Forum TPLJC Tanzania Peace and Legal Justice Centre TAWLA Tanzania Women Lawyers Association TUDEFO Tunduru Development Foundation TYC Tanzania Youth Coalition UTPC Union of Tanzania Press Clubs USAID United States Agency for International Development VIPAMARU Vijana Pambana Pata Maendeleo Rukwa WG Working Group WiLDAF Women in Law and Development in Africa ZADPP Zanzibar Association for People with Developmental Disability ZAFAYCO Zanzibar Fighting Against Youth Challenges Organization ZLSC Zanzibar Legal Services Center vi EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION The United Republic of Tanzania is undergoing a political transition following President John Magufuli’s untimely death on March 17, 2021. Since becoming an independent state in 1961, Tanzania has earned a reputation for its pluralism, political stability, and smooth transitions of power. In the last decade, Tanzania has experienced accelerated economic and social development, as well as progress in the fight against corruption. However, since the late president’s election in November 2015, the Government of Tanzania’s (GoT’s) actions have trended toward populist authoritarianism characterized by rapid shrinking of civic, democratic, and civil society space. Since August 2017, USAID/Tanzania’s five-year Data-Driven Advocacy (DDA) Activity has sought to improve and sustain Tanzanian civil society’s ability to advocate for and influence policy on key national human rights issues using higher-quality data and information to drive results. Implemented by Freedom House in collaboration with Pact, DDA is funded at a total estimated cost of $8,700,000. The Activity provides mentorship and technical assistance to rights-focused civil society organizations (CSOs) in data collection, evidence-based advocacy, and digital and physical protection. DDA helps CSOs build or strengthen platforms for coordination with stakeholders and strengthen institutional capacity. It also provides CSOs with resources and mentorship to engage the GoT and encourage a more inclusive, data-driven, human rights–focused policymaking process. From 2015 and continuing through the October 2020 general elections, the political situation deteriorated as President Magufuli was accused of stifling dissent and squeezing civic, democratic, and civil society space through political, legal, and administrative restrictions. During Magufuli era, government Bills restricting free political activity, independent media and civil society were fast tracked with no public consulations. Some media houses were banned, and government critics went missing and or charged with non-bailable offences. Public interest litigation was restricted, human rights were eroded and some CSOs were tarteged and their bank accounts were frozen. In October 2020, the U.S. Embassy in Tanzania alleged significant election-related fraud and intimidation in the 2020 general election. Predictably, the ruling party, Chama Cha Mapinduzi (CCM) won by a landslide, claiming all but 3 of 264 directly elected parliamentary seats. The change was dramatic, and the scale of victory turned Tanzania into a de facto one-party state. At the time, the world was grappling with the COVID￾19 pandemic, but the Tanzanian government stopped releasing data on COVID-19 to the World Health Organization from April 2020 onwards and the late president denied the presence of the virus in the country. Because of her background in development and politics, citizens expect the new president, Samia Suluhu Hassan, to facilitate the restoration of human rights and advance development. However, apprehensive optimism for democratization is tempered by the enduring legacy of CCM rule and power dynamics within the ruling party. EVALUATION PURPOSE AND QUESTIONS USAID asked the Data for Development Project to conduct this evaluation to assess how DDA has performed in relation to its specific objectives and performance targets. The evaluation gathered data to assess progress, challenges, and constraints to implementation and performance. It identified potential needs for adaptation or course correction in the remaining activity period. This utilization￾focused evaluation also leveraged lessons learned to inform future USAID projects in Tanzania. Specifically, USAID and its Democracy, Human Rights, and Governance (DRG) Office plan to apply evaluation findings, conclusions, and recommendations to thinking and planning for future design. This midterm evaluation’s scope spans from activity inception in 2018 to 2021 and focuses on DDA’s pre- and post-election activities. The primary audience for the evaluation is the USAID DRG team, broader Mission, IPs, and local partners. The evaluation is expected to benefit other donors who may be designing and/or exploring interventions in DRG activities in Tanzania. vii The evaluation sought to answer the following evaluation questions (EQs): 1. To what extent have platforms for increased cooperation and collaboration among like-minded organizations for evidence-based advocacy been strengthened as a result of DDA's intervention? 2. To what extent has the capacity of targeted/beneficiary CSOs to collect, generate, monitor, and report independent and reliable information concerning human rights abuses improved (Objective 2)? 3. Given the present context in Tanzania’s civic space, to what extent have DDA interventions been successful in supporting CSOs, networks, and individuals to respond to, react to, or address human rights abuses/challenges? 4. To what extent has the use of the applied political economy analysis (APEA), advisory committee, and working group modality facilitated the program's ability to achieve its objectives? EVALUATION DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY The evaluation team used a mixed-methods approach that included document review, key informant interviews (KIIs) with project participants, and a self-administered survey with grantees to gather both quantitative and qualitative data. The team reviewed more than 28 project documents, conducted 29 KIIs, and surveyed 76 recipients of DDA institutional, project, and rapid response funding support. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The evidence collected indicates that DDA has had positive outcomes and is on course to meet its stated objectives and performance targets. DDA partners overwhelmingly stated that Freedom House and Pact support has helped organizations become stronger, more resilient, agile, more effective, and better able to accomplish their goals despite the shrinking civic space. The evaluation team also identified challenges and areas for improvement. EQ 1: To what extent have platforms for increased cooperation and collaboration among like-minded organizations for evidence-based advocacy been strengthened as a result of DDA's intervention? EQ1 Findings 1. Local CSOs are now better organized and have increased their coordination and synergies through the working group modality. 2. Local CSOs, including working group (WG) conveners, have improved their technical capacity to coordinate their advocacy efforts. 3. Knowledge and skills gained from DDA capacity-building activities have had a high application rate. 4. DDA support resulted in more local CSOs adhering to NGO regulations. EQ1 Conclusions 1. The working group modality is an effective platform for increasing coordination and collaboration of local CSOs for evidence based advocacy. 2. WGs members have recorded increased application of knowledge and skills. WG members indicate their organizations are stronger and more professional: technically, financially, and administratively following capacity-development interventions. 3. Following DDA support, grantee partners including human rights–focused civic groups, increased adherence to NGO regulations, thus maintaining business continuity amid the constrained operating environment. viii Sub-Question (SQ) 1: What have been the results and outcomes of any strengthened platforms? SQ1 Findings 1. Some CSOs advocacy outcomes have improved as a result of DDA technical assistance. 2. The WG approach has enhanced capacity development, improved and expanded community networks, increased engagement with government officials, and enabled sharing of information and expertise. 3. The WG approach has developed professional relationships and networks among WG members and outside WGs that will be beneficial beyond DDA. 4. WG members collaborate and coordinate efforts to tackle human rights challenges from multiple angles. 5. Self-mentorship among WG members will ensure WG sustainability beyond DDA support Conclusions DDA has provided platforms for CSOs to leverage and strengthen their capacity and expand networks to address human rights issues and improve advocacy outcomes. SQ 2: Where platforms for increased cooperation and collaboration among like-minded organizations for evidence-based advocacy have been established or strengthened; what modalities and approaches have been most (and least) successful? SQ2 Findings 1. The “headhunting” approach in selecting members of various WGs was effective in improving the civic trust and working relationships among the WG members, although the deteriorating operating environment resulted in self-censorship and a climate of fear among WGs members. 2. The DDA activity minimized the risk of establishing unstainable, artificial and funding-driven coalitions by leveraging already existing networks to establish WGs. 3. The WG approach has been effective in increasing capacity and coordination of local CSOs for evidence-based advocacy although some partners raised concerns about DDA’s “micro￾management” approach. 4. The DDA mixed-funding model provided some level of flexibility in accessing funds for local partners. There were some concerns, especially on the limited period of performance for project and institutional funding. Most partners considered these two types the most important grant types. 5. DDA lags in integration of gender and social inclusion principles in the activity. Conclusions 1. The “headhunting” approach in selecting members of various WGs worked well and fostered a climate of mutual trust among WGs members, although the shrinking democratic space resulted in some WG members not participating in some WGs. 2. The DDA mixed-funding model provided flexibility in accessing funds for the local partners. Longer-term funding mechanisms such as project and institutional grants were considered the most important/relevant type of DDA support. Some local partners received grants with a limited period of grant performance. 3. Although CSOs benefited from the technical and financial capacity development support from the DDA activity, some local partners flagged DAA’s micro-management approach as a seedbed for mistrust between DDA and themselves. 4. The execution of gender and social inclusion commitments is perceived as the role of WG2 with DDA taking less deliberate efforts to ensure effective integration of gender and social inclusion principles across the entire activity. ix EQ 2: To what extent has the capacity of targeted/beneficiary CSOs to collect, generate, monitor, and report independent and reliable information concerning human rights abuses improved? EQ1 Findings 1. The use of evidence based and data driven methodologies and technologies have improved the capacity of local partners to objectively monitor and report on the human rights situation in Tanzania 2. DDA exceeded performance targets in the number of human rights defenders trained and supported by the end of 2020. 3. The mentorship and coaching of local partners on research methods improved the capacity of local partners to effectively monitor, triangulate, and report independent and reliable information concerning human rights abuses. Conclusion: 1. The capacity of targeted CSOs to collect, generate, monitor, and report independent and reliable information concerning human rights abuses has significantly improved as a result of DDA support, including trainings and mentorship programming. SQ1: Has improved capacity changed their activities, approaches, or actions? SQ1 Findings 1. Beneficiary CSO activities, approaches, and actions have changed significantly as a result of strengthened capacity to monitor and report independent human rights information. The supported CSOs, including WG members, are expanding their sphere of engagement beyond the usual NGO circles to include some actors in the private sector and academia. 2. To strengthen the evidence base and give the marginalized a voice, CSOs are inviting the victims or survivors of human rights violations to join them as they engage with government institutions and lawmakers. 3. DDA-supported CSOs are increasingly adopting a Do No Harm approach to human rights monitoring. 4. Human rights monitoring and reporting capacity has enabled the supported CSOs to improve their report documentation, analysis, and writing skills, contributing to the development of evidence￾based advocacy tools, such as position papers. Conclusion: With their increased capacity, CSOs changed their activities and approaches and generated evidence on human rights abuses that helped open closed government doors and improved engagement with government institutions on human rights issues. SQ2: Are targeted/beneficiary CSOs better equipped/do they have greater capacity to collect data on, monitor, and report on human rights abuses as a result of DDA? SQ2 Findings 1. DDA’s flexible funding modalities, such as rapid response and project grants, have been effective in enabling beneficiary CSOs to collect evidence to support emerging issues that need immediate intervention. 2. Internal and external challenges have hindered the supported CSOs from effectively monitoring and reporting human rights abuses. 3. Following DDA support, several initiatives have been adopted to ensure that CSOs continue monitoring, collecting, and reporting human rights information. 4. The supported CSOs are seeking to work closely with government human rights institutions to impact the government’s ways of monitoring and reporting human rights information. x Targeted CSOs are now better equipped to monitor and share information on human rights abuses and change some laws despite the shrinking civic space. Collaboration platforms, including WGs have enabled CSOs to quickly verify and triangulate their sources of information when monitoring and reporting on human rights abuses. EQ 3: Given the present context in Tanzania’s civic space, to what extent have DDA interventions been successful in supporting CSO networks, and individuals to respond to, react to, or address human rights abuses/challenges? EQ3 Findings 1. The rapid response mechanism is very relevant in responding to unanticipated needs, especially when operating in the fast-paced pre- and post-election political environment. 2. Public interest or strategic impact litigation is a viable mechanism in providing access to justice to individuals or CSOs facing persecution. 3. Pro bono emergency legal services have been effective and expanded to cover journalists and human rights defenders. 4. Authoritarian rhetoric and direct threats have in many cases preceded targeted attacks on government critics. EQ3 Conclusions 1. Despite the restrictive operating environment, DDA interventions were successful in supporting local partners to respond to and to address human rights violations. 2. Threats to CSOs and to human rights defenders were taken seriously by DDA and the program adapted to ensure preventative or mitigation measures were put in place. SQ1: Have interventions supporting CSOs/networks to rapidly respond been more or less successful than those supporting individual activists? SQ1 Findings 1. The DDA supported activist efforts through rapid response grants to well-established organizations. 2. DDA did not support individuals through rapid response grants. SQ1 Conclusion The evaluation team did not find sufficient information to assess the efficacy of rapid response support to CSOs compared with support to individual activists. EQ 4: To what extent has the use of the applied political economy analysis (APEA), advisory committee, and working group modality facilitated the program's ability to achieve its objectives? EQ4 Findings 1. USAID reported that DDA effectively used analytical products to continually refine the project and identify new opportunities. 2. APEAs clearly articulated the contextual challenges in Tanzania. EQ4 Conclusions 1. APEAs and other analytical products such as monthly environmental scans are effective in informing decision making and mid-course corrections for DDA. 2. Despite the restrictive civic space, the working group modality improved coordination and collaboration of local partners around key human rights issues such as: lowering the testing age for HIV from 18 years to 16 years; suspension of the reregistration of NGOs in Zanzibar to give more time for the Registrar of Associations and CSOs to consider the reregistration process’s effects; and, a reduction of the online TV/radio license fee. Conclusion xi SQ1: What challenges, laws, or actions identified in APEAs facilitate or limit the ability of human rights CSOs to operate effectively in Tanzania? SQ1 Findings 1. APEA identified the specific legislative, legal, and political restrictions which are limiting the operational effectiveness of CSOs in Tanzania. 2. APEA provided several recommendations and potential entry points for CSOs to adapt and remain relevant in the context of rapidly shrinking and shifting civic space in Tanzania. For example, in relation to the NGO re-registration regulations, APEA recommended that CSOs comply first and complain later. SQ1 Conclusions 1. APEA is effective in identifying key challenges and actions that facilitated or limited the ability of human rights CSOs to operate effectively in Tanzania. 2. The Thinking and Working Politically approach through APEA is effective when operating in a politically sensitive context. RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendations For USAID/Tanzania (Future Design) 1. USAID should continue to prioritize activities currently supported under the DDA activity to assist CSOs to continue to use grounded evidence for advocacy and push for social change, post the DDA activity. 2. USAID is encouraged to make a deliberate effort to meet with beneficiaries more frequently, leveraging the strategic portfolio reviews sessions or the pause and reflect sessions and not depend on IPs (Freedom House and Pact) alone. 3. USAID should support interventions that encourage citizen-responsive or citizen-centered governance systems to promote accountable democratic governance that serves engaged citizens. 4. Develop support mechanisms that link DRG activities to other issues affecting Tanzanians’ everyday lives, including livelihoods and economic empowerment. Citizens do not separate these concepts; neither should USAID support. Recommendations for Implementing Partners (Ongoing Implementation) 1. DDA should continue to conduct APEAs and pause-and-reflect sessions with key stakeholders to share knowledge and understanding of the changing context. 2. DDA should continue to invest in strengthening CSOs’ unity and collective voice to reverse the human rights regression experienced in the past six years and address some persistent human rights issues. 3. DDA should co-create the coordination, communication, and engagement strategy with CSOs to guide WG platform effectiveness – particurlaly related to increased collaboration and cooperation. 4. Freedom House and Pact should enhance coordination among themselves in dealing with grantees. 5. Amid the ongoing situation with the COVID-19 health crises, DDA should rethink how the supported CSOs will continue to execute their mandate safely amid the pandemic. 6. DDA should ensure that there are gender and social inclusion guidelines for WG composition, leadership and ways of working. 7. DDA should adapt its advocacy approach and diversify its range of local partners to enable programming to align with the evolving political dynamics. Whenever possible and as appropriate, DDA should explore the need for WGs to be formed with sufficient representation of the private sector, academia, trade unions, professional associations, service delivery organizations, musicians, artists, and individual activists. 8. DDA or USAID should consider providing holistic support (physical security, digital security, and psychosocial support, etc.) to CSOs and human rights defenders at high risk to ensure that they can remain "safe but not silent." xii 9. DDA should ensure that the WGs regain and build their legitimacy with their constituents. CSOs should prioritize a mix of direct and beneficiary-led interventions and project implementation, monitoring, and evaluation. 10. DDA should increase the speed and efficiency in dealing with rapid response grant applications without overlooking due compliance processes. 11. The uptake of the evidence produced by DDA-supported CSOs for government institutions is hampered by the constraining operating context. DDA should invest in ensuring that the WGs: ● Involve the targeted government institutions from the first steps of a study to enhance ownership of the process and outcomes. ● Create, revive, and maintain close collaboration and communication with progressive individuals and champions within the government institutions. Given the recent change of government regime and the fact that government officials tend to be reallocated, relationship building and maintenance should be continuous. 12. Sustainable monitoring, collection, and sharing of human rights information requires financial stability. DDA should prioritize capacity building in resource mobilization, grant management, and proposal writing. 13. With the boom of online and alternative media and the indication that the media environment will be conducive, DDA should prioritize training in these media forms. DDA should also prioritize actions and advocacy on changing the punitive laws that made the media landscape hostile in the recent past years. 14. DDA should strengthen its support to ensure that CSOs comply with NGO regulations to avoid deregistration and suspension, which would interfere with their work. 1 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 CONTEXT The United Republic of Tanzania is undergoing a political transition following President John Magufuli’s untimely death on March 17, 2021. Since becoming an independent state in 1961, Tanzania has earned a reputation for its pluralism, political stability, and smooth transitions of power. In the last decade, Tanzania has experienced accelerated economic and social development, as well as progress in the fight against corruption. However, since the late president’s election in November 2015, the Government of Tanzania’s (GoT’s) actions have trended toward populist authoritarianism characterized by rapid shrinking of civic, democratic, and civil society space. Although anti-corruption and government (public) accountability ostensibly formed the cornerstone of President Magufuli’s policies, the GoT also restricted freedoms of assembly, association, and expression. It also did little to address egregious human rights concerns around land rights, extrajudicial killings (e.g., mob violence, police violence, and witchcraft killings), labor rights, and sexual and gender-based violence (GBV). The GoT banned opposition political gatherings in 2016. In the run￾up to the October 2020 general elections, the political situation rapidly deteriorated as President Magufuli was accused of stifling dissent and squeezing civic, democratic, and civil society space through political, legal, and administrative restrictions. President Magufuli targeted human rights–centric nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and civil society groups, accusing them of working with hostile foreign elements to derail his development agenda, while his nationalist economic policies stifled foreign direct investment. In October 2020, the U.S. Embassy in Tanzania flagged allegations of significant election-related fraud and intimidation in the 2020 general election. Predictably, the ruling party, Chama Cha Mapinduzi (CCM) won by a landslide, claiming all but 3 of 264 directly elected parliamentary seats. The scale of victory turned Tanzania into a de facto one-state party. The elections in the Zanzibar archipelago saw increased security constraints and violent incidents, including deadly violence. Although the main presidential opposition candidate, Tundu Lissu, returned to the country safely in July 2020—after two years abroad nursing injuries from an assassination attempt—the electoral playing field remained uneven. Lissu left the country immediately after the 2020 elections, citing threats to his life and arrests of prominent opposition leaders. The GoT constrained media freedom and freedoms of expression, association, and assembly through new regulations that targeted the opposition, NGOs, human rights defenders, minorities, vulnerable people (including LGTBIQ), and the media (traditional media, including radio, as well as social media). In addition to restrictive legislation, abuse of law influenced the continued suppression of a diverse and independent media and oppositional voices. The 2016 Media Services Act enhanced censorship, muzzling the media through suspension and closure of media outlets for reporting allegations of corruption and human rights violations. Recent examples include the shutting down of several media houses such as Tanzania Daima, Maawio, Mseto, and Mwanahalisi for allegedly publishing false information; credible concerns of use of technology for cyber-monitoring and censorship of select individuals, journalists, and political opponents; and the harassment and police detention of journalists, political leaders, and civil society leaders. In addition to authorities restricting spaces for expression and gathering, civic and political participation is diminishing out of fear or disillusionment. In March 2020, Tanzania saw its first reported cases of COVID-19; however, information restrictions soon followed. The Tanzanian government stopped reporting cases of COVID-19 to the World Health Organization in April 2020 and President Magufuli denied the virus’s presence, banning everyone from reporting cases. These bans were in part enforced by the 2015 Statistics Act, which criminalized the publication of statistics not approved by the government, and the 2015 Cybercrime Act that has prevented some civil society organizations (CSOs) from feeling comfortable publishing online information. Aggressive disinformation gave way to schools reopened in June 2020 and travel restrictions were lifted, prompting normalization of economic and social activity. The issue of COVID- 2 19 information and response was highly politicized before and after the 2020 election, despite numerous high-profile deaths resulting from COVID or diseases with symptoms consistent with COVID. After the former president’s death, President Samia Suluhu signaled a change in approach, one that the domestic and international community is anxious to better understand. As a hopeful sign of change, there has been a presidential executive health order and a committee report on the public health situation which recommends several health precautions and includes measures such as mask wearing in public spaces. This momentum may ultimately lead to allowing distribution of vaccines and collection of health data on COVID19 cases. This was issued on May 17th 2021. In the above context, civil society is arguably fragile, unfocused, fragmented, and often engaging in unhealthy competition for limited resources. Meanwhile, some citizens expect the new president to facilitate the restoration of human rights and advance development, balancing the legacy of the late Magufuli with the realities of Tanzania and myriad challenges that he left behind. In response to these heightened expectations, the new president has signaled some small changes through a recent order to lift a ban on online media outlets that had been closed for criticizing the government. These actions have raised hope for a more liberal and open future.1 Although President Hassan has a strong background in CSOs and community development and is painted as having a different personality from that of her predecessor, optimism around democratization prospects is tempered by CCM’s authoritarian roots and power dynamics within the ruling party. The Zanzibar unity government has also been sending positive signals to CSOs, and opposition party Alliance for Change and Transparency, (ACT-Wazelendo), with whom it co-governs under a Government of National Unity (GNU), laying the ground for potential engagement between stakeholders to achieve the dividends of reconciliation, inclusion, and peace. The GoT has committed to promoting gender equality and women’s empowerment. It ratified several international conventions and declarations on gender, including the 1979 Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, the 1995 Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action, the 1997 SADC Declaration on Gender and Development, the 2030 Agenda Sustainable Development Goals, and the 2008 SADC Protocol on Gender and Development. It has also introduced several legislative reforms and policy frameworks as part of its national drive toward women’s empowerment and gender equality, including the 2005 National Strategy for Gender Development. However, most reforms remain paper tigers, largely unimplemented and with limited dedicated resources. Even with a female president, women in Tanzania have a steep hill to climb on account of a patriarchal society, rampant GBV, and gender discrimination. Traditional marginalization, lack of constitutional awareness, and limited economic empowerment have restricted women and youth participation in political activities and decision-making processes. The burgeoning youth population is a seedbed for demographic dividends or youth-led resistance because of lack of economic opportunities and rising poverty levels. 1.2 ACTIVITY BACKGROUND USAID’s Data-Driven Advocacy (DDA) Activity is a five-year intervention implemented by Freedom House in collaboration with PACT. With a total estimated cost of $8,700,000, DDA began in August 2017 and is anticipated to end in August 2022. It aims to improve and sustain Tanzanian civil society’s ability to advocate for and influence policy on key national human rights issues using better data and information to drive results. DDA provides mentorship and technical assistance to rights-focused CSOs in data collection (including gathering citizen perceptions and human rights monitoring), evidence-based advocacy, and digital and physical protection. It helps CSOs build or strengthen platforms for coordination with diverse stakeholders; builds their institutional capacity to ensure 1 The Citizen Newspaper, “President Samia Orders Information Ministry to Lift Ban on Media Outlets,” available at https://www.thecitizen.co.tz/tanzania/news/president-samia-orders-information-ministry-to-lift-ban￾on-media-outlets-3351174, accessed on April 6, 2021. 3 sustainability of outcomes; and provides them with resources and mentorship to better engage the GoT and contribute to a more inclusive, data-driven, human rights–focused policymaking process. The activity has three objectives: 1. Platforms for increased cooperation and collaboration among like-minded organizations for evidence-based advocacy are strengthened. 2. Civil society’s abilities to collect, generate, monitor, and report independent and reliable information concerning human rights abuses are strengthened. 3. CSOs, networks, and key individuals can respond to urgent and unanticipated needs. DDA’s theory of change (articulated in Year 1) stated the following: If rights-focused CSOs have the technical skills, institutional capacity, and continuous mentorship to collect data about human rights violations and citizen priorities and utilize that data for policy development and evidence-based advocacy and if they have established platforms for cooperation and collaboration within civil society and with diverse stakeholders outside civil society and in government, then rights-focused CSOs will be able to systematically contribute to the development of better, more inclusive policies on key issues.2 USAID/Tanzania’s Strategic results framework changed in 2020 during DDA implementation. The original development objective (DO3 of the 2015–2019 country development cooperation strategy (CDCS) to which DDA contributed was “Effective democratic governance improved.” In 2019 USAID developed a new CDCS (2020–2025) and revised the intermediate results (IRs) to which DDA is contributing: IR 2.3 “Civic participation and leadership strengthened,” IR 3.2 “Enabling environment for private sector and CSOs enhanced,” IR3.3 “Capacity of civil society actors strengthened,” and a crosscutting IR of “Embracing innovative, scalable, inclusive, and citizen-led solutions.” DDA uses the working group (WG) model to ensure that their local partners are more organized, coordinated, and focused. The WGs are convened by select local partners who coordinate WG member efforts to co-create their advocacy priorities, implementation plans, and suitable approaches. Three of the five current WGs are thematic and the other two are geo-focused: • WG1: Civic Space WG, convened by the MS- Training Center for Development Cooperation (MS-TCDC); • WG2: Women, Children, Youth, and Persons with Disabilities WG, convened by Women in Law and Development in Africa–Tanzania (WiLDAF); • WG3: New and Alternative Media WG, led by Arusha Press Club (APC); • WG4: Dodoma Working Group, led by Christian Council of Tanzania (CCT); and, • WG5: Zanzibar Working Group, led by Association of NGOs in Zanzibar (ANGOZA). DDA receives strategic advice on political/civic trends and intervention viability from the advisory committees for both Tanzania Mainland and Zanzibar. These committees provide guidance to ensure that the project is driven by experts plugged into the reality on the ground; confirm programmatic assumptions and activities, including possible informal vetting of partners; and serve as a pool of experts from which DDA can pull for training or mentorship, especially for younger generations of activists and CSOs. DDA supports partner CSOs through institutional, project, and rapid response grants. The institutional grants support costs related mainly to convening WG member meetings, advocacy and campaign activities, and institutional capacity development activities for the groups. The project grants support evidence-based advocacy, data collection, and capacity development activities for CSOs. Rapid response grants, which support unanticipated needs, are tied to findings from ongoing applied political economy analyses (APEAs) and sustained intelligence gathering from grantees and other stakeholders. The two grant mechanisms under this fund include CSO Urgent Action/Windows of Opportunity, 2 DDA Year 1 Work Plan 4 which focuses on interventions that respond to an urgent human rights threat or emerging advocacy opportunity, present an opportunity for collaboration, or seek to pilot an innovative new approach for advocacy or data collection, and Strategic Litigation, which helps CSOs pursue legal cases to defend group or individual human rights or promote the public interest in Tanzania. 2. EVALUATION PURPOSE AND QUESTIONS 2.1 EVALUATION PURPOSE This midterm evaluation, conducted by the Data for Development Project, spans from DDA’s inception in 2018 to 2021, focusing on pre- and post-election activities. USAID requested this evaluation to assess DDA’s performance in relation to its specific objectives and performance targets. The evaluation gathered data to assess progress, achievements, challenges, constraints, and positive or negative unintended consequences; document lessons learned; identify potential needs for adaptation or course correction in the remaining activity period; and inform future USAID projects in Tanzania. The evaluation’s primary audience is the USAID Democracy, Human Rights, and Governance (DRG) team, broader Mission, and implementing partners (IPs). The evaluation may also benefit other donors designing and/or exploring interventions concerning human rights activities in Tanzania. 2.2 EVALUATION QUESTIONS The evaluation sought to answer the following evaluation questions (EQs): EQ1: To what extent have platforms for increased cooperation and collaboration among like-minded organizations for evidence-based advocacy been strengthened as a result of DDA's intervention? Sub-question 1: What have been the results and outcomes of any strengthened platforms? Sub-question 2: Where platforms for increased cooperation and collaboration among like￾minded organizations for evidence-based advocacy have been established or strengthened; what modalities and approaches have been most (and least) successful? EQ2: To what extent has the capacity of targeted/beneficiary CSOs to collect, generate, monitor, and report independent and reliable information concerning human rights abuses improved? Sub-question 1: Has improved capacity changed their activities, approaches, or actions? Sub-question 2: Are targeted/beneficiary CSOs better equipped/do they have greater capacity to collect data on, monitor, and report on human rights abuses as a result of DDA? EQ3: Given the present context in Tanzania’s civic space, to what extent have DDA interventions been successful in supporting CSOs, networks, and individuals to respond to, react to, or address human rights abuses/challenges? Sub-question: Which interventions have been more successful? Have interventions supporting CSOs/networks to rapidly respond been more or less successful than those supporting individual activists? EQ4: To what extent has the use of the applied political economy analysis (APEA), advisory committee, and working group modality facilitated the project's ability to achieve its objectives? Sub-question: What challenges, laws, or actions identified in APEAs facilitate or limit the ability of human rights CSOs to operate effectively in Tanzania? 5 3. EVALUATION DESIGN, METHODOLOGY, AND LIMITATIONS 3.1 OVERVIEW The evaluation used a mixed-methods approach that included document review, key informant interviews (KIIs) with project participants, and a self-administered survey with participants of DDA capacity-building activities (from grantees and non-grantee institutions within the DDA WG networks) to gather both quantitative and qualitative data. The evaluation team reviewed more than 28 project documents, conducted 29 KIIs, and administered an online survey to 76 recipients of DDA grants (institutional, project, and rapid response grants) and WG members who had received capacity￾building support through either training or mentorship and coaching (or both). 3.2 EVALUATION PHASES 3.2.1 Phase 1: Planning and desk review The evaluation team conducted an in-depth desk review of project documents supplied by both USAID and Freedom House, including the following (see References for a complete list of documents reviewed): • Annual implementation plans • Annual and quarterly reports, case studies, success stories, and indicator data • Analytical products, including APEAs, research papers, environmental assessments, and lessons learned documents • USAID Country Development Cooperation Strategy 2015–2019 • USAID Country Development Cooperation Strategy 2020–2025 The evaluation team relied on implementation plans, narrative reports, and primary sources for analysis and referenced project documents for clarification or triangulation as needed. The Evaluation Evidence Matrix in Annex 2 details the data sources and key informant categories that informed the evaluation team’s answers to each EQ. 3.2.2 Phase 2: Qualitative and Quantitative Data Collection Phase 2 took place in February and March 2021. Data for Development held an in-brief with USAID/Tanzania to clarify expectations and discuss future use of evaluation results to ensure that the evaluation was responsive to Mission needs. After the in-brief, Data for Development finalized the work plan and all data collection instruments and undertook data collection between late January and mid-March 2021. See Figure 1 for the map of data collection locations. 6 Figure 1: DDA Midterm Performance Evaluation Data Collection Locations Key Informant Interviews The team prepared and pretested the data collection protocols and conducted remote KIIs3 to triangulate the data collected in the document review and gain further insights into perceptions about project effectiveness. The team tailored the KII protocols to the key informants’ roles and “causal distance” from DDA activities, the extent of the involvement of the key informant in DDA activities, and the time available for interviewing. The questions addressed knowledge and general perceptions and probed for specific examples of attitude and behavior change. KII protocols are included in Annex 5. The list of stakeholders to be interviewed (sample) was established in collaboration with Freedom House and focused on all key intervention locations (Arusha, Dar es Salaam, Dodoma, Mbeya, and Zanzibar). The team conducted 29 KIIs with 29 individuals (22 male, 7 female) representing organizations listed in Table 1.4 Table 1: KII Respondent Organizations KIIs Organization Primary Activity Contacts USAID/Tanzania, Freedom House, and Pact Other USAID Implementing Partners IRI, NDI, and Internews Working Group Convenors ANGOZA, WiLDAF, Arusha Press Club, CCT 3 Because of COVID-19-related restrictions, all activities were conducted remotely. 4 Four of the organizations interviewed were recipients of institutional grants, 10 of project grants, and 8 of rapid response grants. 7 KIIs Organization CSO Subgrantees VECA, PINGO Forums, Vijana Assembly, PACSO, VIPAMARU, MHOLA, SIKIKA, NACONGO, LHRC, ZLSC, MYCN, TANLAP, Tanzania Peace and Legal Justice Centre, TAWLA, ZADPP, Mbeya Yetu Online TV, Kengele Media, Kisandu Blog, ZAFAYCO Self-Administered Survey The evaluation team conducted a self-administered survey with DDA grant recipients who had participated in capacity development activities, focusing on change in knowledge and application of skills, organizational change, and organizational results, including perceptions of and responses to the changing political and civic space environment. Using a purposive sampling methodology, the team targeted all listed DDA grantee staff who had participated in capacity-building activities; the team reached 76 respondents (50 male, 26 female) from 17 regions of Zanzibar and the mainland. Of the respondents, 69 percent were DDA WG members, as follows: WG 1 Civic Space (18 percent); WG 2 on Women, Youth, and Persons with Disabilities (22 percent); WG 3 Alternative Media (12 percent); WG 4 Zanzibar (12 percent); and WG 5 Dodoma (5 percent). Most of the survey questions were closed-ended to provide quantifiable data; the protocol is included in Annex 5. The survey was administered electronically by email in Survey Monkey with follow-up by phone. For a profile of survey respondents and data analysis tables from the mini survey, see Annex 1. 3.2.3 Phase 3: Data Analysis The team generated both horizontal analysis (across main themes to create the big picture) and vertical analysis (in-depth understanding of the most important issues) using the following approach: ● The team engaged in discussion to identify and conceptualize trends and themes that emerged from the qualitative data collected (coding). ● Once all qualitative data were consolidated according to the EQs, the team identified the most prevalent themes and concepts mentioned by respondents to yield an in-depth analysis pertinent to the EQs (coding). ● The team analyzed the data collected through the survey using descriptive statistics. Data were cleaned and frequencies were run to identify the topline data on key questions. ● The team’s Survey Specialist analyzed how the quantitative data collected from the survey corroborated or diverged from the identified themes. 3.3 LIMITATIONS There are a few notable limitations to the methods used and data collected for this evaluation. Below are details on limitations related to bias, availability of respondents and data sources, COVID-19- related restrictions, and gender inclusion, as well as the evaluation team’s mitigation strategies for each limitation. 3.3.1 Bias Biases were addressed through methodological or analytical methods. For example, to help mitigate selection bias, the team attempted to obtain a census of all grantee staff who had participated in capacity-building activities. However, the number of responses remained too low to enable cross￾tabulation and disaggregation by geographic and other respondent characteristics. For this reason, the analysis is for the most part in the aggregate. The team also addressed potential bias by using multiple sources of data to triangulate across qualitative and quantitative sources, including information found in documents, interviews, and survey responses. 3.3.2 Data sources and availability The team faced a few limitations related to data sources and availability: 8 Contact with DDA grantees Some grantees contact details provided by Freedom House and Pact were incorrect, which hampered the team’s attempts to schedule KIIs with DDA beneficiaries. In some cases, grantees could not respond to requests for interviews. Some leaders of DDA partner organizations were found to be deceased when requested for a KII. Freedom House and Pact could not provide alternative contacts at short notice for the team to interview. Mini-survey administration Some prospective respondents failed to respond to the survey. Nevertheless, the response rate of 65 percent sufficed for a credible analysis. However, with 76 responses, the lower n scores per question required the analysis to remain mostly in the aggregate across questions (with some selective disaggregation by gender and other binaries). Access to monitoring and evaluation (M&E) data The team did not have access to the DevResults M&E system that Freedom House and Pact created to maintain all project monitoring data. Freedom House and Pact provided limited M&E data to the evaluation team. The team is unsure why access was not granted. Therefore, for performance data the team relied solely on official indicator data reported to the Implementing Partners Reporting System (IPRS) and quarterly and annual reports. Gender balance The team experienced an imbalance of men and women among the respondents consulted for this evaluation. For example, only 7 of the 29 key informants were women. Of 76 individuals who participated in the online survey, 26 (34 percent) were women. Despite this imbalance (which reflects imbalanced project participation), the team tried to obtain as much information as possible on DDA’s gender and social inclusion aspects from both male and female respondents. COVID-19-related restrictions The pandemic restricted face-to-face engagement with key informants. Consequently, interviews were conducted through online conference calls through Zoom digital platforms. The team managed to reach the anticipated number of respondents. Triangulation of data from document review, KIIs, and the online survey allowed for sound analysis. Despite these limitations, the team is confident of the quality of data, analysis, and findings. Feedback was consistent across all respondent groups; no feedback or responses were outliers from the other information collected. 9 4.0 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 4.1 EVALUATION QUESTION 1 To what extent have platforms for increased cooperation and collaboration among like￾minded organizations for evidence-based advocacy been strengthened as a result of DDA's intervention? 4.1.1 Findings The team noted progress toward attainment of DDA Objective 1 (“Platforms for increased cooperation and collaboration among like-minded organizations for evidence-based advocacy are strengthened”). This DDA objective also contributes to USAID/Tanzania’s IR3.3 “Capacity of civil society actors strengthened.” Over the Activity’s past three years, the number of CSOs receiving U.S. Government assistance through the DDA Activity and engaged in advocacy interventions has risen notably. Performance improved to above target in 2020 after falling below target in 2019 (Figure 1). Figure 2: Number of CSOs Receiving U.S. Government Assistance Engaged in Advocacy Interventions 10 7 23 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 2018 2019 2020 ACTUALS TARGET Count Source: USAID IPRS Finding 1: Local CSOs are now better organized and have increased coordination and synergies through the working group modality. According to Pact’s organizational performance indexes, most local partners, including WG conveners, have improved their technical capacity around the key capacity areas they identified during the organization capacity assessments. This information shows that the training and technical support provided by DDA improved organizations’ efficiency and effectiveness and created a learning culture among DDA beneficiaries. These beneficiary CSOs received training in proposal development, financial management, human rights monitoring and documentation, community and government engagement, M&E, policy analysis, leadership, physical and digital security, and evidence-based advocacy. The team did hear directly from grantees and from USAID that several DDA grantees had increased their organizational capacity. According to surveyed participants of DDA capacity-building activities, an overwhelming majority received training (93 percent) or a combination of coaching and mentorship (73 percent). Roughly one-third received training in topics such as research methods for advocacy (34 percent); basics of data collection and analysis (34 percent); M&E (33 percent); human rights, including monitoring and documenting issues (33 percent); and digital and physical security (30 percent). Most participants taking specific trainings said they received new knowledge and skills in almost all the training topics they participated in (Table 2). A majority also reported all training topics to be highly relevant to their work (see Annex Table 1B.1) 10 Table 2: Extent of New Skills Gained from the Training, % of Respondents Training Nothing or a little new knowledge or skills Some new knowledge or skills Much new knowledge or skills a. Basics of data collection and analysis - 34.6 65.4 b. Community of engagement workshop - 50.0 50.0 c. Compliance clinic workshop - 60.0 40.0 d. Digital and physical security 4.4 34.8 60.9 e. Ethical reportage (code of ethics) 7.7 30.8 61.5 f. Financial management 6.3 37.5 56.3 g. Human rights 4.0 44.0 52.0 h. Human rights monitoring, documentation, and reporting 8.0 40.0 52.0 i. Investigative journalism - 46.2 53.9 j. Monitoring and evaluation 4.0 32.0 64.0 k. New and alternative media 5.0 50.0 45.0 l. Policy development and analysis 14.3 42.9 42.9 m. Research methods for advocacy 7.7 42.3 50.0 n. Research methods and collective intervention for advocacy 17.6 47.1 35.3 o. Security and risk assessment for newly recruited human rights defenders 9.1 54.6 36.4 p. Strategic litigation for DDA partners 6.7 53.3 40.0 Survey question: q17a-p. To what extent would you say you gained new knowledge or skills from participating in the training? Source: Data for Development Online Survey of DDA Capacity-Building Beneficiaries 2021 Finding 2: Knowledge and skills gained from DDA capacity-building activities had a high rate of application. More than one-third of respondents from several capacity-building areas reported daily use of skills gained, including financial management (75 percent), ethics (67 percent), digital and physical security (65 percent), compliance (60 percent), new and alternative media (60 percent), community engagement (50 percent), M&E (48 percent), human rights (40 percent), and policy development and analysis (31 percent). The team was told by both FH and Pact and grantees that as a result of the DDA-supported capacity￾building interventions, training beneficiaries received grants from DDA and other funding sources. According to surveyed DDA participants, roughly two-thirds of respondent organizations received project grants or rapid response grants from DDA, with 17 percent receiving institutional grants (generally WG conveners). One-third did not receive grant support (Table 3). Table 3: Support Received by Respondent Organizations Apart from Training % Male %Female % Total Institutional grant 14.0 23.1 17.1 Project grant 32.0 23.1 28.9 Rapid response grant 32.0 38.5 34.2 Did not receive any other support 36.0 26.9 32.9 Don’t know 2.0 23.1 9.2 Other support 4.0 3.8 3.9 Survey Question: Which other support has your organization received from the DDA activity? Source: Data for Development Online Survey of DDA Capacity-Building Beneficiaries 2021 11 Beneficiary CSOs’ level of confidence and ability to prepare a quality report also rose, as explained by one CSO KII respondent: “We used to run away from people that wanted to interview us, run away from auditors, but we do not run away anymore. This has made us honest and open and given us better ability and confidence to work.” WG membership provided other opportunities for CSOs to build capacity to fundraise and expand their list of donors; this was also enabled by the skills gained from DDA capacity-building sessions on proposal development; one respondent observed that “Our program and financial systems are now strengthened due to assistance from DDA. Our performance of financial management has increased. We got more funding from other donors from e.g. USAID, German, Netherlands and World Bank” (CSO KII Respondent). Finding 3: DDA support resulted in more local CSOs adhering to NGO regulations. DDA helped CSOs comply with government regulations, allowing them to continue to advocate for expanded civic space through established platforms. The team found this approach successful as it provided CSOs with resilience despite shrinking civic space. The support was informed by Year 2 APEA findings and follow-up quarterly and monthly environmental scans, which showed that rights-focused CSOs have only a limited understanding of the new NGO regulations and the steps they must take to comply with them. The finding also showed that CSOs were not aware that the regulations may serve to affect rights-focused organizations more severely than other CSOs. DDA activities in this regard were (1) to conduct a compliance dialogue with 40 staff from 25 CSOs to discuss challenges and ways to ensure compliance with the NGO Act and regulations and (2) to provide technical assistance and guidance to help the CSOs comply with the law. To achieve maximum benefit, DDA invited representatives from the Office of the Registrar of NGOs to attend the dialogue to create a conducive environment for CSOs to freely engage with the Registrar and representatives. The session offered CSOs an additional opportunity to communicate with the Registrar’s Office by developing recommendations on NGO regulations. In addition to the compliance-related support to CSOs, DDA provided a series of “compliance clinics/workshops” that provided training and technical support to improve organizations’ ability to meet new standards, including in financial management. These DDA interventions aimed to improve organization efficiency and effectiveness and create a learning culture among DDA beneficiaries. 4.1.2 Sub-Question 1 Findings and Conclusions Sub Question: What have been the results and outcomes of any strengthened platforms? 4.1.3.1 Findings Finding 1: Advocacy outcomes improved as a result of DDA technical assistance. Three of five IP respondents interviewed commented on the strengthened CSO cooperation and collaboration for evidence-based advocacy resulting from platforms established and supported by DDA. The remaining two IPs were aware of what DDA was doing to support CSOs and CSO networks but could not provide details about DDA support as they were not directly involved in implementation. The team noted increased appreciation of the value proposition of using evidence and data to improve advocacy outcomes. WG conveners and KII respondents noted improved advocacy work and quality of engagement with duty bearers, as did a USAID IP who said that “the language of evidence and data is now clear and visibly heard among the WG members that we are working with." WG members interviewed reported that their participation in DDA improved their capacity and that of group members to develop an advocacy agenda using evidence and engage with government officials constructively while ensuring a healthy relationship between government and civil society despite the restrictive political and legal environment. Some notable examples of constructive CSO-government engagement highlighted by CSOs included the review and approval of the HIV/AIDS Act for lowering the statutory voluntary testing age from 18 to 15 years, suspension of the reregistration of NGOs in Zanzibar to give more time for the Registrar 12 of Associations and CSOs to consider the reregistration process’s effects, and a reduction of the online TV/radio license fee. Most grantees attributed these achievements to DDA support that enabled WGs to engage with Parliament and review and use data to advocate for change in policies, bills, and acts and that strengthened CSO capacities in constructive, nonconfrontational engagement. DDA helped WGs identify key issues, gather evidence, and support the logistics for enabling CSO-government engagement to happen. One respondent shared, “We are among the key stakeholders in Parliament where before any bill is passed, they send it to us, we analyze and give our inputs and recommendations. After the bills are passed, we gather again to do comparison with the old law and see if the new law has accommodated our recommendations, if yes, to what extent.” Finding 2: WG approach has enhanced capacity development, improved and expanded community, networks, increased engagement with government officials, and enabled sharing of information and expertise. CSOs are currently using group members’ contacts to increase WG engagement with government officials, information/data sharing among WG members, and networking and sharing of experiences between small and large organizations. This finding suggests that the WG approach has enhanced capacity development, improved communication, expanded community networks, increased engagement with government officials, and enabled sharing of information and expertise. The WG approach has also made it possible to bring together organizations, some of which were hostile to each other, to join efforts for the benefit of Zanzibar civil society. Finding 3: The WG approach has also developed professional relationships and networks among WG members and outside WGs that will be beneficial beyond DDA. One respondent asserted that “If it was not for DDA, I don’t think we would be able to work with well-established organizations like WILDAF and LHRC. We have been able to establish working relations with members of other WGs.” This testimony was shared by a member of Dodoma WG who ascertained that the WG has to some level enhanced sustainability as well as cooperation and collaboration among members beyond WG planned activities: “We believe that we have built a strong partnership among these WG members and we envision that it should continue after the phasing out of the DDA." Finding 4: WG members collaborate and coordinate efforts to tackle human rights challenges from multiple angles. DDA notes in its Year 1 Annual Report that in the Ngorongoro case, two CSOs were funded to approach an issue from different angles. In the end, the case was filed in court by Pastoral Women’s Council while the Pastoralists Indigenous Nongovernmental Organizations’ Forum (PINGOs) was responsible for collecting evidence to support the case, creating an effective and coordinated response to the issue. Finding 5: Self-mentorship members will ensure WG sustainability beyond DDA. Although the evaluation team heard about allegations of some conveners not visiting the WG members, the team noted that in Year 2, Women in Law and Development in Africa (WiLDAF) mentored other WG 2 members. In July 2019, WiLDAF visited Vijana Assembly in Arusha and discussed how to effectively engage with the government and funding partners. WiLDAF also visited and supported the Zanzibar Female Lawyers Association and Zanzibar Association for Children's Advancement to develop advocacy messages on women, children, youth, and persons with disabilities. The two organizations launched social media pages for their advocacy campaigns, including those on Instagram, Facebook, and Twitter. WiLDAF recruited four new WG 2 members: Tanzania Youth Coalition in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania Network for Education in Dar es Salaam, Help Integrated Multisectoral Service in Arusha, and Bright Jamii Initiative in Dar es Salaam. 13 4.1.3.2 Conclusion DDA has provided platforms for CSOs to leverage and strengthen their capacity, expand networks, to address human rights issues and improve advocacy outcomes. 4.1.3 Sub-Question 2 Findings and Conclusions Where platforms for increased cooperation and collaboration among like-minded organizations for evidence-based advocacy have been established or strengthened, what modalities and approaches have been most (and least) successful? 4.1.4.1 Findings Finding 1: The “headhunting” approach in selecting members of various WGs was effective in improving the civic trust and working relationships among the WG members, although the deteriorating operating environment resulted in self-censorship and a climate of fear among WGs members. Finding 2: The DDA activity minimized the risk of establishing unstainable, artificial, and funding driven coalitions by leveraging already existing networks to establish WGs. DDA did not seek to “re-invent the wheel” but focused on identifying established networks and coalitions of Tanzanian CSOs. Finding 3: The DDA mixed-funding model provided flexibility in accessing funds and provided opportunity for organisations technical and financial capacity to grow, albeit with some concerns. All interviewed DDA institutional, project, and rapid response grant recipients believed that these funding mechanisms were useful, depending on the type of intervention. The awardees appreciated DDA’s flexibility, which allowed CSOs to manage grants depending on the situation on the ground and organization capacity to manage funds. DDA allowed CSOs to implement activities even if they initially did not meet the funding requirements (pre-award assessment) but worked to address capacity failings. Funds for activity implementation in favour of organisations with no strong financial systems were channeled through organizations with better governance, accounting, and internal control systems. This enabled CSOs with capacity gaps to acquire field experience while leveraging the DDA’s mentorship and coaching program to increase their institutional capacity. One respondent shared, “Our systems and programming capacity were poor back then to the extent that funding for implementation of activities were channeled through another organization. Later, due to improvements in our systems, we were able to get funding through our account.” The document review revealed that DDA also shared a success story with USAID about Arusha Press Club (APC), which needed institutional improvement before it could receive funding. Fortunately, APC was willing to work on improving internal financial management systems. DDA engaged the Union of Tanzania Press Clubs, an organization with stronger internal systems, as a temporary pass-through convener while DDA strengthened APC’s internal systems and structures and dedicated one staff member to work closely with APC, supporting the institutionalization of financial, procurement, asset, and human resource management policies and internal control system changes. Today, APC is independently implementing a project under DDA, receiving funds directly to their bank account and delivering expected results. As a result of their improving programmatic and financial management capacities, APC is being considered to convene the Alternative Media WG starting in April 2020. Some respondents were concerned that DDA’s rapid responds funds are not rapidly processed thus making thus making them miss time sensitive opportunities for advocacy. Respondents shared concerns about micromanagement from DDA beyond what is needed for standard quality and compliance assurance. All three types of funding enabled CSOs to implement human rights–focused interventions that they would not have been able to implement on their own. Surveyed respondents felt that longer-term project and institutional grants (33 and 32 percent, respectively) were the most important type of DDA support, followed by training (22 percent). 14 Table 4: Most Relevant/Important DDA Support, % of Respondents Type of support % of respondents assessing this as important Training 21.92 Coaching and mentorship 4.11 Institutional grants 31.51 Project grants 32.88 Rapid response grants 5.48 Other (please specify) 4.11 Survey question: From the various categories of support that DDA provides, which one do you consider to be the most important to your organization's developmental needs? Source: Data for Development Online Survey of DDA Capacity-Building Beneficiaries 2021 Finding 4: Some WGs were hampered by internal and external contextual, communication and coordination challenges that made them less effective. (i) Some WGs faced leadership challenges, lack of coordination, and competing priorities. Despite recorded achievements, some CSO platforms experienced poor coordination and inconsistent information sharing that undermined WG effectiveness. WG members flagged WG conveners’ unwillingness to visit them and build their capacity. They also expressed concerns that WG conveners changed with insufficient reason provided to members. For example, the WG 1 convener’s changing from PINGOs to Tanzania Human Rights Defenders Coalition (THRDC) presented serious leadership challenges for the WG. Also, sometimes it took a long time for WG members to get feedback on key issues. In addition, some CSO leaders are not politically impartial. It is noted that members to the WG do not have a contact person for DDA activities, hence different people attend DDA meetings now and then. Also, most participants to the WG meetings are not decision makers hence affecting some WGs’ operational effectiveness. The reports reviewed by the team also note mistrust among CSO members, the sensitivity of WG activities, and a concern that some group members could be government informants. There are concerns of premature leakage of information to government officials, thus affecting advocacy strategy. The evaluation also noted a tendency toward self-interest among some WG members, who put their self-interest before CSO common interests. In its Year 1 annual report, DDA acknowledges the selfish nature of some WG conveners and members and committed to identify networks that act as conveners rather than conducting their own competing advocacy. However, the problem persisted. In its Year 2 annual report, DDA notes that “despite its efforts described above, THRDC has been lagging behind in effectively addressing civic space issues in the country as the convener. In most cases, THRDC has been vocal about civic space challenges but has done so on its own, rather than as part of the WG. There are also a number of issues with WG 1, including the nature of convener-member relations and the general willingness of members to respond to and address civic space issues.” DDA promises to restructure WG I in Year 3 to address some of these issues. (ii) WGs lack continuity in case of challenges. Shrinking civic space has eroded the WGs’ operational effectiveness. The freezing of the WG 1 convener’s bank accounts paralyzed the WG’s operations and prevented it from convening the WG. All WG 1 members interviewed said that the group did not hold its quarterly meeting for almost a year even before the accounts were frozen. This suspension of activity created a vacuum in the group’s leadership despite DDA’s effort to partially cushion the anomaly by rearranging the group into three thematic groups/coalitions, bringing together members who share similar advocacy interests to allow each group or coalition to work on an identified issue within the civic space advocacy strategy. The thematic subgroups established within the WG are the Strategic Litigation Group; the Human Rights Monitoring Group; and the Advocacy, Policy Change, and Government Engagement Group (Year 3 Annual Implementation Plan). The rearrangement enabled WG key activities within the three subgroups, such as filing strategic litigation cases and engaging with duty bearers at the national level, 15 to continue even though the convener’s bank accounts remained frozen. The accounts were unfrozen in April 2021. (iii) A climate of fear impedes WG success. Fear of government backlash prevented the WGs from addressing human rights issues such as infringement of LGBTIQ rights, misogynistic language, civil space issues, and retention of pregnant girls in public schools. Government statements against related initiatives remained inadequately addressed due to a restrictive operating environment. Both grantees and DDA felt this fear. In Years 1–3, DDA either closed, toned down the language of, and/or ensured selective distribution of the RFA for civic space issues because of the topics’ sensitivity. DDA also called off several public opinion surveys on human rights and civil society because of the constrained operating context and approval process with the National Bureau of Statistics and regional authorities. The fear of participating in public advocacy work and consequent failure to apply for grants related to human rights activities can be attributed to the presence of oppressive laws, the government’s intolerance of CSOs’ work, and criticism from activists and media. DDA’s Year 3 annual report notes that on June 13, 2020, police raided a training on security and risk assessment for newly recruited human rights defenders organized by THRDC. The police ordered a halt to future training and arrested two THRDC staff, who were the trainers for that day’s sessions. Since its inception, THRDC has convened and hosted similar trainings for newly recruited members without police interruption or interference. The government additionally shut down organizations that were perceived to be supporting the LGBTIQ community and working against the government. On June 17, 2020, the Zanzibar Registrar of NGOs deregistered a youth AIDS initiative, Youth Empowerment and Development Organization, for allegedly promoting LGBTIQ rights in Zanzibar.. It is also not clear from the reports if DDA tried to sufficiently borrow lessons from other countries on how to undertake advocacy on human rights issues under this constrained environment. (iv) Inadequate funding undermines output and outcome quality. Some subgrantees said that DDA grant sizes are too small to enable them to deliver significant results from activities. One CSO respondent said, “Funds allocated are small when compared to the needs on the ground. For example, this project is implemented by only two people which are the program officer and accountant and there are many activities that need to be implemented and the workload is too heavy for two people, but the grant cannot allow hiring of someone else. But we are working hard although it is a challenge.” This situation compromises the quality of results as the project team might be tempted to implement activities on a “tick-the-boxes basis” to be able to spend the money and report the completion of activities without considering quality and sustainability. (v) Lack of financial sustainability for WGs. WG conveners interviewed lacked a clear financial sustainability plan beyond DDA funding. While some respondents noted that there will be institutional sustainability in relation to the WG modality, the Evaluation Team flagged a lack of financial sustainability to keep developing the capacity of emerging leaders, new members or organizations. This finding was affirmed by the DDA Year 3 annual implementation plan, which indicated that "most current DDA partners are underfunded or do not have any funding.” At the implementation level, most DDA partners lack funding to supplement DDA’s funds. (vi) WGs failed to diversify partners beyond zones of comfort. The APEAs for Years 1–3 together with advice from the advisory committee have consistently noted DDA needs to adapt its advocacy approach and diversify its range of local partners to enable programming to align with the administration’s political realities. All WGs are formed by NGOs with insufficient representation of the private sector, academia, trade unions, professional associations, service delivery organizations, musicians, cartoonists, and individual activists. In Year 1, based on a growing recognition that human rights protection should be part of a private sector investment strategy, DDA started conversations with Barclays Bank Tanzania and Exim Bank to determine whether they would be willing to enter strategic partnerships in line with their corporate social 16 responsibility strategies. Reports for Years 2 and 3 do not indicate whether such conversations were sustained or materialized. (vii) Lack of clarity on the reporting structure between Freedom House and Pact confused some CSOs. Although CSO benefited from the technical and financial capacity development from both Pact and FH, eight CSO representatives interviewed highlighted the accountability issue between Freedom House and Pact and grant micromanagement as a concern and that caused a hostile relationship between DDA and CSO. The lines of reporting seem fuzzy and it is not clear to some of the CSOs to whom they should engage with in project management between Freedom House and Pact. According to one key informant, “The only thing that I think needs to be done is to clarify who are we accountable to between Freedom House and Pact in terms of reporting. Right now, we are caught in between. There are issues that are requested by Freedom House program officers and others by Pact officials. This confuses us and kind of delays some of the activities. It is good if we deal directly with one person to avoid further confusions and delays in implementation. For example, we have now written many projects, one needs to read, do editing so every day it goes here and there while the projects do not continue, at the end of the day activities become a burden for one person so they should please look at those things” - (CSO KII Respondent) (viii) WG effectiveness is hampered by external challenges. COVID-19-related restrictions have made it difficult for WG members to coordinate and cooperate. Some activities had to be postponed: “[The] COVID-19 pandemic has affected the effectiveness of the WG. The DDA team has also reduced the number of times they visit and capacitate partners” (USAID IP KII). Individual CSOs were equally affected by the pandemic, as evidenced by the following: “It is one of the biggest challenges; it has caused many things to stand still. We are unable to implement many things because of COVID-19.” Measures taken to lessen the pandemic’s impact on CSO platform operations include use of virtual meetings. However, some members’ participation in these meetings is challenged by poor internet connectivity and interference from other office workers. In addition, all WG conveners and members were affected by the contested elections. Despite these challenges, Dodoma WG members engaged with the executive wing of the government. Activities that required engagement with parliamentarians were not held as politicians were involved in election processes (seeking reelection). Also, in Year 3, DDA identified and co-created a project with Sikika that will include activities around freedom of expression and access to information priority areas, as defined in the advocacy strategy. However, during the initial implementation stages, the grantee asked to postpone the planned activities after assessing potential risks ahead of the 2020 elections. Finding 5: DDA lags behind in integration of gender and social inclusion principles. The WGs received several trainings, but the Evaluation Team has not found WGs to have been specifically, consistently, or adequately trained on integration of gender and social inclusion in their priority areas. For example, in Year 2, WG 3 took part in a strategy development session in which participants identified key priority areas for the WG 3 advocacy strategy, including protecting journalists, especially those in alternative media; advocating for freedom of the press and the right to information; and amplifying advocacy work undertaken by the established WGs. The dynamics of gender and social inclusion in the media context did not make it into the plan. Also, although the APEAs included gender and social inclusion dynamics, no evidence suggests that gender and social inclusion analyses were carried out to understand how the evolving operating context was uniquely affecting women, youth, and persons with disabilities and the possible entry points for these groups to effectively respond to their challenges or leverage untapped opportunities. Evidence also suggests that election of WG leaders is not guided by gender and social inclusion principles and could lead to all-male leadership. For example, in Year 2, WG 3 had an opportunity to elect its leaders and formulate a strong coordination mechanism. Disappointingly, the group of elected leaders consisted of five men and one woman. Also, some WGs, such as WG 1 and WG 3, are dominated by men. Although deliberate efforts could be made to bring in female journalists, the WG 17 members cling to an excuse that there are few female journalists and that few of them are interested in WG issues. In Year 2, the DDA team, in partnership with Internews, convened workshops on new and alternative media. Fourteen WG 3 members (13 males, 1 female) attended the training; more deliberate efforts could have allowed for better representation of women among participants. No deliberate efforts are made to adhere to gender and social inclusion principles during member recruitment. This in turn affects how male and female WG members benefit from the DDA training. For example, in Year 2, the DDA team held a training on research methods for advocacy in Dar es Salaam to build selected WG member skills in collecting, generating, and analyzing data. Twelve members (nine male, three female) of WGs 1, 2, and 3 attended the training. Also, in Year 2, Pact facilitated an Organization Network Analysis (ONA) for WG 1 with the aim of introducing network and systems concepts to DDA project partners; analyzing network trends and connections among WG members; analyzing challenges facing implementation of the WG 1 advocacy strategy; and developing recommendations to improve WG network participation in DDA work, in accordance with the advocacy strategy. The workshop brought together 14 participants (11 male, 3 female) from WG 1 CSO members. In addition, the findings suggest that gender and social inclusion issues are seen as issues of WG 2 and, to some extent, WG 5. When asked how their activities addressed gender inequality in the project context, a WG representative highlighted, “There is another WG which is solely addressing children, youth, women, and persons with disabilities issues.” This response shows to the Evaluation Team a lack of understanding of gender and inclusion issues among other WGs. Also, grantees, WG members, and DDA limit gender and social inclusion issues to meeting attendance numbers (i.e., how many women and men attended the meetings). The disaggregation, however, is not consistently extended to youth and persons with disabilities. Sometimes the disaggregation is limited to where participants come from and does not cover sex, age, or disability. For example, in Year 2, the DDA team held a training-of-trainers session on digital and physical security to equip WG members with technical skills and expertise on how to effectively detect, prevent, mitigate, and deal with digital and physical threats. The Year 2 annual report stated that 16 participants (8 from WGs and 8 from the DDA team) were trained but did not indicate the participants’ sex, age, or disability status. Apart from numbers, substantive reporting on gender and social inclusion issues arising from project planning, implementation, and monitoring is only observed by WGs 2 and 5. Although the APEAs and advisory committees repeatedly note that space to support women’s rights programming and economic livelihood opportunities under constrained operating contexts exist, this opportunity has not been sufficiently leveraged. WG member fear of government repression also led to some gender and social inclusion issues not being prioritized. DDA’s Year 1 annual report notes that WG 2 was reluctant to advocate on the issue of retention of pregnant girls in public schools because of government statements against these initiatives. WG members shared that it is difficult to integrate persons with disabilities into the WG because they come with needs that DDA and WG plans are not designed to address, including accessibility, extra assistance, sign language, large prints, braille, and tactile language. Also, most WG members feel that issues pertaining to persons with disabilities are the exclusive domain of WG 2. 18 4.1.4.2 Conclusions Conclusion 1: The “headhunting” approach in selecting members of various WGs worked well and fostered a climate of mutual trust among WGs members although the shrinking democratic space resulted in some WGs members not participating in some WGs. Conclusion 2: Constrained operating context and issues with DDA coordination, communication, and engagement of the WG left some WGs unable to significantly increase collaboration and cooperation. Conclusion 3: The DDA mixed-funding model provided flexibility in accessing funds for local partners. Longer-term funding mechanisms such as project and institutional grants were considered the most important/relevant type of DDA support although some local partners identified the limited grant period of performance. Conclusion 4: Although CSOs benefited from the technical and financial capacity development support from the DDA activity, some local partners flagged DAA’s micro-management approach as a seedbed for mistrust between DDA and local CSOs. Conclusion 5: The execution of gender and social inclusion commitments is perceived as the role of WG2 with DDA taking less deliberate efforts to ensure effective integration of gender and social inclusion principles across the activity as a whole. 4.1.2 Overall Conclusions for EQ1 Conclusion 1: Working group modality is an effective platform for increasing coordination and collaboration of local CSOs for evidence-based advocacy. Conclusion 2: WGs members have received and recorded increased application of knowledge and skills. WG members consider their organizations stronger and more professional both technically, financially, and administratively following DDA capacity-development interventions. Conclusion 3: Following DDA support, grantee partners increased adherence to NGO regulations, including human rights–focused civic groups, thus maintaining business continuity amid the constrained operating environment. 4.2 EVALUATION QUESTION 2 To what extent has the capacity of targeted/beneficiary CSOs to collect, generate, monitor, and report independent and reliable information concerning human rights abuses improved? DDA aims to develop the technical capacity of rights-focused organizations and networks, particularly those led by women or focusing on women’s and youth rights, to use evidence-based advocacy methods to constructively engage with the GoT through monitoring, collection, and sharing of independent human rights information. EQ2 investigates beneficiary CSOs’ improved capacity to collect, generate, monitor, and report independent and reliable information concerning human rights abuses. Sub-question 1 seeks to understand whether the improved capacity helped change the beneficiary CSOs’ actions and approaches. Sub-question 2 aims to understand whether the beneficiary CSOs are better equipped/have greater capacity to collect data and monitor and report on human rights abuses as a result of DDA. 4.2.1 Findings Finding 1: DDA used effective strategies to improve supported CSOs’ capacity to monitor, collect, and report independent human rights information. The use of evidence based, and data driven methodologies and technologies have improved the capacity of local partners to objectively monitor and report on the human rights situation in Tanzania. The Evaluation Team received nearly unanimous 19 feedback confirming that DDA used viable strategies to ensure that supported CSOs were better coordinated and equipped to monitor, collect, and report independent human rights information. Such strategies included the formulation of WGs responsible for civic space; women, children, youth, and persons with disabilities; and new and alternative media and two subnational WGs responsible for Dodoma and Zanzibar. DDA also provided WG members with capacity building on human rights monitoring, documentation, and reporting; research methods; policy analysis; and training on physical and digital security. DDA met or exceeded performance targets in the number of human rights defenders trained and supported, surpassing targets by the end of 2020. Figure 3: Number of Human Rights Defenders Trained and Supported 197 241 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 2019 2020 ACTUALS TARGET Count Source: USAID Implementing Partners Reporting System An overwhelming majority of grantees (89 percent) participating in DDA capacity-building activities feel that their organizational capacity grew in the past three years including capacity in monitoring, and collection and sharing of human rights-based information. Another 81 percent agree or strongly agree that “DDA support has strengthened their organizational capacity” to meet its objectives. Most survey respondents participating in DDA capacity-building activities rated highly their organization’s ability to use data and evidence to monitor human rights and advance its advocacy agenda (72 percent rated excellent or above average). DDA undertook public opinion surveys to inform the context and the human rights advocacy strategies and engaged with the government to clear up misconceptions about DDA goals. DDA also provided technical guidance on ways for supported CSOs to better engage the GoT to improve the policy and legal framework for CSO operation and human rights conditions. DDA’s funding modalities, such as rapid response and project grants, have been effective in collecting evidence and supporting advocacy for emerging issues that need immediate interventions. Strategic litigation using data and evidence collected by local partners proved an effective tactic to push back against the rising authoritarianism evidenced by the shrinking of democratic and civic space. Basic tools for adaptive programming, such as the APEAs and monthly scans, increased CSO capacity to think and work politically during monitoring, collection, and dissemination of human rights information. Finding 2: The mentorship and coaching of local partners on research methods improved the capacity of local partners to effectively monitor, triangulate and report independent and reliable information concerning human rights abuses. 20 Conclusions: Conclusion 1: The capacity of targeted CSOs to collect, generate, monitor, and report independent and reliable information concerning human rights abuses has significantly improved as a result of DDA support, including training and the mentorship program. 4.2.2 Sub-Question 1 Findings and Conclusions Sub Question: Has improved capacity changed their activities, approaches, or actions? 4.2.2.1 Findings Finding 1: Beneficiary CSO activities, approaches, and actions have changed noticeably as a result of strengthened capacity to monitor and report independent human rights information. The technical assistance provided to the CSOs to better coordinate and monitor, collect, and report independent human rights information has changed CSO activities, approaches, and actions substantially. Supported CSOs have set up robust and technologically based human rights information collection mechanisms which benefits thousands of people. Positive changes include establishing a human rights defenders’ desk in Zanzibar which is serving thousands of people after the THRDC was constrained to operate in Zanzibar. The Zanzibar based desk is serviced by the deployed human rights monitors who have been provided with data advocacy, safety and security capacity-building training; provided with data collection tools and benefit from advanced databases for safe storage of collected information. In Zanzibar, for example, a beneficiary CSO shared, “We have gone far, we have been able to give human rights monitors special devices for data collection work. And those tablets have been synchronized with our systems. Once the information is entered it goes straight to our database….and security proof backup storage system, which detect and deter hacking attempts.” Similarly, the CSOs are adjusting their data collection tools so that they can capture and document the dynamics of human rights abuses for better engagement and service delivery to the beneficiaries: “We participated in evidence-based advocacy training which helped us to customize our tools that we use in the provision of legal services. Before we had tools that capture GBV incidences that are not tailored in a manner that captures GBV incidence in every aspect of the case and is reported in stations. That helped us to modify our tools to ensure that the client gets good services in the case” (Local CSO KII respondent). Finding 2: The supported CSOs are seeking to work closely with government human rights institutions to impact the government’s ways of monitoring and reporting human rights information. Because of the constrained operating context, DDA-supported CSOs are moving from a confrontational to a dialogue-centered and evidence-based approach to advocacy and influencing. Some CSOs have established memoranda of understanding with government institutions and obtained permits to monitor and collect human rights information in districts. One respondent shared, “We have human rights monitors in 11 districts, and we have also entered into the MoU with the Office of the National Statistician and the Commission for Human Rights and Good Governance.” The Year 2 DDA annual report notes that the DDA grantees are including government officials in trainings to get buy-in and build strong rapport. For example, the DDA team organized a human rights monitoring and documentation training for WG 4 in Zanzibar. This training attended by 11 participants (six female, five male) included two participants from the Office of the Commission for Human Rights and Good Governance. In a progressive move, one respondent noted that DDA-supported CSOs are making it a custom to engage power holders with evidence rather than empty narratives or complaints, thus reducing conflicts with the government. Also beneficiary CSOs are increasingly avoiding making assumptions and look for data and evidence to substantiate and back up advocacy issues. One CSO KII respondent shared that, “If not for support from DDA, we would have continued doing things in our old ways— complaining without substantiating our issues with data, that way we reduce conflict with government people.” 21 And another CSO KII respondent noted that, "I think we have witnessed a lot of changes in the way we do our advocacy work. Our advocacy is more evidence based now. For example, we had to conduct a study to establish the cause of increased GBV cases during the COVID-19 pandemic instead of just concluding that the increase in GBV is due to COVID-19. In every advocacy agenda, we need to have data to back up our agenda.” One respondent stated that reports submitted by DDA-supported CSOs are now more credible and trusted by government institutions and are being used to feed into global agendas, including the Sustainable Development Goals. One CSO respondent shared, “We are working with Zanzibar Planning Commission on implementing the Sustainable Development Goals with other three IPs. When it is time for submission of reports, our reports are seen to be better and follow the standards needed because of the capacity PACT built for us.” Finding 3: Beneficiary CSOs, including WG members, are expanding their engagement beyond NGO partners, allowing human rights issues to be tackled from various angles and leveraging “unusual synergies” to maximize the possibility of attaining results. As one respondent observed, “Through DDA projects I can say that we have formed partnerships with academics, and lawyers from outside who are based on strategic litigation cases only. We have also partnered with journalists, reporters, and editors and media owners through this project because they are key stakeholders of freedom of expression, making it easy to work together and bring results.” Finding 4: To strengthen the evidence base and give the marginalized a voice, CSOs are inviting victims or survivors to join them as they engage with government institutions and lawmakers. Grantees indicated that the aim is to ensure that power holders get to hear the issues from the victim’s point of view and thus are compelled to act: “For instance, if we go to government institutions or Parliament to discuss child marriages or teen pregnancy, we take victims with us to not speak on their behalf.” Finding 5: DDA-supported CSOs are increasingly adopting a Do No Harm approach in engaging with human rights data and information as a result of DDA’s digital security capacity-building program. One participant shared that “due to DDA capacity-building programs, beneficiary CSOs are increasingly adopting a Do No Harm approach. This has been made possible through participation in physical and digital security training organized and delivered by DDA.” Similarly, beneficiary CSOs are hiring compliance officers to ensure that human rights information monitoring and reporting align with national laws and regulations to avoid sanctions such as deregistration, suspension, and huge fines. Finding 6: Human rights monitoring and reporting capacity has enabled the supported CSOs to improve their report documentation, analysis, and writing skills and thus come up with evidence-based advocacy tools such as position papers. One respondent highlighted, “We have also done well in documentation; when we go for surveys, we get back with properly documented and comprehensive information. At the beginning it was hard for us in ANGOZA and our partners to create a position paper that could be sent to Dar es Salaam and be easily accepted. Now we have the skills thanks to Pact and Freedom House.” CSOs have also reduced the extent of harassment experienced by journalists during the elections by engaging government authorities with data and evidence. One CSO KII respondent shared the following: “With evidence we collected from the study, we engaged the Minister of Home Affairs regarding the maltreatment of journalists, including being beaten or blocked from attending campaign meetings by police forces, especially during elections. The Minister for Home Affairs Hon. Simbachawene agreed with our arguments and promised to work on issues raised during the meeting. If you look at what happened during the 2020 general elections, journalists were not harassed. We also made an engagement with the Director of Elections 22 for the National Electoral Commission regarding the position of journalists in ensuring that elections are safe for journalists.” (Local CSO KII respondent) 4.2.3 Sub-Question 2 Findings and Conclusions Sub-question: Are targeted/beneficiary csos better equipped/do they have greater capacity to collect data on, monitor, and report on human rights abuses as a result of dda? 4.2.3.1 Findings Finding 1: DDA’s flexible funding modalities, such as rapid response grants, have been effective in enabling beneficiary CSOs to collect evidence to support emerging issues that need immediate intervention. The evaluation team was told that DDA support (training, coaching, and mentorship) significantly improved beneficiary CSO capacity to conduct monitoring visits, collect information, conduct analyses, and undertake influencing efforts. Strategic litigation ensured proper use of the collected data and evidence in causing sustainable changes in the legal framework for human rights. This proved an effective means of supporting CSOs to push back against authoritarianism. APEAs and monthly scans serve as basic tools for adaptive programming providing supported CSOs with additional contextual information and leads on where data on human rights abuses could be collected. Finding 2: Beneficiary CSOs have demonstrated increased capacity to monitor and report on human rights issues through collection of evidence, which improved their engagement with government officials and institutions on addressing key human rights issues, such as the right to information and amendment of the HIV/AIDS Act. One sub-grantee stated that they had engaged with the Minister responsible for information with facts and data on the problems journalists are facing, including difficulty accessing information from government institutions. The amendment of the HIV/AIDS Act with citizen and CSO input demonstrates beneficiary CSOs’ improved capacity to collect and report on human rights issues. One CSO KII respondent noted the following: “With the project grant we conducted a study on the media situation in Tanzania. Through this study we were able to find out what kind of harassment the journalists have been getting but also what laws have been oppressing journalists in Tanzania. We found that online journalists are not legally recognized. Using the study findings, we engaged with the Minister responsible for information and explained to him using facts and data the problems that journalists have, and he agreed with our arguments although there were others; he asked for more time to ponder. We also talked about the various rights that apply to journalists, including the right to access information from government institutions, which is currently difficult.” (Local CSO KII respondent) DDA-supported CSOs have taken a leading role in advocating against oppressive laws on the right to information through regional justice platforms: “We have been able to make changes in the Media Service Act. We filed a case in the East Africa court, and it ruled that the law should be changed. This judgement has become a precedent; we are happy that it was initiated, followed up, and accomplished by us.” The DDA Year 1 annual report notes grantees’ increased capacity to collect information on human rights abuses perpetrated by the government. It refers to the PINGOs Forum’s ability to conduct a fact-finding mission on human rights violations by the government against resident communities in the Ngorongoro Conservation Area (NCA). The fact-finding mission found the government the primary human rights violator in the area. Key human rights violations included denying residents the right to access water sources, prioritizing water access for tourist facilities and the NCA Authority, falsifying NCA boundaries to squeeze the residents out of their land, and killing and seriously injuring residents in the process of forcing them out of their land. Grantees also engaged lawmakers in undertaking data collection exercises to ensure that identified issues received traction in Parliament. The fact-finding mission by the PINGOs Forum involved two 23 parliamentarians, who were selected through two criteria: originating from pastoral communities and wielding substantial influence within Parliament. PINGOs asked the parliamentarians to raise the issues in parliamentary discussions to urge the government to stop the human rights violations. Finding 3: Both internal and external challenges have hindered supported CSOs’ efforts to effectively monitor and report on human rights abuses. a) Operating Environment Since 2015, the operating context has hindered beneficiary CSOs efforts to undertake effective monitoring, collection, and sharing of information on human rights abuses. “Freedom of expression has been suppressed. People are fearful; they are afraid of the government to the extent that they can’t openly search, share information, and/or criticize government wrongdoings.” A negative perception of the role of NGOs affects how they engage in monitoring and sharing of information on human rights abuses. One respondent shared, “Recently CSOs have been labeled as unpatriotic and anti-government and that they are being used by external forces to sabotage government efforts of bringing development to its people. This affects the role of human rights–based organizations.'' Another respondent said, ”"If there is an issue that needs attention and touches on human rights, it will fail because they already have a negative CSO image.” DDA reports in its Year 3 annual report that while addressing CCM members at the party’s National Central Committee Meeting in Mwanza, President Magufuli reiterated that his agenda on national development had been hampered by CSOs and NGOs that were being used to push foreign agents’ agendas and sabotage his administration’s efforts. Beneficiary CSOs’ work to monitor, collect, and share human rights information has been limited by the government’s restrictions of freedoms of assembly, press, and expression: “Since 2006, ZLSC has been collaborating with LHRC in publishing annual human rights reports and we stopped publishing human rights reports in 2017 due to constrained civic space restricting our lack of information.” The 2018 amendment to the Statistics Act and the Online Content Regulations 2018 undermined CSOs’ ability to effectively collect, monitor, and report human rights abuses. Despite the subsequent changes in the Statistics Act, the actual process of data collection and dissemination remained constrained by multiple institutions managing the research permits, which in most cases are needed before one can monitor and/or report on human rights abuses. One of the respondents pointed out that "despite the changes in the Statistics Act 2019, the Act is still a hindrance for CSOs to collect and access data, especially from the government. There is no coordination among the institutions providing research permits; each institution refers the applicant to another institution.” b) Fear and Intimidation Direct orders from the late President Magufuli worsened the situation. In December 2017, President Magufuli spoke publicly about the 2016 Statistics Act, encouraging the National Bureau of Statistics to jail and penalize members of CSOs and media houses and individuals who publish unofficial statistics. These statements from the president made most CSOs refrain from applying for grants related to human rights activities. One respondent noted, “The constrained operating context resulted in some CSOs losing confidence and willingness to apply for rapid response funding which would otherwise be useful for monitoring, collection, and eventually sharing of data on the human rights violations that were ongoing.” Organizations are also withdrawing from human rights–related activities, fearing deregistration. The president’s statements sent a strong signal to other government institutions on handling NGOs that may be perceived as a threat to the government. Some DDA-supported NGOs experienced direct wrath from government institutions. One respondent noted that “THRDC faced a myriad of attacks from the Government of Tanzania, including but not limited to freezing of its bank accounts ahead of the October 2020 general election. Before that, the THRDC leader's citizenship was at some point questioned by the authorities.” DDA’s Year 3 annual report notes that THRDC bank accounts were frozen amid allegations that THRDC had received large sums of money in its accounts with no 24 explanation of their usage as required by the law. Despite THRDC’s follow-up, banks have refused to open the accounts, paralyzing all THRDC operations. The year three DDA Annual report shows that DDA worked to restructure and replace the convenorship of Group One. It is not apparent if DDA provided support for THRDC to navigate this challenge. With the coming in of President Samia Suluhu Hassan, THRDC’s bank accounts have been unfrozen. Collection of human rights information is also affected by the fear among government officials of sharing and receiving information from CSOs on human rights abuses. One respondent noted that “there is a law5 and specific instructions prohibiting government officials from sharing any information unless the approval comes from the next level of command or the spokesman of the institution. The fact that each next level of command has its own next level of command caused bureaucracy and prolonged the response from the government. Consultation with one level always refers to the next level.” c) Prohibitions on Information Sharing and challenges within Working Groups The capacity provided by DDA enabled CSOs to collect data, but sharing data with the public remained a challenge. The government at all levels desired to maintain a clean record of its governance style, limiting its tolerance of gathering or sharing information on human rights abuse initiatives. Government officials at all levels became uncomfortable with any information that could reveal incompetence, inefficiency, or actions that might have led to human rights abuses. The CSOs could be summoned by government officials to receive warnings against monitoring, collecting, or sharing information which could be considered critical of the government or former administration. In most cases, government officials have been making deals with the CSOs, getting them not to publish information with the promise that they would work on the matter at hand silently. One respondent indicated, “The government does not want to be seen as if it is doing bad things. Sometimes we write news and when it reaches the regional commissioner or district commissioner, they warn you against sharing the story because they feel that you want to ruin things for them. They promise us that they will work on the issues silently.” In most cases, journalists must bow to authorities’ demands as there are repercussions for going against them. DDA’s Year 1 annual report notes that on November 21, 2017, “unknown people” kidnapped Azory Gwanda, a freelance reporter for Mwananchi Communications Limited. Mr. Gwanda had recently reported on a string of murders of local government officials and police in Kibiti. His whereabouts remain unknown. One respondent told the evaluation team that some WG members leak confidential information from the group to government authorities, hindering the monitoring and sharing of information on human rights abuse efforts because of subsequent government interference. One respondent shared, “We have some untrustworthy people who leak out information which compromises the confidentiality of our work.” This mistrust is exacerbated by the absence of specific contact persons representing CSO members in the WGs. The perception that some members regularly sent new representatives to WG meetings only served to complicate the management of trust issues and the continuity of WG business. d) COVID-19 Pandemic COVID-19-related restrictions affected the monitoring, collection, and dissemination of human rights information efforts despite DDA’s quick intervention to strengthen partners' ability to use virtual communication. Measures to stop the spread of COVID 19 halted all face-to-face interventions. One respondent noted, “Most…human rights abuses occurring during COVID-19 period were not effectively documented and or shared, as CSO took measures to reduce physical meetings to protect themselves against COVID-19 pandemic” Even though technology-based platforms such as Zoom teleconferencing facilitated meetings, government officials were not interested in online meetings. e) Elections 5 Public Service Act and Code of Conduct 25 The elections in 2019 and 2020 complicated the monitoring, collection, and dissemination of information on human rights abuses. Government authorities and institutions restricted engagement with CSOs at any level, so the CSOs could not access regions or districts to monitor issues. Other government officials were seeking renomination and therefore became inaccessible for any data collection or dissemination exercise. One respondent shared, “We planned to work with the police, but it wasn't successful in the first phase due to the election and the situation wasn't calm. After discussing with people from DDA, they told us it's not the right time.” Another respondent noted, “The timing of the activity was very close to the 2020 general election, hence posed a challenge of accessing the right people to engage with as they were out of office seeking to be elected/reelected.” Parliamentary engagement was also hindered by the elections, as one respondent noted: “We also engaged with the parliamentary committee on social services, which deals with the media. We didn’t achieve much with parliamentarians as they were busy with election preparations, especially those seeking reelection.” Finding 4: Several initiatives have been adopted to ensure that CSOs continue monitoring, collecting, and reporting human rights information beyond DDA support. The newly introduced self-mentorship methodology, which moves the mentorship role from the DDA team to local partners, is expected to enable CSOs to continue coaching and mentorship among themselves even when DDA support ends. The capacity building provided by DDA and the collected human rights information have helped organizations write better proposals and fundraise more, resulting in a diversification of funding streams and improved financial sustainability. The WG model enhanced peer learning among members. DDA enabled partnerships across WGs—for example, those working on WG 2 can easily communicate and link with members of the WG responsible for alternative and new media to triangulate reports of human rights abuses. The connection and bond created among CSOs as a result of DDA engagement will survive the DDA project timeline. 4.2.4 Overall Conclusions for EQ2 Conclusion 1: The capacity of targeted CSOs to collect, generate, monitor, and report independent and reliable information concerning human rights abuses has significantly improved as a result of DDA support, including trainings and mentorship program. However, a constrained CSO operating context led to division, selfish ambitions, a survival-of-the-fittest mentality, and confidentiality and trust issues. This in turn affects platforms’ cohesion and sustainability and the way CSOs monitor and share information on human rights abuses to hold the government accountable. Conclusion 2: Targeted CSOs are now better equipped to monitor and share information on human rights abuses and change some laws despite the shrinking civic space. Collaboration platforms, including WGs have enabled CSOs to quickly verify and triangulate their sources of information when monitoring and reporting on human rights abuses. In contrast, it is apparent that, in a constrained operating environment, CSOs can use evidence to achieve results as long as they do not offend the government. Obtained policy and legal changes are seen only in developmental rights or issues that did not hinder the government from continuing to constrain the civic space. Most CSO-led changes in laws on improving civic space issues were blocked, unattainable, or short-lived. Conclusion 3: Given the change in CSOs’ operating context since 2015, DDA’s support was timely. With their increased capacity, CSOs changed their activities and approaches and generated evidence on human rights abuses that helped open closed government doors and improved engagement with government institutions on human rights issues. 26 4.3 EVALUATION QUESTION 3 Given the present context in Tanzania’s civic space, to what extent have DDA interventions been successful in supporting CSOs, networks, and individuals to respond to, react to, or address human rights abuses/challenges? 4.3.1 Findings Finding 1: The rapid response mechanism is helpful for responding to unanticipated needs, especially when operating in a fast-paced environment where the critical windows of opportunity rapidly open and close. Cumulatively, in Year 1, Pact issued 10 rapid response grants, surpassing its target of 9. Eight (target: six) were urgent action grants and two (target: three) were strategic litigation grants. Pact issued 18 rapid response grants in Year 2: 16 window of opportunity grants (exceeding the target of 11) issued to 15 CSOs and two strategic litigation grants (short of the target of six) under strategic litigation to Zanzibar Legal Services Centre (ZLSC). The target for strategic litigation grants was not reached because of the low number of applications. The evaluation team observed that almost all bills are coming under the certificate of urgency, therefore requiring that the CSOs act very quickly. "The rapid fund has been very useful in supporting the CSOs that we are working with. As I said, they have been responding very quickly to unanticipated events. I would give an example: When we supported WG 2 to go and do fact finding on the killing of women and children in Njombe, we used the rapid fund" (Freedom House). Despite the rapid response grants’ importance, some respondents informed the team that the grants were not “so rapid” as DDA took a long time to process them, hindering effective response to urgent matters. Finding 2: The effectiveness of rapid response and project grants was demonstrated during the COVID-19 pandemic. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the DDA team submitted a revised work plan to USAID in May 2020. The work plan included a COVID-19 risk management approach and noted that $85,000 would be awarded through the project grant and rapid response grant fund to organizations proposing projects that address major human rights issues arising from the COVID￾19 pandemic. DDA issued three COVID-19 grants to three organizations including Tunduru Development Foundation (TUDEFO) for an intervention in Tunduru mining areas and Tanzania Pastoralist Community Forum (TPCF) for awareness raising among the Maasai community. A third grant for an organization intended to conduct public awareness through radio programs failed to do so because of a lack of government support. Finding 3: Even with the constrained operating context, rapid response grants enabled CSOs to continue to challenge the evolving authoritarian status quo. In Year 1, a case supported with rapid response funding for strategic litigation was heard at the High Court of Tanzania, Mtwara District. The applicant body applied for an injunction to restrict the government from enforcing regulations that would have closed blogs and other online media platforms on May 5, 2018. The injunction was issued on May 4, 2018. Points of preliminary objection raised by the government were overruled and the case moved forward to a full hearing. Finding 4: Public interest litigation or strategic impact litigation is still a viable alternative in search of justice, especially when leveraging regional court systems, but challenges remain. DDA is working with local and international partners, including the University of Chicago, to reduce impunity by increasing technical capacity for strategic impact litigation. DDA is helping CSOs file strategic cases to challenge bad laws in court, albeit with mixed results. DDA is also funding CSO activities to protect the most marginalized and least connected, including the communal farmers in Mabwegere village in Morogoro. DDA-supported CSOs have taken a lead role in advocating against oppressive laws on the right to information through regional justice platforms: “We have been able to make changes in the Media Service Act. We filed a case in the East Africa court, and it ruled that the law should be changed. This judgement has become a precedent. We are happy that it was initiated, followed up, and accomplished by us.” 27 Seven of the interviewed CSOs said they participated in the process of lodging strategic litigation cases before the courts to either challenge oppressive laws that could not be addressed through normal advocacy processes or defend the rights of vulnerable communities facing eviction from their land or being denied rights to engage in livelihood activities in their current localities. Through DDA￾supported strategic litigation activities, CSOs challenged some laws and rulings reached by Tanzania courts in either the East African Court of Justice or the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights. However, some changes in laws have made successful pursuit of public interest litigation almost impossible. For example, the Basic Rights and Duty Enforcement Act (BRADEA) allowed NGOs to open cases to challenge any human rights abuse against individuals and the public in general through public interest litigation, even when the organization or individual opening the case is not a victim of the respective abuse. But the BRADEA has now been changed to require an NGO or person to be a direct victim of an issue before filing such a case. Several cases have been filed through this avenue, but they are now restricted through Miscellaneous Amendment No. 3 of 2020. The amendment protects the President, Vice President, Prime Minister, Chief Justice, Speaker, and Deputy Speaker from prosecution, putting them above the law. The legislation also imposes a requirement for every petitioner seeking to file a constitutional case to swear an affidavit showing the extent to which his/her right has been personally infringed or likely to be infringed. Given the fear the government has instilled in people, there is not enough collaboration from victims for a public interest litigation case to be successfully pursued. One grantee noted that “the changes in BRADEA are unconstitutional. On the other hand, victims are not giving us the right kind of cooperation.” In cases in which justice could not be obtained within the local courts, CSOs had been appealing to the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights, but Tanzania has withdrawn itself from the Court. The withdrawal of its Article 34(6) declaration to the protocol will effectively ban NGOs and individuals from petitioning the Court to rule on issues after exhausting local remedies and will also render ongoing cases against the state nonbinding after the withdrawal has become final. Although President Samia Suluhu Hassan has ordered justice actors to provide justice to the people, it is too early to determine whether the president will reverse all the laws and actions that denied access to justice through various platforms. Finding 5: Pro bono emergency legal services have been effective and expanded to cover journalists and human rights defenders. DDA-supported CSOs have adjusted their activities to extend legal support to journalists who experience government oppression: We have also taken great strides in helping journalists. We have partnered with an organization that gives legal advice and legal court representation to the victims of [denial of] freedom of expression. Formerly our legal assistance was mainly to poor people. For example, we helped Erick Kabendera to get assistance through this project. We got him a competent lawyer who represented him and at the end of the day he was released on a plea bargain. There was also another journalist in Njombe who was helped through this project and got released. There were also other incidents where journalists were being arrested and taken to police stations, having their equipment taken away, but we were at the front line to get to those police stations, get them released on bail and enabled them to be cleared of all the charges in the courts of law. (Local CSO KII respondent) Finding 6: Several contextual factors are affecting project outcomes. The evaluation team asked DDA grantees about the challenges they faced in conducting their activities to learn about any positive or negative aspects of the DDA approach. Grantees mentioned a range of political, economic, and social factors that affect their work. Politically, grantees are affected by the democratic backsliding epitomized by the rapid shrinking of civic space and weaponization of law by the state, coupled with criminalization of human rights NGOs. Taken together, these challenges have made frontline human rights organizations, public interest journalists, and human rights defenders face multidimensional attacks from the government and other state-supported anti-rights groups. Authoritarian control of information has affected the collection of data and evidence on human rights: “Since 2006 ZLSC has 28 been collaborating with HLRC in publishing annual human rights reports and we stopped publishing human reports in 2017 and the problem was lack of information.” The team also observed that denial of Zanzibar CSOs’ permission to operate in Tanzania has greatly affected CSO effectiveness in general. Several human rights issues require a collective approach, so forcing CSOs to operate in silos undercuts the impact of unity of purpose. Grantees commonly report that the introduction of DDA￾supported activities in most communities provokes resistance from local solution holders who misconstrue DRG programming as designed to supplant them from power. Therefore, local leaders make the operating environment more restrictive. Grantees reported using a variety of tactics, including concerted engagement with local leaders to demystify DDA’s objectives. Most grantees reported improved relations with such stakeholders. The evaluation team was encouraged to hear that before the 2020 election, WG 3 on alternative media engaged the government over journalists’ ability to cover the elections with no hurdles. The government made a commitment to allow free access to journalists. In practice, however, the media continued to face challenges; some media houses were closed or suspended, and journalists arrested or harassed before and after the 2020 elections. One grantee flagged the “new laws and corresponding regulations that are kind of criminalizing literally everything that CSOs are supposed to do as one of the biggest challenges…. There are lots of things that one has to fulfill before the implementation of the project and most of the CSOs are not fully aware of those requirements.” The evaluation team heard that the authorities are not doing anything to create awareness of these legal and regulatory requirements. It was also reported that these authorities “wait until the organizations are caught on the wrong side of the law and punish them for noncompliance.” It has also been noted that key developments in the operating environment resulted in CSOs losing confidence and willingness to apply for rapid response funding on civic space themes such as freedom of expression or assembly. Finding 7: DDA is helping local CSOs understand the "rules of the game" and “games within the rules.” In response to the restrictive legal and administrative environment, DDA is building CSO capacity to comply with the laws and regulations as a necessary antidote to government harassment. As the government seems more focused on rule by law than rule of law, it becomes a strategic necessity for CSOs to understand not only the laws but also the politics of the laws that influence their selective application. During document review, the evaluation team came across a success story from ANGOZA on efforts to promote local organizations’ compliance with regulations to respond to threats of NGO deregistration in Zanzibar. ANGOZA had received a rapid response grant to advocate against deregistration threats and to explore the reasons for slow reregistration. ANGOZA led DDA’s Zanzibar WG members and other NGOs in conducting a fact-finding mission that indicated that only 20 percent of Zanzibar NGOs reregistered. The number was low because the online reregistration system was not user friendly; most NGOs did not understand the system and the government’s intentions, and some did not have internet access. On January 24, 2020, ANGOZA and the NGOs presented the findings to the Registrar of NGOs and urged the government to stop the threats, allow paper-based applications, and allow ANGOZA to provide NGOs with technical guidance and clarifications. The government accepted all these requests and has acted in line with their commitments. As a result of improved clarity, the use of paper-based applications, and the absence of deregistration threats, NGO reregistration has significantly accelerated. As a next step, DDA will continue to support ANGOZA to assess the results of this work and, if needed, advocate for more time for NGOs to reregister: “Deregistration threats due to reregistration requirements are now over. The reregistration speed is increased because many NGOs are now clear with the process and those that do not have access to the internet can still submit paper-based applications.’’ Finding 8: Authoritarian rhetoric and direct threats have in most cases preceded targeted attacks on government critics, including opposition leaders, civic space actors, and human rights defenders. Gilles Muroto, the police chief from the central Dodoma region, went on record saying, “We have already 29 warned that [we] will not accept people testing government” and that anyone daring to protest will end up with “a broken leg and go home as a cripple” (APEA report). 4.3.2 Sub-Question 1 Findings and Conclusions Sub Question: Have interventions supporting CSOs/networks to rapidly respond been more or less successful than those supporting individual activists? 4.3.3.1 Finding The evaluation team did not come across information that suggested or confirmed that the DDA￾supported CSOs receiving rapid response grants were in any way more successful than individual activists with direct rapid response assistance. 4.3.3.2 Conclusion The evaluation team did not find sufficient evidence of the comparative efficacy of rapid response support for CSOs versus support for individual activists. 4.3.3 Overall Conclusion for EQ3 Rapid shrinking of civic, democratic, and civil society space informed DDA design. Platforms enhanced collaboration as a strategic intervention to help organize civic actors to push back against democratic backsliding (and authoritarian populism). The situation remained the same post-electio, power consolidation efforts by the incumbent suffocating the operating environment for civic society, the media, and legitimate political opponents. Nevertheless, exercising cautious optimism, the new political leadership has an opportunity to break from authoritarian governance to a new era of genuinely citizen-centric and citizen-responsive governance. 4.4 EVALUATION QUESTION 4 To what extent has the use of the applied political economy analysis, advisory committee, and working group modality facilitated the project's ability to achieve its objectives? 4.4.1 Findings Finding 1: USAID reported that Freedom House and Pact effectively used analytical products to continually refine the project and identify new opportunities. The evaluation team received positive feedback from USAID that since 2017 Freedom House and Pact have used analytical tools and products to continuously refine project scope, desired outcomes, and intended results. According to Pact, they used the political economy analysis (PEA) to define thematic areas and to develop RFAs for project and institutional grants. The evaluation team was not given access to RFAs. In addition, DDA used PEA to design advocacy strategies for all the WGs. Taken together, the APEA has been crucial in guiding many aspects of the project. For instance, one APEA finding was used to select priority issues for the project, leading to the formation of the WG on Women, Children, Youth, and Persons with Disabilities and the WG on Civic Space. An APEA also led to the establishment of the Zanzibar and Dodoma WGs and Zanzibar Advisory Committee. Pact reported using the environmental scans (contextual analysis), PEA, and other analytical tools to inform project decisions and Pact support of DDA grantees over the project’s life. Additionally, several DDA grantees noted that with Pact’s support they had conducted environmental scans/contextual analysis that subsequently informed the activities they proposed for DDA funding. Another USAID IP noted that “APEA reports are very useful and DDA should consider circulating these analytical products a bit widely, especially within the DRG family.” DDA effectively used the PEAs and monthly environmental scans to understand the context and identify plausible approaches to meaningfully engage the government, opting for "positive engagement" rather than radical approaches. According to Pact, environmental scans were also incorporated into its analytical reports for USAID. There was little hard evidence, however, to indicate exactly how Freedom House, Pact, grantees, or USAID used the analytical resources produced under DDA as the RFAs were not shared with the evaluation team. All evidence gathered was from KIIs. 30 Finding 2: The APEAs clearly articulated the contextual challenges in Tanzania, which include shrinking civic, democratic, and civil society space, as evidenced by the rise in informal threats and growing climate of fear as well as the uptick in anti-rights groups. The PEA identified plausible opportunities and potential rights entry points and recommended contextually driven approaches. Most of the contextually driven recommendations from the first PEA are still relevant in the current context: Overall, APEA findings confirmed that the civic space is rapidly shrinking in Tanzania and that civil society must use politically savvy approaches to engage government to not further alienate themselves from decision-making processes. The DDA project must adapt its advocacy approach and diversify its range of local partners to enable programming to align with the current political realities of the administration. Supporting Tanzanian CSOs to use data for advocacy is essential but insufficient in the current political and economic environment. CSOs working within networks are not safe from government persecution, but power in numbers can have a collective impact on issues of concern to many Tanzanians. (APEA Report 2019) Finding 3: With their strong focus on context, the APEAs have helped the WGs understand the diverse constraints and opportunities for Tanzanian rights-focused CSOs to conduct advocacy and monitoring and reporting of human rights abuses. They examined enabling environment factors; explored the feasibility of various rights issues; and identified potential entry points, approaches, and allies for advocacy. The APEAs also looked at issues through a gender and youth lens to understand which rights issues affect women, girls, and youth most acutely to inform priorities for DDA activities. Findings 4: The advisory committees helped DDA staff and grantees think and work in politically smart ways. The evaluation team did not interview advisory committee members but learned from the DDA annual reports that the advisory committees play a role in validating the APEAs, conduct scenario￾based strategic planning around possible DDA approaches and opportunities, select priority thematic areas for a particular year, and provide strategic oversight to DDA. DDA has been receiving strategic advice on political/civic trends and viability of interventions from the advisory committees for both Tanzania Mainland and Zanzibar. The advisory committees also provide guidance to ensure that the project is driven by true experts who are plugged into the reality on the ground; confirm programmatic assumptions and activities, including possible informal vetting of partners; and serve as a pool of experts from which DDA can pull for training or mentorship, especially for younger generations of activists and CSOs. Finding 5: The APEAs and the advisory committees informed DDA decisions to change ways of working amid the pandemic. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, and as informed by APEAs and advisory committees, the DDA team submitted a revised work plan to USAID. The work plan included a COVID-19 risk management approach and noted that $85,000 would be awarded through the project grant and rapid response grant fund to organizations proposing projects that address major human rights issues arising from the COVID-19 pandemic. DDA issued three COVID-19 grants to three organizations. Finding 6: Some credible advisory committee advice is not followed by the DDA. In Years 1–3, informed by the APEAs, the advisory committees advised DDA to identify reform champions in government, the ruling party, the private sector, or religious groups to engage the government in a nonconfrontational manner. DDA reports and KIIs show little DDA effort to engage with nontraditional actors in effecting change. Finding 7: Most grantees are not aware of APEAs and the monthly scans. The APEAs have mostly remained internal IP and Mission documents and have not been shared in document form with CSOs. IPs, however, indicated that there have been periodic briefings about the political economy situation with WGs at the beginning of each year. Possibly because the CSOs have not accessed the actual documents, none of them could confirm knowledge of their existence. In the interviews, the CSOs expressed interest in seeing the analysis reports to guide their work. 31 4.4.2 Sub-Question Findings and Conclusions Sub Question: What challenges, laws, or actions identified in APEAS facilitate or limit the ability of human rights CSOs to operate effectively in Tanzania? 4.4.3.1 Findings Finding : Overall, previous APEA findings confirmed that the civic space was rapidly shrinking in Tanzania and that civil society must use politically savvy approaches to engage government to not further alienate themselves from decision-making processes. The APEA also recommended that DDA must adapt its advocacy approach and “diversify its range of local partners to enable programming to align with the current political realities of the administration.” The DDA Year One, Two and Three Reports depicts that: In January 2019, the Parliament tabled amendments to the Political Parties Act, which was passed, albeit with very minor changes, despite uproar from the political opposition and civil society. The new amendments give the Political Parties Registrar more powers to sanction political leaders and political activities, including criminalizing administrative actions with sanctions, such as a maximum 12-month jail term or 5 million Tanzania shilling (US$2,164) fine. The Act also wants CSOs to seek permission from the Registrar of Political Parties thirty days before they undertake any civic education activity. In May 2019, the Attorney General (AG) tabled a Bill under a Certificate of Urgency on proposed amendments to eight pieces of legislation including: the Companies Act, the Copyrights and Neighboring Rights Act, the Films and Stage Plays Act, the NGOs Act, the Societies Act, the Statistics Act, the Tanzania Shipping Agencies Act, and the Trustees Incorporation Act. Tabling of the amendments under the Certificate of Urgency meant that many CSOs and other affected entities and individuals were unable to meaningfully participate in the process by providing opinions to shape the provisions of the targeted legislation. The proposed amendments to the NGOs Act, among other things, empowers the Registrar to investigate and evaluate the activities of NGOs, while also allowing him/her to use to use law enforcement organs in carrying out functions under the NGOs Act. NGOs are additionally required to re-apply for registration after every 10 years. On November 29, news circulated in the media that Tanzania had deposited a notice of intention to withdraw its Article 34(6) declaration to the Protocol establishing the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights, which allows NGOs and individuals to directly petition the African Court. Tanzania had signed the notice through Tanzania’s Minister for Foreign Affairs Hon. Palamagamba Kabudi on November 14 and deposited the notice in Addis Ababa on November 21. The notice, among other things, cited the improper use of the Court by nationals. At the moment, the government is proposing reservations to the Protocol on when individuals should be entitled to file cases at the Court, which will include principles such as exhaustion of local remedies. This withdrawal will effectively ban NGOs and individuals to petition the Court to rule on issues after exhausting local remedies and will also render ongoing cases against the State non-binding after the withdrawal has become final. On June 10, 2020, Parliament passed the Miscellaneous Amendment No. 3 of 2020, which, among other things, provides immunity from prosecution for the President, Vice President, Prime Minister, Speaker, Deputy Speaker, and the Chief Justice. No suit shall be brought against these individuals in their capacity; instead, the same suit will, in replacement, be brought against the Attorney General. The endorsed bill additionally provides a blanket ban on prosecuting any judicial officers for acts/errors/omissions done in good faith. Significantly, the legislation also imposed a requirement for every petitioner seeking to file a constitutional case to swear an affidavit showing the extent to which his/her right has been personally infringed upon or is likely to be infringed upon. This legislation also presents an obstacle to CSOs trying to challenge any administrative faults, as long as they cannot show proximity with the fault. The new bill, as with many of its predecessors, is thus filled with provisions that fuel authoritarianism rather than promoting accountability and equality before the law. 32 4.4.3.2 Conclusions APEAs are effective in identifying key challenges and actions that facilitated or limited human rights CSOs’ ability to operate effectively. Shrinking civic space has been the major hindrance to operational effectiveness of most human rights CSOs. 4.4.2 Overall Conclusion for EQ4 APEAs and other analytical products such as monthly environmental scans are effective in informing decision making and mid-course corrections for DDA. 5. RECOMMENDATIONS 5.1 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR USAID/TANZANIA Recommendations For USAID/Tanzania (Future Design) Recommendation 1: USAID should continue to support the activities currently supported under DDA project activities and beyond DDA activity so that Tanzania’s organizations continue to use grounded evidence for advocacy and push for social change. Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) in Tanzania still need capacity-building support to improve their operational and programmatic effectiveness, sustain their efforts, and adapt their ways of working amid the shift in government administration. Assistance in undertaking real-time observation, making sense of the evolving context, and making procedural and programmatic adjustments for both IPs and grantees will be paramount. Recommendation 2: USAID is encouraged to make a deliberate effort to meet with beneficiaries more frequently, leveraging the strategic portfolio reviews sessions or the pause and reflect sessions and not depend on IPs (Freedom House and Pact) alone. This will allow USAID to design future programs with a direct perspective on how projects are implemented by CSOs/grantees. The Evaluation Team asked respondents on recommendations they have for USAID to consider in its future programs/projects. The following were their views. Recommendation 3: USAID should support interventions that encourage citizen-responsive or citizen-centered governance systems to promote accountable democratic governance that serves engaged citizens. Recommendation 4: Develop support mechanisms that link DRG activities to other issues affecting Tanzanians’ everyday lives, including livelihoods and economic empowerment. Citizens do not separate these concepts; neither should USAID support. Recommendation 5: Support projects by providing adequate and timely technical and financial support to address barriers to the participation of women, youth, and persons with disabilities in demanding, protecting, and promoting human and civic space rights. 5.2 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPLEMENTING PARTNER(S) Recommendation 1: DDA should continue to conduct APEAs and further pause-and-reflect sessions with key stakeholders to share knowledge and understanding of the changing context. This is particularly important considering the transition to the new president and possible entry points and windows of opportunity for impacts on programming. To contend with uncertainties that come with the change in administration, DDA can help plan scenarios with key contextual indicators and triggers to inform adaptation and decisions. Recommendation 2: DDA should continue to invest in strengthening CSOs’ unity and collective voice to reverse the human rights regression experienced in the past six years and some persistent human rights issues. The past government administration contributed to division among CSOs and led 33 to mistrust and episodes of selfishness. These divisions need mending so that the CSOs can leverage the new administration and make progress in promoting and protecting human rights. Recommendation 3: DDA should co-create with CSOs, the coordination, communication and engagement strategy to guide the WG effectiveness of the platforms for increased collaboration and cooperation. The WG effectiveness is suffering because DDA invested more on guiding partners in preparation of advocacy strategies than it did on the ways of working, communication, coordination and engagement strategies. Some members have not attended WG activities for almost a year. WGs should also agree on the issues they address as a group and the issues they can still address as individual organizations. Similarly, DDA should also support the WG members to have a backup plan on WG leadership in case a problem arises for a convener. DDA should support the WG to have incoming, current, and outgoing conveners to ensure business continuity. It is also noted that, change of CSO representatives to the WGs has delayed efforts to effectively monitor, collect, and share human rights information and has caused mistrust. DDA should ensure that WG members allocate one or two full￾time dedicated staff for DDA WG affairs. Recommendation 4: There is a need for FH and Pact to enhance coordination among themselves in dealing with grantees. Although CSO benefit from the technical and financial capacity development from both PACT and FH, lack of clarity on the reporting structure between Freedom House and Pact, and grant micromanagement confuse CSOs and affect the relationship between DDA and CSOs. Recommendation 5: With COVID-19 still in the picture DDA should rethink how the supported CSOs will continue to execute their mandate amid the pandemic. Most WG activities slowed down during the pandemic. Recommendations 6: DDA should ensure that there are gender and social inclusion guidelines for WG composition and leadership. All WGs must be trained on gender and social inclusion and should have gender and social inclusion performance indicators. DDA should support WGs to have in place facilities and services that cater for members and beneficiaries with disabilities, such as sign language, braille formats, large prints, tactile language, and personal assistants, to name a few. APEAs and the advisory committees repeatedly noted that there is space to support women’s rights programming and economic livelihood opportunities under the constrained operating context, but this opportunity was not sufficiently leveraged. With the changed government administration, there is room to blend women’s economic rights with civic and political rights. DDA should take deliberate efforts to ensure substantive inclusion of women, girls, youth and PWDs in the project. There are various laws and actions which continue to affect the welfare of women, girls, youth and PWDs, DDA should direct its efforts to demonstrating why change in those laws is needed. Recommendation 7: DDA should adapt its advocacy approach and diversify its range of local partners to enable programming to align with the evolving political dynamics. Whenever possible, DDA should explore the need for WGs to be formed with sufficient representation of the private sector, academia, trade unions, professional associations, service delivery organizations, musicians, cartoonists, and individual activists where this might add value. While this has cost implications, DDA will need to prioritize what are the most important activities, then plan and budget for them. Recommendation 8: DDA or USAID should consider providing holistic support (physical security, digital security, and psychosocial support, etc.) to CSOs and human rights defenders at high risk to ensure that they can remain "safe but not silent". Similarly to recommendation 7, DDA will need to prioritize, plan and budget the most important activities. Recommendation 9: DDA and CSO should work together to revitalize CSOs’ role in governance and civic space. Most CSOs are still in a shutdown mode, even with new indications that the civic and human rights space is opening. 34 Recommendation 10: DDA must ensure that the WGs regain and build their legitimacy with their constituents. CSOs should prioritize a mix of direct and beneficiary-led interventions and project implementation, monitoring, and evaluation. Inclusiveness, transparency, and accountability should be blended in the day-to-day running of organizations so that CSOs do not lose public confidence or trust, which is already very low because of increased propaganda and state actions (including arbitrary arrests) aimed at discrediting legitimate civic society actors. Recommendation 11: Rapid response grants are key to facilitating data collection for advocacy issues that require quick intervention, but the evaluation team noted divergent views on rapid response grant timeliness. DDA should increase and apply reasonable speed and efficiency in dealing with rapid response grant applications without overlooking due compliance process. Also, DDA must make information on rapid response grants and how to successfully apply for them, as well as technical assistance in the application process, available to organizations to enable these organizations to access the grants. Recommendation 12: The uptake of the evidence produced by DDA CSOs for government institutions is hampered by the constraining operating context. DDA must invest in ensuring that the WGs ● Involve the targeted government institutions from the first steps of a study to enhance ownership of the process and outcomes. ● Create, revive, and maintain close collaboration and communication with progressive individuals and champions within the government institutions. Given the recent change of government regime and the fact that government officials tend to be reallocated, relationship building and maintenance should be continuous. Recommendation 13: Sustainable monitoring, collection, and sharing of human rights information requires financial stability. DDA should prioritize capacity building in resource mobilization, grant management, and proposal writing. Recommendation 14: With the boom of online and alternative media and the indication that the media environment will be conducive, DDA should prioritize training in these media forms. This will ensure that monitored and collected information is shared promptly and creatively. DDA and the WGs should exercise caution and closely read the evolving media context under the new president to continue to safeguard journalists. DDA should also prioritize actions and advocacy on changing the punitive laws that made the media landscape hostile in the recent past years. Recommendation 15: DDA should strengthen its support to ensure that CSOs comply with NGO regulations to avoid deregistration and suspension, which interfere with their work. Noncompliance with CSOs’ governing laws has provided justification for government interference and harassment of CSOs There is a need for DDA to support the CSOs to review the detrimental NGO- related policies, regulations and laws which have been used to harass the work of the NGOs. The focus should also be on the Political Parties Amendment Act which requires CSOs to seek permission from the Registrar of Political Parties thirty days before undertaking any civic education activity with them. 35 REFERENCES USAID/Data Driven Advocacy Activity (2019). Assessing Rights-Based Advocacy in Tanzania’s Shrinking Civic Space: An Applied Political Economy Analysis. Addendum to the Data Driven Advocacy Activity 2018 Applied Political Economy Analysis. January 2019. Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. USAID/Data Driven Advocacy Activity (2018). Assessing Rights-Based Advocacy in Tanzania’s Shrinking Civic Space: An Applied Political Economy Analysis. January 2018. PACT (2014). Applied Political Economy Analysis: A tool for Analyzing Local Systems. A Practical Guide to PACT’s Applied Political Economy Analysis Tool for Practitioners and Development Professionals. September 2014. USAID/Tanzania (2015) USAID Country Development Cooperation Strategy (2015-2019) USAID/Tanzania (2020) Country Development Cooperation Strategy (2020-2025) New Partners Technical Assistance Initiative (NuPITA) Project (2012). Organizational Capacity Assessment Tool: Participant’s Copy for Organizations Funded by USAID. December 2012. USAID/Tanzania (2019). Data Driven Advocacy Factsheet. September 2019. Accesses November 2020 at: https://www.usaid.gov/documents/1860/data-driven-advocacy-fact-sheet. USAID/Data Driven Advocacy Activity (2019). Manual for Human Rights Training Investigation, Monitoring, Documentation, Analysis and Reporting Prepared For: Data Driven Project (DDA Project). Freedom House/PACT. June 2019. USAID/Data Driven Advocacy Activity (2018). Work Plan: August 29, 2017-September 30, 2018. June 2018. USAID/Data Driven Advocacy Activity (2018). Work Plan: October 1, 2018-September 30, 2019. USAID/Data Driven Advocacy Activity (2019). Year 3 Annual Implementation Plan: October 1, 2019-September 30, 2020. USAID/Data Driven Advocacy Activity (2018). Annual Report October 1, 2019 - December 31, 2018. USAID/Data Driven Advocacy Activity (no date). Year 1 Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning Plan. USAID/Data Driven Advocacy Activity (no date). Year 2 Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning Plan. USAID/Data Driven Advocacy Activity (2020). Year 4 Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning Plan. October 27, 2020. USAID/Data Driven Advocacy Activity (2017). Year 1 Quarter 1 Narrative Report & Annexes. Reporting period: August 29 –September 30, 2017. USAID/Data Driven Advocacy Activity (2017). Year 1 Quarter 1 Narrative Report & Annexes. October 1, 2017 – December 31 2017. USAID/Data Driven Advocacy Activity (2018). Year 1 Quarter 3 Narrative Report & Annexes. April 1, 2018–June 30, 2018 USAID/Data Driven Advocacy Activity (2018). Year 2 Quarter 1 Narrative Report & Annexes. October 1, 2018 – December 31, 2018 USAID/Data Driven Advocacy Activity (2019). Year 2 Quarter 2 Narrative Report & Annexes. January 1, 2019– March 31, 2019 USAID/Data Driven Advocacy Activity (2019). Year 2 Quarter 3 Narrative Report & Annexes. April 1, 2019 to June 30, 2019. USAID/Data Driven Advocacy Activity (2019). Year 2 Annual Report. October 1,2018 – Sept.30, 2019. USAID/Data Driven Advocacy Activity (2020). Year 3 Quarter 1 report & Annexes. October 1, 2019 - December 31, 2019. USAID/Data Driven Advocacy Activity (2020). Year 3 Quarter 2 report & Annexes. January 1, 2020 - March 31, 2020. USAID/Data Driven Advocacy Activity (2020). Year 3 Quarter 3 Report & Annexes. April 1, 2020 - June 30, 2020. 36 USAID/Data Driven Advocacy Activity (2020). Year 3 Annual Report & Annexes. October 1, 2019 - September 30, 2020. USAID/Data Driven Advocacy Activity (2019). Monthly Contextual Scan. May 2019. USAID/Data Driven Advocacy Activity (2019). Monthly Contextual Scan. October 2019. USAID/Data Driven Advocacy Activity (2020). Monthly Contextual Scan. January 2020. USAID/Data Driven Advocacy Activity (2020). Monthly Contextual Scan. February 2020. 37 ANNEXES 38 ANNEX 1: APPENDIX OF ADDITIONAL TABLES FOR FINDINGS Annex 1A: Profile of Respondents Table 1A.1: Respondents of Survey of Beneficiaries of DDA Capacity-Building Activities Region Female Male Total Arusha 0 6 6 Dar es Salaam 8 14 22 Dodoma 2 7 9 Kagera 0 1 1 Kaskazini Pemba 0 2 2 Kigoma 0 1 1 Kilimanjaro 1 0 1 Manyara 1 0 1 Mara 3 0 3 Mjini Magharibi 6 11 17 Morogoro 0 1 1 Mtwara 1 1 Mwanza 3 2 5 Rukwa 1 1 2 Shinyanga 0 1 1 South Pemba 0 2 2 Tabora 0 1 1 All Regions 26 50 76 Table 1A.2: Capacity-Building Support Received by Respondents, by Gender (%) Male Female All Respondents Training 94.0 92.3 93.4 Coaching and Mentorship 68.0 84.6 73.7 Did not receive either of the above capacity development support 6.0 3.8 5.3 N=76 Survey question: Q9. Which of the following capacity building support did you receive under the DDA activity? (select all that apply) Table 1A.3: Representation in DDA Working Groups, by Gender of Respondent (%) Male Female All respondents Yes 68.0 53.8 63.2 No 32.0 46.2 36.8 Total 100 100 100 Survey question: Q10. Do you represent your organization in any of the DDA CSO Networks/ Working Groups? 39 Table 1A.4: Membership in DDA Working Groups, by Gender of Respondent (%) Male Female All respondents WG1 - Civic Space 24.0 7.7 18.4 WG2 - Women, Children, Youth, and Persons with Disabilities 18.0 30.8 22.4 WG3 - Alternative Media 12.0 11.5 11.8 WG4 - Working Group on Zanzibar 18.0 - 11.8 WG5 - Sub-national Working Group for Dodoma 6.0 3.8 5.3 Survey question: Q11a-e. Which of the following DDA CSO Networks/Working Groups are you a member of? Table 1A.5: Participation in Various Types of Training Organized under DDA, by Gender of Respondent (number of respondents saying they attended the training) Male Female All Respondents a. Basics of data collection and analysis 16 10 26 b. Community of engagement workshop 8 4 12 c. Compliance clinic workshop 4 1 5 d. Digital and physical security 18 5 23 e. Ethical reportage (code of ethics) 10 3 13 f. Financial management 14 2 16 g. Human rights 18 7 25 h. Human rights monitoring, documentation, and reporting 19 6 25 i. Investigative journalism 10 3 13 j. Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) 15 10 25 k. New and alternative media 14 6 20 l. Policy development and analysis 11 3 14 m. Research methods for advocacy 18 8 26 n. Research methods and collective intervention 11 6 17 o. Security and risk assessment for newly recruited Human Rights Defenders 8 3 11 p. Strategic litigation for DDA partners 11 4 15 All Responses 50 26 76 Survey question: Q13a-p. Which of the following training topics did you attend? (Please select all that you attended) 40 Annex 1B: Participants’ Assessment of DDA’s Capacity Development Support Table 1B.1: Participants' Assessment of Relevance of Training Attended, % of Respondents Not at all relevant A little relevant Moderately relevant Highly relevant Total a. Basics of data collection and analysis - - 26.9 73.1 100 b. Community of engagement workshop - - 8.3 91.7 100 c. Compliance clinic workshop - - - 100.0 100 d. Digital and physical security - - 13.04 86.96 100 e. Ethical reportage (code of ethics) - 7.69 7.69 84.62 100 f. Financial management - - 18.8 81.3 100 g. Human rights - - 12.0 88.0 100 h. Human rights monitoring, documentation, and reporting - - 12.0 88.0 100 i. Investigative journalism - 7.7 - 92.3 100 j. Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) - - 16.0 84.0 100 k. New and alternative media - - 20.0 80.0 100 l. Policy development and analysis - 7.1 - 92.9 100 m. Research methods for advocacy - 3.9 19.2 76.9 100 n. Research methods and collective intervention for advocacy - - 23.5 76.5 100 o. Security and risk assessment for newly recruited Human Rights Defenders - 9.1 18.2 72.7 100 p. Strategic litigation for DDA partners - 6.7 33.3 60.0 100 Survey question: q16a-p. To what extent were the trainings you attended relevant to your area of work? 41 Table 1B.2: Participants’ Assessment of Extent of New Skills Gained by the Respondent from the Training, % of Respondents Did not learn any new thing Just a little amount of new knowledge or skills Moderate amount of new knowledge or skills A lot of new knowledge or skills Total a. Basics of data collection and analysis - - 34.6 65.4 100 b. Community of engagement workshop - - 50.0 50.0 100 c. Compliance clinic workshop - - 60.0 40.0 100 d. Digital and physical security - 4.4 34.8 60.9 100 e. Ethical reportage (code of ethics) - 7.7 30.8 61.5 100 f. Financial management 6.3 - 37.5 56.3 100 g. Human rights - 4.0 44.0 52.0 100 h. Human rights monitoring, documentation, and reporting - 8.0 40.0 52.0 100 i. Investigative journalism - - 46.2 53.9 100 j. Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) - 4.0 32.0 64.0 100 k. New and alternative media - 5.0 50.0 45.0 100 l. Policy development and analysis - 14.3 42.9 42.9 100 m. Research methods for advocacy - 7.7 42.3 50.0 100 n. Research methods and collective intervention for advocacy 5.9 11.8 47.1 35.3 100 o. Security and risk assessment for newly recruited Human Rights Defenders 9.1 - 54.6 36.4 100 p. Strategic litigation for DDA partners - 6.7 53.3 40.0 100 Survey question: Q17a-p. To what extent would you say you gained new knowledge or skills from participating in the training? 42 Table 1B.3: Participants’ Opinions about Quality of Training Facilitation, % of Respondents Very poor Poor Average Good Very good Total a. Basics of data collection and analysis - - 3.9 46.2 50.0 100 b. Community of engagement workshop - - - 41.7 58.3 100 c. Compliance clinic workshop - - 20.0 20.0 60.0 100 d. Digital and physical security - 4.4 - 60.9 34.8 100 e. Ethical reportage (code of ethics) - - 30.8 30.8 38.5 100 f. Financial management - 6.3 6.3 43.8 43.8 100 g. Human rights - - 12.0 48.0 40.0 100 h. Human rights monitoring, documentation, and reporting - - 16.0 48.0 36.0 100 i. Investigative journalism - - 15.4 53.9 30.8 100 j. Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) - - 56.0 44.0 100 k. New and alternative media - - 15.0 40.0 45.0 100 l. Policy development and analysis - - 7.1 42.9 50.0 100 m. Research methods for advocacy - - 7.7 46.2 46.2 100 n. Research methods and collective intervention for advocacy - - 17.7 41.2 41.2 100 o. Security and risk assessment for newly recruited Human Rights Defenders - - 9.1 54.6 36.4 100 p. Strategic litigation for DDA partners - - 26.7 20.0 53.3 100 Survey Question: Q19a-p. How would you rate the "quality of facilitation" in the training? 43 Table 1B.4: Extent of Utilization of Skills Gained, % of Respondents Not at all Just a little To a moderate extent A lot Total a. Basics of data collection and analysis 3.9 7.7 53.9 34.6 100 b. Community of engagement workshop - 8.3 66.7 25.0 100 c. Compliance clinic workshop - - 40.0 60.0 100 d. Digital and physical security - 8.7 34.8 56.5 100 e. Ethical reportage (code of ethics) - 15.4 23.1 61.5 100 f. Financial management - 6.3 12.5 81.3 100 g. Human rights - 4.0 40.0 56.0 100 h. Human rights monitoring, documentation, and reporting - 4.0 60.0 36.0 100 i. Investigative journalism 7.7 15.4 46.2 30.8 100 j. Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) - 8.0 40.0 52.0 100 k. New and alternative media - 10.0 35.0 55.0 100 l. Policy development and analysis 7.1 7.1 42.9 42.9 100 m. Research methods for advocacy 3.9 7.7 46.2 42.3 100 n. Research methods and collective intervention for advocacy - - 58.8 41.2 100 o. Security and risk assessment for newly recruited Human Rights Defenders 9.1 9.1 54.6 27.3 100 p. Strategic litigation for DDA partners - 26.7 40.0 33.3 100 Survey question: Q20a-p. To what extent did you use or apply the knowledge gained from the training(s)? 44 Table 1B.5: Participants' Rating of their Organizations’ Capacity to Use Data and Evidence to Monitor Human Rights and for Advocacy, % of Respondents Male Female Total Excellent 20.4 44.0 28.4 Above Average 46.9 36.0 43.2 Average 28.6 16.0 24.3 Low 2.0 - 1.4 Don't know/Can't rate 2.0 4.0 2.7 Survey Question: Q28. How do you rate your organization’s capacity to use data and evidence to monitor human rights and advance its advocacy agenda? Table 1B.6: Participants' Rating of Change in Their Organizations' Capacity Male Female Total Increased 85.71 96 89.19 Remained the same 12.24 4 9.46 Decreased 2.04 0 1.35 Survey question: Q30. Has this capacity increased or decreased in the recent three years? Table 1B.7: Participants' Views about DDA Contribution in Strengthening their Organizations' Capacity to Meet Objectives Male Female Total Strongly agree 44.9 45.8 45.2 Agree 32.7 41.7 35.6 Neither agree nor disagree 8.2 12.5 9.6 Disagree 4.1 0.0 2.7 Strongly disagree 8.2 0.0 5.5 Survey question: Q35. To what extent do you agree with this statement: “DDA support has strengthened my organization’s capacity” to meet its objectives? 45 ANNEX 2: SUMMARY OF RECENT GOT LAWS AND ACTIONS TAKEN THAT LIMIT THE ABILITY OF HUMAN RIGHTS–FOCUSED CSOS TO OPERATE IN TANZANIA6 Right to Vote/Elections Related Human Rights Violations ● In July 2016, Magufuli announced a blanket ban on all political rallies until 2020, the year in which Tanzania held its general elections. Under the ban, politicians were authorized to hold activities only in their respective constituencies. ● Opposition leaders faced intimidation, harassment, arbitrary arrests, and prosecution on trumped-up charges. For example, on June 23, 2020, police arrested Zitto Kabwe, leader of opposition party ACT￾Wazalendo, along with other party members for holding an internal party meeting declared illegal by authorities. ● On the days leading to the 2020 elections, opposition parties reported that hundreds of their candidates had been unfairly dismissed. ● In Zanzibar, authorities deployed a heavy contingent of military and anti-riot police amid rising discontent around the issuance of voter identification cards. ● The Amendment to the Political Parties Act introduced wide-ranging restrictions on the rights to freedom of association and peaceful assembly. For instance, on August 14, 2020, video footage showed a mob of people attacking the entourage of Tundu Lissu and Freeman Mbowe, where Tundu Lissu had gone to fundraise for his presidential campaign. ● Civil society organizations known for being critical of the government were threatened with suspension, suspended, or denied clearance to conduct election-related activities. ● The 2019 and 2020 local and general election respectively were marred with injustices to the opposition parties. President Magufuli won his second term in October 2020 with just over 84 percent of votes cast. The Chadema candidate, Tundu Lissu, obtained 13 percent of the vote. The remaining 13 candidates in the presidential election each received less than 1 percent of the votes. In the parliamentary elections, opposition parties collectively failed to secure sufficient seats to form the official opposition in the Bunge for the first time since multi-party elections were introduced in the 1990s. Following the conclusion of the 2020 elections, constituencies were won as follows: CCM 351 seats; Alliance for Change and Transparency 4 seats; Civic United Front 3; Chadema 1 seat, with the right to nominate a further 19 Special Seats. ● With the coming in of President Samia Suluhu, there is hope that political space is going to open up. Recently, the President promised to meet and hold talks with the opposition parties’ leaders. Substantive changes in the laws are required for the political space to completely open up. Right to Freedom of Expression ● In July 2020, Secretary General of Chadema Party Nusrat Hanje was arrested with several others on eight offences as a result of hoisting a Chadema flag while singing the Tanzania national anthem. Tanzania does not criminalize contempt or ridicule of the national anthem; however, the Tanzania National Flag and Coat of Arms Act of 1971 makes it an offence for any person in Tanzania to insult the national flag or coat of arms. ● New NGO laws, together with the 2015 Statistics Act, which limits the rights to freedom of expression, association, and peaceful assembly, have subdued civil society and restricted civic space. ● Early this year the government met with CSOs, appreciated the role of CSOs in national development and promised to work closely with them to improve the operating context and coordination of their activities. As a result of the new administration, from the 30th April, Tanzanians started to access Twitter without having to use VPN. Access to Twitter has been constrained since the October 2020 elections. President Samia Suluhu has promised to observe freedoms of the people, albeit in accordance with existing law. A complete change of the legal framework is needed for peoples freedoms to be restored. 6Primary Source: Lawfare Repression by Law Ahead of Tanzania’s General Elections, Amnesty International, 2020 46 Right to Freedom of Assembly ● The Tanzania Police Force and Auxiliary Service Act requires 48 hours’ notice before holding an assembly or processions for authorization by police. However, Article 21 of the ICCPR, Article 8 of the ICESCR, and Article 11 of the ACHPR guarantee the right to freedom of assembly, including spontaneous assemblies, and underscore the need for notification rather than authorization. ● Excessive NGO regulations require NGOs to disclose extensive information about their activities and funding or face deregistration. ● Amendments to NGO laws have made it very difficult for NGOs to operate freely and independently. For example, NGOs are required to disclose to the Office of Treasury Registrar within 14 days of fundraising the sources of any money raised, what the money was spent on, and why it was obtained. ● April 2020 NGO Regulations now place NGO management under the President’s Office – Regional Administration and Local Governance. ● The Ministry of Finance and Planning is also mandated to supervise NGO plans and financing. ● Under the Elections Expenses Act 6 of 2010, NGOs face additional restrictions on election-related activities defined as “advocacy” and “public awareness” for “furtherance of election campaigns.” ● NGOs are also required to disclose all funding sources for their election-related activities and report to the registrar of political parties within 90 days of elections. ● For instance, on June 23, 2020, the National Electoral Commission (NEC) stopped several Tanzanian CSOs from conducting election-related activities, including voter education. ● On August 18, 2020, the Tanzania Human Rights Defenders Coalition temporarily suspended its operations after the police ordered CRDB Bank to freeze its accounts, accusing them of entering into agreements with donors without consulting the Office of the Treasury Registrar and the Office of the Registrar of NGOs. ● After the coming of the President Samia Suluhu, THRDC accounts have been re-opened and the funds have been found in accounts. Media Crackdown ● The 2016 Media Services Act enhanced censorship, muzzling the media through suspension and closure of media outlets for reporting on allegations of corruption and human rights violations ● The 2018 Online Contents Regulations and the 2015 Cybercrimes Act gave Tanzania’s government overly broad powers to police the internet, leading people to self-censor online. ● On July 17, 2020, the Ministry of Information, Culture, Arts, and Sports issued revised online content regulations—the Electronic and Postal Communications (Online Content) Regulations 2020—that seek to gag freedom of expression online through a list of prohibited content. Among other things, the regulations criminalize online organizing, planning, and supporting of protests that “may lead to public disorder.” This carries a 12-month prison sentence or 5 million Tanzania shilling (approximately $2,319) fine or both, which will be used to intimidate and harass online users. ● On June 23, 2020, the Director of Information Services, who also serves as the Government Spokesperson, indefinitely banned the printing and distribution of Tanzania Daima newspaper in Tanzania and outside the country. ● On July 6, 2020, the Tanzania Communications Regulatory Authority (TCRA) suspended Kwanza TV, an online television network, for 11 months for allegedly generating and disseminating “biased, misleading and disruptive content.” ● On August 27, 2020, the TCRA suspended Clouds TV and Clouds FM Radio for seven days after they announced results of some political party primaries without NEC approval. The TCRA alleged that in their “360” and “Power Breakfast” morning programs on August 26, 2020, the two stations violated the Broadcasting Services (Content) (The Political Party Elections Broadcasts) Code 2015, a controversial piece of legislation introduced shortly before the 2015 elections. Section 16 of the law states that in its obligation to inform the public of “the election results, as they become available, special care should be taken to ensure the accuracy of all results broadcast.” The code does not prescribe any penalty. ● New regulations also sought to limit international media coverage of Tanzania’s elections. The TCRA amended the Electronic and Postal Communications (Radio and Television Broadcast) Regulations on August 11, 2020, after they had been in force for under two months. New subsections to Section 37 compel licensed local broadcasters to seek the regulator’s permission to air content produced in collaboration with regional and international broadcast partners. ● In April, 2021 President Samia ordered online media that were closed down to re-open. A complete overhaul of the media laws should be done for the media freedom to be completely regained. 47 Other Human Rights Violations ● The judiciary has been weakened through executive appointments and without independent parliamentary vetting, giving way to several politically motivated trials. ● On June 10, 2020, Tanzania’s National Assembly passed another repressive law, the Written Laws (Miscellaneous Amendments Act [No. 3] of 2020), amending 13 laws. By requiring claimants under the Basic Rights and Duties Enforcement Act (the Enforcement Act) to submit an affidavit showing that violations have personally affected them, the law seriously undermines public interest lawsuits and government accountability for human rights violations and abuses. This overly broad provision arbitrarily limits NGOs’ ability to pursue legal aid and law-based activities when they have not been personally harmed, ● President Samia Promised to address the challenges of the judiciary and ordered the Chief Justice and the judicial system to redirect itself to providing justice and defend the rights of the people of Tanzania. The President has also asked PCCB and Police Force to drop all cases with no substance and those with no likelihood of being won. The President has also ordered the businessmen and investors to be handled with respect and dignity. 48 ANNEX 3: ASSESSMENT SCOPE OF WORK Activity Name Data Driven Advocacy (DDA) Implementer Freedom House/ PACT Agreement Number AID-621-LA-17-00002 Total Estimated Ceiling of the Evaluated Project/Activity (TEC) $8.7m Life of Strategy, Project, or Activity August 2017 to August 2022 Active Geographic Regions National with specific focus in Zanzibar, Dodoma and Arusha Development Objective(s) (DOs) DO3 (2015-2020 CDCS) DO2 and DO3 (2020-2025 CDCS) USAID Office Democracy, Human Rights and Governance (DRG) AOR Adam Lingson USAID’s Data Driven Advocacy (DDA) is a five year activity with a $8,700,000 TEC. DDA is implemented by Freedom House (FH) in collaboration with PACT. The activity commenced August 2017 and is anticipated to close out August 2022. The Data Driven Advocacy seeks to improve and sustain Tanzanian rights-focused civil society’s ability to advocate for, and influence policy on, key national-level human rights issues using better data and information to drive results. The project has the following objectives: Objective 1: Platforms for increased cooperation and collaboration among like-minded organizations for evidence-based advocacy are strengthened. Objective 2: Civil society’s abilities to collect, generate, monitor, and report independent and reliable information concerning human rights abuses are strengthened. Objective 3: Civil society organizations, networks, and key individuals are able to respond to urgent and unanticipated needs. Statement of Purpose: This evaluation will be used to inform the last two years of activity implementation and inform USAID’s efforts to design future civil society and human rights activities in Tanzania. Users and Uses of Evaluation: The primary audience for this evaluation is the USAID DG team, and broader mission, in addition to other donors who may be designing and exploring human rights activities in Tanzania. Key Stakeholders: 1. Working Group on Civic Space housed by the Tanzania Human Rights Defenders’ Coalitions, (THRDC) 2. Working Group on Women, Children, Youth, and Persons with Disabilities- Housed by the Women in Law and Development in Africa (WiLDAF) 3. Working Group on New and Alternative Media- Housed by the Arusha Press Club (APC) 4. Working Group on Zanzibar- Housed by the Association of NGOs in Zanzibar (ANGOZA) 5. Sub-National Working Group for Dodoma – led by the Christian Council of Tanzania (CCT￾Dodoma) 6. Project grants awardees 7. Rapid response grants awardees 8. other DRG IPs: Boresha Habari by FHI 360/Internews, and CEPPS 49 Evaluation Questions: Within this context, the following evaluation questions seek to understand this activity’s midterm performance in relation to the activity’s specific objectives: 1. Have platforms for increased cooperation and collaboration among like-minded organizations for evidence-based advocacy been strengthened as a result of DDA's intervention? a. What have been the results and outcomes of any strengthened platforms? b. Where platforms for increased cooperation and collaboration among like-minded organizations for evidence-based advocacy have been strengthened; what modalities and approaches have been most (and least) successful? 2. To what extent has the capacity of targeted/beneficiary CSOs to collect, generate, monitor, and report independent and reliable information concerning human rights abuses improved (objective 2)? a. Has improved capacity changed their activities, approaches or actions? b. Are targeted/beneficiary CSOs better equipped/have greater capacity to collect data on, monitor, and report on human rights abuses as a result of DDA. 3. Given Tanzania’s rapid decline in civic space; to what extent have DDA interventions been successful in supporting CSO, networks, and individuals to respond, react to or address human rights abuses/challenges? a. Have interventions supporting CSOs/Networks to rapidly respond been more or less successful than those supporting individual activists? 4. To what extent has the use of the Applied Political Economy Analysis (APEAs), Advisory Committees, and Working Groups modality facilitated the program's ability to achieve objectives? Timeline and Deliverables: The DG office would like a final report by 2nd Week of April 2021. Deliverables include: ● Final report responding to the evaluation questions and inclusive of any recommendations. ○ The report should include a summary of recent GOT laws and actions taken that limit the ability of human rights focused CSOs to operate in Tanzania. ● Presentation and accompanying slide deck of key findings and recommendations 50 ANNEX 4: ASSESSMENT APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY MIDTERM EVALUATION OF THE DATA-DRIVEN ADVOCACY ACTIVITY USAID/Tanzania Data for Development Project Submission Date: December 7, 2020 Contract Number: AID-OAA-I-15-00024/AID-621-TO-17-00005 Activity Start Date and End Date: December 7, 2020 – April 15, 2021 COR Name: Michael McBroom Alt COR: Nathan Tenney Prepared by: Jacob Laden, Data for Development Evaluation Advisor, NORC at the University of Chicago Rose Aiko, Survey Specialist, Data for Development Bahati Tenga, Evaluation Specialist, Data for Development Submitted by: David Hughes, Chief of Party ME&A (Mendez England & Associates) 4300 Montgomery Ave. Suite 103 Bethesda, MD 20814 Tel: 301-652-4334 Email: dhughes@engl.com DISCLAIMER The author’s views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for International Development or the United States Government. 51 1. INTRODUCTION USAID’s Data Driven Advocacy (DDA) is a five year activity implemented by Freedom House (FH) in collaboration with PACT. The activity began in August 2017 and is anticipated to close out in August 2022. The goal of the DDA activity is to improve and sustain Tanzanian rights-focused civil society’s ability to advocate for, and influence policy on, key national level human rights issues using better data and information to drive results. The Activity provides mentorship and technical assistance to rights-focused Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) in data collection (including gathering citizen perceptions and human rights monitoring), evidence-based advocacy and digital and physical protection. It supports CSOs to build or strengthen platforms for coordination with diverse stakeholders, builds their institutional capacity to ensure sustainability of outcomes, and provides them with the resources and mentorship they require to better engage with the government and contribute to a more inclusive, data-driven, human rights-focused policymaking process. The program has the following three objectives: 1. Platforms for increased cooperation and collaboration among like-minded organizations for evidence￾based advocacy are strengthened. 2. Civil society’s abilities to collect, generate, monitor, and report independent and reliable information concerning human rights abuses are strengthened. 3. CSOs, networks, and key individuals are able to respond to urgent and unanticipated needs. 2. EVALUATION PURPOSE This midterm evaluation is being conducted in order to assess how the DDA activity has performed in relation to its specific objectives and performance targets. The evaluation will also gather data to assess challenges and context constraints to implementation and performance, and potential needs for adaptations or course correction that may be required in the remaining activity period. 3. EVALUATION QUESTIONS The DDA Activity mid-term evaluation will seek to answer the following questions: 1. To what extent have platforms for increased cooperation and collaboration among like-minded organizations for evidence-based advocacy been strengthened as a result of DDA's intervention? - What have been the results and outcomes of any strengthened platforms? - Where platforms for increased cooperation and collaboration among like-minded organizations for evidence-based advocacy have been established or strengthened; what modalities and approaches have been most (and least) successful? 2. To what extent has the capacity of targeted/beneficiary CSOs to collect, generate, monitor, and report independent and reliable information concerning human rights abuses improved (objective 2)? - Has improved capacity changed their activities, approaches or actions? - Are targeted/beneficiary CSOs better equipped/have greater capacity to collect data on, monitor, and report on human rights abuses as a result of DDA? 3. To what extent have DDA interventions been successful in supporting/enabling CSO, networks, and individuals to respond, react to or address human rights abuses/challenges? - Which interventions have been more successful: Have interventions supporting CSOs/Networks to rapidly respond been more or less successful than those supporting individual activists? 4. To what extent has the use of the Applied Political Economy Analysis (APEAs), Advisory Committees, and Working Groups modality facilitated the program's ability to achieve its objectives? - What challenges, laws or actions identified in PEAs facilitate or limit the ability of human rights CSOs to operate effectively in Tanzania? 4. USES AND USERS OF THE EVALUATION This evaluation will inform the last two years of activity implementation and USAID’s efforts to design future civil society and human rights activities in Tanzania. The primary audience for the evaluation is the USAID DG team, and broader mission and the IP and consortium partners. It is expected that the Evaluation will also benefit other donors who may be designing and/or exploring interventions in human rights activities in Tanzania. 5. KEY STAKEHOLDERS The following are the main stakeholders that will be involved and/or are affected by the evaluation: 52 1. Working Group on Civic Space housed by the Tanzania Human Rights Defenders’ Coalitions, (THRDC) 2. Working Group on Women, Children, Youth, and Persons with Disabilities- Housed by the Women in Law and Development in Africa (WiLDAF) 3. Working Group on New and Alternative Media- Housed by the Arusha Press Club (APC) 4. Working Group on Zanzibar- Housed by the Association of NGOs in Zanzibar (ANGOZA) 5. Sub-National Working Group for Dodoma – led by the Christian Council of Tanzania (CCT￾Dodoma) 6. Project grants awardees 7. Rapid response grants awardees 8. Other USAID DRG IPs: Boresha Habari by FHI 360/Internews, and CEPPS and other Development Partners. 9. Trainees/participants of training organized/conducted by CSOs. Based on the operational environment of DDA, other stakeholders may be identified during the scoping activities who will be included as key stakeholders. 6. EVALUATION METHODOLOGY Data for Development assessment team will approach this activity as a mixed methods evaluation compliant with COVID-19 safety precautions promoting social distancing throughout the period when restrictions for face to face meetings remain. The proposed approaches for the various evaluation questions are summarized in Table 1. This will include: ● Remotely conducted Key informant Interviews and/or Group Interviews with the stakeholders of the program. The purpose of the KIIs/GIs will be to gather perception data from the stakeholders on the various topics relevant for the evaluation. The list of stakeholders to be interviewed (sample) will be established in collaboration with Freedom House and will focus on all key intervention locations (Dar es Salaam, Dodoma, Arusha, Mbeya and Zanzibar) but may include stakeholders in other parts of Mainland Tanzania ● Desk review of existing literature – including activity’s program documentation, periodic plans and reports and other studies that may have been conducted in the course of the activity implementation. The desk review will assist in understanding the documented activity performance history, and any issues that may have been identified in the course of the first three years which facilitate/constrain achievement of the activity targets. ● An online survey of a sample of DDA grantees/ awardees on organizational change and organizational results, including the perceptions on the changing political and civic space environment and how they have responded to the same; and a survey of beneficiaries of trainings/capacity building activities organized for DDA beneficiaries on acquired skills and utilization (including but not limited to grantee staff). 53 Table 1: Approaches and Methods Evaluation Design Matrix: Evaluation Question 1: To what extent have platforms for increased cooperation and collaboration among like-minded organizations for evidence-based advocacy been strengthened as a result of DDA's intervention? Sub Questions: A. What have been the results and outcomes of any strengthened platforms? B. Where platforms for increased cooperation and collaboration among like-minded organizations for evidence-based advocacy have been established or strengthened; what modalities and approaches have been most (and least) successful? Stakeholders Methods Analysis Comments/notes ● Working Groups on various issues and sectors. ● Project grants awardees ● Other USAID DRG IPs: Boresha Habari by FHI 360/Internews, and CEPPS ● A survey of DDA grantees and awardees on organizational change and organizational results. ● Virtual group interviews/FGDs with Working Group members Development Partners and NGOs operating in Tanzania ● Review of monitoring/performance data ● Review of documentation of results and impacts, program documents etc. Thematic coding and analysis of findings from doc review and KIIs Analysis of survey data: descriptive statistics and cross tabulation/ disaggregation by groups, geographic region and sex Aligned with Objective 1. This is an overarching evaluation question which will be answered across stakeholders and sources. Evaluation question 2: To what extent has the capacity of targeted/beneficiary CSOs to collect, generate, monitor, and report independent and reliable information concerning human rights abuses improved? Sub questions: Has improved capacity changed their activities, approaches or actions? Are targeted/beneficiary CSOs better equipped/have greater capacity to collect data on, monitor, and report on human rights abuses as a result of DDA? Stakeholders Methods Analysis Comments/notes ● Project grants awardees ● Training participants (including but not limited to grantee staff) ● Prime IPs and consortium partners ● Other USAID DRG IPs: Boresha Habari by FHI 360/Internews, and CEPPS ● A survey of DDA grantees and awardees on organizational change and organizational results. ● Survey of training participants ● KIIs/GIs with IPs and USAID IPs ● Review of monitoring/performance data including from previous organizational assessments. ● Review of documentation of results and impacts, program documents etc. -Thematic coding and analysis of findings from doc review and KIIs -Analysis of survey data: descriptive statistics and cross tabulation/ disaggregation by groups, geographic region and sex Aligned with objective 2. Mainly focused on DDA grantees/sub￾grantees receiving capacity building and organizational support. . Evaluation Question 3: Given the present context in Tanzania’s civic space, to what extent have DDA interventions been successful in supporting CSO, networks, and individuals to respond, react to or address human rights abuses/challenges? Sub Q: Have interventions supporting CSOs/Networks to rapidly respond been more or less successful than those supporting individual activists? Stakeholders Methods Analysis Comments/notes 54 Evaluation Design Matrix: ● Rapid response grants awardees (CSOs/Networks and individual activists) ● Working group members ● Training/capacity building activities participants ● Other USAID DRG IPs: Boresha Habari by FHI 360/Internews, and CEPPS ● A survey of DDA grantees and awardees on organizational change and organizational results. ● A survey of participants training/capacity building offered by grantees ● KIIs/GIs with IPs and USAID IP ● KIIs and GIs with working groups on change and results -Thematic coding and analysis of findings from doc review and KIIs -Analysis of survey data: descriptive statistics and cross tabulation/ disaggregation by groups, geographic region and sex This question is particularly focused on the activities implemented under the rapid response grants. Other perspectives outside of the grantees on their effectiveness will be included. Evaluation question 4: To what extent has the use of the Applied Political Economy Analysis (APEAs), Advisory Committees, and Working Groups modality facilitated the program's ability to achieve its objectives? Sub Q:What challenges, laws or actions identified in APEAs facilitate or limit the ability of human rights CSOs to operate effectively in Tanzania? Stakeholders Methods Analysis Comments/notes ● Working group participants ● Prime IPs and consortia ● Other USAID DRG IPs: Boresha Habari by FHI 360/Internews, and CEPPS ● Virtual group interviews/FGDs with Working Group members Development Partners and NGOs operating in Tanzania ● Review of PEAs, documentation of results and impacts, program documents etc. -Thematic review of PEAs and other documents -Coding of KIIs with users This will be answered primarily through desk review of the APEAs and other documentation or data from their results 55 6.1 Virtual Key Informant Interviews/ Group Interviews The Evaluation Team will conduct a number of virtual KIIs/GI with various stakeholders involved in the activity implementation basing on their various roles. . Due to the global risks associated with COVID19, group and individual interviews will be conducted using teleconferencing software or telephone where computer or internet access is not available. Four sets of semi-structured interviews will be conducted as part of this evaluation to provide qualitative context and data for findings, conclusions, and recommendations. 1. USAID Mission, DDA Consortium IP, and other USAID IPs. 2. Development partners working in related focus areas and/or in the same activity regions. These are expected to provide contextual information based on documented data about the activity performance across its various objectives and focus areas. 3. Program grantees which include CSOs7 receiving long term institutional grants (in networks) and program grants (out of network), as well as those of the aforementioned grantees who have recieved short-term rapid response grants. 4. Networks/working groups interviewed using Individual or Group Interviews of 2-6 members8 (see table 2). A core set of questions to be asked to all groups of KIIs stakeholders is under development and will focus on activities relevance, effectiveness, and sustainability. Additional questions will be asked on case by case basis for particular organizations about their involvement in the program and activities implemented as well as the perceived successes and challenges and how they have attempted to overcome the challenges. Interviews will be analysed using a tally sheet and triangulated with other data sources obtained for this evaluation. Grounded coding will be conducted using a coding frame and tally sheet in a shared matrix doc to capture recurring themes and examples and key excerpts. Table 2: Estimated KIIs Per Region Interviewees Dar es Salaam Dodoma Arusha Mbeya Zanzibar (Unguja and Pemba) Total 1 USAID Mission Staff & DDA IPs: ● DRG Staff – (AoR, other Staff) ● DDA consortium partners: Freedom House and PACT 6 . . . . 6 2 Development Partners and IPs collaborating with DDA at HQ Level— and other IPs with related activity/working in focus regions: USAID DRG IPs; CEPPS Others (TBD) . . . . . 5-10 3 DDA grantee organizations (institutional and project grantees), rapid response grantees selected based on grant mechanism and nature of activity for which grant is applied for (clustered by activity region) . . . . . 5-10 7 Including Non Government Organizations (NGOs) 8 If total confidentiality is preferred/requested by working group members, they will be accommodated with an individual interview. 56 Interviewees Dar es Salaam Dodoma Arusha Mbeya Zanzibar (Unguja and Pemba) Total 4 Conveners and Members of NGO Networks/Working Groups whose activities are funded by the DDA activity: Working Groups (Civic Space/THRDC; Women, Children, Youth, and Persons with Disabilities/WiLDAF; New and Alternative Media/APC; Zanzibar/ ANGOZA Sub-National Working Group for Dodoma/CCT-Dodoma . . . . . 5 (1 GI with each of the Networks/ Working Groups) TOTAL . . . . . 31 6.2 Document Review The Evaluation team will review DDA program documents and performance data including from previous assessments if available (OCAT, etc.). This will be helpful in understanding the history of the activity and its successes and challenges, as well as how different stakeholders. 6.3 Survey of DDA Grantees and Training (Capacity Building) Activities Participants 6.3.1 A survey of DDA grantees/ awardees (project and rapid response grantees) The evaluation team will conduct an online survey with the DDA awardees/grantees (both organizational/networks and individuals) to examine the outcomes of the capacity strengthening interventions on which the grants are based. The will be conducted to understand the extent to which the grants and the activities for which they were used have contributed to human rights and other advocacy outcomes over the period of the program. The survey will be mixed methods to capture quantitative milestones and outcomes but also to understand the factors and challenges leading to those outcomes achieved under the grants. Due to the likely low number of respondents across organizations, the survey sampling approach will be a census of all DDA grantees. The survey data collection will be conducted through as self-administered electronic survey tool delivered to grantee staff inboxes. Potential follow-ups by phone to encourage completion of the survey will be done by the assessment team STTA SMEs working closely with the activity manager for this assignment. 6.3.2 A survey of participants of training/capacity building activities on data driven advocacy skills gained and how applied The evaluation team will develop and field a survey of beneficiaries of training and capacity building activities conducted by grantees/networks and targeting individuals from various organizations involved in DDA activities. The survey will be primarily quantitative to measure likely changes in capacities/skills and outcomes of utilization of such skills. The actual sample of targeted beneficiaries will be established after consultations with the IPs. It is intended that these participants will come from all the activity locations (Dar es Salaam, Dodoma, Arusha, Mbeya and Zanzibar). To appreciate the national focus of the project, participants may be drawn from other regions as well as may be suggested by the IPs (Table 3). Table 3: Sample for the Online Survey of Grantees/Awardees and Training Participants9 Type Dar es Salaam Dodoma Arusha Mbeya Zanzibar Other10 Total Organisational Level Institutional grantees 2 1 1 - 1 1 6 Project Grantee 3 1 1 3 2 10 Rapid response Grantees 8 - 5 1 3 17 Sub-total: Organizations 13 2 7 5 6 33 9 To be clarified by DDA based on participant and grantee lists. 10 Kagera, Rukwa, Mwanza and Ruvuma 57 Type Dar es Salaam Dodoma Arusha Mbeya Zanzibar Other10 Total Capacity Building 1: Mentorship and coaching (inst & project grantees) TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD Capacity Building 2: Other general trainings provided to network members and grantees TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD All 6.4 Qualitative Analysis Framework Qualitative analysis for the KIIs and document review will be structured around the format shown in table 5. With reference to the assessment questions, the assessment team will be systematically coding and tallying recurring references along five themes and sub coding on 4 sector based sub-themes. Each finding will be tagged with themes aligned with one of the 3 study questions. Once extracted by question, these findings will be triangulated with other quantitative data from the survey and used for developing findings and conclusions in the report narrative. Table 4: Qualitative Analysis Matrix Evaluation Question Document/ source references Overarching themes: (1) Current performance (2) Positive/most significant changes since the activity started (3) Constraints/ barriers (political economy issues), (4) Enablers & adaptations 5) Recommendation Sub-themes -Relevance -Effectiveness -Efficiency -Sustainability Analytic narrative: (highlight salient issues form the emergent themes to ask KIIs, which KII is relevant to ask, what would be of interest for USAID to intervene in) Excerpts/ quotes w/ pg. # 6.5 Quantitative Analysis Framework Both the grantees and the capacity building/training participants data will be analyzed by quantitative methods, and where appropriate qualitative methods. This will involve production of descriptive statistics to report on stakeholders’ perceptions of performance, and challenges and constraints to effectiveness and sustainability of the achieved targets. To the extent permissible by the data collected, the analysis may be disaggregated by location, gender and type of activity supported. 6.6 Consent and Protection of Human Subjects The Assessment Team plans to fully comply with all human protection requirements for this assessment. NORC’s organizational procedures require that all data collection projects are submitted to NORC’s Institutional Review Board (IRB). NORC’s IRB has extensive experience performing ethical reviews of domestic and international studies. Informed consent is an integral part of the IRB review. The Assessment Team will devise consent scripts and procedures that fit the various data collection modes proposed for this study—namely surveys, and KIIs. These consent scripts will be written in clear and understandable language and outline the funding and purpose of the study, the data collection parameters (duration, voluntary nature, process), any potential risks and benefits of participation, the confidentiality of the data provided, and the points of contact to reach for questions. Verbal consent will be obtained for all phone and online KIIs and surveys. Data Security: In terms of data confidentiality and security, the use of encrypted computer storage will be mandated to store notes, recordings, and survey primary data. Furthermore, all primary data transfers between sites and team members will take place via Data for Development’s internal SharePoint folders and/or secure file transfer protocol (SFTP). Once transferred, the data will be stored on secure servers. Due to the increased sensitivity and need for security of the respondents, other procedures will be taken in collaboration with Freedom House to provide confidentiality. For example, notes and recordings will not ask 58 respondents to state their name, title or organization on the audio recording. Any respondents who prefer to decline to record the interview will be accommodated and we will take anonymous notes only for those cases. Records of interviews and data will leave identifying information out of the file name and protocol (include group type only) to make sure no one outside of our core assessment team conducting the interview knows the identity of the interviewee. 7. USAID MISSION AND DDA ACTIVITY IPS INPUTS • The Evaluation team will need Freedom House’s support to develop an accurate list with contact information (name, title, institutional affiliation, telephone number, email, geographic region/district and gender) for stakeholders that will participate in KII/GIs. • A set of documentation has been shared by the Mission Office and this will be part of the documentation for the desk review. A checklist of all documents received to date will be updated and shared with the Mission and DDA in the preparation of the assessment to ensure concurrence in the list of documents for review and that any documents the Mission recommends are included in the structured review. Any additional documents that might be useful and that will be identified during the evaluation will be requested. • Freedom House staff are invited to collaborate and to meet with the team in the design and scoping phase and updated on key deliverables. Freedom House and the Mission staff participation in the evaluation is encouraged by the assessment team on a case by case basis bearing in mind that any conflict of interest in participation in data collection activities are avoided. 8. TIMELINE AND DELIVERABLES The study will be completed in a period of about 15 weeks (non-consecutive) from December 2020 to March 2021. This timeframe assumes a rapid approach, considers holidays in December 2020, and time for processing an ethical clearance with NORC IRB. Since the evaluation involves direct activity stakeholders which are entirely non-GoT, no clearances are being sought from GoT authorities. All stakeholders will be contacted through or with the assistance of the Implementing Partners. If the mission will require such clearances the below timeline would need to be revised. The deliverables include: ● Draft report by 3rd week of March ● Final report by 2nd week of April, 2021 Presentation and accompanying slide deck of key findings, conclusions and recommendations, after submission of the draft the last week of March 59 Table 5: Estimated Evaluation Timelines and Milestones Nov ‘20 Dec ‘20 Jan ‘21 Feb ‘21 Mar ‘21 Apr 21 Weeks 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 Discussion of Scope of Work (SOW) with the Mission & initial scoping with IP Mission & IP review of preliminary workplan/design Workplan/design and data collection tools approved by the Mission Mission approval of the Evaluation Team (STTAs) IRB clearance (NORC) Literature/document review and collection of secondary data HOLIDAYS KIIs/GIs with activity stakeholders Online survey of beneficiaries Data analysis and report writing HQ review and branding Submission of Draft Report to Mission Mission and DDA/FH&PACT review FCR Presentation to Mission and IP D4D Evaluation team works on comments from Mission and produce Final Draft Report Final Report submitted to Mission 60 9. PROPOSED STAFFING Data for Development has selected an experienced team to conduct the evaluation. This includes: ● Washington Katema will serve as the team lead responsible for all draft and final deliverables. He has extensive experience working in the developing countries context undertaking evaluations of human rights and Civil Society Strengthening Interventions. ● Jake Laden, Data for Development’s Senior Advisor and Evaluation and Assessments Component lead will support the assessment. Jacob has experience with assessing DRG, civil society and organizational development programs with USAID and Department. of State. ● Victoria Lihiru -Subject matter expert for support on desk review, data collection, analysis and report writing comes with extensive experience in human rights, legal support to disadvantaged groups and advocacy. ● Bernard Kindoli – Subject Matter Expert to support desk review, data collection analysis and report writing is an expert in CSO strengthening, capacity building and advocacy work/DRG. ● Rose Aiko, Data for Development Survey Specialist who will be the activity manager for the evaluation. Rose will provide full time technical support in the evaluation including document review, data collection and analysis. She will also be responsible for programming and fielding of an online survey of beneficiaries of DDA capacity building/training activities and the backend data quality assurance. The team will be supported by other Data for Development staff on logistics and data collection efforts as may be needed. David Hughes (Data for Development Chief of Party) will be responsible for oversight of all project processes and deliverables. In addition, NORC and ME&A HQ Offices will provide review, operational and technical support and editing and branding on final deliverables. Table 6 below presents the estimated level of effort (LOE) for the Assessment Team members. 61 Table 6: Estimated LOE per Team Member Task STT Expat – Team Lead Washington Katema D4D Evaluation Advisor Jacob Laden D4D Activity Manager Survey Specialist, Rose Aiko STTA SME - advocacy and human rights (Victoria Lihiru) STTA SME – CSO strengthening and Capacity Building (Bernard Kindoli) Work planning (assessment design remote or in-country) 1 days 2-3 days 2-3 days 1 days 1 days Instrument Development 2-4 days 2 days 2 days 1-2 days 1-2 days Desk review 7 days 2 days 7-10 days 5-7 days 5-7days Data collection and transcription of KIIs/GIIs 5 days 2-3 days 15 days 17 days 17 days Data analysis and analytic memos 10 days 3 days 7 days 10 days 10 days Draft report preparation, review and debrief to USAID 10 days 2 days 2 days 2-4 days 2-4 days Final report after USAID comments 2-4 days 2 days 1 day 1-2 day 1-2 day TOTAL LOE: 175 STTA LOE: 120 days 40 days 15 days 40 days 40 days 40 days A local survey firm for transcription and translation services may be required. Thirty days of LOE are budgeted. 62 10. ESTIMATED BUDGET Table 7: Estimated Budget for DDA Medium Term Evaluation COST ITEM (Justification) AMOUNT IN $ Budget Notes A. LABOR-PROFFESSIONAL FEES STTAs labor Costs (Human Rights and CSO Expert (Team Lead) 40 days; CSO strengthening and Capacity building Expert, 40 days; Human Rights and Advocacy Expert, 40 days). Total 120 60,000 For budget purposes we use the following rates: For external short-term experts ($500 per day; Internal data collectors ($250 per day) 55 days of in-house expertise Under D4D Management Budget B. OPERATIONAL COSTS Travel 0 Communication costs 3500 Cost for the airtime for communication by the assessment team, since the assignment is being conducted virtually the costs are significantly higher than usual. IRB Clearance Applications 0 Overhead costs (10%) of OP - Cost 350 Any unforeseen cost of the study will be covered under this cost item. TOTAL BUDGET-A+B (EXCL. of VAT) $71350 63 ANNEX 5: DATA COLLECTION PROTOCOLS Annex 5.1: Generic Introduction Text and Consent Form for KIIs Introduction Hello. Thank you for agreeing to speak with me/us today. My name is (moderator name) and my colleague(s) here is/are (note taker/co-interviewer name). We work for the Data for Development, a USAID funded project that seeks to improve quality and use of data in decision making in Tanzania. USAID has asked us to conduct a Mid Term Performance Evaluation of the Data Driven Advocacy (DDA) activity which is being implemented across Tanzania by Freedom House and PACT in collaboration with Tanzanian Civil Society Organizations. The DDA Activity commenced in August 2017 and is expected to close out in August 2022. The evaluation is being conducted in order to assess how the DDA activity has performed against its objectives and mid-term performance targets. It will also gather data to assess challenges and contextual constraints to implementation, and potential areas for adaptations or course correction in the remaining activity period. You have been suggested as a key person to inform this study due to your involvement in and/or collaboration with the DDA Activity and we would appreciate getting your perspective. During this interview (which will take about 1 hour), we would like to speak with you about how you and/or your organization has been involved in the DDA Activity, your views about the changes that are taking place in CSOs institutional capacity and advocacy capacitis, as well as visible results due to CSOs advocacy which can be associated with the contributions the DDA activity is making. How the information will be used The information you provide in this interview will be used to produce an Evaluation Report for USAID that will inform the Mission and DDA Activity Implementing partners about performance of the program, challenges and opportunities for enhancing its success, and recommendations for future adaptation to the program and planning of new interventions under the 2020–2025 Tanzania Country Development Cooperation Strategy (CDCS). The report is also expected to be useful to other development partners and stakeholders planning to support similar interventions in Tanzania and beyond. Confidentiality Any information, or examples we gather during this interview will not be attributed to you personally. We will not include your name or any information that would make it possible to identify you without your consent. We also ask that what we discuss today remains here with us. Right to Ask Questions and Report Concerns You have the right to ask questions about this study and to have those questions answered by us before, during or after the interview. If you have any concerns you also have the right to raise them and receive response from us at any time during this interview session. If you have any further questions about the study or have any concerns at a later stage feel free to send them to Data for Development Chief of Party, David Hughes, via e-mail to: dhughes@engl.com, or to reach out to David via phone number 0769 367 589. Right to Refuse or Withdraw The decision to participate in this study is entirely yours. You may refuse to take part in this interview, and you are free to decline to respond to any of our questions or stop the interview at any time. You will not be penalized if you choose to not answer any question or to withdraw from this discussion. Consent to Participate in Interview Do you agree to participate in this interview today? Yes No 64 Consent to Recording of the Interview With your consent, we would also like to record this interview so that we can analyze it accurately along with those of other interviewees. May I start the recorder? Yes No (Instruction to Interviewer: If Yes, also provide verbal consent on the recording once turned on. Please be sure to not include names of the respondents in the recordings.) [IF THE RESPONDENT SAYS “YES”, BEGIN INTERVIEW. TURN RECORDER ON ONLY IF CONSENT TO RECORD IS GRANTED] 65 Annex 5.2: KII/GI Guide I – USAID and DDA IPs/Consortium Members and USAID Mission Overview 1. Please briefly describe the components and the kinds of activities you are supporting under the DDA Activity? 2. Who are your main collaborators in the activity? How do you work with other Donors, and USAID IPs in the Human Rights field in Tanzania? 3. How are your activities designed to meet your objectives (in other words explain the theory of change)? Probe: the project/activity goal and the objectives (intermediate results) 4. What are the most significant changes you have seen across the CSOs Networks/Working Groups since the inception of the DDA activity compared to before the activity started? 5. What, challenges, if any has the DDA encountered during its first years? How if at all have they affected the activity? How does the activity hope to mitigate these challenges in the second half of the program? Probe: program design challenges, implementation challenges, civic space, etc. Collaborations and Cooperation 6. What have been the key achievements of the DDA’s WGs in in advancing CSOs/CSO Networks’ advocacy agenda? Probe for specific examples. 7. To what extent has DDA support enhanced cooperation and collaboration among like-minded CSOs in Tanzania? What has worked well? What hasn’t? 8. What challenges, if any, are DDA WGs facing in advancing their advocacy agenda? How have they navigated those challenges? Probe further about the challenges relating to collaboration and shrinking civic space. Training and Capacity Building 9. Please describe the capacity strengthening support DDA is providing to organizations? What capacities did CSOs/WGs develop as a result of DDA support? 10. What difference has the new knowledge or skills made to these organizations or Networks/WG? Please provide examples. 11. What if any changes have you seen in the capacities of the organizations you support to collect, generate, monitor, and report independent and reliable information concerning human rights in targeted districts/communities? Probe: What are the enabling or limiting factors which have contributed to the above? Gender and Social Inclusion 12. How have your activities addressed gender inequality and inclusion in the context of this project? Can you describe changes to women, youth and PWDs as a result of DDA support to your organization efforts with these groups? 13. What are the barriers to the meaningful participation of women, youth and persons with disabilities in your areas of work (in terms of locations and issues)? Interviewer note: probe deep e.g. power imbalances, civic space issues? What can be done to improve inclusion of these groups in DDA work? Funding Modalities 14. How has the DDA funding modalities, i.e. institutional, project and RRG helped in navigating the constrained operating context and in supporting achievement of DDA objectives? Are there any differences in their levels of effectiveness? 15. What challenges, if any, have you experienced in implementing the different funding modalities (institutional/project/rapid response)? What can be done to overcome them? 16. How effective have rapid response grants been in responding to emerging and urgent issues? What evidence is available to demonstrate this – please provide examples. 66 Political Economy Analysis and Adaptation 17. How have you utilized analytical products such as Political Economy Analysis (PEAs), Monthly Environmental Scans etc., and advisory services to inform project decision making (implementation and adaptation)? 18. How have PEAs contributed to enabling CSOs Networks/WGs achieve their advocacy and other objectives? 19. What challenges, if any, have you faced in implementing the recommendations from the PEA and advisory services from the Reference Group? Final Questions 20. If the DDA activity ends, will these organizations be able to sustain the work they do with DDA support? Probe: What are the factors which could enable or hinder sustainability? Probe for the following dimensions: Institutional, Financial and Beneficiary sustainability. 21. If additional support could be provided, what type of training/support would you consider providing? Interviewer Note: try to dig past the obvious financial support request. 22. What recommendations or suggestions do you have for the implementation of the remaining second half of the program? 23. What recommendations do you have for future USAID supported interventions in this sector? 24. Is there any other specific information you would recommend that the ET collects, or which you could share that would be helpful for the Evaluation? 67 Annex 5.3: KII/GI Guide II - USAID IPs/DPs with related activities Overview 1. Please briefly tell us about your organization’s work in Tanzania. 2. How do you collaborate with the DDA activity implementers; please tell us what you know about the DDA activity as well? Are any of the CSOs working with DDA also partnering with you? 3. Are there any changes you have seen across the CSOs Networks/Working Groups landscape in Tanzania? To what extent can these be attributed to theDDA activity? 4. What are some of the challenges that might be facing the DDA in its operation? How can DDA mitigate these challenges in the second half of the program? Probe: program design challenges, implementation challenges, civic space, etc. Collaborations and Cooperation 5. Are you aware of the DDA’s WG? what have been their key achievements in advancing CSOs/CSO Networks’ advocacy agenda? Probe for specific examples. 6. In your opinion, to what extent has DDA support enhanced cooperation and collaboration among like￾minded CSOs in Tanzania? What has worked well? What hasn’t? 7. What challenges, if any, are DDA WGs facing in advancing their advocacy agenda? Can you know how they navigated those challenges? Probe further about the challenges relating to collaboration and shrinking civic space. Training and Capacity Building 8. Are you aware of the capacity strengthening support DDA is providing to organizations? (Yes/NO) If Yes, what capacities have been provided to CSOs/WGs through DDA support? 9. In your opinion, what difference has the new knowledge or skills made to these organizations or Networks/WG? Please provide examples. Gender and Social Inclusion 10. Are you able to know, how the DDA have supported interventions addressing gender inequality and inclusion in Tanzania? Are you able to describe changes to women, youth and PWDs as a result of DDA supported interventions? 11. Are aware of the barriers to the meaningful participation of women, youth and persons with disabilities (in terms of locations and issues)? Interviewer note: probe deep e.g. power imbalances, civic space issues? What can be done to improve inclusion of these groups in DDA work? Political Economy Analysis and Adaptation 12. Are you aware of any analytical product such as Political Economy Analysis (PEAs), Monthly Environmental Scans etc., and advisory services facilitated by the DDA activity? (Yes/No). If Yes, mention the products/advisory services you are aware of. 13. How were the products/advisory services utilized by CSOs Networks/WGs? 14. How have PEAs contributed to enabling CSOs Networks/WGs achieve their advocacy and other objectives? 15. What challenges, if any, have CSOs Networks/WGs faced in implementing the recommendations from the PEA and advisory services? Final Questions 16. In your opinion, If the DDA activity ends today, will the grantees and subgranteesbe able to sustain the work they do with DDA support? Probe: What are the factors which could enable or hinder sustainability? Probe for the following dimensions: Institutional, Financial and Beneficiary sustainability. 17. If additional support could be provided, what type of training/support would you recommend to DDA to consider providing and why? 18. What recommendations or suggestions do you have for the implementation of the remaining second half of the program? 19. What recommendations do you have for future USAID supported interventions in this sector? 68 20. Is there any other specific information you would recommend that the ET collects, or which you could share that would be helpful for the Evaluation? 69 Annex 5.4: KII/GI Guide III - CSOs (Grantees/Sub-grantees, WG Conveners and Working Group Members Overview and Support Modalities 1. Briefly describe your organizations activities and its relationship to the USAID/DDA activity. 2. What kind of support has your organization received from the DDA activity? [Probe: financial (types of grants received) / technical or mentorship and coaching/ training etc.] 3. [If grant recipient] Please describe the kinds of activities your organization is implementing with DDA grants. [Probe for each applicable type of grant received (Institutional, project, rapid response). 4. If institutional or project grantee: How effective have the long-term grants been in enhancing your monitoring or advocacy efforts? 5. If an RR Grantee (or multiple): How effective have the rapid response grants been in responding to urgent and emerging issues? How can they be improved? 6. If multiple grants: What funding modalities have been most effective in supporting your organizations efforts? (Probe: Rapid response, Project, Institutional) Change 7. What if any change have you seen in your organization’s capacities to collect, generate, monitor, and report information concerning human rights? Probe: What are the enabling or limiting factors which have contributed to the above? 8. What are the most significant changes you have seen in the CSO network as a result of DDA support? [Probe: institutional and technical capacity of partner CSOs/WGs] What are the contributing factors to the change mentioned? Collaborations and Cooperation 9. What DDA Network/WGs are you a member of? What role are you playing in these groups? 10. What is the added value of WGs to the advocacy issues in your thematic areas? 11. To what extent has DDA support enhanced cooperation among like-minded CSOs in Tanzania? What has worked well and why? Can you share a few examples? 12. What challenges, if any, are keeping the WG(s)/Networks from achieving their objectives? How do you navigate such challenges in advancing your advocacy agenda? How is DDA helping you to adapt to these constraints? Capacity Building 13. What support for capacity building/institutional strengthening has the DDA activity provided to your organization? 14. What skills and knowledge did your organization gain? To what extent has your organization utilized the knowledge and skills from trainings, mentorship and coaching, and collaborations? Probe: What difference has this new knowledge made to your organization/WG? 15. Please describe the changes in institutional capacity as a result of the support from the DDA activity? Interviewer note: Probe the following capacity areas a) financial management, project management, M&E, network engagement etc. 16. What if any partnerships did you develop through your participation in the network/WG? How have these been useful in your advancing your work? 17. What if any additional capacity development would you recommend? Interviewer Note: try to dig past the obvious financial support request: try do urge answers that fit into scope of the DDA activity. Sustainability 18. What sustainability challenges, if any, has the project/activities encountered? Please describe (Probe: Program design challenges, financial and institutional)? How has the project addressed or mitigated the challenges? 70 19. If the DDA activity ends tomorrow, would your organization be able to continue its work without its support? Probe: What are the factors enabling or which could enable sustainability, focusing on the following dimensions: Institutional, Financial and Beneficiary sustainability. Gender and Social Inclusion 20. How have your activities addressed gender inequality and inclusion in the context of this project? Can you describe changes to women, youth and PWDs as a result of DDA support to your organization efforts with these groups? 21. What are the barriers to the meaningful participation of women, youth and persons with disabilities in your areas of work (in terms of locations and issues)? Interviewer note: probe deep e.g. power imbalances, civic space issues? What can be done to improve inclusion of these groups in DDA work? Political Economy Analysis and Adaptation 22. How did your organization utilize analytical products such as Political Economy Analysis (PEAs) & Monthly Environmental Scans? 23. How have PEAs contributed to your organization’s advocacy efforts? 24. What are some of the challenges faced when implementing the recommendations from the PEA and advisory services from the Reference Group? Final Questions 25. If additional support could be provided, what type of support would you recommend? Interviewer Note: try to dig past the obvious financial support request. 26. What further recommendations do you have for future USAID supported interventions in this sector? 27. Is there any other specific information you would recommend that the ET collects, or which you could share that would be helpful for the Evaluation? 71 Annex 5.5: Survey Tool for Participants of Capacity Building Activities (Training and Coaching and Mentorship) Organised by/ through DDA Support (Est. Time ~20 – 30 mins) A. Introduction and Consent Form Introduction Thank you for your participation in this survey. USAID has asked Data for Development to conduct a Mid Term Performance Evaluation of the Data Driven Advocacy (DDA) activity which is being implemented across Tanzania by Freedom House and PACT in collaboration with Tanzanian Civil Society Organizations. The DDA Activity commenced in August 2017 and is expected to close out in August 2022. The evaluation is being conducted to assess how the DDA activity has performed against its objectives and mid￾term performance targets, and potential areas for adaptations or course correction in the remaining activity period. The assessment will also gather recommendations for planning of new interventions under the 2020– 2025 Tanzania Country Development Cooperation Strategy (CDCS). Your participation and perspective are therefore important to us. You have been suggested as a key person to inform this study due to your participation in capacity building activities supported by DDA Activity and we would appreciate your views. This survey will take about 20 - 30 minutes to complete. If you do not wish to complete the survey in one sitting, you can resume it later by clicking again on the link (URL) in the invitation email. Our survey platform will save your answers at the end of each page. Confidentiality All data provided through this survey will be kept strictly confidential and only the assessment team will review and analyze them. The survey data will be kept on a secure server and will be destroyed once the project is completed. Your privacy will be protected; we will not include any information in any report that would make it possible to identify you or your company/organization without your consent. Only aggregated data will be reported. Right to Refuse or Withdraw The decision to participate in this study is entirely up to you. You may refuse to take part in this survey at any point in time, and you have the right not to answer any single question, as well as to stop taking the survey at any point. You will not be penalized if you choose to not answer or withdraw from this discussion. Right to Ask Questions and Report Concerns You have the right to ask questions about this study and to have those questions answered by us. If you have any questions about the study or survey, feel free to contact Rose Aiko – Survey Specialist and Activity Manager for this Evaluation, by e-mail: raiko@engl.com or by phone at: 0784 588 122. Consent to Participate in Survey Do you agree to participate in this survey? Yes No (if No, skip to end) B: SURVEY QUESTIONS 1. Do you agree to participate in this survey? a. Yes b. No 2. What is the name of the organization you work for? [text box] 3. What is your position in the organization you work for? [text box] 4. Your Gender a. Female b. Male 5. To which of the following age groups do you belong? a. 18 – 24 72 b. 25 – 34 c. 35 – 44 d. 45 – 54 e. 55 – 64 f. 65+ 6. What is your work location in Tanzania? a. Region [text box] b. District [text box] 7. Do you have any disability? a. Yes b. No 8. Which of the following disabilities do you have? a. Physical b. Visual c. Hearing d. Intellectual e. Other (please specify) Capacity development support 9. Which of the following capacity building support did you receive under the DDA activity? (select all that apply) a. Training b. Coaching and Mentorship c. None of the above Network presence 10. Do you represent your organization in any of the DDA CSO Networks/Working Groups? a. Yes b. No 11. Which of the following DDA CSO Networks/Working Groups are you a member of? a. Civic Space b. Women, Children, Youth, and Persons with Disabilities c. Alternative Media d. Working Group on Zanzibar e. Sub-national Working Group for Dodoma 12. How long (number of months) have you been participating in the working group(s) that you are a member of? a. Civic Space b. Women, Children, Youth, and Persons with Disabilities c. Alternative Media d. Working Group on Zanzibar e. Sub-national Working Group for Dodoma 13. Which of the following training topics did you attend? (Please select all that you attended) a. Basics of data collection and analysis b. Community of engagement workshop c. Compliance clinic workshop d. Digital and physical security e. Ethical reportage (code of ethics) f. Financial management g. Human rights h. Human rights monitoring, documentation, and reporting i. Investigative journalism 73 j. Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) k. New and alternative media l. Policy development and analysis m. Research methods for advocacy n. Research methods and collective intervention for advocacy o. Security and risk assessment for newly recruited human rights defenders p. Strategic litigation for DDA partners q. Other (please specify) Number of Training Events 14. How many training events did you attend for each topic you participated in, if you can remember? Training topic 1 2 3 More than 3 Can’t remember a. Basics of data collection and analysis b. Community of engagement workshop c. Compliance clinic workshop d. Digital and physical security e. Ethical reportage (code of ethics) f. Financial management g. Human rights h. Human rights monitoring, documentation, and reporting i. Investigative journalism j. Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) k. New and alternative media l. Policy development and analysis m. Research methods for advocacy n. Research methods and collective intervention for advocacy o. Security and risk assessment for newly recruited human rights defenders p. Strategic litigation for DDA partners q. Other (please specify) 15. Which other support has your organization received from the DDA activity? a. Institutional Grant b. Project Grant c. Rapid Response Grant d. Did not receive any other support e. Don’t know f. Other (please specify) 74 16. To what extent were the trainings you attended relevant to your area of work? Training topic Not at all relevant A little relevant Moderately relevant Highly relevant a. Basics of data collection and analysis b. Community of engagement workshop c. Compliance clinic workshop d. Digital and physical security e. Ethical reportage (code of ethics) f. Financial management g. Human rights h. Human rights monitoring, documentation, and reporting i. Investigative journalism j. Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) k. New and alternative media l. Policy development and analysis m. Research methods for advocacy n. Research methods and collective intervention for advocacy o. Security and risk assessment for newly recruited human rights defenders p. Strategic litigation for DDA partners q. Other (please specify) Knowledge gained. 17. To what extent would you say you gained new knowledge or skills from participating in the training? Training topic Did not learn any new thing Just a little amount of new knowledge or skills Moderate amount of new knowledge or skills A lot of new knowledge or skills a. Basics of data collection and analysis b. Community of engagement workshop c. Compliance clinic workshop d. Digital and physical security 75 Training topic Did not learn any new thing Just a little amount of new knowledge or skills Moderate amount of new knowledge or skills A lot of new knowledge or skills e. Ethical reportage (code of ethics) f. Financial management g. Human rights h. Human rights monitoring, documentation, and reporting i. Investigative journalism j. Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) k. New and alternative media l. Policy development and analysis m. Research methods for advocacy n. Research methods and collective intervention for advocacy o. Security and risk assessment for newly recruited human rights defenders p. Strategic litigation for DDA partners q. Other (please specify) Quality of the training 18. How would you rate the quality of "the training materials provided to you as part of the training"? Training topic Very poor Poor Average Good Very good Don’t Know/Cannot Rate a. Basics of data collection and analysis b. Community of engagement workshop c. Compliance clinic workshop d. Digital and physical security e. Ethical reportage (code of ethics) f. Financial management g. Human rights h. Human rights monitoring, documentation, and reporting 76 Training topic Very poor Poor Average Good Very good Don’t Know/Cannot Rate i. Investigative journalism j. Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) k. New and alternative media l. Policy development and analysis m. Research methods for advocacy n. Research methods and collective intervention for advocacy o. Security and risk assessment for newly recruited human rights defenders p. Strategic litigation for DDA partners q. Other (please specify) 19. How would you rate the "quality of facilitation" in the training? Training topic Very poor Poor Average Good Very good a. Basics of data collection and analysis b. Community of engagement workshop c. Compliance clinic workshop d. Digital and physical security e. Ethical reportage (code of ethics) f. Financial management g. Human rights h. Human rights monitoring, documentation, and reporting i. Investigative journalism j. Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) k. New and alternative media l. Policy development and analysis m. Research methods for advocacy n. Research methods and collective intervention for advocacy 77 Training topic Very poor Poor Average Good Very good o. Security and risk assessment for newly recruited human rights defenders p. Strategic litigation for DDA partners q. Other (please specify) 20. To what extent did you use or apply the knowledge gained from the training(s)? Training topic Not at all Just a little Moderate extent A lot a. Basics of data collection and analysis b. Community of engagement workshop c. Compliance clinic workshop d. Digital and physical security e. Ethical reportage (code of ethics) f. Financial management g. Human rights h. Human rights monitoring, documentation, and reporting i. Investigative journalism j. Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) k. New and alternative media l. Policy development and analysis m. Research methods for advocacy n. Research methods and collective intervention for advocacy o. Security and risk assessment for newly recruited human rights defenders p. Strategic litigation for DDA partners q. Other (please specify) Examples and Frequency of utilization 21. Since you say you have utilized the knowledge or skills, please provide any examples of how you have used the skills. Training topic Example of utilization a. Basics of data collection and analysis b. Community of engagement workshop c. Compliance clinic workshop d. Digital and physical security e. Ethical reportage (code of ethics) f. Financial management 78 Training topic Example of utilization g. Human rights h. Human rights monitoring, documentation, and reporting i. Investigative journalism j. Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) k. New and alternative media l. Policy development and analysis m. Research methods for advocacy n. Research methods and collective intervention for advocacy o. Security and risk assessment for newly recruited human rights defenders p. Strategic litigation for DDA partners q. Other (please specify) 22. On average, how often did you use the knowledge? Training topic Less than once a month About once a month Once a week About twice a week Daily a. Basics of data collection and analysis b. Community of engagement workshop c. Compliance clinic workshop d. Digital and physical security e. Ethical reportage (code of ethics) f. Financial management g. Human rights h. Human rights monitoring, documentation, and reporting i. Investigative journalism j. Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) k. New and alternative media l. Policy development and analysis m. Research methods for advocacy n. Research methods and collective intervention for advocacy o. Security and risk assessment for newly recruited human rights defenders 79 Training topic Less than once a month About once a month Once a week About twice a week Daily p. Strategic litigation for DDA partners q. Other (please specify) Challenges in utilization 23. What, if any, challenges have you faced in applying what you have learned from the trainings? [If you did not experience any challenges for a particular skills’ set please type "NONE" in the corresponding text box" Training topic Comment a. Basics of data collection and analysis b. Community of engagement workshop c. Compliance clinic workshop d. Digital and physical security e. Ethical reportage (code of ethics) f. Financial management g. Human rights h. Human rights monitoring, documentation, and reporting i. Investigative journalism j. Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) k. New and alternative media l. Policy development and analysis m. Research methods for advocacy n. Research methods and collective intervention for advocacy o. Security and risk assessment for newly recruited human rights defenders p. Strategic litigation for DDA partners q. Other (please specify) Mentorship topics 24. Which of the following areas have you received coaching and mentorship support for? a. Basics of data collection and analysis b. Community of engagement workshop c. Compliance clinic workshop d. Digital and physical security e. Ethical reportage (code of ethics) f. Financial management g. Human rights h. Human rights monitoring, documentation, and reporting i. Investigative journalism j. Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) k. New and alternative media l. Policy development and analysis m. Research methods for advocacy n. Research methods and collective intervention for advocacy o. Security and risk assessment for newly recruited human rights defenders p. Strategic litigation for DDA partners q. Other (please specify) 80 25. To what extent did the mentorship and coaching you received enhance your capacity in supporting your organization? Training topic Not at all Just a little A moderate extent A lot a. Basics of data collection and analysis b. Community of engagement workshop c. Compliance clinic workshop d. Digital and physical security e. Ethical reportage (code of ethics) f. Financial management g. Human rights h. Human rights monitoring, documentation, and reporting i. Investigative journalism j. Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) k. New and alternative media l. Policy development and analysis m. Research methods for advocacy n. Research methods and collective intervention for advocacy o. Security and risk assessment for newly recruited human rights defenders p. Strategic litigation for DDA partners q. Other (please specify) 26. Please provide an explanation Why do you say so? Training topic Comment a. Basics of data collection and analysis b. Community of engagement workshop c. Compliance clinic workshop d. Digital and physical security e. Ethical reportage (code of ethics) f. Financial management g. Human rights h. Human rights monitoring, documentation, and reporting i. Investigative journalism j. Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) k. New and alternative media l. Policy development and analysis m. Research methods for advocacy n. Research methods and collective intervention for advocacy o. Security and risk assessment for newly recruited human rights defenders p. Strategic litigation for DDA partners q. Other (please specify) 27. How do you rate your organization’s capacity to use data and evidence to monitor human rights and advance its advocacy agenda? a. Very low b. Low 81 c. Average d. Above average e. Excellent f. Don’t know/Can’t rate 28. Please explain your answer. Why do you say so? [text boxes] a. Very low b. Low c. Average d. Above average e. Excellent f. Don’t know/Can’t rate 29. Has this capacity increased or decreased in the recent three years? a. Decreased b. Increased c. Remained the same Most important support 30. From the various categories of support that DDA provides, which one would do you consider to be the most important to your organization's developmental needs? a. Training b. Coaching and mentorship c. Institutional grants d. Project grants e. Rapid response grants f. Other (please specify) Effect of Network Strengthening Support 31. To what extent has DDA network strengthening support enhance cooperation among like-minded CSOs for evidence-based advocacy in Tanzania? a. Not at all b. Just a little c. Moderately d. Very much e. Don’t know/cannot rate 32. Please explain your answer, why do you say so [ not at all or very little]? a. Not at all b. Just a little 33. Please explain your answer, why do you say so [Moderately or Very much]? c. Moderately d. Very much 34. To what extent do you agree with this statement: “DDA support has strengthened my organization’s capacity” to meet its objectives? a. Strongly disagree b. Disagree c. Neither agree nor disagree d. Agree e. Strongly agree f. Don’t know/can’t say 35. What, if any, significant organizational change has your organization experienced from your participation in the DDA Activity? Comment: 36. What if any significant challenges do you see remaining and constraining your organization's ability to meet its objectives? 82 Comment: 37. What if any significant challenges do you see remaining and constraining DDA CSOs Networks/WGs' ability to meet their objectives? Comment: 38. What recommendations would you give for design of similar/related institutional strengthening and capacity building activities in the future? [If you do not have any recommendations please write "NONE" in the text box] Comment: 39. Thank you for your response. If it is OK with you, we would appreciate knowing why you declined to participate in this study. Please tell us your reasons briefly in the text box below. If you would rather not say why please write "NO COMMENT" Comment: Thank you very much for your participation in this survey! 83 ANNEX 6: LIST OF INSTITUTIONS/DEPARTMENTS INTERVIEWED IN KIIS S/No. Organisation/ Department name Location 1 Arusha Press Club (APC) Arusha 2 Pastoralists Indigenous Non-Government Organization’s (PINGO’s) Forum Arusha 3 Vijana Assembly Arusha 4 USAID Mission Dar es Salaam 5 PACT Dar es Salaam 6 Internews Dar es Salaam 7 International Republican Institute (IRI-CEPPS) Dar es Salaam 8 National Democracy Institute (NDI) -Consortium for Elections and Political Process Strengthening (CEPPS) Dar es Salaam 9 Freedom House Dar es Salaam 10 Women in Law and Development in Africa (WiDAF) Dar es Salaam 11 Sikika Dar es Salaam 12 Legal and Human Rights Center (LHRC) Dar es Salaam 13 Tanzania Network of Legal Aid Providers (TANLAP) Dar es Salaam 14 National Council of NGOs (NACONGO) Dar es Salaam 15 Kengele Media Dar es Salaam 16 Tanzania Women Lawyers Association Dar es Salaam 17 Christian Council of Tanzania (CCT) - Dodoma Dodoma 18 Tanzania Peace Legal Aid and Justice Centre (TPLAJC) Dodoma 19 Mamas' Hope Organization for Legal Assistance Kagera 20 Mbeya Yetu Online TV Mbeya 21 Mwanza Children and Youth Network (MCYN) Mwanza 22 Vijana Pambana Pata Maendeleo Rukwa Rukwa 23 Association of Non-Governmental Organizations Zanzibar (ANGOZA) Zanzibar 24 Zanzibar Fighting Against Youth Challenges Organization (ZAFAYCO) Zanzibar 25 Vitongoji Environmental Conservation Association Zanzibar 26 Pemba Association for Civil Society Organizations (PACSO) Zanzibar 27 Zanzibar Association of People with Developmental Disabilities (ZAPDD) Zanzibar 28 Zanzibar Legal Services Centre (ZLSC) Zanzibar 29 Kisandu Zenji Blog Zanzibar 84 ANNEX 7: CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURE FORMS a). Washington Katema – Team Leader 85 b). Jake Laden – Evaluation Advisor 86 c). Victoria Lihiru – STTA Subject Matter Expert 87 d). Bernard Kindoli – STTA Subject Matter Expert 88 e). Rose Aiko -Activity Manager 89 U.S. Agency for International Development 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20523