GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: RISE EVALUATION Final Report July 19, 2023 Prepared under Contract No.: GS-10F-0033M / 7200AA18M00016, Tasking N054 WILDACT RANGER IN THE FIELD. CREDIT: WILDACT VIETNAM DRG LEARNING, EVALUATION, AND RESEARCH ACTIVITY II GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: RISE EVALUATION Final Report (JULY 19, 2023) Prepared under Contract No.: GS-10F-0033M /7200AA18M00016, Tasking N054 Submitted to: Matthew Baker, USAID COR Submitted by: Jessica Wallach, RISE Team Lead Rachel Rosenberg, RISE Team Lead Tulay Akoglu, Qualitative Specialist Liliana Delgado (Colombia) Pacifique Zigomane (Democratic Republic of Congo) Marisol Arestegui (Peru) Violet Wawire (Kenya) Thuy Nguyen (Vietnam) Richard Wamimbi (Uganda) Contractor: NORC at the University of Chicago 4350 East West Highway, 8th Floor Bethesda, MD 20814 Attention: Matthew Parry Tel: 301- 634-5444; E-mail: Parry-Matthew@norc.org DISCLAIMER The authors’ views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for International Development or the United States Government. i | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: RISE EVALUATION USAID.GOV ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The evaluation team would like to thank the following colleagues at NORC: Ritu Nayyar-Stone (Team Lead for the overall Gender-based Violence Portfolio Performance Evaluation), Cathy Zimmerman (Gender/Gender-based Violence Expert), and both Ingrid Rojas Arellano and Ridhi Sahai (Evaluation Specialists) for their valuable direction and contributions; and Camille Smith (Qualitative Specialist) for her qualitative support. We extend our thanks as well our local research assistants: Genny Lilibeth Rengifo Carvajal in Colombia, Jean Habamungu in DRC, Shirley Barrantes Baca in Peru, Brenda Wawire in Kenya, Hung B Phung in Vietnam, and Jocelyn Amongin and Akiror Gibbs in Uganda. ii | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: RISE EVALUATION USAID.GOV TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................................................ i ABSTRACT.................................................................................................................................................iv ACRONYMS...............................................................................................................................................vi EXECUTIVE SUMMARY........................................................................................................................viii EVALUATION DESIGN ....................................................................................................................viii MAIN FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................... ix 1. EVALUATION PURPOSE AND EVALUATION QUESTIONS ............................................ 1 2. ACTIVITY CLUSTER BACKGROUND...................................................................................... 3 3. METHODS AND LIMITATIONS ................................................................................................. 7 DESK REVIEW....................................................................................................................................... 9 QUALITATIVE DATA COLLECTION: KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWS............................ 9 QUALITATIVE DATA COLLECTION: FOCUS GROUPS DISCUSSIONS.......................... 10 QUANTITATIVE DATA COLLECTION: SURVEY.................................................................... 11 LIMITATIONS ...................................................................................................................................... 12 4. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS.................................................... 13 4.1 FINDINGS FOR THE ACTIVITY CLUSTER QUESTIONS ................................................ 13 EVALUATION QUESTION 1: ARE THE ACS BASED ON CONTEXT-SPECIFIC AND INTERNATIONAL EVIDENCE?................................................................................................................. 17 EVALUATION QUESTION 2: TO WHAT EXTENT ARE EACH OF THE ACS ACHIEVING THE TARGETED GBV RESULTS?.............................................................................................................. 22 EVALUATION QUESTION 3: TO WHAT EXTENT ARE THE ACS SUSTAINABLE?............... 30 4.2 CONCLUSIONS FOR THE RISE ACTIVITY CLUSTER..................................................... 34 EVALUATION QUESTION 1: ARE THE ACS BASED ON CONTEXT-SPECIFIC AND INTERNATIONAL EVIDENCE?................................................................................................................. 34 EVALUATION QUESTION 2: TO WHAT EXTENT ARE EACH OF THE ACS ACHIEVING THE TARGETED GBV RESULTS?.............................................................................................................. 35 EVALUATION QUESTION 3: TO WHAT EXTENT ARE THE ACS SUSTAINABLE?............... 36 4.3 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE RISE ACTIVITY CLUSTER........................................ 36 EVALUATION QUESTION 1: ARE THE ACS BASED ON CONTEXT-SPECIFIC AND INTERNATIONAL EVIDENCE?................................................................................................................. 36 EVALUATION QUESTION 2: TO WHAT EXTENT ARE EACH OF THE ACTIVITY CLUSTERS ACHIEVING THE TARGETED GBV RESULTS? .............................................................. 37 EVALUATION QUESTION 3: TO WHAT EXTENT ARE THE ACTIVITY CLUSTERS SUSTAINABLE?............................................................................................................................................... 39 5. IMPLEMENTATION EVALUATION FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS......................................................................................................................... 40 5.1 FINDINGS FOR THE IE.............................................................................................................. 40 iii | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: RISE EVALUATION USAID.GOV EVALUATION QUESTION 1: IS THE ACTIVITY DESIGN BASED ON THE LOCAL CONTEXT AND FLEXIBLE TO ACHIEVE RESULTS ON THE GROUND?................................. 40 EVALUATION QUESTION 2: IS THE ACTIVITY REACHING PARTICIPANTS THEY ARE MEANT TO TARGET?.................................................................................................................................. 45 EVALUATION QUESTION. 3 IS THE ACTIVITY ACHIEVING SUSTAINABILITY?................... 46 5.2 CONCLUSIONS FOR THE IE .................................................................................................. 46 EVALUATION QUESTION 1: IS THE ACTIVITY DESIGN BASED ON THE LOCAL CONTEXT AND FLEXIBLE TO ACHIEVE RESULTS ON THE GROUND?................................. 46 EVALUATION QUESTION 2: IS THE ACTIVITY REACHING PARTICIPANTS THEY ARE MEANT TO TARGET?.................................................................................................................................. 47 EVALUATION QUESTION 3: IS THE ACTIVITY ACHIEVING SUSTAINABILITY?................... 48 5.3 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE IE...................................................................................... 48 EVALUATION QUESTION 1: IS THE ACTIVITY DESIGN BASED ON THE LOCAL CONTEXT AND FLEXIBLE TO ACHIEVE RESULTS ON THE GROUND?................................. 48 EVALUATION QUESTION 2: IS THE ACTIVITY REACHING PARTICIPANTS THEY ARE MEANT TO TARGET?.................................................................................................................................. 48 EVALUATION QUESTION 3: IS THE ACTIVITY ACHIEVING SUSTAINABILITY?................... 49 ANNEX A: EVALUATION STATEMENT OF WORK................................................................... 50 ANNEX B: EVALUATION METHODS AND LIMITATIONS...................................................... 63 ANNEX C: DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENTS ...................................................................... 64 ANNEX D: SOURCES OF INFORMATION.................................................................................. 108 DOCUMENTS REVIEWED ............................................................................................................ 108 KEY INFORMANTS.......................................................................................................................... 113 ANNEX E, DISCLOSURE CONFLICTS OF INTEREST .............................................................. 114 iv | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: RISE EVALUATION USAID.GOV ABSTRACT NORC at the University of Chicago (NORC) was contracted by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) to complete a Portfolio Performance Evaluation of gender-based violence (GBV) activities, which comprises four activity clusters. This evaluation report focuses on the Resilient, Inclusive & Sustainable Environments (RISE) Challenge. The RISE Challenge, implemented by Resonance from January 2020 to August 2022, seeks to combine GBV activities with environmental programming and operate at both the community and institutional levels. NORC’s evaluation focuses on seven grantees under this Challenge. The evaluation addressed the following three main questions: (1) Are the activity clusters based on context-specific and international evidence? (2) To what extent are each of the activity clusters achieving the targeted GBV results? and (3) To what extent are the activity clusters sustainable? NORC applied a mixed-methods approach to answer the research questions, using a combination of desk review, key informant interviews (KIIs), focus group discussions (FGDs) and a web-based survey. The evaluation found that the RISE Challenge was successful in raising awareness about GBV, strengthening the capacities of environmental organizations to address GBV, and reducing economic, social, and intimate partner GBV in target communities. Rigorous pre-implementation assessments and flexibility to adapt during implementation were key to grantee successes. Resistance from male leaders limited impacts, particularly for policy reforms, but male engagement broadly was highly important and effective. Longer grant timelines and more rigorous sustainability planning is necessary to ensure that systems established by RISE grants continue past implementation. v | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: RISE EVALUATION USAID.GOV TABLES Table 1. Evaluation Findings and Conclusions..................................................................................................... ix Table 2. Evaluation Recommendations................................................................................................................ xii Table 3. Evaluation Questions................................................................................................................................. 2 Table 4. Summary of Activities Evaluated............................................................................................................. 4 Table 5. Types of Data Collection Methods........................................................................................................ 8 Table 6. Key Informant Interviews Conducted ................................................................................................... 9 Table 7. Local In-person Data Collected ............................................................................................................ 10 Table 8. Findings for the Activity Cluster Questions by Activity.................................................................. 13 Table 9. Activities under each Activity Cluster................................................................................................. 51 Table 10. Evaluation Questions............................................................................................................................. 52 Table 11. Evaluation Design with Data Collection Methods for each AC.................................................. 55 FIGURES Figure 1. Evaluation Research Design .................................................................................................................... 8 Figure 2. Gold Particles in a Pan and Miners at Work in Cauca, Antioquia. Credit: Liliana Delgado.. 11 Figure 3. Years of Experience in Vietnamese Conservation .......................................................................... 11 Figure 4. Participant Groups Most and Least Impacted by Reducing GBV in Vietnamese Conservation Activities..................................................................................................................................................................... 28 Figure 5. Summary of Effective and Ineffective Intervention Components for the IE.............................. 47 vi | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: RISE EVALUATION USAID.GOV ACRONYMS AC Activity Cluster ADR Alternative Dispute Resolution ARM Alliance for Responsible Mining ASM Artisanal and Small-Scale Mining BTC Better Together Challenge (Juntos Es Mejor) BTG4VM Bridging the Gap for Venezuelan Migrants CARE Cooperative for Assistance and Relief Everywhere CARE-GBV Collective Action to Reduce Gender-Based Violence CCB Creative Capacity Building CATI Computer Assisted Telephonic Interview CCH Crisis Center Hope CEL Communications, Evidence, and Learning – Women's Land Rights CEFM Child, Early, and Forced Marriage CI Conservation International COP Chief of Party COR Contract Officer Representative CREAW Centre for Rights Education and Awareness DDI Development, Democracy, and Innovation DI Democracy International DRC Democratic Republic of the Congo DRG Democracy, Human Rights, and Governance ET Evaluation Team FAA Fixed Amount Award FFI Fauna & Flora International FGD Focus Group Discussion FGRM Feedback Grievance and Redress Mechanism FGRM+ Feedback Grievance and Redress Mechanism Plus GBV Gender-Based Violence GBVH Gender Based Violence and Harassment GenDev Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment Hub GEWE Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment HIAS Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society ICU Iteso Cultural Union IE Implementation Evaluation IFDP Innovation et Formation pour le Développement et la Paix/Innovation and Training for Development and Peace IHSA Integrated Health Services Activity IP Implementing Partner IRB Institutional Review Board KII Key Informant Interview KWCA Kenya Wildlife Conservancies Association LEMU Land and Equity Movement in Uganda LER Learning, Evaluation, and Research M&E Monitoring & Evaluation MEL Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning MIT D-Lab Massachusetts Institute of Technology Development Lab NCC National Coordination Coalition NGO Non-governmental organization vii | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: RISE EVALUATION USAID.GOV NPI New Partnerships Initiative OU Operating Units PPE Portfolio Performance Evaluation PROMSEX Center for the Promotion and Defense of Sexual and Reproductive Rights REDD+ Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation RISE Resilient, Inclusive & Sustainable Environments SAA Social Analysis and Action SLEDGE Securing Land Rights and Ending Gender Exclusion SOAR Sexual Offences Awareness and Response Initiative SOCADIDO Soroti Catholic Diocese Integrated Development Organization SOW Scope of Work SVRI Sexual Violence Research Initiative SWC Sera Wildlife Conservancy TOC Theory of Change TOT Training of Trainers TTWCA Taita Taveta Wildlife Conservancies Association USAID United States Agency for International Development USG United States Government WAR Women Against Rape WEE Women’s Economic Empowerment WfWI Women for Women International ZSU Zene Sa Une viii | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: RISE EVALUATION USAID.GOV EXECUTIVE SUMMARY As part of the Democracy, Human Rights, and Governance Learning, Evaluation, and Research (DRG-LER) II Activity, NORC was contracted to complete a portfolio performance evaluation of USAID’s gender-based violence (GBV) activity clusters (AC). The evaluation’s purpose was to identify facilitators and barriers to the effectiveness of the activities, where knowledge still needs to be developed, and what can be improved in the GBV portfolio of the United States Agency for International Development’s (USAID’s) Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment Hub (USAID/GenDev). This evaluation report focuses on the Resilient, Inclusive & Sustainable Environments (RISE) Challenge. The RISE Challenge, implemented by Resonance from January 2020 to August 2022, seeks to combine GBV activities with environmental programming and operate at both the community and institutional levels. NORC’s evaluation focuses on seven grantees under this Challenge, including: 1. Creative Capacity-Building to Address GBV in the Artisanal and Small-Scale Mining Sector in Colombia 2. Alto Mayo Landscape Without Gender Violence in Peru 3. Securing Land Rights and Ending Gender Exclusion in Uganda 4. Advancing Equitable Gender, Social, and Power Norms in Community Conservancies in Kenya 5. Rising Up! Promoting Congolese Women’s Land Access and Preventing GBV in Eastern DRC 6. Reducing GBV in Vietnamese Conservation in Vietnam 7. Gender Empowerment and Transformation: Tackling Resource-Based Conflict and GBV in Fiji NORC answered the following evaluation questions: 1. Are the activity clusters based on context-specific and international evidence? 2. To what extent are each of the activity clusters achieving the targeted GBV results? 3. To what extent are the activity clusters sustainable? EVALUATION DESIGN Primary and secondary data were collected from March 2022 to February 2023. NORC’s evaluation drew on a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods, starting with a desk review of 73 program documents, followed by 33 key informant interviews (KIIs) with USAID, Resonance, activity participants and grantee senior staff and partners and 22 focus group discussions (FGDs) with activity participants. Additionally, NORC conducted a web-based survey of activity participants for the Reducing GBV in Vietnamese Conservation activity, which was completed by 47 respondents via Qualtrics. NORC also conducted an implementation evaluation of one activity. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the evaluation team considered alternative plans for fieldwork, including employment of local consultants and usage of IT tools and approaches to remote evaluation. ix | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: RISE EVALUATION USAID.GOV MAIN FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS A summary of main findings, conclusions, and recommendations from the evaluation are presented in the table below. Table 1. Evaluation Findings and Conclusions Findings Conclusions ACTIVITY CLUSTER EQ1. Are the activity clusters based on context-specific and international evidence? 1. All RISE grantees were required to complete pre-implementation assessments, including a gender analysis as well as other kinds of assessments like a social tolerance study. 2. While useful, these analyses were also challenging to conduct in terms of the rigor of data collection methods and the time it took to collect and analyze the data, especially for partners who had not done similar assessments for USAID-funded activities before. However, grantees reported that the analyses produced important contextual information that led to program adaptations. For international organizations, remote data collection was challenging in the context of COVID-19, and it was easier for locally based organizations to conduct these analyses. 3. Two major assumptions underlying the RISE Challenge were that partnerships between environmental organizations and GBV focused organizations will strengthen the capacities of each to work in the intersection of GBV and environmental programming, and that evidence produced by RISE will support causal linkages between GBV and environmental outcomes. The first assumption held true but the second did not. 4. Findings highlight the importance of rigorous pre-implementation assessments for all partners, including local organizations. These assessments require sufficient time and resources to ensure findings provide a thorough indication of the local context and particularly potential adverse consequences associated with the upcoming activities. 5. Designs that are informed by strong international evidence on similar interventions, plus local consultations with community members are more likely to prevent undue burden on small-scale or first￾time partners of USAID. 6. Even with strong pre-implementation assessments, adaptive management was key to the successes of RISE grants as there were developments that were not predicted at the outset. 7. While pre-implementation assessments made it less necessary to adjust implementation midway through, adaptive management was still crucially important to identify and mitigate resistance to activities. EQ2. To what extent are each of the activity clusters achieving the targeted GBV results? x | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: RISE EVALUATION USAID.GOV Findings Conclusions ACTIVITY CLUSTER 8. Awareness-raising activities were reportedly effective in changing attitudes and behaviors across interventions. Awareness raising took different forms, from workshops with community members to formal trainings with board members and leadership of conservancies. Community level sessions that were highly tailored to the cultural context were some of the most effective activities in this domain. 9. While male engagement was highly important, awareness raising activities faced resistance from men, especially male leaders. While it can be difficult to transform men’s attitudes and behaviors, it was important that they were included. In instances where male leaders were able to be persuaded, such as the Mwami (an important local leader) in the Rising Up! communities in the DRC, this was a catalyst for other men to scrutinize and shift their views and create an enabling environment for women to gain access and control over natural resources. 10. Regarding institutional-level activities, participants from the GBV/FGRM+, Advancing Equitable Norms in Conservancies and Reducing GBV in Vietnamese Conservation activities reported intended outcomes related to the creation of policies pertaining to gender-based violence. While the intended outcome of policy creation was successful, outcomes related to policy implementation were mixed. 11. Overall, activities achieved the GBV results that were proposed. Activities that focused on community-level change generally resulted in outcomes related to empowerment and economic opportunities. Specifically, the combination of programming related to awareness-raising and economic activities reportedly influenced participant experiences of GBV. 12. Findings indicate that the activities drew on their evidence to develop context-specific plans and intervention designs, which contributed substantially to intervention effectiveness. Activities that incorporated aspects of local culture and customs reportedly had positive effects among the target communities. 13. For institution-level activities, outcomes related to policy creation were met while outcomes related to policy implementation were mixed. Norms and attitudes posed challenges to implementation in activities that focused on GBV at the community and institutional levels. However, respondents reported significant shifts in social norms for activities, especially Rising Up! and Advancing Equitable Norms in Conservancies. EQ3. To what extent are the activity clusters sustainable? 14. Sustainability was a key concern for all RISE activities, and grantees had varying degrees of success sustaining their activities and intended effects following the RISE grant. 15. Several achievements of the specific RISE activities have potential to be sustained or replicated by others. Awareness-raising and training have potential for scale-up, with sufficient time and funding. xi | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: RISE EVALUATION USAID.GOV Findings Conclusions ACTIVITY CLUSTER 16. Respondents from the Creative Capacity Building and Advancing Equitable Gender Norms in Conservancies activities expressed that the length of the grant was too short, which hindered sustainable impacts. 17. Some activities, such as the Reducing GBV in Vietnamese Conservation and Alto Mayo without GBV activities, focused on capacity￾strengthening for environmental organizations, which led to sustainable impacts within these organizations. 18. Others focused on policy change, such as the GBV/FGRM+ activity, which eventually led to the operationalization of the enhanced FGRM mechanism as of 2023, significantly past the end of the grant period. 19. Many specific RISE activities are unlikely to be well sustained or scaled up because of the limited time and funding to expand or entrench the activities in local practice. NORC also conducted an implementation evaluation for the Rising Up! Activity, examining how the specific activity worked, for whom, and in what context. The evaluation considered the programmatic assumptions, identified intervention challenges and facilitators, and explored engagement with beneficiaries and partners. IMPLEMENTATION EVALUATION EQ1. Is the activity design based on the local context and flexible to achieve results on the ground? 20. The original design for the intervention was based on IFDP’s and W4WI’s existing models for land tenure interventions and women’s empowerment interventions. 21. Effective intervention components included sensitization activities targeting men and the relationship that the activity built with the Mwami, a major customary leader in South Kivu. 22. The initial model focused primarily on sensitizing women; however, during the gender analysis and implementation, the design was expanded to involve more men, customary leaders and youth. This adaptation ended up being key to the success of the activity. 23. The activity was not able to have land title fees waived for women, which is a difficult obstacle in the context of the DRC. 24. There was limited flexibility to respond to the needs of change agents. 25. These components helped the activity exceed its targets in terms of women starting or completing the process of land titling. There was substantial flexibility in program implementation, which allowed the program to respond to and mitigate resistance from eldest sons to the activities. EQ2. Is the activity reaching participants they are meant to target? xii | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: RISE EVALUATION USAID.GOV IMPLEMENTATION EVALUATION 26. While the activity initially primarily targeted women, it expanded its scope to engage additional men, specifically husbands of women getting land titles and eldest sons. This was based on the gender analysis and on results monitoring during implementation. 27. The activity faced resistance from eldest sons due to the promotion of changes to practices around inheritance of land. The activity adapted midway through to work directly with eldest sons to mitigate this resistance. 28. The expansion of target participants was a crucial adaptation to the original design that influenced the success of the activity. Strong results monitoring allowed the activity to identify and mitigate resistance from first￾born sons. 29. This shows that even if the pre￾implementation assessments like the gender analysis are rigorous, there still must be careful monitoring and program agility to adapt to realities on the ground. EQ3. Is the activity achieving sustainability? 30. WfWI and IFDP developed an exit plan with customary authorities, members of land reflection groups, women Change Agents and male champions. 31. Land reflection groups in particular said that they would continue awareness-raising past the end of the activity. 32. Importantly, some women paid their fees but never received customary land titles after the partners left, which put the change agents in very bad positions in their communities. 33. Despite significant exit planning, the customary land titling systems were not sustained and this caused conflicts between change agents and community members after the activity ended. Local leaders did not continue the system of land titling that was put in place by the activity. 34. Women who received land titles during the activity’s timeline will continue owning their land, which will have positive impacts for years to come. Table 2. Evaluation Recommendations ACTIVITY CLUSTER EQ1. Are the activity clusters based on context-specific and international evidence? 35. Promote needs assessments and consolidation and sharing of international evidence: Future funding for iterations of RISE or programming at the intersection of GBV and environmental programs should maintain and support the pre-implementation assessment component of RISE such as gender assessments. They should also maintain the standards of rigor set by Resonance in this iteration. However, more time and resources (funding for staff time, data collectors and researchers) should be allocated in budgets for the assessments to avoid delayed implementation and support skills-building to undertake future similar research by teams on the ground. Moreover, in future grants, USAID and other donors should consider funding their grantees (and other groups) to share and discuss needs assessment methods, their intervention designs and outcome findings among those working on the same complex challenges, such as climate and/or GBV. xiii | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: RISE EVALUATION USAID.GOV ACTIVITY CLUSTER 36. Develop locally informed assumptions for theories of change and solicit stakeholder and participant input for proposed causal pathways: USAID and other donors will continue to reap exponential benefits from supporting partnerships between gender-focused and environmental organizations. These types of multi-sector collaborations can help strengthen the assumptions, particularly context- or population-specific assumptions, that underpin intervention designs. Cross-sector partnerships can also foster the participation of differently affected community members who can help co-design activities, particularly to consider causal pathways between proposed intervention activities and desired outcomes in a Theory of Change. The causal pathway mechanisms and intermediate outcomes are often the neglected “black box” in theory-based interventions. Importantly, future funding should include financial and training support for community members’ participation—versus relying on tokenistic or unfunded “volunteer” time from disadvantaged residents. 37. Commission and fund rigorous research on linkages between climate change and GBV. The activities were able to begin to indicate the benefits of joint funding (environment and GBV), but it was beyond the scope of the program to achieve robust data on associations between GBV and climate change. If donors want evidence on causal linkages or correlations between GBV and the effects of climate change, donors should invest in equitable partnerships between professional research teams who can ensure rigorous study designs and local groups who know the context and populations—and who are likely to benefit from learning these types of research techniques. 38. Flexible but user-focused monitoring for intervention adaptations: Future funding for programs such as RISE should emulate the flexibility of the grants management under Resonance. The techniques that permitted groups to shift their intervention designs based on emerging monitoring data generally led to useful program adaptations. However, intervention monitoring processes need to be feasible, not burdensome for small organizations, and emerging data needs to be fed back in ways that are usable by the implementing partners. Future monitoring processes are likely to work better if they are co-designed by the implementing agencies, with support from groups like Resonance or research agencies familiar with co-production or user￾centered design techniques. EQ2. To what extent are each of the activity clusters achieving the targeted GBV results? 39. Establish realistic objectives and measurable outcomes: Future community-targeted programs should continue to invest in collaboration between GBV and environmental programming because these joint activities appear to promote valuable changes in attitudes and behaviors. However, if donors plan to fund interventions to achieve institutional change and effective implementation of policies, donors and local groups should be encouraged to undertake a realistic feasibility assessment to determine what does “successful implementation” look like and what outcomes are achievable and measurable in the funding timeframe. Given the variety of stakeholders and political will often necessary for policy implementation, it will be important to assess what is realistic to expect of groups during the timeframe of the grant. xiv | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: RISE EVALUATION USAID.GOV ACTIVITY CLUSTER 40. Replicate context-specific planning and design and allow for flexibility and longer timelines during implementation: Future iterations of RISE should continue to integrate context-specific planning and design, which should integrate local culture, customs, and interests. Furthermore, implementers should seek information about the practical needs of participants while planning interventions. In addition, grantees indicated that the timelines for implementation were too short. Reducing GBV and other social norm change takes time, and the next iteration of RISE is planned to have longer time frames, which should improve implementation and enhance impacts. 41. Continue supporting adaptive management: Future iterations of RISE should continue to utilize Fixed Amount Awards (FAAs) and adaptive management techniques. FAAs and adaptive management provided critical flexibility during intervention implementation. 42. Combine awareness raising with livelihood activities: Future programs that bring together interventions on GBV and the environment should explore the relationships between awareness-raising and livelihood activities within their unique contexts. Among other benefits, livelihood activities provide a tangible entry point to community participation. However, increased economic opportunity through livelihood activities does not directly address GBV and has risk of backlash. Therefore, explorations of the relationships between awareness￾raising and livelihood activities must consider the risk of backlash and contextualize how GBV outcomes are supported. 43. Engage men: Engagement of men and boys is critical for future programs at the intersection of environmental programming and GBV. However, men and boys can resist such activities, and it can be helpful to couch GBV related content within content that is more tailored to their specific interests, such as including a module on GBV within a livelihoods training. EQ3. To what extent are the activity clusters sustainable? 44. Establish rigorous exit plans, plan for longer timelines and work with local leaders: Programs should work with traditional and community structures, as well as traditional holders of power, including men and boys. These traditional holders of power can be effective champions or advocates of interventions who can enhance an initiative’s sustainability. Furthermore, An exit plan for after the grant ends is necessary to sustain an activity and its goals. Participants and stakeholders must receive tools to continue activities, such as trainings. There must be sufficient funding and time to establish sustainability and ensure activity impacts. Key stakeholders should be strengthened, so they are better equipped to take ownership of an activity, and the local community and/or the community leadership should be engaged to ensure that they will take ownership of the activity once the grant ends. 45. Use monitoring data to scale up trainings: Elements of RISE activities such as trainings have potential for scale-up—with sufficient time and funding. Evaluation results suggest that monitoring data may be particularly informative to understand what worked and did not work during implementation. Monitoring data may also indicate how different contextual factors might have influenced the delivery, uptake, and effectiveness of the intervention, which will be valuable for attempts to expand or scale up these activities. 46. Draw from pre-implementation analyses and replicate in similar communities: Future programs should use the lessons learned from the RISE activities to inform future activities, including the gender analysis. Engagement with communities, such as trainings, could be adapted when implementing similar activities in similar communities. IMPLEMENTATION EVALUATION EQ1. Is the activity based on local context and flexible to achieve results on the ground? xv | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: RISE EVALUATION USAID.GOV ACTIVITY CLUSTER 47. Design inclusive activities, especially in terms of male engagement, and involve community leaders: RISE grants will likely benefit from components engaging men and local leaders to secure their support for the women and increase respect for women’s rights. Public announcements of support from local leaders such as the Mwami, chiefs in Central and East African communities, can be enormously helpful to the safety and success of interventions addressing economic GBV. In particular, male local leaders like the Mwami can help reduce resistance from men in the community. Having long standing relationships in communities, such as W4WI’s many years of work in Nyangezi, helps establish these kinds of important relationships with local leaders. 48. Ensure implementation plans and timeline are designed to fulfill expectations: RISE grants should ensure that their planning and timelines are sufficient to meet the expectations of—and especially the investments made by—participants. That is, if women start the process of customary land titling, they must receive land titles or reimbursement for their contributions if delivery is outside of an activity’s manageable interest. No women should ever lose money because they trusted the land titling process. 49. Budget for fair compensation for intervention staff: Change agents must receive balanced compensation for their work. Specifically, balanced compensation accounts for the material needs and opportunity cost of participant contributions while not over-compensating participants in a way that is unethical or skews incentives to support the project after funding ends. Budgets should include line items for logistical support, such as equipment, refreshments for participants, and weatherproof materials (depending on activity context). EQ2. Is the activity reaching participants they are meant to target? 50. Include a range of participants to secure wider community support: Engaging a broad base of community members can help prevent opposition and might foster greater assistance and solidarity for women affected by economic GBV. In particular, activities should aim to gain support from men, customary leaders, and youth alongside women. 51. Monitor emerging effects and use data to adapt programs: The monitoring system for RISE was very useful to provide information that improved the intervention model. Strong monitoring for this activity allowed program implementers to identify and mitigate resistance from eldest sons. Monitoring tools should be included in future programming. EQ3. Is the activity achieving sustainability? 52. Prevent adverse outcomes by ensuring ethical program completion if not program sustainability: If program sustainability cannot be assured beyond the funding period, donors and implementing agencies must be certain that their program will not cause harm to participants. Especially when the program involves investments by poor people, implementing agencies must make careful exit plans to ensure that the activity does not have adverse outcomes for participants. Donor and program accountability is essential. For example, for women who invested in customary land titles, the implementing agency needs to assure follow￾up actions would be conducted to assure women would receive land titles they had paid for— in some cases at great cost to themselves, such as taking loans. To be ethical, grants that aim to change systems of governance and social norms must be long enough to give time for major shifts and to avoid harmful outcomes or backlash. 1 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: RISE EVALUATION USAID.GOV 1. EVALUATION PURPOSE AND EVALUATION QUESTIONS Under the Democracy, Human Rights, and Governance Learning, Evaluation, and Research II Activity (DRG-LER II), the United States Agency for International Development’s (USAID’s) Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment Hub (USAID/GenDev) in the Bureau for Development, Democracy, and Innovation (DDI) contracted NORC at the University of Chicago (NORC) to carry out a portfolio performance evaluation (PPE) of its gender-based violence (GBV) activities. The purpose of the evaluation is to identify facilitators and barriers to activity effectiveness, where knowledge still needs to be developed, and what can be improved upon in USAID/GenDev’s GBV portfolio. The four activity clusters (ACs) in the evaluation include: 1. Better Together Challenge (BTC) with GBV prevention and response interventions; 2. Collective Action to Reduce Gender-Based Violence (CARE-GBV) small grants activities; 3. The Resilient, Inclusive & Sustainable Environments (RISE): A Challenge to Address Gender￾Based Violence in the Environment; and 4. The Women’s Economic Empowerment (WEE) activities are directly funded by USAID/GenDev integrating GBV prevention and response activities. This evaluation report focuses on the RISE activity cluster, which was implemented by Resonance from January 2020 to August 2022. Resonance was responsible for coordinating the technical selection of RISE grantees, allocating funds, providing implementation and capacity-building support to grantees, serving as a liaison between GenDev, and complying with reporting and learning outcomes. The RISE activity cluster comprises nine grantees; however, following discussions with GenDev, NORC’s evaluation focuses on seven grantees who received funding to address the intersection of GBV and environmental issues. The activities included in the evaluation are as follows: 1. Creative Capacity-Building to Address GBV in the Artisanal and Small-Scale Mining Sector (Creative Capacity Building) in Colombia 2. Alto Mayo Landscape Without Gender Violence (Alto Mayo Without GBV) in Peru 3. Securing Land Rights and Ending Gender Exclusion (SLEDGE) in Uganda 2. Advancing Equitable Gender, Social, and Power Norms in Community Conservancies (Advancing Equitable Norms in Conservancies) in Kenya 3. Rising Up! Promoting Congolese Women’s Land Access and Preventing GBV in Eastern DRC (Rising Up!) in DRC 4. Reducing GBV in Vietnamese Conservation in Vietnam 5. Gender Empowerment and Transformation: Tackling Resource-Based Conflict and GBV in Fiji (GBV/FGRM+) in Fiji The team conducted field data collection from February to April 2023. NORC engaged with multiple respondents, including GenDev staff, the Resonance team, grantees, USAID mission staff, service providers, program users, and other relevant stakeholders, such as local community members. The evaluation team (ET) included Tulay Akoglu, Rachel Rosenberg, and Jessica Wallach from NORC, as well as local evaluators Liliana Delgado in Colombia, Pacifique Zigomane in the DRC, Marisol Arestegui in Peru, Violet Wawire in Kenya, Thuy Nguyen in Vietnam, and Richard Wamimbi in Uganda. Research assistants involved in the evaluation included Genny Lilibeth Rengifo Carvajal in Colombia, Jean Habamungu in DRC, Shirley Barrantes Baca in Peru, Brenda Wawire in Kenya, Hung B Phung in Vietnam, and Jocelyn Amongin and Akiror Gibbs in Uganda. 2 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: RISE EVALUATION USAID.GOV The four ACs each have a separate evaluation report, and an overall portfolio performance evaluation report includes its own evaluation questions and compares findings across all ACs. Table 3. Evaluation Questions1 Evaluation Question Topics and Sub-questions Activity Cluster Questions 1. Are the activity clusters based on context-specific and international evidence? • Needs assessment and intervention evidence: How well were needs assessments conducted and intervention evidence collected to inform the cluster activities? • Assumptions: What assumptions were made to design and implement the activity clusters? How accurate were any assumptions? • Causal pathways: What causal pathways or theories of change were articulated for the activity clusters? • Monitoring and adaptations: How well are interventions monitored and are emerging findings contributing to intervention adaptations or improvements? 2. To what extent are each of the activity clusters achieving the targeted GBV results? • Outcomes: Are the stated outcomes realistic and achievable within the timeframe of the AC? What progress is being made toward achieving the outcomes? • Planning and activity designs: How and how well were activity plans and designs developed to achieve different GBV outcomes? • Intervention implementation: How well are interventions implemented to reach their target groups and influence change? • Mechanisms: What are the most effective aspects of the intervention? How do these “active ingredients” operate in each AC? 3. To what extent are the ACs sustainable? • Sustainability: What aspects of the ACs contributed to their sustainability? What components are needed for greater sustainability? • Replicability, transferability, and adaptability: In what ways are the ACs replicable in the same contexts? Adaptable for other contexts? • Scalability: What aspects of the ACs are most amenable to be scaled up? • How did you hear about the opportunity to participate in the RISE Challenge? • What, if any, changes would you like to make to the proposal submission process? • What features of this activity were most suited to change the way that your organization operates? Which were most effective? • What operational challenges did your organization have to implement the activity? Implementation Evaluation Questions 1 RISE-Specific questions are included in italics. 3 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: RISE EVALUATION USAID.GOV Evaluation Question Topics and Sub-questions 4. Is the activity design based on the local context and flexible to achieve results on the ground? • Design: What factors contributed to the design of the activity? How were priority GBV problems identified? • Redesign factors: What were the main reasons for redesigning the activity? • Implementation: What are the key intervention methods to achieve objectives? • Flexibility: Is there sufficient staffing to respond to local priorities? Is there flexibility to change approaches to respond to lessons and changing challenges in the local environment? • What are the barriers and potential facilitators to sustainable reform of land tenure/natural resource governance systems so that they contribute to the prevention of GBV? How did your program address these? 5. Is the activity reaching participants they are meant to target? • Target participants: What are the barriers to reaching participants? • Monitoring of results: Is the activity collecting evidence on what is working, not working and what could be done differently to achieve results? • Among the groups of people in your community/zone of influence, who do you think most benefited and who might have been left out or not benefited sufficiently? [Probe on different kinds of populations] Why or why not? 6. Is the activity achieving sustainability? • Sustainability: What plans are in place for sustainability? What is the evidence of potential sustainability? • Have you experienced any resistance from community members or leadership to the changes promoted by this activity? Please describe them. • Have community members supported or expressed enthusiasm for this work? Describe? • Have there been any unexpected consequences (good or bad) to these reforms or activity activities in general? 2. ACTIVITY CLUSTER BACKGROUND The Resilient, Inclusive, Sustainable Environment (RISE) Challenge is a program developed under the USAID Catalyst Activity that seeks to reduce GBV in environmental programming at both the community and institutional levels. The RISE Challenge identified and funded interventions that adapted and implemented effective practices to prevent and respond to GBV, drawing insights from other sectors. The Challenge promoted partnerships between environmental organizations, local communities, Indigenous people’s organizations, and gender and local GBV experts to bridge knowledge gaps and build an evidence base of effective GBV interventions. The seven grantees being evaluated addressed GBV within environmental programs focused on subjects such as conservation, artisanal and small-scale mining (ASM), and land tenure and property rights. Activities focused on capacity-building through trainings and awareness raising, and behavior and norms change through dialogue and advocacy. Organizations receiving grants under this disbursement of RISE Challenge had or developed safeguarding policies to ensure the safety of beneficiaries and staff. Environmental and GBV experts led grant activities, and the Challenge included monitoring and evaluation to ensure compliance with safeguarding policies and address changing risks, such as COVID-19. Grantees also developed and implemented a monitoring and evaluation plan, which was reported to GenDev. 4 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: RISE EVALUATION USAID.GOV A summary of the activities being evaluated—their grantees, countries, direct beneficiaries, type of GBV addressed, and activity component are listed in Table 4 below. Six of the seven activities were implemented 2020–2022. The two exceptions are noted in the table. Table 4. Summary of Activities Evaluated Activity Country Direct Beneficiaries Type of GBV Addressed Activity Components Creative Capacity-Building to Address GBV in the Artisanal and Small-Scale Mining Sector (Creative Capacity Building) Colombia 93 women Economic, Physical, Psychological, Sexual Movement-building methodologies ● Public narrative: using personal and collective stories to build solidarity and mobilize groups into action around joint objectives. ● Creative Capacity Building (CCB), using co-design to harness local creativity and knowledge to design solutions to identified challenges. ● Advocacy Capacity Building, empowering miners with advocacy skills to influence changes in governance at local and national levels. Alto Mayo Landscape Without Gender Violence (Alto Mayo without GBV) Peru 57 women; 37 men Economic, Physical, Psychological, Sexual ● Training of Nuwas forest leaders ● Development of informal support system for GBV survivors ● Capacity-building of Conservation International Foundation (CI) and partners ● Study of social tolerance of GBV Securing Land Rights and Ending Gender Exclusion (SLEDGE) Uganda 5,280 women; 4,630 men Physical, Psychological ● Training of community leaders and partner staff ● Norms change and awareness-raising in community ● Establishing referral systems ● Documenting customary land rights ● Alternative dispute resolution mechanism 5 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: RISE EVALUATION USAID.GOV Activity Country Direct Beneficiaries Type of GBV Addressed Activity Components Advancing Equitable Gender, Social, and Power Norms in Community Conservancies (Advancing Equitable Norms in Conservancies)a Kenya 5,280 women; 4,630 men Physical, Psychological ● Norms change through awareness-raising ● Development of organizational policies and programming ● Capacity-building of conservation organizations Rising Up! Promoting Congolese Women’s Land Access and Preventing GBV in Eastern DRC (Rising Up!) DRC 1,418 women; 1,441 men Economic, Physical, Psychological ● Training of existing land management structures ● Training of male community leaders and women Change Agents ● Integration of GBV prevention into Innovation and Training for Development and Peace (IFDP)’s model Reducing GBV in Vietnamese Conservation Vietnam 222 women; 103 men Psychological, Sexual ● Workshops and training with employees of wildlife conservation organizations and agencies ● Meetings with organization and agency managers to exchange knowledge ● Development of safeguarding materials and network for female conservation staff Gender Empowerment and Transformation: Tackling Resource-Based Conflict and GBV in Fiji (GBV/FGRM+) Fiji 46 women; 56 men Economic, Physical, Psychological, Sexual ● Application of GBV lens onto existing grievance mechanism (under Fiji’s national Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+) program) Notes: a This activity was implemented 2021–2022. b This activity focused on the forestry sector. Creative Capacity Building to Address Gender-Based Violence in the Artisanal and Small-Scale Mining Sector in Colombia was an activity led by Massachusetts Institute of Technology Development Lab (MIT D-Lab) and developed with the Alliance for Responsible Mining (ARM). The activity centered on three innovative methodologies for movement-building. Through this movement-building, the activity aimed to mitigate GBV and promote environmental stewardship in mining territories. The first methodology is called “Public Narrative.” Public Narrative used personal and collective stories to build solidarity and mobilize groups into action around joint objectives. The second methodology, MIT D-Lab’s Creative Capacity Building (CCB), used co-design to harness local 6 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: RISE EVALUATION USAID.GOV creativity and knowledge to design solutions to identified challenges. The third methodology, Advocacy Capacity Building, an approach developed by ARM, empowered ASM miners with advocacy skills to influence changes in governance at local and national levels. By combining these methodologies, the activity offered women miners in four communities—Andes, Zaragoza, Nechí, and El Bagre—a safe space with psychosocial support to share stories of GBV and used a framework to identify specific GBV challenges and collectively build solutions. The activity also guided women on best practices in organizing themselves into regional and national movements, providing instruction on how to effectively implement a strategy to address GBV in their communities. Alto Mayo Landscape Without Gender Violence in Peru sought to increase the ability of Nuwas forest women of the Shampuyacu Community to prevent and respond to GBV, enabling them to safely engage in natural resources conservation and sustainable economic activities, contributing to improved social and environmental outcomes. The activity was led by Conservation International Foundation (CI), along with subcontractor Center for the Promotion and Defense of Sexual and Reproductive Rights (PROMSEX). The activity addressed both the proximate and systemic drivers of GBV to begin shifting social norms. The activity trained women on their legal rights and developed an informal support system for GBV survivors, as well as engaged with men on the issue of GBV, built CI staff and partner capacities, engaged local officials, and conducted a study of social tolerance toward GBV. Securing Land Rights and Ending Gender Exclusion in Uganda was led by Trócaire and subcontractors Land Equity Movement of Uganda (LEMU) and Soroti Catholic Diocese Integrated Development Organization (SOCADIDO). It used the SASA! Faith approach to train community leaders and partner staff to support positive social norms, increase awareness, improve understanding of the needs of women who are facing GBV, and support GBV survivors through access to referral systems. The SASA! Faith methodology addressed the power imbalances between men and women to ultimately create social norm change and decrease GBV.2 The activity documented women’s customary land rights through gender-sensitive demarcation within the customary system, to ensure women can exercise their rights and secure their tenure. The activity also developed and implemented a gender-sensitive alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanism. Advancing Equitable Gender, Social, and Power Norms in Community Conservancies in Kenya was led by the Kenya Wildlife Conservancies Association (KWCA), in partnership with Fauna & Flora International (FFI), Cooperative for Assistance and Relief Everywhere (CARE) Kenya, Centre for Rights Education and Awareness (CREAW), and Taita Taveta Wildlife Conservancies Association (TTWCA). It adapted elements of CARE Kenya’s Social Analysis and Action (SAA) model to facilitate staff transformation and raise awareness and confidence in discussing gender and power norms in conservancies. The SAA model is a facilitated four-step process through which individuals and communities challenge harmful gender norms that negatively impact women’s and men’s well￾being and enable them to collectively envision and create gender-equitable alternatives.3 The activity also undertook a gender analysis and used the results to integrate gender and GBV prevention into KWCA’s organizational policies and programming. CARE supported TTWCA to formulate a safeguarding policy and incorporate it into the organization’s operations and programming. KWCA and TTWCA staff and leadership reflected on their own biases and beliefs around gender norms and how these biases influence their conservation efforts, and the activity then built their capacity to promote gender equality and GBV prevention through their work. 2 https://genderandenvironment.org/securing-land-rights-and-ending-gender-exclusion-project/ 3 https://genderandenvironment.org/advancing-equitable-gender-social-and-power-norms-in-community-conservancies/ 7 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: RISE EVALUATION USAID.GOV Rising Up! Promoting Congolese Women’s Land Access and Preventing GBV in Eastern DRC aimed to increase women’s land rights and prevent GBV through men’s engagement and Change Agents to increase women’s empowerment and GBV prevention. Change Agents sensitized others in their communities around economic, social, and intimate partner GBV. Women for Women International partnered closely with Innovation et Formation pour le Développement et la Paix (IFDP) to train existing land management structures on land rights and GBV prevention. Additionally, they trained and supported male community leaders and Change Agents to raise community awareness and integrate GBV prevention into IFDP’s existing Customary Decentralized Land Management Resource Model. In Reducing GBV in Vietnamese Conservation, WildAct worked with the Vietnamese Center for Studies and Applied Sciences in Gender, Family, Women, and Adolescents (CSAGA) to address the challenges of GBV and workplace harassment in the conservation sector in Vietnam. It aimed to empower women by increasing their agency, while improving the conditions in their work environment and the power relations in which they operate. Specific activities included: 1) workshops and training with employees of wildlife conservation organizations and agencies to discuss their working environment, safety while conducting fieldwork and their perceptions and experiences of harassment in the workplace; 2) meetings with organization and agency managers to exchange knowledge, experience, and ideas to create a safer environment for employees, especially women; and 3) safeguarding and supporting materials for women in conservation, as well as the establishment of the Wildlife Conservation Network.4 Gender Empowerment and Transformation: Tackling Resource-Based Conflict and GBV in Fiji used a gender integration methodology to apply a GBV lens to examine existing grievances and conflicts around land and resource rights in Fiji and understand Gender Equality and Social Inclusion (GESI)- related root causes for conflicts and inequities and the policy and institutional implications. Marstel￾Day and WI-HER, as well as local partners, worked to update the Feedback and Grievance Redress Mechanism (FGRM) of the Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+) program in Fiji so that it recognizes GBV in resource-based conflict and provides appropriate referrals, producing the blueprint for the enhanced FGRM, or FGRM+. 3. METHODS AND LIMITATIONS As shown in Figure 1, the ET employed a mixed-methods approach, including a desk review, qualitative, and quantitative data collection to generate credible evidence to answer each evaluation question. 4 WildAct was original partnered with CARE/Vietnam for this activity. However, CARE/Vietnam was unable to implement the activity and WildAct partnered with CSAGA instead. 8 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: RISE EVALUATION USAID.GOV Figure 1. Evaluation Research Design Table 5. Types of Data Collection Methods Activity Data Collection Creative Capacity-Building to Address GBV in the Artisanal and Small-Scale Mining Sector (Creative Capacity Building) KIIs with grantee staff (2), KII with local GBV academic (1), FGDs with field facilitators (2) FGDs with activity participants (2) KII with community member who did not directly participate in activity (1) Alto Mayo Landscape Without Gender Violence (Alto Mayo without GBV) KIIs with grantee staff (2), KII with local GBV academic (1), FGDs with women who participated in training sessions (2) ; FGD with men who participated in training sessions (1) ; KIIs with community members not directly involved in the activity (2) Securing Land Rights and Ending Gender Exclusion (SLEDGE) KII with grantee staff (1 KII, 3 respondents), FGDs with women who have completed or started but not completed the process of customary land titling (2), FGDs with community members not directly participating in the activity (2), and FGDs with activity change agents and community influencers (2) Advancing Equitable Gender, Social, and Power Norms in Community Conservancies (Advancing Equitable Norms in Conservancies) KII with grantee staff (1 KII, 4 respondents), KII with local GBV academic (1), FGDs with Conservancy members who participated in activities (2); FGD with conservancy members who did not participate in activities (1); KII with partner organization staff (1) Desk Review The ET reviewed 73 key program documents, including progress and final reports; MEL and work plans; and formative studies such as gender, environment, or conflict analyses. Quantitative Approach One web survey in Vietnam was completed via Qualtrics by 47 respondents (activity participants who work in the conservation sector at all levels). Qualitative Approach The ET conducted 33 key informant interviews and 22 focus group discussions, with a mix of remote and in-person modalities. All FGDs were conducted in person by local evaluators in the activity sites. 9 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: RISE EVALUATION USAID.GOV Activity Data Collection Rising Up! Promoting Congolese Women’s Land Access and Preventing GBV in Eastern DRC (Rising Up!) KIIs with grantee staff (3 KIIs and 5 respondents), KII with local GBV academic (1), FGDs with 1) Women in the activity’s zone of influence who have started but not yet completed the process of land titling (1); 2) Male leaders who received training (2); 3) Women change agents (2) ; and 4) Land reflection group members (1) Reducing GBV in Vietnamese Conservation Survey with conservation staff (47 respondents), KII with grantee staff (1) KII with local GBV academic (1) Gender Empowerment and Transformation: Tackling Resource-Based Conflict and GBV in Fiji (GBV/FGRM+) KIIs with current and former grantee staff (5), KII with Resonance about this specific activity (1), KIIs with REDD+ staff who participated in the activity (2) DESK REVIEW The desk review for this evaluation assessed documentation provided by Resonance for each activity, including annual, quarterly, and baseline/midline/endline reports; MEL data records; MEL plan and work plan; formative studies such as gender, environment, or conflict analyses; guidance for staff and partners; meeting notes; documentation on public outreach and communications; webpages; and other publications or outputs, such as tools, curricula, or policies. In total, the ET reviewed 73 documents across the 7 activities. QUALITATIVE DATA COLLECTION: KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWS Qualitative data collection consisted of key informant interviews (KIIs) and focus group discussions (FGDs). Some data, including all FGDs, were collected in person in the activity sites, while the rest were conducted virtually. NORC conducted 33 KIIs with: 1) Resonance, the implementing partner for all RISE grants; 2) grantee staff for the seven activities included in our evaluation; 3) GBV academics in each country to understand how the activities fit into the bigger picture of GBV programming (not experts affiliated with grantees, but rather local academics); 4) relevant USAID bilateral mission and USAID/GenDev staff; 5) REDD+ staff members, key stakeholders for the GBV/FGRM+ activity; and 6) activity participants. Table 6. Key Informant Interviews Conducted CATEGORIES OF RESPONDENTS NUMBER OF KIIS REMOTE KIIS IN-PERSON KIIS Resonance 2 Grantee Staff 15 GBV Academics 5 USAID 3 REDD+ Staff Members (Fiji) 2 Activity Participants or Community Members in Activity Zones 6 Total 27 6 10 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: RISE EVALUATION USAID.GOV QUALITATIVE DATA COLLECTION: FOCUS GROUPS DISCUSSIONS Local evaluators conducted all FGDs in person at the activity sites. The focus group discussions ranged from 90 minutes to 2 hours and were audio-recorded (with respondents’ consent documented verbally on recordings). Each focus group discussion had between 5 and 10 participants (any data collected from fewer than 5 participants is counted as a KII in the table below). Interviews and focus group discussions for Creative Capacity Building and Alto Mayo without GBV were conducted in Spanish by the local evaluators. Data collection for Rising Up! was in French, and for Advancing Equitable Norms in Conservancies data collection was done in a mix of English and Swahili. Focus group discussions for SLEDGE were conducted in Ateso. Table 7. Local In-person Data Collected ACTIVITY CATEGORIES OF RESPONDENTS NUMBER OF FGDS AND KIIS Creative Capacity-Building to Address GBV in the Artisanal and Small-Scale Mining Sector Activity field facilitators, activity participants, and community members 4 FGDs and 2 KIIs (1 male and 1 female) Alto Mayo Landscape Without Gender Violence Women who participated in training sessions; men who participated in training sessions; community members not directly involved in the activity (mixed gender) 3 FGDs and 2 KIIs (1 male and 1 female) Advancing Equitable Gender, Social, and Power Norms in Community Conservancies Conservancy members who participated in activities; conservancy members who did not participate in activities; partner organization staff 3 FGDs and 2 KIIs (female) Rising Up! Promoting Congolese Women’s Land Access and Preventing Male leaders who received training; Women change Agents; Women who have completed or have started but not yet completed the process of land titling; and Land reflection group members 6 FGDs Securing Land Rights and Ending Gender Exclusion Women who have completed or have started but not yet completed the process of land titling; Community influencers trained by the activity (Community Activists, Influencers and Clan leaders); Community members in the activity’s zone of influence 6 FGDs Total 22 FGDs and 6 KIIs 11 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: RISE EVALUATION USAID.GOV Figure 2. Gold Particles in a Pan and Miners at Work in Cauca, Antioquia. Credit: Liliana Delgado QUANTITATIVE DATA COLLECTION: SURVEY NORC collected quantitative data using a web-survey of activity participants for the Reducing GBV in Vietnamese Conservation activity. The web survey’s design was informed by document review, consultation with WildAct implementing partners, and consultation with a Vietnamese researcher who provided translation and survey mobilization services. To ensure the accuracy of translation and overall cultural appropriateness, two Vietnamese consultants contributed to survey review and translation. The web survey was programmed in Qualtrics and had a response rate of 54 percent, with 47 of 87 responses. As demonstrated in Figure 2, survey respondents had differing years of experience working in Vietnamese conservation. Average years of experience across respondents was 8.7 years. Regarding gender: 24 respondents identified as female, 11 respondents identified as male, 1 respondent selected “Don’t Know,” and 11 respondents did not answer the question. Figure 3. Years of Experience in Vietnamese Conservation 0-5, 0.34 6-10, 0.3 11-15, 0.23 16-20, 0.14 Note: N =44; Response rate = 54% 0-5 Years 6-10 Years 11-15 Years 16-20 Years 12 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: RISE EVALUATION USAID.GOV Given the modest number of observations, survey data cleaning and analysis were conducted in Microsoft Excel. Due to the low response rate on the question regarding gender, results are not disaggregated by gender. LIMITATIONS Evaluation data were limited in scope for several reasons, detailed below: 1) Remote data collection: The quantitative component of the evaluation was limited by survey response rates due to remote data collection. NORC directly distributed survey links to activity participants of the Reducing GBV in Vietnamese Conservation activity. However, some emails bounced back because respondents had changed jobs, and the email on file was no longer active. NORC hired a survey mobilizer based in Vietnam who followed up with respondents using email and phone directly, and this increased response rates but we were unable to get all activity participants to respond. 2) Limitations for the GBV/FGRM+ activity: Staff turnover for the grantees was significant, which constrained our ability to do interviews. However, NORC was able to obtain contact information to interview 3 former staff members who had left Marstel Day at the time of the evaluation. Remaining staff did not have contact information for community members, and the ET was informed that community members were only consulted regarding the grievance design, which had not yet been implemented on the ground. The ET also faced difficulties with remote modalities in Fiji due to the cultural context that privileges in-person engagement; therefore, the team faced non-responsiveness for virtual interviews. We were able to eventually coordinate two remote KIIs with REDD+ staff but were unable to coordinate interviews with other stakeholders who either did not respond to virtual meeting requests or did not show up at scheduled virtual meetings within our timeline for data collection. 3) Recall bias: Since all activities were completed in 2022 and respondents cited lack of remembrance of specific aspects of the activity, the evaluation may be limited by recall bias. 4) Staff turnover and selection bias: Staff turnover in the implementing partner organizations was also significant. We used a snowball sampling technique to gather contacts for former staff members who were involved in the activities; however, this sampling technique could have introduced “selection bias,” in that the staff members who we were put in contact with could have differed in their experiences with and perceptions of the activities compared to staff that we were not able to interview. 5) Halo bias: There is also a known tendency among respondents to under-report socially undesirable answers and alter their responses to approximate what they perceive as the social norm, called “halo bias.” This manifests in responses from training recipients who may respond favorably as beneficiaries of RISE support while reflecting on the benefits of a program they have already completed. 6) Survey selection bias: Given that some respondents did not participate in the web survey, there is a possibility of selection bias. It is possible that respondents who chose to complete the survey might differ from those who did not in terms of their attitudes, perceptions, socio-demographic characteristics, and experiences. 13 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: RISE EVALUATION USAID.GOV 7) Response rates: The Reducing GBV in Vietnamese Conservation web survey is not a representative sample of activity participants. We therefore cannot make any generalizations about activity performance and effectiveness. NORC’s methodology included qualitative data collection and a desk review to triangulate findings from the survey across the three data sources. Despite the above limitations we are confident about the findings since we obtained data from multiple stakeholders and were able to get different perspectives regarding the activities. 4. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS 4.1 FINDINGS FOR THE ACTIVITY CLUSTER QUESTIONS Table 8 below summarizes findings for all seven activities evaluated across the three evaluation questions. Table 8. Findings for the Activity Cluster Questions by Activity Activity Findings EQ 1: Are the activity clusters based on context-specific and international evidence? Creative Capacity￾Building to Address GBV in the Artisanal and Small￾Scale Mining Sector (Colombia) ● Gender analysis led to changes in the curriculum of the workshops, especially around issues with childcare. However, it also called for engagement of men, which did not occur. ● CRAFT analysis, part of ARM’s due diligence for mining organizations, to identify, evaluate, and report on risks involved in Artisanal and Small-Scale Gold Mining operations. This allowed for more tailored content for awareness raising activities. Alto Mayo Landscape Without Gender Violence (Peru) ● Original design was based on an existing gender assessment. ● Under RISE, partners conducted a Social Tolerance Study which led to direct changes to the content of their trainings. The Social Tolerance Study was an ethnographic study that examined existing attitudes and behaviors around GBV in the communities and informed the content of trainings provided by the activity. ● Partnership between PROMSEX and Conservation International exemplifies complimentary capacity strengthening between gender-focused and environmental organizations. Securing Land Rights and Ending Gender Exclusion (Uganda) ● Baseline data collection integrated a gender analysis, which was helpful to guide implementation moving forward. ● Annual learning and reflection sessions with communities informed activities. ● Gender analysis was helpful to strengthen capacities of partners that were stronger in environmental expertise than gender, as the exercise of conducting the assessment helped them learn about gender dynamics, frameworks, and realities in the context of Uganda. Advancing Equitable Gender, Social, and Power Norms in Community Conservancies (Kenya) ● Recommendations from the gender audit were incorporated into KWCA’s constitution. ● Participatory gender audits of KWCA produced important evidence to inform the activity. ● Rapid gender and power analyses in Mbulia Conservancy and Taita Taveta Wildlife Conservancies Association (TTWCA) were incorporated into activities. ● Gender audits took more time than planned. 14 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: RISE EVALUATION USAID.GOV Activity Findings Rising Up! Promoting Congolese Women’s Land Access and Preventing GBV in Eastern DRC (DRC) ● Gender analysis was challenging and took longer than expected, delaying implementation timelines, but it was also highly useful for activity adaptation. ● Rigorous monitoring allowed partners to adapt their program midway through to engage eldest sons who had resisted activities due to their promotion of changes to inheritance structures. ● Radio programs and media coverage were added based on feedback. Reducing GBV in Vietnamese Conservation (Vietnam) ● Gender analysis was appreciated and found useful in that it identified gaps in gender policies for conservation organizations such as lack of information on referral mechanisms. These gaps then informed the content of trainings and awareness raising activities. ● Adaptation: The activity started by working at the management level and faced resistance, so it adapted to a more “bottom up” approach and hosted events on weekends so that conservation staff could attend despite higher￾level resistance. ● Monitoring was challenging because the activity’s intervention was different from other grantees but had the same monitoring templates. Gender Empowerment and Transformation: Tackling Resource￾Based Conflict and GBV (Fiji) ● Gender analysis was described as a “guiding document” throughout implementation. ● COVID restricted in-person data collection for the gender analysis and community consultations, limiting their scope. ● Monitoring was challenging for the partners since monitoring indicators and measurement approaches changed partway through implementation (more details in the monitoring section below). EQ 2: To what extent are each of the activity clusters achieving the targeted GBV results? Creative Capacity￾Building to Address GBV in the Artisanal and Small￾Scale Mining Sector (Colombia) ● The activity used the Public Narrative methodology from Harvard which brought discussions of GBV into light which had been previously repressed in the community, thus allowing for more open condemnation of GBV and prevention of future GBV through norm change. ● Three-day movement-building workshops offered a safe space for community members to share stories of GBV, identify GBV challenges, and co-design solutions. ● Participants called for more male engagement, which was not implemented by the activity. ● Participants also noted that they wished that partners had a trained psychologist with them for workshops in which women shared their experiences of GBV. Grantee staff were trained on trauma-informed methods, but there was no professional psychologist there to support survivors. Future projects should be required to have a professional psychologist or counselor present when participants are asked directly to share their personal experiences with GBV 15 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: RISE EVALUATION USAID.GOV Activity Findings Alto Mayo Landscape Without Gender Violence (Peru) ● The activity trained Nuwas Forest women on legal rights, prevention of GBV, informal support systems for GBV survivors, and sexual and reproductive health. ● It engaged 50 local male leaders and spouses in discussions on positive masculinity, human rights, and how to support survivors of violence to help them understand the impact this violence has on their community and economy. ● It strengthened capacities of CI staff, local Indigenous federation staff, and others to respond to GBV in conservation programming. ● Local government services adapted their protocols to be more in line with Indigenous preferences. ● Participants of their own accord formed a woman’s communal patrol group to respond to cases of GBV. ● There was limited participation from men as they considered GBV a women’s issue, focus group discussion participants called for more pairing of GBV content with livelihoods content to incentivize men’s engagement. Securing Land Rights and Ending Gender Exclusion (Uganda) ● The activity used the SASA! Faith approach to train community leaders and partner staff which was characterized as effective by focus group discussion participants. ● It documented women’s land rights through gender-sensitive demarcation within the customary system. ● It developed a gender-sensitive alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanism and trained partners and chiefs on how to respond to conflict with the ADR mechanism. ● COVID restrictions and delays in approvals of training materials limited activity impacts within the implementation timeline. ● Staff turnover in Ministries and local governments posed challenges to program implementation. ● ADR was less effective than land demarcation and sensitizations because few women were in the ADR committees. ● High levels of resistance from some communities at the beginning of the project delayed the engagement with such communities. Advancing Equitable Gender, Social, and Power Norms in Community Conservancies (Kenya) ● The activity used CARE’s Social Analysis and Action (SAA) Model to facilitate staff transformation and raise awareness of gender and power norms. Respondents reported that this was highly effective in changing attitudes for male staff, primarily through women staff feeling empowered to express themselves more to their colleagues. ● It recruited, hired, and strengthened the capacity of a KWCA gender officer. ● It adapted and developed tools to address gender and GBV for member conservancies. ● It developed and rolled out safeguarding policies for KWCA and member conservancies. ● COVID restrictions limited participation, especially from male conservancy leaders. ● Limited time and resources from conservancy staff limited impacts. 16 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: RISE EVALUATION USAID.GOV Activity Findings Rising Up! Promoting Congolese Women’s Land Access and Preventing GBV in Eastern DRC (DRC) ● The activity used Women for Women’s model involving a 12-month program for women that promotes their social and economic empowerment, along with vocational and savings trainings. Women for Women's longstanding work in the community helped them garner support and build trust. ● It trained Change Agents to conduct sensitizations in their communities which was effective but limited by a lack of sufficient stipends and equipment for the Change Agents. ● Participants reported decreases in economic, social and intimate partner GBV. ● Target groups were expanded to include women, men, customary leaders, and youth. ● Engaging men and customary leaders was especially effective. ● The activity did not provide sufficient support to Change Agents for their sensitizations, such as transport stipends for traveling between remote villages. Reducing GBV in Vietnamese Conservation (Vietnam) ● The activity developed safeguarding policies and materials that conservation organizations can use to prevent and address GBV. ● Training workshops on how to develop safeguarding policies and apply them were well received by participants, who expressed enthusiasm to continue the work in their own organizations. ● It implemented additional activities due to cost-savings from switching from in-person to virtual trainings; ran a small-grants competition for organizations to implement their own activities to combat sexual harassment. ● It was challenging to create safeguarding materials and policies that could support both office staff and field staff (i.e., rangers). ● There was strong resistance from some conservancy staff, particularly male staff. Gender Empowerment and Transformation: Tackling Resource￾Based Conflict and GBV (Fiji) ● The activity developed the blueprint for the enhanced feedback and grievance redress mechanism (FGRM+) for the REDD+ emissions reduction program, which was eventually used to operationalize the FGRM+ in 2023. ● It developed a communications strategy for the government of Fiji and REDD+ staff. ● Participation in virtual convenings was limited as there is a culture of privileging in-person interaction in Fiji. ● Resistance from land groups was overcome through continued sensitization. EQ 3: To what extent are the activity clusters sustainable? Creative Capacity￾Building to Address GBV in the Artisanal and Small￾Scale Mining Sector (Colombia) ● Participants stated that the timeline of the grant was too short to create lasting social norm change. More time was needed to sustainably achieve that scope of change. ● Women trained by the activity to be community leaders continue advocacy efforts. Alto Mayo Landscape Without Gender Violence (Peru) ● Conservation International continues working in these communities, now with outside funding and improved staff capacities. ● The community patrol is no longer mobilized due to community backlash and lack of support. 17 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: RISE EVALUATION USAID.GOV Activity Findings Securing Land Rights and Ending Gender Exclusion (Uganda) ● Community members reported fewer instances of GBV after the project ended. ● Sustainability is limited because people can’t afford to pay fees to have their land demarcated. However, the capacity strengthening around how to demarcate land boundaries and use the alternative dispute resolution mechanism will continue to have sustained benefits into the future. Advancing Equitable Gender, Social, and Power Norms in Community Conservancies (Kenya) ● Participants stated that the timeline of the grant was too short. Participants felt that there was not enough time to train local stakeholders to take over the activity once the IP left and that there was not enough time for the activity to take root. Without guidance and support, the ability for local stakeholders to continue the activity was undermined. ● There is evidence of norm change, and that safeguarding policies developed by the activity will be sustained past the end of the grant. Rising Up! Promoting Congolese Women’s Land Access and Preventing GBV in Eastern DRC (DRC) ● There was not sufficient exit planning, as some women who paid for land titles did not receive them after the activity finished. ● Participants stated that women interested in obtaining land titles now have no way to do so. Reducing GBV in Vietnamese Conservation (Vietnam) ● There was clear interest from organizations and their leadership for continued work in this area and awareness has been increased. ● Resistance from some organization leaders prevented policy changes that would have enhanced activity sustainability and impacted their respective organizations. Gender Empowerment and Transformation: Tackling Resource￾Based Conflict and GBV (Fiji) ● The FGRM+ was operationalized by REDD+ in March 2023 after many delays ● The REDD+ team did not use the communications strategy developed by the activity. EVALUATION QUESTION 1: ARE THE ACS BASED ON CONTEXT-SPECIFIC AND INTERNATIONAL EVIDENCE? NEEDS ASSESSMENTS AND INTERVENTION EVIDENCE: How well were needs assessments conducted and intervention evidence collected to inform the cluster activities? All RISE grantees were required to complete pre-implementation assessments, including a gender analysis as well as other kinds of assessments like a social tolerance study for the Alto Mayo without GBV activity in Peru or environmental examination for Rising Up! In DRC. It was clear from respondents across activities that the pre-implementation assessments required for RISE were highly detailed, rigorous, and useful. Different grantees did different analyses; most grantees did gender analyses, but some, such as the Alto Mayo without GBV activity and the Advancing Equitable Norms in Conservancies activity, did other analyses such as a Social Tolerance study and Rapid Gender and Power analysis. This was because the interventions themselves differed both in content and in terms of existing research that they were based off of. The Alto Mayo without GBV activity, for example, based their original design on a pre-RISE gender assessment; therefore, they conducted a Social Tolerance study as their pre-implementation assessment. 18 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: RISE EVALUATION USAID.GOV While useful, these analyses were also challenging to conduct, especially for partners who had not done assessments that addressed GBV and or assessments for USAID-funded activities before. In some cases, such as the Rising Up! activity, the gender analysis took longer than expected, which delayed the implementation timeline. However, the Rising Up! activity and all others reported that the analyses were very useful during implementation and produced important contextual information that led to program adaptations. The process of going through the gender analysis in particular served multiple purposes according to respondents. First, it provided information that helped them tailor the content of their interventions to local realities, especially in terms of gender norms. For example, for the Creative Capacity Building activity they found in their gender analysis that most miners believe that if women enter a mine shaft the vein will be lost, and gold will recede. Therefore, most women miners search for gold in the mud that men pull from the shafts or pan for it in riverbeds. The gender analysis for the Rising Up! activity in the DRC found that widows are highly respected in the community and can influence other women. The other purpose of the gender analysis was that it helped to strengthen the capacities of environmental partner organizations in gender work. The following quotes illustrate how useful the respondents found the gender analyses during implementation: “That was our guiding document. The analysis that we completed was with the desk-based analysis, and it also incorporated the findings from the conversations that we had, and the rest of the work would not have been possible without that step.” (GBV/FGRM+ KII) “It was really useful. […] These specific land rights in this area that we were implementing was not something that we had really in depth explored. And so, the results from that gender analysis were really important. We were very mindful then, throughout the whole of our grant, of going back to that gender analysis and taking the results that we found from that and really putting it into our implementation.” (Rising Up! KII) “I think that that was actually really helpful. No other grant has a kind of pre-assessment like that with us. And at the beginning, there were so many processes, but that one [was] actually really useful, because it’s helped us to look into things more carefully and to pay attention to the activities as a company. So yeah, it’s really useful, and it’s really clear as well. They give us really good instructions on that one.” (Reducing GBV in Vietnamese Conservation KII) Beyond the utility of the assessments to inform implementation, they also strengthened the capacities of the implementing partners themselves, as illustrated in the last quote from the Reducing GBV in Vietnamese Conservation activity. Grantee respondents described intensive periods of back and forth with Resonance during the gender analysis, which pushed them to go further with their pre￾implementation research than they had gone before with other grants. Respondents from the SLEDGE activity in Uganda explained that the gender analysis was crucial for building expertise around gender and Peru Example: Using Results from the Social Tolerance Study to Inform Implementation The Awajún women who participated in the Social Tolerance study indicated that they had never read the internal community regulations around GBV. Workshops run by the partners in response to the above study helped participants understand both their internal community regulations and national legislation around GBV in Peru. The workshops emphasized that internal rules do not prevent the women from making complaints to national authorities outside the community. They also emphasized that customary laws do not override women’s fundamental rights and that complaint mechanisms do exist. 19 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: RISE EVALUATION USAID.GOV GBV for their staff who had backgrounds in environmental work. “Yes, it [the gender analysis] was very useful for us to carry it out. For example, we are more environmental experts so the GBV component, we did not have enough background information on it, but during the analysis, we did the analysis. It was actually good because in my environmental work, we needed more integration in the areas of GBV.” (SLEDGE KII) This was a common sentiment among grantee organizations that explicitly focused on environmental programming, such as Marstel Day in Fiji and WildAct Vietnam. Their staff expressed that the gender analysis and subsequent implementation strengthened their capacities to respond to GBV and integrate gender considerations into their programming as a whole. Some activities did additional pre-implementation assessments, such as the Social Tolerance study for the Alto Mayo without GBV activity, which also directly informed the content of the intervention. This study helped implementers understand the level of tolerance and normalization of GBV in their target communities, and they were able to use this information to develop content for the workshops for women, men, and leaders from the community. There are numerous examples of the pre-implementation assessments informing implementation and strengthening the capacities of grantees. However, it was clear that the assessments were time￾consuming and difficult for some, in that they required extensive data collection (conducting key informant interviews and focus group discussions in the field) and multiple rounds of revisions with Resonance. Organizations that are less experienced with conducting primary research felt that this experience pushed them to both learn and utilize research methods, a rewarding but challenging process. Even grantees who did not find them to be too difficult noted that small-scale, local partners would find them challenging. The grantee for the Alto Mayo without GBV activity described the assessments as challenging but useful, especially with the language barrier of their indigenous population: “CI is very strong on the safeguards front, so we had the in-house capacity. For that I do think if we were a smaller organization, those would have been a little more challenging. […] The data alone is, it was difficult. It involves one-on-one interviews that were conducted in Cayahun because many of them don’t speak—didn’t speak Spanish. But I think that data is really helpful for us, for just understanding the nature of the situation.” (Alto Mayo without GBV KII) This sentiment was echoed by respondents from the GBV/FGRM+ activity, who said: “It wasn’t cumbersome for us, but I imagine that it might have been quite difficult for some of the little organizations where really this may be was the first time they had received USAID funds.” (GBV/FGRM+ KII) It's important to note that the pandemic made the gender assessments more difficult, especially for the GBV/FGRM+ activity. A respondent from Resonance noted, “When you’re in the middle of a pandemic and you can’t physically be there, it’s all virtual. I give kudos to Marstel Day. They did a pretty good gender analysis using local partners all through phone calls, and they 20 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: RISE EVALUATION USAID.GOV were able to speak to ministry officials down to community level and integrate their opinions and thoughts into the analysis and the revised framework.” (Resonance KII) Some respondents mentioned that they wish there had been external support for the assessments: “We were doing ours in-house, and I think that what the Resonance team were looking for from our gender analysis, they quite rightly pushed us further than I think we realized we would need to [go]. […] If we were all to go back to the beginning, setting that understanding of what was really needed from the gender analysis would have been really beneficial.” (Rising Up! KII) ASSUMPTIONS AND CAUSAL PATHWAYS: What assumptions were made to design and implement the activity clusters? How accurate were any assumptions? What causal pathways or theories of change were articulated for the activity clusters? Two major assumptions underscored the causal pathways in the RISE cluster theory of change, as noted in the text box on the right. These assumptions were part of the RISE theory of change and were meant to apply across all grantees. A respondent from USAID explained that one of the assumptions was that the partnerships formed for RISE grants were meant to allow partners to have complementary capacities. “Many [environmental] organizations, well, certainly don’t have GBV experts, but many also don’t have gender staff, or they have gender staff that are stretched too thin. And so this idea was to bring these groups together. And likewise, GBV organizations often don’t have the expertise that you would need to really permeate the environment and climate sectors. […] That was kind of the design.” (USAID KII) This assumption proved true, as grantees said that the partnerships formed under RISE would continue impacting their work through this complementary capacity-strengthening—particularly in terms of strengthening the gender capacities of environmental organizations. For example, a respondent from the GBV/FGRM+ activity noted: “The dynamic that existed between Marstel Day and WI-HER from a teaming perspective, Marstel Day is in environmental consulting. […] We learned a lot, just by jointly working together and sharing that information. I learned from our partner, WI-HER, as much as I also learned from other people. It’s definitely informed a lot of work, and the way that we look at work.” (GBV/FGRM+ KII) Another respondent from the Alto Mayo without GBV activity noted that the partnership between PROMSEX and Conservation International had similar impacts: “PROMSEX, however, is an LGBT-run feminist organization, and kind of rounded out our knowledge and experience on that front, which I think was a good enlightening moment for us.” (Alto Mayo without GBV KII) Also relevant to the complementary capacity-strengthening for RISE grantees were the peer learning calls that allowed grantees to learn from each other’s interventions. This peer learning is described in more detail in the portfolio-level report. One assumption that did not hold was that the RISE activities would be able to produce evidence of direct links between GBV and environmental outcomes. Investigation of the connection between RISE Key Assumptions: Partnerships between environmental organizations and GBV focused organizations will strengthen the capacities of each to work in the intersection of GBV and environmental programming. Evidence produced by RISE will support causal linkages between GBV and environmental outcomes. 21 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: RISE EVALUATION USAID.GOV GBV and environmental outcomes was not feasible given the time and resources required to measure these outcomes. A respondent from Resonance explained that they had to adapt their MEL approach because this assumption was not verified during the activity: “Initially they thought that they would have more data around how to address gender-based violence in environmental context and how that could improve environmental outcomes. […] the type of data that the grantees were able to collect around that were completely unadoptable, so not enough to build some proper evidence there. […] We took this out of the equation. We focused on best practices or some learning around that, but not really the causal relationship.” (Resonance KII) To demonstrate these causal linkages, respondents would need to be able to report on incidence of GBV. However, measuring incidence and prevalence of GBV is extremely difficult. For example, there are often difficulties and ethical challenges associated with access to incident reports, as they are highly sensitive. In addition, the time frame of the grants might have been too short to see the impacts of social norm change on rates or incidence of GBV. On the other hand, measuring environmental outcomes, such as biodiversity, is also difficult. While it might be more feasible to measure these types of outcomes at the start and end of each RISE activity, combining these measures to demonstrate causal linkages would be both difficult and take more time than the two years of the RISE grants. For the next iteration of RISE, the International Union for the Conservation of Nature should consider what realistic timelines and resource allocation are required to help build this evidence base. MONITORING AND ADAPTATIONS How well are interventions monitored and emerging findings contributing to intervention adaptations or improvements? Grantees overall did not have difficulties with the RISE monitoring requirements, with a few exceptions detailed below. Recognizing the realities of the timeframe and current capacity, RISE shifted its monitoring and evaluation framework (as detailed in the previous section) to adapt to the difficulties establishing quantitative links between GBV and environmental outcomes. A respondent from Resonance explained this shift: “In the beginning, we co-created the MEL plan with USAID, and we had a very lofty idea of what we could measure and what would be feasible. And then as we got more into implementation, I think a lot of the changes were adjusting for what was appropriate to be collected quantitatively versus qualitatively through a learning question.” (Resonance KII) The use of learning questions to capture qualitative data was appreciated by respondents. A respondent from the Creative Capacity Building activity explained that impacts on women’s lives were difficult to measure quantitatively: “Apart from oral expression, for a woman to stand up in front of a group and feel capable […] expressing, telling the story, that generates very profound things. [Things] that not even a monitoring and evaluation when the workshops are held, they will never see.” (Creative Capacity Building KII) In general, respondents reported that monitoring requirements were relatively straightforward and easy to meet. A respondent from the Alto Mayo without GBV activity explained, “The reporting was fine. I think the reporting amounts and templates were very reasonable. and we didn’t have any problem with that, and they were very flexible to work with.” (Alto Mayo without GBV KII) However, there were some challenges related to changing the MEL structure partway through the implementation timeline, particularly for the GBV/FGRM+ activity, as detailed by a respondent: 22 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: RISE EVALUATION USAID.GOV “Having been that early cohort, a lot of things were kind of tweaked and changed. […] There was, you know, oftentimes just unclear instructions. […] It made it incredibly challenging to be compliant, and when it changed every single quarter, I don’t think we reported in the same way any quarter, and it always felt like we were doing it wrong.” (GBV/FGRM+ KII) A respondent from the Reducing GBV in Vietnamese Conservation activity also noted that they had to use the same monitoring tools as other activities, which was difficult since all of the activities had very different interventions. When discussing adaptations, program participants explained that they felt their suggestions were taken into account. For example, a change agent for Rising Up! said that their suggestion was taken up: “Yes, we suggested some things, and they were accepted. During the awareness raising sessions we noticed that things were not progressing, so we suggested the use of the media through radio broadcasts in the sensitization.” (Rising Up! FGD) Similarly, a participant of the SLEDGE activity reported that their suggestions were listened to: “We were given the privilege to indicate where the problem was in relation to land issues and violence. SLEDGE was not a dictator; they listened and asked ‘where do you need more emphasis?’” (SLEDGE FGD) It must be noted that the rigorous pre-implementation assessments made it less necessary to adjust implementation midway through, with a major exception of resistance from first-born sons for the Rising Up! activity (detailed in the implementation evaluation section below). EVALUATION QUESTION 2: TO WHAT EXTENT ARE EACH OF THE ACS ACHIEVING THE TARGETED GBV RESULTS? OUTCOMES: Are the stated outcomes realistic and achievable within the timeframe of the AC? What progress is being made toward achieving the outcomes? Intended outcomes varied across activities. The Creative Capacity Building, Alto Mayo without GBV and Rising Up! Activities focused on community-level change while the GBV/FGRM+, Advancing Equitable Norms in Conservancies, and Reducing GBV in Vietnamese Conservation activities focused on institution-level change. Overall, activities focusing on community-level change demonstrated outcomes related to empowerment and economic activities. Activities focusing on the institutional level led to outcomes related to policy creation and institutional practices; however, outcomes related to implementation were mixed. Regarding community-level activities, participants of the Creative Capacity Building and Alto Mayo without GBV activities in Colombia and Peru shared how awareness raising and training in economic activities impacted their experiences with GBV. It should be noted that these statements from activity participants might not be fully reflective of community-wide changes. Social norm change is a slow process; while it is clear that awareness raising and training impacted individuals that directly participated, it is not clear that this has led to significant and lasting changes in GBV in their communities. However, activity participants across countries reported similar positive changes as a result of these interventions. As a program participant of the Creative Capacity Building activity explained: 23 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: RISE EVALUATION USAID.GOV “I cannot let myself be trampled by someone, I cannot let myself be humiliated by someone, I cannot offer or sell my body because I need it. That is why we learned other activities, not only mining. I can do other activities from my home; I can do other things from my home to improve my economic situation and not have to go through these humiliations. And, above all, to speak out, not to remain silent when faced with the situation I am living through” (Creative Capacity Building FGD). A participant of the Alto Mayo without GBV activity stated: “There are many aspects of violence. […] Their wives can’t leave because they turn to violence, punching, or psychological abuse if they do that. We’ve learned that, as women, we cannot allow that. We cannot allow them to minimize, mistreat, hurt, or speak to us with words that can affect us. Because when a man silences a woman, that is wrong. As women, it doesn’t let us grow. They have us there, waiting. On the other hand, if they allowed and gave us the possibility to work, then yes, a woman can do that and much more” (Alto Mayo without GBV FGD). Participants of the Advancing Equitable Norms in Conservancies and Rising Up! activities reported that training prompted changes in domestic and economic activities, which had previously been sources of interpersonal conflict. These changes reportedly led to decreases in GBV. According to a participant of Advancing Equitable Norms in Conservancies: “After the training, a lot of people started encouraging that work has to be shared and that men can help their wives at home to ensure that domestic chores such as cooking and washing dishes can be done by the husband and even the boys, and therefore the woman can also go out there and look for work and bring money home. This has reduced the pressure that the man was carrying all along to ensure that they pay for school fees and all money expenses. This is why GBV incidences have gone down; both men and women are engaged in economic activities that build the home, and the woman is not begging the man for money, which is always what makes the couples in the home to fight all the time, and the man end up beating and injuring the woman” (Advancing Equitable Norms in Conservancies FGD). A participant of the Rising Up! activity said: “RISE mainly tried to resolve conflicts at the household level between the man and his wife because the woman was really neglected and the family goods such as plots and lands belonged only to the man. But when the men were sensitized and agreed to register the lands in their wives’ names, the conflicts in these households stopped” (Rising Up! FGD). Similarly, SLEDGE activity participants reported reductions in disputes over land, and increased awareness of women’s rights. A SLEDGE participant stated: “SLEDGE has reduced the number of cases going to court. We have learnt to resolve land issues and to avoid huge court expenses and time wastage. We can now save money that would be lot in the sale of land to facilitate court cases. […] SLEDGE has taught us that as a girl child I also have a right to land and a right to decision making in my family.” (SLEDGE FGD) Regarding institutional-level activities, participants from the GBV/FGRM+ and Reducing GBV in Vietnamese Conservation activities reported intended outcomes related to the creation of policies pertaining to gender-based violence. While the intended outcome of policy creation was successful, outcomes related to policy implementation were mixed. 24 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: RISE EVALUATION USAID.GOV In Fiji, Marstel Day and Wi-HER successfully designed a blueprint for an enhanced Feedback Grievance and Redress Mechanism (FGRM), an institutional mechanism to identify and appropriately refer cases of GBV when it occurs in REDD+ conflict. According to a respondent from Resonance: “The activity met my expectations in terms of the intended outcomes of engaging communities to talk about gender-based violence in natural resource management conflict, and then created the templates and forms in the FGRM itself” (Resonance KII). While the activity met the intended outcomes of the grant, activity stakeholders discussed the feasibility of policy implementation.5 As a respondent from Resonance explained: “Because the FGRM was not functional, we didn’t get to see how it worked, and we didn’t get to see if people would really come and if those trained would be able to identify GBV and refer appropriately or to those who have conflict would be comfortable disclosing. It hasn’t led any ofthe on-the-ground impact which, I don’t know if it was stated as an intended outcome, but of course, that’s the direction that this was supposed to be moving” (Resonance KII). The Reducing GBV in Vietnamese Conservation activity created Gender-Based Violence Safeguards and Protocols and provided training to organizations involved in the conservation industry. The activity met the intended outcomes of the grant, along with achieving the desired outcome of policy implementation. For example, NORC’s survey of program participants found that 67 percent of respondents believe their organizations would likely take actions, like the use of existing safeguarding policies and procedures to prevent and address GBV reported. Additionally, 52 percent believe their organization would likely take actions, like the creation of safeguarding policies and procedures to prevent and address GBV.6 Unintended outcomes of community backlash and interpersonal conflict were observed in select activities. According to a community member not involved in the Creative Capacity Building activity: “It used to happen that if the neighbor’s wife participated in the workshops, the neighbor would complain, many times it was not even the husband. [...] ‘She is going to change for the worse! You’ll see, when she comes, she’s going to start dominating you! You have to rein her in’” (Creative Capacity Building KII). For the Alto Mayo without GBV activity, participants formed a woman’s communal patrol group to respond to cases of GBV. However, the patrol is no longer mobilized due to community backlash and lack of support. 5 After coordinating KIIs with respondents from Resonance, the ET was informed by REDD+ staff that the FGRM+ was in the process of becoming operationalized. Neither ET nor Resonance knew this at the time of KIIs with Resonance. 6 Survey respondents were asked to select which actions their organizations would likely take to address GBV and workplace sexual harassment after the activity ended. N = 27; response rate = 100%. Institution-Level Activities: The GBV/FGRM+ and WildAct activities differ from others in their focus on institutions rather than communities. These activities targeted governmental and organizational stakeholders, respectively, to create policies at the intersection of GBV and the environment. WildAct created Gender￾Based Violence Safeguards and Protocols for conservation organizations to adapt and adopt while Marstel Day modified an existing policy that was not fully operationalized by the Fijian government (during the grant period). Beyond policy creation—outcomes related to community engagement, stakeholder consultation, and policy sensitization. 25 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: RISE EVALUATION USAID.GOV The Rising Up! activity’s failure to deliver land titles to all women that contributed money to obtain a land title caused serious difficulties for the individual women and created conflict within the community. A participant stated: “The big problem that we had was the money that many beneficiaries were giving to get the land titles of their fields, it is as if this money did not arrive at its destination because the activity ended, and they did not receive any document, until now there is a big problem between the community and the people who received this money, even we who sensitized these people were not well seen in the community” (Rising Up! FGD). PLANNING AND ACTIVITY DESIGN How and how well were activity plans and designs developed to achieve different GBV outcomes? Activity designs differed greatly between grantees since the content of their interventions were different. Many grantees used existing models, such as the Advancing Equitable Norms in Conservancies activity that used CARE’s Social Analysis and Action (SAA) Model to facilitate staff transformation and raise awareness of gender and power norms. Other examples include the Creative Capacity Building activity, which used Harvard’s Public Narrative Methodology, or Rising Up! which drew from Women for Women International’s existing empowerment model. However, there were also similarities across grants, such as the pairing of environmental and gender organizations. The RISE Challenge requires environmental and gender organizations to work together; thus, both are involved in decision-making and planning processes. These partnerships fostered collaboration and relationships that would have been difficult for one organization to achieve without the other. For example, Conservation International partnered with PROMSEX for the Alto Mayo without GBV activity. Staff from Conservation International reported that this partnership was ‘like a course’ on gender and LGBTQ+ issues, and they benefited greatly from working with a feminist organization like PROMSEX. Similarly, staff from Marstel Day (an explicitly environmental organization) indicated that they will use what they learned from WI-HER (a gender focused organization) to bring gender considerations into their future work. The following quote from an implementing partner for the SLEDGE activity is an example of the effectiveness of the RISE Challenge’s collaborative design: “The RISE program being a consortium was better and easier. […] The different organizations are bringing in information with regards to the work, and also helping to generate ideas” (SLEDGE KII) Context-specific planning and activity design fostered effectiveness across activities. For the SLEDGE activity, translation of materials in the local language made it easier for community members to engage with the activity’s gender-sensitive alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanism. The Alto Mayo without GBV activity design incorporated aspects of Awajún culture and customs. For example, the workshops included watching a documentary film called “Hijas de Nantu” about Awajún women’s ways of dealing with violence and patriarchy. This was followed by a discussion on polygamy, with workshop participants sharing their experiences being part of families where polygamy is practiced. The following quote from a program participant speaks to the positive impacts of context-specific activity design on the target community. “They have respected our rights, they have trained us about our culture, our customs, everything, respecting how we live, the lifestyle. […] They also provided us with information about our culture that neither we ourselves have known. […] You are helping us with these workshops. You are helping us to rescue, to recover, to conserve” (Alto Mayo without GBV FGD). 26 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: RISE EVALUATION USAID.GOV For the Creative Capacity Building activity, activities were designed to meet the practical needs of participants. A quote from a community member who did not participate in the program illustrates how context-specific planning and activity design was a facilitator of activity effectiveness. “Something that was very important was to assure them that the logistical issues of transportation, food and refreshments would be addressed. At the moment that these issues were addressed, they saw that the program not only came to provide them with knowledge, but also took into account their sacrifice, the issue of their food, the risk of leaving their homes” (Creative Capacity Building KII). Reducing GBV in Vietnamese Conservation activities were purposely planned during times that did not conflict with participants’ normal work hours. NORC’s survey of activity participants found 74 percent of respondents reported having no difficulties attending trainings or participating in activities.7 The RISE Final Report stated that all grantees noted that a longer implementation timeline would increase the effectiveness of programs. Consistent with these findings from the report, the grant timeline was an ineffective design element across activities. Participants of the Advancing Equitable Norms in Conservancies, Creative Capacity Building, and Rising Up! activities reported that more programming and extension of programming to the wider community would have been more effective. A community leader who received training from Rising Up! stated: “The RISE activity is only known here in the center, but in the villages that are far from here people are very surprised when they hear that a man has given a land to his wife: for these people, according to the culture, it is like giving land to his wife is a sin. I can recommend that if the RISE activity comes back, it should include other villages to cover the whole Groupement [equivalent to district]” (Rising Up! FGD). Furthermore, participants of Rising Up! believe that the reason some of the women who paid money toward land titling—but did not receive land titles—is because the activity was too short. INTERVENTION AND IMPLEMENTATION How well are interventions implemented to reach their target groups and influence change? Across RISE activities, changes made during implementation due to COVID-19 pandemic and certain contextual factors, such as unanticipated participant needs or resistance. Flexibility of the Fixed Amount Award (FAA) allowed grantees to make important changes during implementation. The structure of FAA awards accommodated extended timelines and modifications to the content of milestones. For example, GBV/FGRM+ activity implementers, Marstel Day and WI-HER, had planned to travel from DC to Fiji to conduct data collection and training for the gender analysis. Due to the pandemic, this was no longer possible, and funds were instead reallocated to hire local consultants to conduct activity work. Staff reported that this approach was largely successful, and the local consultants were able to conduct the work; however, they had to create new protocols and spend extra time thinking through safety concerns due to the sensitive nature of the data collection: “It was extremely challenging because obviously, it’s such a sensitive topic. It’s very hard to have conversations around GBV when you're not there. There's a lot of safety concerns. For example, just on how you're having the conversations. You don’t know if people are comfortable, even just technology wise. 7 Survey respondents were asked if they had any difficulties attending trainings or participating in activities. N = 38; response rate = 81%. 27 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: RISE EVALUATION USAID.GOV Obviously, it was quite difficult. Fiji is not really known for having a very stable internet connection.” (GBV/FGRM+ KII) Furthermore, adaptive management throughout implementation was critical to meeting contextual needs and ultimately achieving programmatic goals. For example, due to the pandemic, the Alto Mayo without GBV activity adopted a hybrid in-person/virtual approach to conduct the social tolerance study. As an implementing partner stated: “We applied for the grant in June 2020, at which point we really thought the pandemic was not going to be a problem—it will not be a big deal. It was, it certainly was. So adaptive management was pretty key” (Alto Mayo without GBV KII). Other changes during implementation, in response to contextual needs, were dictated by local realities. For example, for the Creative Capacity Building activity, implementers had to find a way to ensure the children of participants were safe and cared for while their mothers were in trainings. For the Rising Up! activity, eldest sons had to be added as a target group due to their resistance to activities. For the SLEDGE activity, the implementing partners had to intensify awareness raising about the activity and community stakeholder engagement due to initial strong resistance from the community . However, participants of FGDs for this evaluation shared evidence of norm change; a male participant stated: “SLEDGE trainings have helped us to reduce economic violence in that these days after getting money I sit down and plan with my wife on what to do with the money unlike those days where money would be kept privately in my pocket.” (SLEDGE FGD) Norms and attitudes posed substantial challenges to intervention implementation. For the Alto Mayo without GBV activity, Conservation International struggled to engage with men, and social tolerance for GBV influenced community uptake. Similarly, for the Creative Capacity Building activity, highly gendered beliefs about the difference of what men and women are supposed to do in mining hindered community uptake. In Vietnam, male leaders in the conservation sector were averse to conversations about GBV, making it difficult for the Reducing GBV in Vietnamese Conservation activity to support organizations in clearly defining GBV and addressing the issue within their organizations. Activity participants who responded to NORC’s survey provided insight on how organizational norms and attitudes impacted uptake of GBV and workplace sexual harassment protocols and safeguards. One respondent shared that an organizational barrier to addressing GBV and workplace sexual harassment is “fear of reporting such behavior.” Another respondent stated that “The hierarchical Creative Capacity Building Example: Meeting Participant Needs Many program participants of the Creative Capacity Building activity had children who needed to be cared for while their parent(s) participated in programming. While it was a challenge, the activity provided an additional space for children, with supplies for them to paint, color, or write while under the supervision of an adult. In addition to providing a safe space and activities for the children, the activity provided meals for participants and their children. Meeting participants’ child care needs was a facilitator of intervention delivery. 28 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: RISE EVALUATION USAID.GOV position and location between the leadership and employees create difficulties in speaking out due to respect and deference”8( Reducing GBV in Vietnamese Conservation open-ended survey response). Program participants who responded to NORC’s survey had mixed views on how different male participant groups were impacted by programming. Figure 3 shows which participant groups respondents felt were most and least impacted by the activity. Figure 4. Participant Groups Most and Least Impacted by Reducing GBV in Vietnamese Conservation Activities Note: Respondents selected up to three groups most and least impacted. N = 40; response rate = 85%. Respondents had contrasting views on how male office staff were impacted by the activity, with 12 respondents reporting that male office staff were among the most impacted groups, and 20 respondents reporting that male office staff were among the least impacted groups. Respondents reported that male rangers, male non-management, and male management were least impacted by the activity. These findings can be further contextualized by insights on resistance from an implementing partner: “Managers or directors, they all said to me they’re not interested or they would say ‘gender-based violence or sexual harassment does not happen in my organization.’ ‘You are wasting conservation time, wasting money’ […] the top-down approach, it’s not going to work because managers don’t want this to happen” (Reducing GBV in Vietnamese Conservation KII). The quote above illustrates the activity’s experiences with resistance from organizational management, regardless of gender. Survey respondents reported that male and female managers were least impacted by the activity, although male managers were more commonly reported as least impacted. Considering both the survey responses and insights from WildAct, the combination of gender and leadership position appeared to inform participant engagement and intervention uptake. 8 In an open-ended question, survey respondents were asked what barriers their organization faces to address GBV and workplace sexual harassment. N = 30; response rate = 67%. 29 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: RISE EVALUATION USAID.GOV MECHANISMS What are the most effective aspects of the intervention? How do these “active ingredients” operate in each AC? Awareness-raising activities were reportedly effective in changing attitudes and behaviors across interventions. Awareness raising took different forms, from workshops with community members to formal trainings with board members and leadership of conservancies. Community level sessions that were highly tailored to the cultural context were some of the most effective activities in this domain; however, activity participants noted that it’s key to have a trained psychologist or counselor during these activities to ensure proper care for survivors sharing their experiences. Awareness raising among organizational staff faced more limitations and resistance. For example, as mentioned in the previous section above, organizational leaders resisted awareness raising activities for the Reducing GBV in Vietnamese Conservation activity. While male engagement was highly important, awareness raising activities faced resistance from men, especially male leaders. For example, the Advancing Equitable Norms in Conservancies activity reported that Kenya Wildlife Conservancy Association board members who took part in a four-day training demonstrated resistance towards gender equality and strongly defended their positions. However, a male board member interviewed for the activity’s final report said that women board members became more empowered and vocal on gender issues after the training, which in turn is changing the norms of the association. This was a trend across activities: that the greatest impacts seem to stem from women participants learning of and exercising their rights in their own households, communities and associations. This being said, while it can be difficult to transform men’s attitudes and behaviors, it was important that they were included. In instances where male leaders were able to be persuaded, such as the Mwami (an important local leader) in the Rising Up! communities, this was a catalyst for other men to scrutinize and shift their views. Findings suggested that for the SLEDGE, Advancing Equitable Norms in Conservancies, and Rising Up! activities, awareness raising prompted positive behavioral change in target communities. According to a community member in Kenya who did not participate in the program, awareness￾raising activities had a direct impact on GBV in the target community. “This awareness is what is making the GBV cases to go down: women and girls are now looking out for the cases and are actively raising their voices against it. Even the aspect of inheritance for the male child is being frowned at, and most families want not to be looked at like they are retrogressive” (Advancing Equitable Norms in Conservancies FGD). A community leader who participated in the Rising Up! activity stated: “The activity prevented psychological violence because once the men got drunk and went home they started calling their wives ‘you bitch, you daughter of a bitch, you daughter of a dog,’ and the women who are victims of these kinds of insults are traumatized and some of them developed psychological disorders, but the RISE activity awakened the consciences of these men by showing them the consequences of their behavior” (Rising Up! FGD). For the Creative Capacity Building and Alto Mayo without GBV activities, awareness-raising provided participants with information about resources available to them in situations of GBV. A community member in the Creative Capacity Building target communities who did not participate in the program explained that now, women in their communities know their rights. Specifically, they know which administrative entities can offer services to survivors. 30 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: RISE EVALUATION USAID.GOV Similarly, a participant from the Alto Mayo without GBV activity spoke of how women in their community now know which institutions to go to. “There are other institutions if the same chief or authority here in your town does not support you.” (Alto Mayo without GBV FGD). Awareness-raising was an important aspect of stakeholder engagement for the GBV/FGRM+ activity. As one participant explained, GBV awareness raising was an important part of community consultation. “When gender-based violence became part of the FGRM, at first, they were reluctant. […] It took a lot of stakeholder consultation and community consultation. We did awareness activities and made them aware of the importance of this activity, because in village settings women are not heard” (GBV/FGRM+ KII). Engagement with men, particularly male leaders, was another effective mechanism. For the Rising Up! activity in DRC, participants explained that the Mwami’s participation in the land titling ceremony underscored the legitimacy of the land titles that women in the community received. Furthermore, engagement with male leaders and their uptake of the intervention had a trickle-down effect on the community. An implementing partner explained: “Role models are giving land to their wives, and they are doing it in a peaceful way. They’re telling other men that it’s okay for them to give land to their wives, and that it’s not okay to perpetrate violence against women within their household or within the community” (Rising Up! KII). For the GBV/FGRM+ activity, engagement with male leaders was a facilitator of program effectiveness. According to an implementing partner: “A positive outcome was the response from some of the higher elected leaders. When we had our training, one of the local chiefs used a metaphor about REDD+. He said gender-based violence is the meat of a sandwich, that it was a substantial part of the program” (GBV/FGRM+ KII). EVALUATION QUESTION 3: TO WHAT EXTENT ARE THE ACS SUSTAINABLE? SUSTAINABILITY What aspects of the ACs contributed to their sustainability? What components are needed for greater sustainability? Sustainability was a key concern for all RISE activities, and grantees had varying degrees of success sustaining their activities and intended effects following the RISE grant. Respondents from the Creative Capacity Building and Advancing Equitable Gender Norms in Conservancies activities expressed that the grant was too short, which hindered sustainable impacts. Some activities, such as the Reducing GBV in Vietnamese Conservation and Alto Mayo without GBV activities, focused on capacity-strengthening for environmental organizations, which led to sustainable impacts within these organizations. Others focused on policy change, such as the GBV/FGRM+ activity, which eventually led to the operationalization of the enhanced FGRM mechanism as of 2023, significantly past the end of the grant period. Key for sustainability was how the activities worked with traditional leaders and community structures to implement the activity. Engagement with local leaders strengthened the capacities of community-based structures, making it more likely that the community would be able to continue the activity, such as providing land titles and addressing GBV. For the Rising Up! activity, for example, traditional leaders were trained as Men’s Engagement Program (MEP) facilitators who were expected to lead by example through actions such as advocating in meetings and community 31 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: RISE EVALUATION USAID.GOV gatherings for women’s rights to land. For the SLEDGE activity in Uganda, Change Agents (CAs) were trusted community facilitators selected because of their influence and ability to get buy-in from members of the community. Promisingly, a clan leader in Uganda was quoted in the Annual RISE report as saying: “As a clan leader, I am willing to continue sensitizing my people on GBV and land-related issues even after the activity closes because an informed community is easy to lead.”9 Moreover, community members who participated in the SLEDGE activity are motivated to continue trainings, despite the end of the activity, because they have seen benefits conferred to the community. A participant stated that: “Even if SOCADIDO has left, we shall continue training and guiding ourselves since some people may not have been able to benefit from the SOCADIDO trainings and may want to benefit. We shall ensure that we continue to spread the good news of what the SOCADIDO program did, though it may have ended. We have to keep reminding ourselves of their impact.”(SLEDGE FGD) Sustainability is more likely when there is explicit and demonstrable change that community members can point to. This supports buy-in from those who are key to ensuring the continuation of activity objectives. For example, in addition to trainings, SLEDGE participants noted that they benefited directly from land demarcation, and they are committed to continuing this effort, whether or not their community receives more funding. Strengthening key stakeholders, such as those responsible for the implementation of the activity, can foster sustainability. The Alto Mayo without GBV activity held training sessions with CI staff and partners to strengthen their capacities to prevent, respond to, and attend to cases of GBV in local communities using an intersectional and intercultural approach. Trainings were focused on those who worked directly with beneficiaries, activity team members, communication staff, and gender experts, who could apply learning from these trainings to current and future work. Similar trainings were conducted for the Alto Mayo without GBV activity, with a focus on gender violence with Indigenous populations. Implementing partners (IPs) noted how useful trainings such as these have been, as highlighted by the following quote: “I think one component for sustainability within the activity was the organizational capacity that through policy, through training capacity, we’ve been improving capacity within the organization to incorporate gender in our programs. I think that’s quite a sustainable aspect of it. But maybe to add also on the buy-in, it really helped us to implement an S.A. [audit process] within conservancies and have community champions that can facilitate dialogue in existing platforms. So that goes beyond the activity, when you speak to some of the pilot conservancies” (Advancing Equitable Norms in Conservancies KII). In addition to strengthening key stakeholders, building and sustaining partnerships with and between stakeholders contributes to sustainability. For the SLEDGE activity, Trócaire and their partners have worked in Teso since 2007 and have strong links with the key stakeholders in the area, including the Iteso Cultural Union (ICU), national and local government and faith leaders who have strong influence on the social norms and customary practices in the target area. These long-term positive relationships will increase the community support for the activity and allow groups to engage in sensitive issues with a trusting relationship. 9 https://portals.iucn.org/union/sites/union/files/doc/rise_annual_report_2021_final.pdf 32 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: RISE EVALUATION USAID.GOV Funding is a major issue when it comes to sustainability and was a concern mentioned by multiple informants. A representative from the Reducing GBV in Vietnamese Conservation activity worried that what has been achieved in the activity may vanish, and they would struggle to find potential new streams of funding. Funding for this intersection of GBV and environment is sparse, given the newness of this focus, and the representative believed that they would struggle to find another source of funding after RISE. For the Rising Up! activity, there was no more money to continue funding land grants, which is core to the activity. Furthermore, male leaders did not believe the norms changes of the activity would continue because it would be too difficult to continue their trainings without the grant. For the GBV/FGRM+ activity, an overarching concern expressed by key informants was the sustainability of the FGRM+ due to lack of budget. Without funding, there will unlikely be enough human capital committed to operationalizing and maintaining the FGRM+, as well as ongoing training of community members on how to use the FGRM+. This quote from a grantee representative highlight this concern: “Governments don’t necessarily have excessive funding to contribute towards the program. So, I think that in the face of that, there are large sustainability concerns around the government of Fiji’s ability to invest in keeping the program itself well-staffed, and they were understaffed while we were working with them” (GBV/FGRM+ KII). Developing an exit plan for after the activity ended helped with sustainability. Nonetheless, findings indicate that sufficient time is needed to implement the exit plan and make the transition in terms of ownership of the activity and to secure future funding. As noted in the RISE annual report, “RISE grantees have made significant progress in the first year of implementation; however, social norms change takes time, and they are concerned lasting impact won’t be achieved within the roughly 24- month implementation window. The development of guidance on fundraising or sustainability may be required to help position grantees for the continuation of their work under RISE.” Exit plans were not required for grantees, and according to a Resonance representative they “did not ask grantees about their sustainability plans and how they were going to maintain or continue the impacts and the programming” (Resonance KII). Rather, sustainability of impacts was discussed between Resonance and grantees during monthly calls and a sustainability section was required in activity final reports. Overall, sustainability was not heavily focused on early in grant period. REPLICABILITY, TRANSFERABILITY AND ADAPTABILITY In what ways are the ACs replicable in the same contexts? Adaptable for other contexts? Given the novelty of GBV and environmental programming, many lessons emerged from the RISE grant that could be used to inform future programming. In its annual report on RISE, USAID wrote: “RISE provides an opportunity to test policies and practices to address GBV in environmental programs across the globe. Many grantee organizations are new to these linkages and face similar challenges, such as tailoring trainings and approaches to address GBV to the environmental context and convincing environmental organizations that addressing GBV is important to achieving their development outcomes and can be integrated into their environmental program. Conducting gender analysis that focuses on GBV is a critical first step to context-specific program design.” Multiple informants noted how informative they found their gender analysis, and they plan on using this analysis to develop and inform future programming in this intersection of GBV and environmental programming. 33 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: RISE EVALUATION USAID.GOV In addition to the gender analysis, some findings suggested that trainings could be adapted for other activities. However, there is some disagreement among informants on the adaptability of trainings. Seventy-five percent of Reducing GBV in Vietnamese Conservation activity participants who responded to NORC’s survey reported that Reducing GBV in Vietnamese Conservation’s workshops and trainings would be useful to other conservation organizations.10 Field facilitators for the Creative Capacity Building activity in one FGD believed that workshops developed could be adapted slightly to apply to other nearby communities. Yet, three participants of the activity in a different FGD felt that the trainings were very specific to the needs and values of their communities and could not be adapted, such as community leadership structures and gender dynamics within their specific mining communities. They added that the specificity of the workshops was what made them useful. This perspective seems to align with activity team members for the Alto Mayo without GBV activity, who also received trainings. They believed that the activity was not adaptable, as the trainings focused on the local community’s internal regulations and norms. Various community engagement tactics could be replicated in future activities. In particular, multiple activities focused on male engagement to address GBV. For the Rising Up! and SLEDGE activities in DRC and Uganda, men were trained to communicate activity goals and to influence one another’s thinking on women and land titling. Multiple informants stated that male engagement was key to the success of their activities and believed that it should be core to future GBV programming. While inclusion of men in programming is important, activities should also focus on how they engage men. This quote demonstrates this thinking: “I would say that every activity should focus on men. But what we learned is that it should be focused in a way that they would attend” (Alto Mayo without GBV KII). SCALABILITY What aspects of the ACs are most amenable to be scaled up? Certain aspects of activities may be more amenable to being scaled up. One aspect is the training of activity beneficiaries. FGD participants of the Alto Mayo without GBV activity who had received training on community regulations and national legislation on GBV argued that more women should participate in the training and that they would benefit greatly, based on their personal experiences with the activity. The inclusion of more women in the training would help with the broader norms changes in their community and increase overall empowerment. Trainings could be expanded by focusing on ToT and evaluating trainers on their ability to convey information on GBV. Additionally, beneficiaries stressed that future training should have a greater focus on inclusion. FGD participants from the Rising Up! activity stated that there needs to be an active effort to include older people and people with disabilities in future trainings. Additional trainings could be adapted to include more people and include types of people, such as older people, LGBTQ+ individuals, young people, and disabled people, that may have not benefited from the original activity. Another aspect that could potentially be scaled up is the process of land titling. In communities that benefited from the SLEDGE activity, many women did not go through the process of land titling. However, the majority of beneficiaries interviewed stated that people in their community have seen others receive titles and are interested in going through the process themselves. Additionally, the beneficiaries believe that women in neighboring communities would likely be interested in land titling if the activity was expanded to them. Local community leaders who engaged with the SLEDGE 10 Survey respondents were asked which activities would be useful for other organizations in Vietnam. N = 36; response rate = 77%. 34 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: RISE EVALUATION USAID.GOV activity are familiar with the land titling process and could facilitate the inclusion of more women in the land titling process. They could inform more women about land titling and streamline the process of obtaining a title. Be that as it may, FGD participants noted that funding would be a major barrier that would need to be overcome, as land demarcation and purchasing titles can be a financial hurdle for the scalability of the activity. When scaling up an activity, implementors must ensure that the quality of an activity is maintained. A Local GBV academic in Vietnam explained: “Good practices or models need to be replicated. Scaling up such activities can potentially have a bigger effect, as it can reach more people and increase the likelihood of behavior change. However, it is important to ensure that the quality and effectiveness of the campaign is maintained as it scales up. This may require additional resources, training, and monitoring to ensure that the messages are being received and understood, and that they are leading to the desired outcomes” (Vietnam Local GBV Academic KII). Furthermore, when scaling up an activity, the local GBV academic had this to say about context: “Additionally, it is important to consider the context in which the campaign is being scaled up, as cultural, social, and political factors can influence the effectiveness of the campaign. Overall, scaling up gender-based violence awareness campaigns can be a promising strategy to address this issue, but it should be done thoughtfully and with appropriate planning and resources to ensure effectiveness and sustainability” (Vietnam Local GBV Academic KII). Scaling up an activity also requires time, which many grantees reported was insufficient. Grantee representatives indicated that under the short USAID funding timeline and limited budget amount, they were not able to develop the plans or strategic mechanisms for scale-up. For example, a grantee representative from the Advancing Equitable Norms in Conservancies activity stated, “I think [scalability is] usually the problem with a lot of donors. They want a lot of changes after a brief encounter with the community. How can one expect so much just after a year and a half of engagement? In order to utilize this information to scale up to other communities, it needs time for the [beneficiary community] to learn and utilize the information and pass it to other conservancies across the country” (Advancing Equitable Norms in Conservancies KII). This was a similar sustainability gap reported by most activities. They indicated that there was simply not enough time to expand and engage other key stakeholders in ways that could foster replicability or sustainability of their initiative. 4.2 CONCLUSIONS FOR THE RISE ACTIVITY CLUSTER EVALUATION QUESTION 1: ARE THE ACS BASED ON CONTEXT-SPECIFIC AND INTERNATIONAL EVIDENCE? What worked: In general, findings indicated that the RISE cluster grantees developed valuable evidence at the start of their activities. The needs assessments required for RISE grants were well appreciated, useful, and led to important adaptations to intervention design before full implementation. Grantees generally agreed that the needs assessments were well worth the time and effort since they led to important program decisions and adaptations. Mid-implementation, RISE shifted its monitoring and evaluation framework to respond to the difficulties of collecting quantitative data to establish causal links between GBV and environmental outcomes. While this 35 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: RISE EVALUATION USAID.GOV change was challenging for some grantees, overall, grantees found the monitoring to be manageable and found that there was enough flexibility to adapt to realities on the ground. Challenges: For most groups, needs assessment research was taken very seriously, which made them very time consuming. Some partners had already worked with USAID and knew what to expect, while others were not fully prepared for the level of rigor required to produce good evidence. Several respondents commented that first-time partners for USAID or very small-scale organizations might struggle with these assessments. If time and resources are not built into activity budgets for them, this type of evidence-building could delay implementation, as was the case for the Rising Up! activity. While the first major RISE Challenge assumption—that partnerships between environmental organizations and GBV focused organizations will strengthen the capacities of each to work in the intersection of GBV and environmental programming—held true, the second did not. The second major assumption—that evidence produced by RISE will support causal linkages between GBV and environmental outcomes—was not feasible within the timeframe and resource constraints of the grants. EVALUATION QUESTION 2: TO WHAT EXTENT ARE EACH OF THE ACS ACHIEVING THE TARGETED GBV RESULTS? What worked: Overall, activities achieved the GBV results that were proposed. Activities that focused on community-level change generally resulted in outcomes related to empowerment and economic opportunities. Specifically, the combination of programming related to awareness-raising and economic activities reportedly influenced participant experiences of GBV. Findings indicate that the activities drew on their evidence to develop context-specific plans and intervention designs, which contributed substantially to intervention effectiveness. Activities that incorporated aspects of local culture and customs reportedly had positive effects among the target communities. Activities that met the practical needs of participants (e.g., transportation) achieved strong participant engagement, uptake, and satisfaction. The most effective mechanism across activities was different programs’ ability to raise awareness about gender dynamics, equality, and gender-based violence. Positive behavioral change was reported across activities that focused on community-level change. Awareness-raising activities such as the Men’s Discussion Group (GDH) for the Rising Up! activity promoted positive behavioral change related to GBV prevention and protection of GBV survivors. Engagement and awareness building with the local community also helped to manage conflict due to challenges related to land titling, such as confusing processes for receiving a title or tensions between family members over land titles. Challenges: Changes in the intervention design during implementation were dictated by the COVID-19 pandemic and local realities. Flexibility of the Fixed Amount Award (FAA) and the use of adaptive management techniques allowed grantees to modify interventions and implementation in ways that were critical to effectiveness and delivery. For example, in response to the pandemic, funds for the GBV/FGRM+ activity were reallocated to hire local consultants to conduct activity work. For institution-level activities, outcomes related to policy creation were met while outcomes related to policy implementation were mixed. Norms and attitudes posed challenges to implementation in activities that focused on GBV at the community and institutional levels. For example, at the community level, social tolerance for GBV influenced community uptake for the Alto Mayo without GBV activity. Furthermore, at the institution level, some conservation organizations reportedly described the Reducing GBV in Vietnamese Conservation activity’s work on GBV and workplace sexual harassment as a waste of time and resources. Finally, an important challenge was that some women did not get their customary land titles that they paid for under the Rising Up! activity. 36 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: RISE EVALUATION USAID.GOV EVALUATION QUESTION 3: TO WHAT EXTENT ARE THE ACS SUSTAINABLE? What worked: Several achievements of the specific RISE activities have potential to be sustained or replicated by others. Activities provided new insights on the intersection of GBV and the environment, such as how women are treated within conservation organizations and the roles women are expected to take within certain ASM communities, that can be applied to future programming. Gender analyses enabled activities to tailor training trainings and approaches to GBV to the environmental context and integrate a gender lens to existing environmental programming. Needs assessments were regularly described by respondents as useful in informing activities and potential replications or adaptations. Awareness-raising and training models were also described as useful and replicable. Furthermore, awareness-raising and trainings have potential for scale-up, with sufficient time and funding. Challenges: In general, the evaluation findings suggest that many specific RISE activities are unlikely to be well sustained or scaled up because of the limited time and funding to expand or entrench the activities in local practice. The ability of the activities to achieve sustainable interventions was limited by the difficulties of shifting local structures and challenges of empowering local groups and individuals to continue pursuing activity goals. Furthermore, respondents did not agree on the adaptability of interventions, given how context-specific many were. 4.3 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE RISE ACTIVITY CLUSTER Directions for future research and programming: Through KIIs with local GBV academics across activity countries, the ET identified directions for future research and programming at the intersection of GBV and environmental outcomes. Experts contextualized activities within the landscape of GBV and the environment in their countries. Across interviews, experts highlighted the importance of having good data, intersectionality, and engagement with men in future research and programming. These recommendations are detailed in the overall portfolio performance evaluation report. EVALUATION QUESTION 1: ARE THE ACS BASED ON CONTEXT-SPECIFIC AND INTERNATIONAL EVIDENCE? These recommendations draw on the analyses and conclusions of the evaluation findings, which strongly indicate the value of well-produced local evidence to inform intervention designs. Importantly, the RISE cluster findings also highlight the substantial potential value of sharing evidence and practices within the country and internationally—for example, across the RISE cluster. Sharing across grantees and other groups represents an excellent opportunity to cross-check and consolidate evidence and intervention design experiences and lessons. ● Promote needs assessments and consolidation and sharing of international evidence: Future funding for iterations of RISE or programming at the intersection of GBV and environmental programs should maintain and support the needs assessment component of RISE. They should also maintain the standards of rigor set by Resonance in this iteration. However, more time and resources (funding for staff time, data collectors and researchers) should be allocated in budgets for the assessments to avoid delayed implementation and support skills-building to undertake future similar research by teams on the ground. Moreover, in future grants, USAID and other donors should consider funding their grantees (and other groups) to share and discuss needs assessment methods, their intervention 37 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: RISE EVALUATION USAID.GOV designs and outcome findings among those working on the same complex challenges, such as climate and/or GBV. ● Develop locally informed assumptions and stakeholder- and participant￾articulated causal pathways: USAID and other donors will reap exponential benefits from supporting partnerships between gender-focused and environmental organizations. These types of multi-sector collaborations can help strengthen the assumptions, particularly context- or population-specific assumptions, that underpin intervention designs. Cross￾sector partnerships can also foster the participation of differently affected community members who can help co-design activities, particularly to consider causal pathways between proposed intervention activities and desired outcomes in a Theory of Change. The causal pathway mechanisms and intermediate outcomes are often the neglected “black box” in theory-based interventions. Importantly, future funding should include financial and training support for community members’ participation—versus relying on tokenistic or unfunded “volunteer” time from disadvantaged residents. ● Commission and fund rigorous research on linkages between climate change and GBV. The activities were able to begin to indicate the benefits of joint funding (environment and GBV), but it was beyond the scope of the program to achieve robust data on associations between GBV and climate change. If donors want evidence on causal linkages or correlations between GBV and the effects of climate change, donors should invest in equitable partnerships between professional research teams who can ensure rigorous study designs and local groups who know the context and populations—and who are likely to benefit from learning these types of research techniques. ● Flexible but user-focused monitoring for intervention adaptations: Future funding for programs such as RISE should emulate the flexibility of the grants management under Resonance. The techniques that permitted groups to shift their intervention designs based on emerging monitoring data generally led to useful program adaptations. However, intervention monitoring processes need to be feasible, not burdensome for small organizations, and emerging data needs to be fed back in ways that are usable by the implementing partners. Future monitoring processes are likely to work better if they are co￾designed by the implementing agencies, with support from groups like Resonance or research agencies familiar with co-production or user-centered design techniques. EVALUATION QUESTION 2: TO WHAT EXTENT ARE EACH OF THE ACTIVITY CLUSTERS ACHIEVING THE TARGETED GBV RESULTS? Evidence from this evaluation suggests that the activities appeared to be achieving the outcomes related to GBV awareness and emerging attitude and behavior change. Activities seemed to influence local understanding of women’s rights to live free of violence, and certain activities were increasing women’s ability to secure land tenure. Activities were less successful in achieving evidence on the relationship between violence and the effects of climate change. However, these research outcomes might have been overpromised, especially within the limited timeframe and absence of professional research staff to design such a complex study and collect and analyze these types of complex data. ● Establish realistic objectives and measurable outcomes: Future community-targeted programs should continue to invest in collaboration between GBV and environmental programming because these joint activities appear to promote valuable changes in attitudes and behaviors. However, if donors plan to fund interventions to achieve institutional change 38 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: RISE EVALUATION USAID.GOV and effective implementation of policies, donors and local groups should be encouraged to undertake a realistic feasibility assessment to determine what does “successful implementation” look like and what outcomes are achievable and measurable in the funding timeframe. Given the variety of stakeholders and political will often necessary for policy implementation, it will be important to assess what is realistic to expect of groups during the timeframe of the grant. However, even if effective implementation is not achievable in the specific stage of funding, the process of developing policy-related activities can offer local groups the opportunity to convene and define realistic and achievable outcomes, such as policy development or refinement or increased stakeholder engagement and advocacy for institutional change. ● Replicate context-specific planning and design and allow for flexibility and longer timelines during implementation: Future iterations of RISE should continue to integrate context-specific planning and design, which should integrate local culture, customs, and interests. Furthermore, implementers should seek information about the practical needs of participants while planning interventions. For example, Change Agents in Rising Up! needed weatherproofing gear in order to travel between villages during the rainy season, and participants of the Alto Mayo GBV activity needed to find childcare during activity sessions. If it is not possible to ascertain sufficient information about the practical needs of participants, interventions should be designed and budgeted in ways that can accommodate unknown or unanticipated practical needs of participants during implementation. The context-specific collaborative planning and design (e.g., strong participant engagement, uptake, and satisfaction) should be repeated in future iterations of RISE. It may also be beneficial to provide cross-activity funding to enable groups to share what they have learned and are learning from their planning and design process. In addition, grantees indicated that the timelines for implementation were too short. Reducing GBV and other social norm change takes time, and the next iteration of RISE is planned to have longer time frames, which should improve implementation and enhance impacts. ● Continue supporting adaptive management: Future iterations of RISE should continue to utilize FAAs and adaptive management techniques. FAAs and adaptive management provided critical flexibility during intervention implementation. The challenges of COVID-19 and unanticipated local realities are likely not unique to this iteration of the RISE. Future natural or human-made disasters may necessitate similar intervention or implementation adjustments that FAAs and adaptive management can accommodate. For example, in response to the pandemic, the Alto Mayo without GBV activity adopted a hybrid in￾person/virtual approach to conduct the social tolerance study. Similarly, given the nature of GBV interventions, unanticipated challenges related to norms and attitudes (e.g., resistance from first-born sons for the Rising Up! activity) are not uncommon and can be accommodated through FAAs and adaptive management. ● Combine awareness raising with livelihood activities, and engage men: Future programs that bring together programs on GBV and the environment should explore the relationships between awareness-raising and economic activities. While RISE activities did not generate evidence on the causal linkages between GBV and environmental outcomes, they provided insight on programming approaches that reportedly sparked behavioral change, particularly related to the combination of empowerment and economic opportunities. For example, participants of the Alto Mayo without GBV and Creative Capacity Building activities described how knowledge of their rights and new skills empowered them to push back when experiencing GBV, knowing they have other ways to 39 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: RISE EVALUATION USAID.GOV generate income. The combination of awareness-raising and programming related to economic activities can foster exponential outcomes related to GBV and livelihoods that can be adapted and replicated. Engagement of men is critical for future programs at the intersection of environmental programming and GBV. However, men can resist such activities, and it can be helpful to couch GBV related content within content that is more tailored to their specific interests, such as including a module on GBV within a livelihoods training. In addition, when male leaders resist activities such as the case of the Combating GBV within Vietnamese Conservation activity, it can be helpful to focus on more ‘bottom￾up’ approaches rather than ‘top-down’ change coming from management level staff. In this case, WildAct held activities on weekends and invited male staff to join outside of their normal working hours, to circumnavigate leaders that did not allow their staff to join during the week. EVALUATION QUESTION 3: TO WHAT EXTENT ARE THE ACTIVITY CLUSTERS SUSTAINABLE? ● Establish rigorous exit plans, plan for longer timelines and work with local leaders: Programs should work with traditional and community structures, as well as traditional holders of power, including men. An exit plan for after the grant ends is necessary to sustain an activity and its goals. Participants and stakeholders must receive tools to continue activities, such as trainings. There must be sufficient funding and time to establish sustainability and ensure activity impacts. Interventions that seek to reform or set up new systems of natural resource governance (e.g., land tenure reform) require longer timelines given their large scope of change – potentially requiring more time to become sustainable systems or see impacts. Comparatively, interventions that seek institutional changes may have a smaller scope of change and built-in sustainability of the existing institution itself – potentially requiring a modest amount of time to become sustainable or see impacts. Overall, timelines in the next iteration of RISE should be based on activity context, scope of change, and sustainability. Finally, key stakeholders should be strengthened, so they are better equipped to take ownership of an activity, and the local community and/or the community leadership should be engaged to ensure that they will take ownership of the activity once the grant ends. ● Use monitoring data to scale up trainings: Elements of RISE activities such as trainings have potential for scale-up—with sufficient time and funding. Evaluation results suggest that monitoring data may be particularly informative to understand what worked and did not work during implementation. Process-monitoring data may also indicate how different contextual factors might have influenced the delivery, uptake, and effectiveness of the intervention, which will be valuable for attempts to expand or scale up these activities. ● Draw from pre-implementation analyses and replicate in similar communities: Future programs should use the lessons learned from the RISE activities to inform future activities, including the gender analysis. Engagement with communities, such as trainings, could be adapted when implementing similar activities in similar communities. 40 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: RISE EVALUATION USAID.GOV 5.1 FINDINGS FOR THE IE EVALUATION QUESTION 1: IS THE ACTIVITY DESIGN BASED ON THE LOCAL CONTEXT AND FLEXIBLE TO ACHIEVE RESULTS ON THE GROUND? DESIGN: What factors contributed to the design of the activity? How were priority gbv interventions identified? The design of the Rising Up! activity in DRC was a land tenure intervention in which the partners sensitized community members and leaders through training Change Agents and supported women to obtain land titles. The sensitizations also addressed GBV with messaging around gender equity and norm change. The primary type of violence that the partners addressed was economic violence, but they also included sensitization around intimate partner violence and other forms of GBV. The activity was designed to be a pilot intervention in eight villages and drew from existing IFDP and Women for Women International (WfWI) models11 for land tenure reform and gender equity sensitization. The design originally centered around sensitizing women, but through gender analysis and then subsequent monitoring, the partners adapted their design to include other groups in the community, including men, youth, and customary leaders. A substantial achievement of the activity was the inclusion of the Mwami, a major customary leader in the communities, to declare support for the activity and promote land tenure for women. The Mwami had already established a relationship with Women for Women International, which has been working in Nyangezi for years before the Rising Up! activity. The Rising Up! final report states, “We believe the Mwami’s active participation stems from the fact that it is in his best interest to be actively involved in a project that helps reduce conflict and violence within the communities. Since WfWI began working in Nyangezi, he responded in person to an invitation to a field activity for the first time.” The longstanding work of WfWI and IFDP in the communities was a key factor in getting personal support from such an important leader. The next sections on implementation and flexibility outline the most effective and ineffective components of the intervention design and illustrate how the design changed during implementation. KEY IMPLEMENTATION METHODS: What are the key implementation methods to achieve objectives? According to men trained by the activity and women change agents who participated in FGDs for this evaluation, one of the most effective strategies in implementation appeared to be the engagement and sensitization of men, especially customary leaders. A male participant explained that the trainings for men, couples, and first-born sons were extremely important: “First, there is the Men’s Discussion Group (GDH) training; second, there is the training of model couples; and third, there is the training of young people, especially the eldest sons, after their recommendation. These trainings were the most important because they were the ones that instilled good information in the families and in the whole community” (Men Trained by the Program FGD). 11 The original design drew from Women for Women’s model for women that promotes their social and economic empowerment, along with vocational and savings trainings. This model also involves the training of women Change Agents who will sensitize others in their communities. The concept for the RISE grant came from research that Women for Women International commissioned in 2015 that investigated barriers to accessing or controlling land in South Kivu. Through partnering with IFDP, they used IFDP’s land tenure intervention models in combination with their women’s economic and social empowerment intervention models. This combination produced the design for Rising Up! in South Kivu, addressing the findings of their commissioned research. 5. IMPLEMENTATION EVALUATION FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 41 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: RISE EVALUATION USAID.GOV A man trained by the activity who participated in the focus groups explained that the sensitization of men as well as their inclusion in land demarcation activities prevented both economic and intimate partner violence: “It allowed us to prepare the men to feel convinced of the importance of granting the land to their wives. During the field visit, we called the husband, his wife and children as well as all their neighbors to witness what we are doing, especially during the measuring. […] The wives can breathe now because before they were not allowed to use the product from lands as they wished, but today since they were given the lands, they harvest their lands without being beaten by their husbands” (Men Trained by the Program FGD). Women who started or completed the land titling process also spoke of the effectiveness of engaging men through trainings and “Model Couples”: “The activity set up the ‘Model Couples,’ which trained the women and their husbands, and for the men who were violent, these trainings transformed them. In any case we were all happy to see that we already have an opportunity to dialogue with our husbands in our homes” (Women Who Started or Completed the Land Titling Process FGD). Importantly, land titling was not common for either men or women in the customary governance system, as noted by a man trained by the activity: “RISE has revolutionized governance here in our country because before there were no men, and even less so women, who held titles to their lands or plots of land, but today people are even surprised to see that there are women who have documents for their lands while there are still many men who do not. This is really a huge change!” (Men Trained by the Program FGD). The focus on land titles for women and not men could have exacerbated backlash and resistance from men. However, the activity’s sensitization of men helped mitigate this resistance. The most effective strategy to mitigate resistance reported by respondents, however, was the engagement of the Mwami. Respondents from focus group discussions with women change agents, men trained by the program, women who started or completed the land titling process, and land reflection group members all spoke of how the Mwami’s support strengthened the efficacy of the intervention. Two quotes illustrate the importance of the Mwami: “Then the Mwami came here to Nyangezi. Several people from here were born, grew up and they risked dying by old age without having seen the Mwami, but thanks to the RISE activity he came here, and he makes us women respected” (Women Change Agent FGD). “The arrival of the MWAMI who is the guarantor of the custom, here in Karhongo, himself in person, was an important moment of the activity because it gave value to the activity and its serious character. […] Some of the men saw that he had come to give the land titles to the women and were convinced to give the lands to their wives” (Men Trained by the Program FGD). While the land tenure components of the intervention were greatly strengthened by engaging men to prevent economic GBV and address perpetrators, a major challenge to implementation was a lack Preventing Economic and Psychological Violence: Voice of a Woman Change Agent “The activity has had positive effects on economic violence because when a woman has and manages her field it is an economy, when a woman buys a land it is an economy because before the woman did not have this right to access the land and manage it. The activity has also had positive effects on psychological violence because when the woman understands that she can now buy and sell the land, she feels stable and less anxious because she feels valued in society” (Women Change Agent FGD). 42 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: RISE EVALUATION USAID.GOV of government services to refer survivors, as described by the Local GBV academic interviewed in the DRC: “These gender thematic groups as structured according to the national gender strategy were means to coordinate interventions in the field in the territories, […] but the government has not given the means to these groups to work as they should. Now we are starting to ask NGOs to finance these thematic groups, whereas it is these groups that should control the work of the NGOs, but how can you control someone who gives you the means to function” (DRC Local GBV Academic KII) However, the activity identified and established a relationship with the Panzi Foundation, which is one of the few organizations that provides comprehensive services for survivors in DRC. This link enabled the activity to offer referrals to high-quality services to GBV survivors and provide resources for community members if they need services in the future. Overall, the activity surpassed its targets in terms of sensitization. According to the final report, the activity ended up reaching 1,418 women through sensitization efforts, well above the original target of 600, as well as 1,441 men. However, there were several major flaws in implementation that had negative repercussions for change agents trained by the activity and women who pursued land titles. One important adverse outcome was confusion around the fees for land titles. Throughout implementation, there was ongoing advocacy with customary leaders around land title fees, but they refused to waive them and did not discount them, as much as the activity advocated for it. Participants from FGDs were unaware of the unsuccessful advocacy with local leaders to waive or heavily discount the fees. Instead, participants expressed that this change was a surprise, as a participant who was trained by the activity and a woman who went through the land titling process explained: “The change that we observed, for example, is that at the beginning of the activity, we were told that when we started granting land titles, we would ask the beneficiaries, i.e., the women, for a small contribution, but curiously, during the implementation, the beneficiaries were asked to pay a huge amount” (Men Trained by the Program FGD). “At the beginning we were told that to register a land and obtain a land title it is free, but then they asked us to pay something, and this created disappointment in many people because not everyone was able to find the money requested, which made many people withdraw from the process” (Women Who Started or Completed the Land Titling Process FGD). A quote from an implementing partner staff member also commented on the fee amounts for women for their land titles: “Throughout the implementation, we encounter some challenges with, like, the amount of fees that woman had to pay to obtain the land titles. […] So we had to kind of rework the budget a little bit and figure how to cover—help women cover those expenses” (Rising Up! KII) In this context, even small fees can be extremely difficult for women to pay. Therefore, this was a major obstacle to the success of the activity. A substantial flaw in implementation was that when the activity ended, some women who had paid their fees for land titles had not received the titles yet and had no means to pursue their titles or reimbursement of their fees. This caused problems for change agents within the community since they had sensitized community members and advocated applying for the land titles. 43 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: RISE EVALUATION USAID.GOV In general, the activity did not ensure the systems persisted and this caused problems for the communities after the partners left. A woman change agent explained problems with sustainability (more details in the sustainability section below): “The problem is that the activity could not achieve all its objectives because it ended, because when we wanted to register our lands, for example, there was no way to do so after the activity ended” (Women Change Agent FGD). FLEXIBILITY: Is there sufficient staffing to respond to local priorities: is there flexibility to change approaches to respond to lessons and changing challenges in the local environment? Several key aspects of the program’s approach were changed during implementation, such as the inclusion of radio and media programs and the engagement of eldest sons in sensitization. There were also changes in activity staff, which disrupted activities. One partner staff commented, “Unfortunately, when the leader of the activity left, we had experienced instability at the level of the staff. And it was a bit confusing” (Rising Up! KII). However, at the level of management from Resonance, activity staff said that there was sufficient flexibility to adapt their work plans during implementation. The gender analysis was also informative to adapting the intervention model to ensure it aligned with local realities. A partner staff member explained how the gender analysis shaped their program, leading to one of the most effective elements, which was the engagement of men and specifically male customary leaders: “Before, we didn’t think as much about the men’s engagement program. […] Usually when I was doing the male engagement program, we weren’t targeting specifically customary chiefs, village chiefs. But with the gender analysis, we have understood that they are the ones who are the decision makers in relation to the right to land. And we even have to prioritize these people, these customary chiefs among male leaders, so that they help us to sensitize others. That is an adaptation we did” (Rising Up! KII). Women change agents from FGDs explained that their sensitizations changed from focusing only on women to targeting more and more community members: “Instead of organizing trainings only for women, we changed and started organizing mixed trainings for women and men. Even at this level we realized that it was not enough, so we started to organize trainings for women, men, and youth. […] These changes were made because we explained to them that working only with women had little chance of seeing the activity succeed because everything also depended on men being convinced. […] Had it not been for the sensitizations, the men would not have agreed to give us the lands” (Women Change Agent FGD). A key adaptation was the engagement of eldest sons. Young activity participants explained that “we, the youth, were not included in the activity at the beginning, but it was during the execution of the activity that we were involved” (Male Youth FGD). This quote illustrates how young men were not initially included, even after the gender analysis but were brought in midway through implementation when the implementing partners realized that there was resistance from eldest sons. Since the activity disrupted customary inheritance processes in which land goes from fathers to eldest sons, the eldest sons felt that their rights to land were being infringed upon as their fathers gave land to their wives. However, the activity was able to sensitize eldest sons specifically to mitigate this resistance. A woman who had gone through the process of land titling discussed how the activity affected eldest sons: 44 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: RISE EVALUATION USAID.GOV “You find yourself in a family where there are boys and girls, but the eldest son alone takes all the property including the lands left by his father to the detriment of his sisters and younger brothers. But with the training and awareness raising sessions of the RISE activity, for the moment it’s going well, because people are starting to talk about Congolese law, saying that it says that girls can also inherit like boys. This activity has helped us a lot” (Women Who Started or Completed the Land Titling Process FGD). The activity also adapted in other important ways according to suggestions from participants. For example, they added radio programs and media coverage based on the recommendations of change agents during implementation. This flexibility allowed for greater impacts and reached more people with GBV related content. Capacity to adapt to local needs: There was very limited capacity to support outreach and engagement, even in small-scale but tangible ways. Sensitization facilitators did not have stipends for transportation to remote villages, and there were no stipends for sensitization participants. This was particularly difficult during the rainy season, as many of the change agents concurred: “Respondent 1: We were worried because the incentive fees we were given were very insignificant. Respondent 2: Other difficulties were that we didn’t have any protection, i.e. raincoats and leggings to protect us from the rain. Respondent 3: I personally was injured during the sensitization activities, but I didn’t even have a pill to treat myself. Respondent 4: We live from day to day, that’s why when we came back from the sensitization activities tired with nothing to eat for our families, it was a problem.” (Men Trained by the Activity FGD). “The problem is that we didn’t have raincoats or leggings to reach the villages, and when we returned to our houses tired without bringing anything, our husbands asked us what work we were doing that didn’t have a salary” (Women Change Agent FGD). “Respondent 1: The only difficulty that I saw was the motivation that they gave us, they gave us 10 USD per month; we have families—this amount was too insignificant. We asked them each time to increase it to 20 USD, but it didn't last. Respondent 2: The difficulty that I had while we were carrying out activities, is that we asked them, as they do not give us salaries, to give us raincoats and leggings to face the rains during the activities, but nothing was done in this sense. Respondent 3: The difficulty that I had noticed is that we had no protection while we were passing in dangerous places.” (Men Trained by the Activity FGD). Key Adaption: Engaging First-Born Sons A respondent from the activity staff explained that they had to change their approach because they faced resistance from first-born sons: “We were challenging the traditional inheritance processes in the DRC. Where the land is owned by the man and then is inherited by the first-born son, with no thought about the wife or the daughters even though according to the legislation, it should be passed on to the wife first over the son. So, that’s something we found out as we were implementing and so we kind of tried to quickly strategize and do some engagement and awareness raising with the first-born sons, and I think that was really successful. However, I think if we were to do a similar activity in the future, this is something that we would start from the get-go.” 45 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: RISE EVALUATION USAID.GOV This intervention design was seriously challenged by the minimal transport stipends and absence of basic materials like raincoats, combined with the most serious difficulties for change agents, which were the ways that women were left without their titles despite paying the fees. The latter especially is a major ethical flaw that affected both the intervention participants and the change agents. EVALUATION QUESTION 2: IS THE ACTIVITY REACHING PARTICIPANTS THEY ARE MEANT TO TARGET? TARGET PARTICIPANTS: What are the barriers to reaching participants? As described in the flexibility section above, the target participants of the program were greatly expanded over the course of implementation in order to better engage men, youth, and customary leaders. The activity ended up training male change agents as well as women and targeting sensitizations specifically for husbands and eldest sons. WfWI already had a presence in the DRC, which helped them drum up enthusiasm for their work. The staff member explained, “There was definitely, obviously excitement from the woman in the communities, because they were already aware of our work in other nearby communities. And similarly, towards the end of the activity we heard in other communities where we already work that they also heard from their neighbors like obtaining land titles, and they also want to be able to do that” (Rising Up! KII). The Local GBV academic interviewed in the DRC argued that the status quo of gender work in this part of the DRC is not sufficient to change norms and behaviors. The expert explained: “For all this time, Sud-Sivu has been the entry point for NGOs, it’s really even the entry point for the fight against sexual and gender-based violence. […] There are organizations that worked here before we started, there were organizations like ‘Solidarité Paysanne,’ there are organizations like ‘Uhaki,’ there are organizations like ‘Comité Anti Bwaki,’ and all these organizations only aimed at the interests of women, but why the situation does not change” (DRC Local GBV Academic KII). So, the adaptation of Women for Women’s usual model to engage men much more intensely could be a key change to this status quo that could improve how impactful gender equality interventions are in this area. MONITORING OF RESULTS Implementing partner staff interviewed for this evaluation said that they did not have any major challenges with the monitoring structure of the activity, even though it was rigorous and time consuming. This quote from a staff member that explains how monitoring led to more engagement with eldest sons illustrates that there was intensive monitoring and feedback from participants that led to tangible changes in their approach: “We hadn’t noticed this role in the gender analysis, but we noticed during the implementation because we were collecting feedback from the people who are on the activity. And we learned that there are young first￾born sons in families who didn’t like this activity. […] When we learned that, we adjusted. […] Young focal points who were trained on the right to land and on gender continue today to make programs on community radio. […] Young people who were a blockage of the activity were fully implicated in implementation at the end, without any resistance at the community level” (Rising Up! KII). 46 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: RISE EVALUATION USAID.GOV Even though the gender analysis was highly rigorous—WfWI collected data from a total of 139 respondents in individual surveys and 56 individuals in FGDs and key informant interviews—the fact that this risk was not identified during the analysis shows the importance of strong monitoring and adaptation, which this activity exemplified. EVALUATION QUESTION. 3 IS THE ACTIVITY ACHIEVING SUSTAINABILITY? Overall, the RISE activities lacked plans for sustainability. Sustainability strategies were not required for RISE grantees, and as a result, many did not have exit plans or transitional leadership built into their activities. Sustainability was further undermined by the brevity of activities, which undermined their ability to establish deeper societal, cultural, and economic changes. This sentiment was shared by most informants, as demonstrated by the quotes below: “I believe it was too short as a program, and all of those grantees would have needed at least another year to become stronger and potentially learn how to make it sustainable for themselves. It’s a new topic, it’s not an easy one and it’s a sensitive one, but there are a number of things that could have been. It’s one of those programs that probably more than others, needed a longer time” (Resonance Staff KII). “I think in general, how USAID implements programs is pretty challenging. Five years to do anything in development is drop in the bucket. It’s not enough time. I think in order to do better at this, look at defense activities, for example. They last for 10 years. Because I think that’s what's required. If you’re actually trying to have any sort of like sustained impact, 5 years, or in our case 2 years, you leave, and then nobody picks it up. Or if somebody does pick it up, I think it’s been too much time. It’s just it's very challenging” ( GBV/FGRM+ KII). WfWI and IFDP developed an exit plan with customary authorities, members of land reflection groups, women change agents, and male champions to ensure the continuation of the process of land titling after the end of the activity. Land reflection group members explained in FGDs that they would continue their work raising awareness: “We who have received training will continue to raise awareness because wherever we are, we will always talk about women’s rights, especially with regard to access to land, even if the activity has ended. Especially since the activity has given us a kind of notoriety in the community, people who have land worries resort to us as a member of the GRF [French acronym for land reflection group]” (Land Reflection Group Members FGD). Nonetheless, despite establishing an exit plan, the land titling process has seemingly ended due to lack of funding. Therefore, a confluence of funding and planning is needed for activities to continue. 5.2 CONCLUSIONS FOR THE IE EVALUATION QUESTION 1: IS THE ACTIVITY DESIGN BASED ON THE LOCAL CONTEXT AND FLEXIBLE TO ACHIEVE RESULTS ON THE GROUND? What worked: The original design for the intervention was based on IFDP’s and W4WI’s existing models for land tenure interventions and women’s empowerment interventions. The initial model focused primarily on sensitizing women; however, during the gender analysis and implementation, the design was expanded to involve more men, customary leaders and youth. This adaptation ended up being key to the success of the activity. Effective intervention components included sensitization activities targeting men and the relationship that the activity built with the Mwami, a major 47 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: RISE EVALUATION USAID.GOV customary leader in South Kivu. These components helped the activity exceed its targets in terms of women starting or completing the process of land titling. There was substantial flexibility in program implementation, which allowed the program to respond to and mitigate resistance from eldest sons to the activities. Challenges: There were several important negative aspects of implementation. The activity was not able to have land title fees waived for women, which is a difficult obstacle in the context of the DRC. And, importantly, some women paid their fees but never received land titles after the partners left, which put the change agents in very bad positions in their communities. There was limited flexibility to respond to the needs of change agents. For example, change agents requested but were not provided with weatherproofing for their sensitization sessions during the rainy season or support for their transport between villages. Figure 5. Summary of Effective and Ineffective Intervention Components for the IE Legend: Blue = Effective and Red = Ineffective EVALUATION QUESTION 2: IS THE ACTIVITY REACHING PARTICIPANTS THEY ARE MEANT TO TARGET? What worked: While the activity initially primarily targeted women, it expanded its scope to engage men, customary leadership and youth. This was based on the gender analysis and on results monitoring during implementation. This expansion of target participants was a crucial adaptation to the original design that influenced the success of the activity. Strong results monitoring allowed the activity to identify and mitigate resistance from first-born sons. This shows that even if the pre￾implementation assessments like the gender analysis are rigorous, there still must be careful monitoring and program agility to adapt to realities on the ground. Challenges: While the activity adapted to include more groups over time, there was still resistance from eldest sons that could have hindered its effectiveness for at least the first part of implementation. In addition, the activity faced challenges with its advocacy to the Mwami. While the Mwami’s close involvement was a success factor, the fact that they could not waive land titling fees was a major obstacle for the women who the activity was meant to target. 48 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: RISE EVALUATION USAID.GOV EVALUATION QUESTION 3: IS THE ACTIVITY ACHIEVING SUSTAINABILITY? What worked: WfWI and IFDP developed an exit plan with customary authorities, members of land reflection groups, women Change Agents and male champions. Land reflection groups in particular said that they would continue awareness-raising past the end of the activity. Women who received land titles during the activity’s timeline will continue owning their land, which will have positive impacts for years to come. Challenges: While the activity developed an exit plan with customary authorities, members of land reflection groups, women Change Agents, and male champions—the plan was insufficient. Respondents reported that some women paying for land titles did not receive them after the activity ended. More extensive exit planning was needed, or a longer implementation timeline, to ensure that changes in the title process would persist past the end of the grant. In other words, expectations were raised and then possibilities disappeared. 5.3 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE IE EVALUATION QUESTION 1: IS THE ACTIVITY DESIGN BASED ON THE LOCAL CONTEXT AND FLEXIBLE TO ACHIEVE RESULTS ON THE GROUND? ● Design inclusive gender-inclusive activities and involve community leaders: RISE grants will likely benefit from components engaging men and local leaders to secure their support for the women and increase respect for women’s rights. Public announcements of support from local leaders such as the Mwami can be enormously helpful to the safety and success of interventions addressing economic GBV. In particular, male local leaders like the Mwami can help reduce resistance from men in the community. Having long standing relationships in communities, such as W4WI’s many years of work in Nyangezi, helps establish these kinds of important relationships with local leaders. ● Ensure implementation plans and timeline are designed to fulfill expectations: RISE grants should ensure that their planning and timelines are sufficient to meet the expectations of—and especially the investments made by—participants. That is, if women start the process of land titling, they should be guaranteed to receive land titles. No women should ever lose money because they trusted the land titling process. ● Budget for fair compensation for intervention staff: Change agents must be fully compensated for their work, including stipends that are comparable to wages. Budgets should include line items for logistical support, such as equipment, refreshments for participants, and weatherproofing. EVALUATION QUESTION 2: IS THE ACTIVITY REACHING PARTICIPANTS THEY ARE MEANT TO TARGET? ● Include a range of participants to secure wider community support: Engaging a broad base of community members can help prevent opposition and might foster greater assistance and solidarity for women affected by economic GBV. In particular, activities should aim to gain support from men, customary leaders, and youth alongside women. ● Monitor emerging effects and use data to adapt programs: The monitoring system for RISE was very useful to provide information that improved the intervention model. 49 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: RISE EVALUATION USAID.GOV Strong monitoring for this activity allowed program implementers to identify and mitigate resistance from eldest sons. Monitoring tools should be included in future programming. EVALUATION QUESTION 3: IS THE ACTIVITY ACHIEVING SUSTAINABILITY? ● Prevent adverse outcomes by ensuring ethical program completion if not program sustainability: If program sustainability cannot be assured beyond the funding period, donors and implementing agencies must be certain that their program will not cause harm to participants. Especially when the program involves investments by poor people, implementing agencies must make careful exit plans to ensure that the activity does not have adverse outcomes for participants. Donor and program accountability is essential. For example, for women who invested in land titles, the implementing agency needed to assure follow-up actions would be conducted to assure women would receive land titles they had paid for—in some cases at great cost to themselves, such as taking loans. To be ethical, grants that aim to change systems of governance and social norms must be longer than two years to give time for major shifts and to avoid harmful outcomes or backlash. 50 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: RISE EVALUATION USAID.GOV ANNEX A: EVALUATION STATEMENT OF WORK Gender Based Violence: Portfolio Performance Evaluation Scope of Work Version 2 BACKGROUND USAID’s Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment Hub (GenDev) in the Bureau for Development, Democracy, and Innovation (DDI), advances gender equality and women’s empowerment (GEWE) as fundamental for the realization of human rights, and key to effective and sustainable development outcomes. To achieve Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment globally, GenDev collaborates with Operating Units (OU) across the Agency supporting USAID’s programming in all sectors. Preventing and responding to gender-based violence (GBV) is a U.S. government (USG) priority. GenDev supports USAID’s efforts to prevent and respond to GBV in more than 60 countries through its thought leadership, training and technical assistance, and programming initiatives. GenDev has contracted NORC at the University of Chicago (NORC) to carry out a performance evaluation of its GBV portfolio comprising four activity clusters: (a) women’s economic empowerment (WEE) activities directly funded by GenDev integrating GBV prevention and response activities; (b) Collective Action to Reduce Gender-Based Violence (CARE-GBV) small grants activities; (c) Resilient, Inclusive & Sustainable Environments (RISE): A Challenge to Address Gender￾Based Violence in the Environment; and (d) Better Together Challenge (BTC) activities funded by GenDev integrating GBV prevention and response interventions. This Scope of Work (SOW) 2 document specifies the objectives of the performance evaluation, the activities that will be included in the evaluation, the evaluation questions, possible data collection methods, the timeline/period of the performance and implementation evaluation from Phase 3b12 onwards, reporting, and deliverables. Definitions: Since GenDev included the four activity clusters (ACs) based on a need for further monitoring and evaluation (M&E), the term portfolio is used only to discuss the four ACs together. Activities funded under each AC are referred to as activities to align with the Agency definition. PPE OBJECTIVES This Portfolio Performance Evaluation (PPE) will examine the effectiveness of the portfolio/ACs in achieving their objectives and outcomes, the lessons learned and gaps that are currently not being addressed. Within each AC, NORC will assess if the goal for each AC is being met and how specific activities are being implemented, their quality and challenges. In addition, NORC will conduct an implementation evaluation for a limited set of activities (perhaps one from each AC if feasible), examining how the specific activity is working (if it is on the right pathway to achieving end outcomes), for whom, and in what context. This work will consider the programmatic assumptions, identify intervention challenges and facilitators, and explore engagement with beneficiaries and 12 The Portfolio Performance Evaluation includes several Phases: (1). Scope of Work 1, (2). Evaluability Assessment, (3a). Scope of Work 2, (3b). Evaluation Design Report, (4). Portfolio and Activity Cluster Evaluation and Reporting, (5). Implementation Evaluation and Reporting, (6) Overall PPE Report, Evaluation Debriefing and Dissemination. 51 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: RISE EVALUATION USAID.GOV partners. Findings will inform recommendations for USAID’s future programming and guide future monitoring and evaluation approaches to strengthen USAID’s evidence for decision-making. ACTIVITIES INCLUDED IN THE EVALUATION The following activities will be included in the portfolio and activity cluster level evaluation. NORC will also determine one activity within each cluster that will be the target of the implementation evaluation, if appropriate. Table 9. Activities under each Activity Cluster ACTIVITY CLUSTER LIST OF EVALUABLE ACTIVITIES COUNTRY Better Together Challenge 1. Democracy International’s (DI) Women Exercising Leadership for Cohesion and Meaningful Empowerment (WELCOME) 2. Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society (HIAS)’s Shifting Power Dynamics: Engaging Men in Gender-Based Violence Reduction 3. National Coordination Coalition (NCC)’s Bridging the Gap for Venezuelan Migrants (BTG4VM) 1. Guyana 2. Panama 3. Trinidad & Tobago CARE-GBV 1. Žene sa Une (ZSU) 2. Women Against Rape (WAR) 3. Sexual Offences Awareness and Response Initiative (SOAR) 4. Crisis Center Hope (CCH) 5. Sexual Violence Research Initiative (SVRI) 4. Bosnia & Herzegovina 5. Botswana 6. Nigeria 7. North Macedonia 8. Global RISE Challenge 1. Creative Capacity Building to Address Gender Based Violence in the Artisanal and Small-Scale Mining Sector in Colombia 2. Resource-ful Empowerment: Elevating Women’s Voices for Human and Environmental Protection in Congolese Small-Scale Mining. 3. Conservation of the Alto Mayo Landscape without Gender Violence 4. Tz’unun: Ending Environmental Violence Against Indigenous Women in Guatemala through Empowerment in Community Forestry, Agroecology and Collective Healing Spaces 5. Combating Gender-based Violence in Vietnamese Conservation 6. Advancing Equitable Gender, Social and Power Norms in Community Conservancies in Kenya. 7. Gender Empowerment and Transformation: Tackling Resource￾Based Conflict and Gender-based Violence in Fiji 8. Rising Up!: Promoting Congolese Women’s Land Access and Preventing GBV in eastern DRC 9. Securing Land Rights & Ending Gender Exclusion 9. Colombia 10. Democratic Republic of Congo 11. Peru 12. Guatemala 13. Vietnam 14. Kenya 15. Fiji 16. Democratic Republic of Congo 17. Uganda WEE 1. Global Labor Program: Levi-Strauss Partnership 2. Engendering Utilities (WAGE) 3. A Micro-Journey to Self-Reliance 4. Enabling Environment for Economic Empowerment of Women 5. New Partnerships Initiative (NPI): Latin America 18. Lesotho 19. Global 20. Benin 21. Burundi 22. Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico EVALUATION QUESTIONS Table 8 includes the evaluation questions and sub-questions at the portfolio, activity cluster and individual activity level. 52 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: RISE EVALUATION USAID.GOV Table 10. Evaluation Questions Evaluation Question EQ-Sub-questions PORTFOLIO QUESTIONS 1. How are the USG’s guiding principles and priorities to end GBV being incorporated into the four activity clusters (AC)? Prevention: In what ways is the USG activity portfolio contributing to reduced risks? Protection: How does the portfolio contribute to accessible, effective services for violence survivors? Accountability: How does the portfolio contribute to ending impunity? 2. To what extent are the USG objectives being achieved across the 4 ACs? Coordination: How are the GBV prevention and response efforts being coordinated and managed at the Agency, Activity Cluster and Activity levels?? Integration: How are GBV prevention and response efforts being integrated into current and future GenDev work and informing related programs? Data. How is GenDev’s GBV portfolio collecting, analyzing, and using data and research to enhance prevention and response efforts? Expansion: How is GenDev’s GBV portfolio helping to expand and improve GBV programming? 3.What lessons are being learned and to what extent is there sharing of best practices, lessons, and information across the 4 ACs? Foundations: Are lessons regarding foundations of GBV being shared with AC implementing partners? Populations: What types of populations are being engaged in the AC? Which vulnerable and underserved populations have been included? Stakeholders: Which stakeholders are being engaged to achieve results? 4.What pervasive gaps still exist in understanding GBV and addressing specific types of GBV? Intervention planning and design: What are important knowledge and practice gaps in planning and designing GBV interventions? Forms of violence: What are important knowledge and practice gaps in addressing specific forms of GBV? Reach and effectiveness: How is the GBV portfolio influencing the reach and effectiveness of interventions? ACTIVITY CLUSTER QUESTIONS 1.Are the activity clusters based on context-specific and international evidence? Needs assessment and intervention evidence: How well were needs assessments conducted and intervention evidence collected to inform the cluster activities? Assumptions: What assumptions were made to design and implement the activity clusters? How accurate were any assumptions? Causal pathways: What causal pathways or theories of change were articulated for the activity clusters? Monitoring and adaptations: How well are interventions monitored and emerging findings contributing to intervention adaptations or improvements? 2. To what extent are each of the activity clusters achieving the targeted GBV results? Outcomes: Are the stated outcomes realistic and achievable within the timeframe of the AC? What progress is being made towards achieving the outcomes? Planning and activity designs: How and how well were activity plans and designs developed to achieve different GBV outcomes? Intervention implementation: How well are interventions implemented to reach their target groups and influence change? Mechanisms: What are the most effective aspects of the intervention? How do these ‘active ingredients’ operate in each AC? 53 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: RISE EVALUATION USAID.GOV Evaluation Question EQ-Sub-questions 3. To what extent are the ACs sustainable? Sustainability: What aspects of the ACs contributed to their sustainability? What components are needed for greater sustainability? Replicability, transferability and adaptability: In what ways are the ACs replicable in the same contexts? Adaptable for other contexts? Scalability: What aspects of the ACs are most amenable to be scaled up? IMPLEMENTATION EVALUATION QUESTIONS 1. Is the activity design based on the local context and flexible to achieve results on the ground? Design: What factors contributed to the design of the activity? How were priority GBV problems identified? Implementation: What are the key intervention methods to achieve objectives? Flexibility: Is there sufficient staffing to respond to local priorities? Is there flexibility to change approaches to respond to lessons and changing challenges in the local environment? 2. Is the activity reaching beneficiaries they are meant to target? Target beneficiaries: What are the barriers to reaching beneficiaries? Monitoring of results: Is the activity collecting evidence on what is working, not working and what could be done differently to achieve results? 3. Is the activity achieving sustainability? Sustainability: What plans are in place for sustainability? What is the evidence of potential sustainability? POSSIBLE DATA COLLECTION METHODS The evaluation will comply with USAID Evaluation requirements as stated in the ADS and the USAID Evaluation Policy. The expected evaluation type is a Performance Evaluation. The evaluation team will use a comprehensive evaluation design and methodology, using a mixed method approach (e.g., desk review, interviews, focus group discussions, key informant interviews, monitoring indicators, web-based survey, etc.) as indicated in Table 3 below, that will generate the highest quality and most credible evidence on each evaluation question, subject to budget constraints across the full portfolio evaluation. Other data collection methods such as outcome harvesting, and most significant change may also be considered and will be explored by NORC. Note: Considering the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic situation worldwide, the evaluation team must consider an alternative plan for fieldwork, including employment of local consultants and usage of IT tools and approaches to remote evaluation. EVALUATION TIMELINE. 54 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: RISE EVALUATION USAID.GOV REPORTING AND DELIVERABLES. Evaluation Design: The report will indicate the three levels of evaluation and a detailed approach and methodology to answer the evaluation questions. Implementation Evaluation Report: This report will include an overview chapter as well as 3-4 separate chapters/sections for each of the individual activity implementation evaluations. Performance Evaluation Report: This report will include an overall synthesis report and 4 separate chapters corresponding to each GBV AC. Post evaluation action plan: This report will include various agreed-upon product(s) to debrief the evaluation activities, disseminate findings, discuss recommendations, and follow-up programming actions responding to recommendations. Knowledge sharing and dissemination: The team will present findings to key stakeholders, including policy briefs, webinars and re-usable slide deck. DRG-LER II TASKING NO. 54 GBV PPE - RISE CLUSTER FGD FOR COLOMBIA 55 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: RISE EVALUATION USAID.GOV Table 11. Evaluation Design with Data Collection Methods for each AC EVALUATION QUESTION SUB-QUESTIONS BETTER TOGETHER CARE-GBV RISE WEE PORTFOLIO QUESTIONS 1. How are the USG’s guiding principles and priorities to end GBV being incorporated into the four ACs? ● Prevention: In what ways is the USG activity portfolio contributing to reduced risks? ● Protection: How does the portfolio contribute to accessible, effective services for violence survivors? ● Accountability: How does the portfolio contribute to ending impunity? ● KIIs or web surveys with a few open-ended questions posed to stakeholders (not IPs) such as local government officials or local advocacy groups to assess how much the activities impacted these three principles in their geographic areas ● FGDs with program participants ● Journals of survivor participants (for referral services) Not Applicable ● KIIs or web surveys with a few open-ended questions posed to stakeholders (not implementing partners) such as local government officials or local advocacy groups to assess how much the activities impacted these three principles in their geographic zones ● Systematic activity document review ● KIIs with IP senior leadership, reps from partner organizations and other key stakeholders ● FGDs with beneficiaries ● Outcome Harvesting to explore outcomes of capacity building interventions for the Vietnam and Kenya activities ● Activity document analysis ● KIIs with IP senior leadership, reps from partner organizations, other key stakeholders ● FGDs with beneficiaries DRG-LER II TASKING NO. 54 GBV PPE - RISE CLUSTER FGD FOR COLOMBIA 56 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: RISE EVALUATION USAID.GOV EVALUATION QUESTION SUB-QUESTIONS BETTER TOGETHER CARE-GBV RISE WEE 2. To what extent are the USG objectives being achieved across the 4 ACs? ● Coordination: How are the GBV prevention and response efforts being coordinated and managed at the Agency, Activity Cluster and Activity levels? ● Integration: How are GBV prevention and response efforts being integrated into current and future GenDev work and informing related programs? ● Data. How is GenDev’s GBV portfolio collecting, analyzing, and using data and research to enhance prevention, response, and learning efforts? ● Expansion: How is GenDev’s GBV portfolio helping to expand and improve GBV programming? ● Group KII with Resonance ● Group interview with GenDev activity managers on data use ● Confirmation on design and implementation details with GenDev activity manager and leads ● KIIs with IP senior leadership, reps from partner organizations, other key stakeholders ● KIIs or group interviews with CARE￾GBV IP to assess efforts to connect grantees together for communities of practice. ● KIIs or group interview with GenDev activity managers on data use ● KIIs with IP senior leadership, reps from partner organizations, other key stakeholders ● KIIs with GenDev activity managers and leads ● KIIs or group interviews with Resonance to assess efforts to connect grantees together for communities of practice. ● Group interview with GenDev activity managers on data use ● KIIs with IP senior leadership, reps from partner organizations, other key stakeholders ● KIIs with GenDev activity managers and leads ● Group interview with GenDev activity managers on data use ● KIIs with IP senior leadership, reps from partner organizations, other key stakeholders 3. What lessons are being learned and to what extent is there sharing of best practices, lessons, and information across the 4 ACs? ● Foundations: Are lessons regarding foundations of GBV being shared with AC implementing partners? ● KIIs with other funders in this space that have offered additional funding to IP orgs ● KIIs or group interviews with Making Cents International to assess efforts to share lessons learned among grantees. ● KIIs with other funders in this space that have offered additional funding to IP orgs ● KIIs with local GBV academics to discuss activity models/approaches and their appropriateness ● KIIs with GenDev activity managers ● Group interview with GenDev AC leads DRG-LER II TASKING NO. 54 GBV PPE - RISE CLUSTER FGD FOR COLOMBIA 57 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: RISE EVALUATION USAID.GOV EVALUATION QUESTION SUB-QUESTIONS BETTER TOGETHER CARE-GBV RISE WEE ● Populations: What types of populations are being engaged in the AC? Which vulnerable and underserved populations are been included? ● Stakeholders: Which stakeholders are being engaged to achieve results? ● KIIs with regional/local GBV academics to discuss activity models/approaches and their appropriateness (e.g., Ladysmith for BTG4VM) ● KIIs with IP senior leadership and reps from partner organizations ● Group interview with Resonance ● KIIs with IP senior leadership, reps from partner organizations, other key stakeholders ● KIIs with IP senior leadership and reps from partner organizations, particularly those working on business development ● KIIs with IP senior leadership, reps from partner organizations, other key stakeholders ● FGDs with local organizations 4. What pervasive gaps still exist in understanding GBV and addressing specific types of GBV? ● Intervention planning and design: What are important knowledge and practice gaps in planning and designing GBV interventions? ● Forms of violence: What are important knowledge and practice gaps in addressing specific forms of GBV? ● Reach and effectiveness: How is the GBV portfolio influencing the reach and effectiveness of interventions? ● KIIs with USAID Mission staff ● KIIs with local GBV academics to discuss activity models/approaches and where there are gaps in programming ● KIIs with GenDev activity managers and leads ● KIIs with IP senior leadership, reps from partner organizations, other key stakeholders ● Activity document analysis, especially final reporting/MEL data ● KIIs with USAID Mission staff ● KIIs or group interviews with Making Cents International to determine programming and knowledge gaps. ● KIIs with IP senior leadership, reps from partner organizations, other key stakeholders ● Secondary data analysis (activity and MEL data) ● KIIs with USAID Mission staff ● KIIs with GenDev activity managers and leads ● Key informant or group interviews with representatives from Resonance, because they have a big picture view of the full range of intervention types being implemented ● KIIs with local GBV academics to discuss activity models/approaches and where there are gaps in programming ● KIIs with GenDev activity managers and leads ● KIIs with USAID Mission staff ● KIIs with IP senior leadership, reps from partner organizations, other key stakeholders ● FGDs with local GBV academics ● Secondary data analysis (indicator tracking and other MEL data) DRG-LER II TASKING NO. 54 GBV PPE - RISE CLUSTER FGD FOR COLOMBIA 58 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: RISE EVALUATION USAID.GOV EVALUATION QUESTION SUB-QUESTIONS BETTER TOGETHER CARE-GBV RISE WEE ● KIIs with IP senior leadership, reps from partner organizations, other key stakeholders ● Systematic activity document review, especially final reporting/MEL data ACTIVITY CLUSTER QUESTIONS 1. Are the activity clusters based on context-specific and international evidence? ● Needs assessment and intervention evidence: How well were needs assessments conducted and intervention evidence collected to inform the cluster activities? ● Assumptions: What assumptions were made to design and implement the activity clusters? How accurate were any assumptions? ● Causal pathways: What causal pathways or theories of change were articulated for the activity clusters? ● Activity document analysis ● Group interview with GenDev AC leads and Resonance, separately ● KIIs with non-GenDev USAID staff/advisors that might have played a role in formation of clusters ● Activity document analysis ● KII/group interview with GenDev AC leads ● KIIs or group interviews with Making Cents International to assess their input in activity design ● KIIs or group interviews with grantees to determine their collection and use of MEL data across cluster activities ● Activity document analysis ● KIIs with local GBV academics to discuss activity models/approaches and their appropriateness ● KIIs or group interviews with Resonance to assess their use of MEL data across cluster activities ● KIIs with GenDev activity managers and leads ● KIIs with GenDev activity managers and leads ● Group interview with GenDev AC leads ● FGDs with local organizations DRG-LER II TASKING NO. 54 GBV PPE - RISE CLUSTER FGD FOR COLOMBIA 59 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: RISE EVALUATION USAID.GOV EVALUATION QUESTION SUB-QUESTIONS BETTER TOGETHER CARE-GBV RISE WEE ● Monitoring and adaptations: How well are interventions monitored and emerging findings contributing to intervention adaptations or improvements? ● Key informant interviews or maybe web surveys with a few open-ended questions posed to stakeholders (not implementing partners) such as local government officials or local advocacy groups to assess the extent of their involvement in activity design ● Group interview with GenDev AC leads ● KIIs with non-GenDev USAID staff/advisors that might have played a role in formation of clusters 2. To what extent are each of the activity clusters achieving the targeted GBV results? ● Outcomes: Are the stated outcomes realistic and achievable within the timeframe of the AC? What progress is being made towards achieving the outcomes? ● Planning and activity designs: How and how well were activity plans and designs developed to achieve different GBV outcomes? ● Web survey to IPs with targeted (open ended) questions about their model and theory of change, such as: were your assumptions underlying your theory of change correct in practice? Did the impact pathways you envisioned pan out how you thought they would? Is there anything that you would change about your intervention model? ● Activity document analysis ● KIIs with GenDev activity managers ● Group interview with GenDev AC leads ● KIIs/web surveys with IP senior leadership, reps from partner organizations, other key stakeholders ● Secondary data analysis (activity and MEL data) ● Beneficiary web surveys, where possible ● Web survey to IPs with targeted (open ended) questions about their model and theory of change, such as: were your assumptions underlying your theory of change correct in practice? Did the impact pathways you envisioned pan out how you thought they would? ● Activity document analysis ● KIIs with GenDev activity managers ● Group interview with GenDev AC leads ● KIIs/web surveys with IP senior leadership, reps from partner organizations, other key stakeholders ● Secondary data analysis (indicator tracking and other MEL data) ● Beneficiary web surveys, where possible DRG-LER II TASKING NO. 54 GBV PPE - RISE CLUSTER FGD FOR COLOMBIA 60 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: RISE EVALUATION USAID.GOV EVALUATION QUESTION SUB-QUESTIONS BETTER TOGETHER CARE-GBV RISE WEE ● Intervention implementation: How well are interventions implemented to reach their target groups and influence change? ● Mechanisms: What are the most effective aspects of the intervention? How do these ‘active ingredients’ operate in each AC? ● KIIs/Web Surveys with reps from partner organizations, other key stakeholders ● Secondary data analysis (indicator tracking and other MEL data) ● KIIs/Web Surveys with reps from partner organizations, other key stakeholders ● Secondary data analysis (indicator tracking and other MEL data) ● Beneficiary web surveys, where possible ● KIIs with local GBV academics to discuss activity models/approaches and their appropriateness 3. To what extent are the ACs sustainable? ● Sustainability: What aspects of the ACs contributed to their sustainability? What components are needed for greater sustainability? ● Replicability, transferability and adaptability: In what ways are the ACs replicable in the same contexts? Adaptable for other contexts? ● Scalability: What aspects of the ACs are most amenable to be scaled up? ● KIIs with GenDev AC lead and BTC Director (Resonance) ● Interviews with people involved with managing the funding mechanisms that GenDev tapped into for CARE ● KIIs with GenDev AC leads ● KIIs or group interviews with CARE￾GBV contractor to assess to discuss scale up potential, sustainability and challenges between contexts ● Interviews with people involved with managing the funding mechanisms that GenDev tapped into for RISE ● KIIs with GenDev activity managers ● Group interview with GenDev AC leads ● KIIs or group interviews with Resonance to assess to discuss scale up potential, sustainability and challenges between contexts ● Systematic document review ● KIIs with GenDev activity managers ● Group interview with GenDev AC leads ● KIIs with IP senior leadership, reps from partner organizations, other key stakeholders ● Secondary data analysis (indicator tracking and other MEL data) INDIVIDUAL ACTIVITY QUESTIONS DRG-LER II TASKING NO. 54 GBV PPE - RISE CLUSTER FGD FOR COLOMBIA 61 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: RISE EVALUATION USAID.GOV EVALUATION QUESTION SUB-QUESTIONS BETTER TOGETHER CARE-GBV RISE WEE 1. Is the activity design based on the local context and flexible to achieve results on the ground? ● Design: What factors contributed to the design of the activity? How were priority GBV problems identified? ● Implementation: What are the key intervention methods to achieve objectives? ● Flexibility: Is there sufficient staffing to respond to local priorities? Is there flexibility to change approaches to respond to lessons and changing challenges in the local environment? ● Activity document analysis ● KIIs with GenDev activity managers ● Web surveys with a few open-ended questions posed to Resonance and IPs. ●Activity document analysis ●KIIs or group interviews with Making Cents International to assess design, implementation, and flexibility in the activity ●KII/group interview with GenDev AC leads ● Activity document analysis ● KIIs with local GBV academics to discuss activity models/approaches and their appropriateness ● Key informant interviews or maybe web surveys with a few open-ended questions posed to stakeholders (not implementing partners) such as local government officials or local advocacy groups to assess the extent of their involvement in activity design ● KIIs with IP senior leadership, reps from partner organizations, local GBV academics, and other key stakeholders ● Activity document analysis ● Web surveys for IP staff and other partner organization staff, where feasible ● KIIs with GenDev activity managers 1.Is the activity reaching beneficiaries they are meant to target? ● Target beneficiaries: What are the barriers to reaching beneficiaries? ● Monitoring of results: Is the activity collecting evidence on what is working, not working and what could be done differently to achieve results? ● Activity document analysis ● Secondary data analysis (indicator tracking and other MEL data) ● Survey / KII data from activity ● Web survey with some open-ended items with Resonance ● KIIs/Web Surveys with reps from partner organizations, other key stakeholders ● Secondary data analysis (indicator tracking and other MEL data) ● Beneficiary web surveys, where possible ● KIIs with local GBV academics to discuss activity models/approaches and their appropriateness ● KIIs/web surveys with IP senior leadership, reps from partner organizations, other key stakeholders ● Secondary data analysis (activity and MEL data) ● Beneficiary web surveys, where possible ● Activity document analysis ● KIIs with GenDev activity managers ● KIIs with IP senior leadership, reps from partner organizations, other key stakeholders ● Secondary data analysis (indicator tracking and other MEL data) ● Beneficiary surveys ● FGDs with beneficiaries DRG-LER II TASKING NO. 54 GBV PPE - RISE CLUSTER FGD FOR COLOMBIA 62 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: RISE EVALUATION USAID.GOV EVALUATION QUESTION SUB-QUESTIONS BETTER TOGETHER CARE-GBV RISE WEE ● Employee web surveys, where applicable 2. Is the activity achieving sustainability? ● Sustainability: What plans are in place for sustainability? What is the evidence of potential sustainability? ● KIIs with IP senior leadership, reps from partner organizations, other key stakeholders ● Web survey with some open-ended items with Resonance and other funders and local organizations ● KIIs/web surveys with IP senior leadership, reps from partner organizations, other key stakeholders ● Secondary data analysis (activity and MEL data) ● Beneficiary web surveys, where possible ● Key informant interviews or maybe web surveys with a few open-ended questions posed to stakeholders (not implementing partners) such as local government officials or local advocacy groups to assess how activity activities will be sustained ● KIIs/web surveys with IP senior leadership, reps from partner organizations, other key stakeholders ● Secondary data analysis (activity and MEL data) ● Beneficiary web surveys, where possible ● Activity document analysis ● KIIs with GenDev activity managers ● Group interview with GenDev AC leads ● KIIs with IP senior leadership, reps from partner organizations, other key stakeholders ● FGDs with community members DRG-LER II TASKING NO. 54 GBV PPE - RISE CLUSTER FGD FOR COLOMBIA 63 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: RISE EVALUATION USAID.GOV ANNEX B: EVALUATION METHODS AND LIMITATIONS Qualitative Data Collection Details: Interviews ranged between 60–90 minutes and were audio￾recorded (with respondents’ consent) to enable transcription and in-depth analysis. Interviews were conducted in English, French, Swahili, Vietnamese, or Spanish, and transcripts were translated to English for analysis. After administering the informed consent protocol, the ET used a semi￾structured interview guide that was organized by portfolio and activity cluster-level topics. The interview guide included questions on needs assessments, causal pathways, monitoring and adaptations, planning and design, intervention implementation, and sustainability, among other evaluation themes. See Annex C for all KII guides. Transcripts were uploaded to MAXQDA (version 2022), a qualitative analysis software for coding and analysis. A detailed codebook was iteratively developed and tested to include portfolio level, activity cluster level, and implementation evaluation codes across activity clusters in this PPE, including codes that were specific to RISE. KIIs were analyzed using the codebook, and coded segments were exported to conduct in-depth analysis and prepare code summaries. Focus group discussions followed a parallel process to the interviews in terms of consent, semi-structured FGD guides covering the evaluation topics, and analysis using MAXQDA. See Annex C for all FGD guides. Quantitative Data Collection Details: The web survey was distributed to participants in two ways—personal links sent directly to participants via email and a general survey link shared in a Facebook group managed by WildAct. Based on a contact list provided by WildAct, emails with individual survey links were sent to 88 program participants, and a total of 83 responses came from this distribution method. At the time of survey deployment, the Wildlife Conservationist for a Better World of Work Network Facebook group had 205 members. The results of this survey distribution method were not nearly as robust as the other, with only four responses received. Based on a pre￾survey screener—which asked specific questions about the activity that only program participants can correctly answer—the four responses received were filtered out and not part of the analytic sample. Accounting for duplicates, the combined response rate for both surveys is 54 percent (47/87), and the analytic sample is 47 responses (all responses come from the survey administered through individual links). 64 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: RISE EVALUATION USAID.GOV ANNEX C: DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENTS CREATIVE CAPACITY-BUILDING TO ADDRESS GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE IN THE ARTISANAL AND SMALL-SCALE MINING SECTOR IN COLOMBIA FGD GUIDE   Date: Start Time: Genders of Participants: Topic Question INTRO / ACKNOWLEDGE: Hello. My name is ______ and I work for NORC at the University of Chicago. I’ll be moderating today’s focus group discussion. I will let my colleague(s) introduce themselves. I want to thank you for coming and participating in this interview, which is part of an evaluation of RISE activity for USAID’s Office of Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment. NORC has been contracted as an external, independent organization to collect data for USAID that will inform current and future USAID-funded programming focused on GBV prevention and response. While NORC does a lot of work WITH USAID, we do not work FOR USAID. We are completely neutral on all the issues we will be talking about, and we’re just here to learn about your perspective and experiences. That means you don’t need to worry about making us happy or hurting our feelings. Please be candid in your answers. We ask that you respect everyone’s right to participate and share their experience. Feel free to answer directly after I pose a question or to chime in about what the other fellows are saying. Please speak one at a time and ensure that everyone has a chance to speak. Today’s focus group discussion is planned for 90 minutes. Your participation is voluntary. If you are unable to answer a question, you may skip it or even stop the interview at any time; there will be no repercussions for this. However, your feedback will be very useful in helping in informing current and future USAID-funded programming focused on GBV prevention and response. We ask each of you not to repeat today’s discussion to others. Please be mindful when you express your opinions that we cannot guarantee full confidentiality because of the group setting. Do you have any questions before we get started? [ANSWER QUESTIONS] If you have any questions later, please e-mail Ritu Nayyar-Stone, the project director for this study at nayyarstone-ritu@norc.org. [PUT RITU EMAIL IN CHAT] With your permission, I’d like to record today’s interview. This will enable us to go back and substantiate our notes. The recording will never be shared with USAID. It will be kept within this research team and destroyed at the end of this study. Do you agree to participate in today’s study and to have this interview recorded? [Moderator, go around the room and ask for everyone’s verbal approval] [START RECORDING] The recording has started. Could you please confirm for me one more time on the tape that you agree to participate in this study and have this interview recorded? Thank you. Introduction Today we are going to discuss the Creative Capacity-Building to address gender-based violence in the artisanal and small-scale mining sector in Colombia project. To get started, could you please go around the room and let me know how long you have been involved in this project, and briefly state your role in project activities? PORTFOLIO QUESTIONS 65 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: RISE EVALUATION USAID.GOV Topic Question Prevention 1a. In your opinion how has the X activity helped your community prevent episodes of GBV, if it has at all? Please give a show of hands if you believe that it has. 1b. In the past X months, what have been the most important contributions of the X activity to prevent GBV in your community/organization? [Moderator: Please try to get at least one response from all participants] 1c. What other services could activity X provide to your organization or community to prevent instances of GBV? Stakeholders 2. During your participation in the X activity, did staff ask you about aspects of the activity that could improve? ● Do you believe your opinions about the X activity resonated with activity staff? Why? ACTIVITY CLUSTER QUESTIONS Needs assessment and intervention evidence 3a. Do you think activity X responded to the needs and priorities of your org/community? Why? 3b. What components do you remember most? Which were most useful to you? How were they useful? 3c. Are there any activities that you wish had been included in the activity? Specific to Activity 3d. Have your personal narrative skills changed as a result of the project? How so? Please give examples. 3e. Have you learned more about the process of co-design as a result of the project? Do you think that you will use these skills in the future? How so? 3f. Have your advocacy skills improved as a result of the project? How so? Please give examples. Monitoring and adaptions 4. During your interaction with the X activity staff, were there any changes in the activity? [IF YES:] Please, give me an example. [IF YES:] Why do you think these changes were implemented? Were there changes in the context of your community/org that led to these adjustments? [IF NOT:] Do you think there were adjustments that were necessary to the activity but were not implemented? Please, explain. Outcomes 5a. What’s your understanding of the X activity goals? 5b. To what extent did the activity accomplish x results? 5c. Do you think that the activity objectives matched the actual results? 5d. Did the X activity do what it was supposed to do? Why or why not? Specific to Activity 5f. Has this project led to improved income equity between women and men miners? How so, and could you share any examples? 5g. Do you think this project has improved natural resource management in your community? In your household? Why or why not? Intervention Implementation 6a. Who benefited most from this activity? Did certain groups benefit more than others? Are there any groups of people that you think should have been included, but were not? 6b. Who else should be engaged and was not in the activity? Mechanisms 7a. What were the best and most helpful parts of this activity? 7b. Which components had the most positive results or impact? 66 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: RISE EVALUATION USAID.GOV Topic Question Sustainability 8a. Do you think that positive results from the X activity will continue in the future? Please, identify one or two, if possible. [Moderator, please go around the room and ensure that all participants give at least one response]. 8b. Which activities are more likely to continue? Why? Is this desirable for your community/org? 8c. Which activities will be less likely to continue? Why? Would the community receive benefits if these activities continued? 8d. What do you think your organization/community needs to do to make sure these activities continue? (open-ended response) 8e. Have you experienced any resistance from community members or leadership to the changes promoted by this activity? Please describe them. 8f. Have community members supported or expressed enthusiasm for this work? Describe? 8g. Have there been any unexpected consequences (good or bad) to these reforms or activity activities in general? Scalability 9a. What aspects of this activity could be useful to women in other communities or regions? Which ones? Could they be expanded geographically? Please explain. 9b. Are there any that you think would not work well in other places? Why? Or that could not be scaled up? Why? Closing Thank you all for taking the time to participate. This is the end of the discussion. 67 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: RISE EVALUATION USAID.GOV RISING UP! FGD GUIDE Date: Start Time: Gender of participants: (circle one) Female Only FGD Participants Male Only FGD Participants Mixed Gender FGD Participants Location of Focus Group Discussion: Respondent Category: (circle one) Women who have completed or have started but not yet completed the process of land titling Male leaders who received training Women change agents Land reflection groups members Topic Question INTRO / ACKNOWLEDGE: Hello. My name is ______ and I work for a research organization called NORC at the University of Chicago. I’ll be moderating today’s discussion. I will let my colleague(s) introduce themselves. I want to thank you for coming and participating in this interview. We have been asked to ask for your opinions about [fill in name of activity] activities, which were funded by the United States Agency for International Development—or USAID, for their Office of Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment. NORC has been contracted as an independent organization to learn about the program so the funder will have information to guide their future work on gender-based violence. While NORC does a lot of work WITH USAID, we do not work FOR USAID or for the local groups who offered the activities. We are just here to listen to your honest opinions about the activities. Tha means you don’t need to worry about making us happy or hurting our feelings. We ask that you respect everyone’s right to participate and share their experience. Feel free to answer directly after I pose a question or to contribute to what the other people are saying. Please speak one at a time and ensure that everyone has a chance to speak. Today’s focus group discussion is planned for 90 minutes. Your participation is voluntary. That means you don’t have to take part and you can choose to leave whenever you want. If you are unable to answer a question or don’t want to answer, you don’t have to. There will be no problem for not answering questions or leaving. However, we really appreciate hearing your ideas, because they will be very useful to future activities to address violence. We ask each of you not to repeat today’s discussion to others. Please be mindful when you express your opinions that we cannot guarantee full confidentiality because of the group setting. Do you have any questions before we get started? [ANSWER QUESTIONS] If you have any questions later, please e-mail Ritu Nayyar-Stone, the project director for this study at nayyarstone-ritu@norc.org. [PUT RITU EMAIL IN CHAT] 68 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: RISE EVALUATION USAID.GOV Topic Question With your permission, I’d like to record today’s interview. This will enable us to go back and substantiate our notes. The recording will never be shared with USAID. It will be kept within this research team and destroyed at the end of this study. Do you agree to participate in today’s study and to have this interview recorded? [Moderator, go around the room and ask for everyone’s verbal approval] [START RECORDING] The recording has started. Could you please confirm for me one more time on the tape that you agree to participate in this study and have this interview recorded? Thank you. Introduction Today we are going to discuss the Rising Up!: Promoting Congolese Women’s Land Access and Preventing GBV in Eastern DRC project. To get started, could you please go around the room and let me know how long you have known about this project, and which activities you recall participating in? Needs assessment and intervention evidence 1a. What parts of the Rising UP activities do you remember most? Which were most useful to you? How were they useful? 1b. What parts of the Rising Up activities did you think were not so useful? Why? 1c. Are there any activities that you wish Rising Up! had offered but they weren’t? What things would you have wanted included? PORTFOLIO QUESTIONS Prevention 2a. In your opinion, what was Rising Up! trying to do? 2b. Has the Rising Up! activity had any good effects on [type of violence in local terms]? Please give a show of hands if you believe that it has. 2c. What effects have Rising Up! Activity had to prevent [type of violence]? 2d., Which activity has helped the most to prevent violence? [Moderator: Please try to get at least one response from all participants] 2e. What other services or activities could Rising Up! provide to prevent violence? Accountability 3a. In your experience with the Rising Up! activity, has it helped to make sure GBV perpetrators are stopped or punished? If yes, how so? If no, why not? 3b. What have been the most effective ways that Rising Up! has helped make sure violence perpetrators are punished or called out for their violent acts? (promoted accountability of GBV perpetrators?) Stakeholders 4. During your participation in the Rising Up! activity, did staff ask you about aspects of the activity that could improve? Did you give your opinions? ● Do you believe your opinions about the activity were considered seriously with activity staff? Why or why not? ACTIVITY CLUSTER QUESTIONS Specific to Activity [Moderator Instruction: Please ask question 5 only to change agents and male leaders] 5a. Do you think the information and ideas on women’s land rights and violence were important and useful for this community? Were there any components that you would change? How? 5b. Which information in the curriculum or activities from the training sessions was most effective? Are there any parts of the training curriculum that you think were not so useful? Which ones? Why? 69 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: RISE EVALUATION USAID.GOV Topic Question Monitoring and adaptions 6. Were there changes in the ways that Rising Up! sessions were offered or changes in the content from the beginning of the project until now? [IF YES:] Please, give me an example. [IF YES:] Why do you think they made these changes? Did anything happen locally, like events or community problems that affected the Rising Up! activities? Pleas explain. [IF NOT:] Do you think the activities should have been done differently to be more effective? Please, explain. Outcomes 7a. What’s your understanding of the Rising Up! activity goals? 7b. Did the Rising Up! activity do what it was supposed to do? Why or why not? 7c. Are there any goals that you think the activity was not able to accomplish? What are they? Why do you think they were not able to be accomplished? Specific to Activity 8a. Has this project changed land governance in your community? Why or why not? Please tell me specific examples of changes that you’ve seen. [Moderator instruction: Ask question 8b only to women participants who have gone through some or all of the titling process] 8b. Have you had any problems or faced any challenges with the land titling process? What are they? Have any new challenges come up since the end of the activity? Intervention Implementation 9a. Who benefited most from this activity? Did certain groups benefit more than others? Are there any groups of people that you think should have been included, but were not? 9b. Who else should be invited to participate in the activity who was not participating? Mechanisms 10a. What were the best and most helpful parts of this activity? Why? What did you like about them? 10b. Which components had the most positive results or impact? Why? What effects did they have? Sustainability 11a. Do you think that the effects of the Rising Up! activity will continue in the future? What effects will continue? Please, identify one or two, if possible. [Moderator, please go around the room and ensure that all participants give at least one response]. 11b. Which kinds of activities that were started by Rising Up! are more likely to continue? Why? 11c. Which kinds of activities that were started by Rising Up! will be less likely to continue? Why? 11d. What kind of support do you think your community needs to make sure these activities continue? 11e. Have you experienced any problems from community members or leadership to the land rights changes promoted by this activity? Please describe them. 11f. Have community members supported or expressed enthusiasm for this work? Describe? Did anyone complain? 11g. Have there been any unexpected consequences (good or bad) to these reforms or activity activities in general? 70 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: RISE EVALUATION USAID.GOV Topic Question Scalability 12a. What aspects of this activity that could be useful to people in other communities or regions? Please explain. 12b. Are there any that you think would not work well in other places? Why? IMPLEMENTATION EVALUATION QUESTIONS Design 13a. In your opinion, what problems related to [type(s) of violence] should be prioritized here, in your community? 13b. Do you think the activity focused on the most important problems? Why? 13c. Were the Rising Up! activities and staffing and time enough to address the problem of [state problem again]? Why or why not? 13d. If you were designing a way to help women with [state problem], what would you do? 13e. What activities would best address [these problems]? Implementation 14a. What type of interventions do you feel the activity did very well? Which could be improved? 14b. Would you recommend this activity to someone else? Why, why not? Flexibility 15. Do you think that the Rising Up! activity had enough staff to support the needs of your community? Target Participants 16a. Did you have any concerns about participating in the Rising Up! activity? Why? 16b. Did you have any difficulty participating in the Rising Up! activity? If yes, what would have made it easier to participate? 16c. Do you know of anyone that wanted to participate but couldn’t? If yes, why not? Monitoring of Results 17a. If you wanted to offer advice to the people who offered the Rising Up! activities, would you know who to talk to? 17b. Do you know if anything about the Rising Up! activity has changed because of you or someone else giving feedback? If so, could you give an example. Closing 18. Do you have any other comments that you would like to make about the Rising Up! Activity? 19. Do you have any questions for us? 71 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: RISE EVALUATION USAID.GOV ADVANCING EQUITABLE GENDER, SOCIAL AND POWER NORMS IN COMMUNITY CONSERVANCIES IN KENYA FGD GUIDE   Date: Start Time: Genders of participants: Topic Question INTRO / ACKNOWLEDGE: Hello. My name is ______ and I work for NORC at the University of Chicago. I’ll be moderating today’s focus group discussion. I will let my colleague(s) introduce themselves. I want to thank you for coming and participating in this interview, which is part of an evaluation of RISE activity for USAID’s Office of Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment. NORC has been contracted as an external, independent organization to collect data for USAID that will inform current and future USAID-funded programming focused on GBV prevention and response. While NORC does a lot of work WITH USAID, we do not work FOR USAID. We are completely neutral on all the issues we will be talking about, and we’re just here to learn about your perspective and experiences. That means you don’t need to worry about making us happy or hurting our feelings. Please be candid in your answers. We ask that you respect everyone’s right to participate and share their experience. Feel free to answer directly after I pose a question or to chime in about what the other fellows are saying. Please speak one at a time and ensure that everyone has a chance to speak. Today’s focus group discussion is planned for 90 minutes. Your participation is voluntary. If you are unable to answer a question, you may skip it or even stop the interview at any time; there will be no repercussions for this. However, your feedback will be very useful in helping in informing current and future USAID-funded programming focused on GBV prevention and response. We ask each of you not to repeat today’s discussion to others. Please be mindful when you express your opinions that we cannot guarantee full confidentiality because of the group setting. Do you have any questions before we get started? [ANSWER QUESTIONS] If you have any questions later, please e-mail Ritu Nayyar-Stone, the project director for this study at nayyarstone-ritu@norc.org. [PUT RITU EMAIL IN CHAT] With your permission, I’d like to record today’s interview. This will enable us to go back and substantiate our notes. The recording will never be shared with USAID. It will be kept within this research team and destroyed at the end of this study. Do you agree to participate in today’s study and to have this interview recorded? [Moderator, go around the room and ask for everyone’s verbal approval] [START RECORDING] The recording has started. Could you please confirm for me one more time on the tape that you agree to participate in this study and have this interview recorded? Thank you. Introduction Today we are going to discuss the Advancing equitable gender, social and power norms in community conservancies in Kenya project. To get started, could you please go around the room and let me know how long you have been involved in this project, and which activities you have participated in? PORTFOLIO QUESTIONS 72 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: RISE EVALUATION USAID.GOV Topic Question Prevention 1a. In your opinion how has the X activity helped prevent episodes of GBV in the workplace or otherwise, if it has at all? Please give a show of hands if you believe that it has. 1b. In the past X months, what have been the most important contributions of the X activity to prevent GBV in Kenyan Conservancies? [Moderator: Please try to get at least one response from all participants] 1c. What other services could activity X provide to your organization or community to prevent instances of GBV? Accountability 1d. In your experience with the X activity, have the activities helped or not helped to make sure perpetrators are stopped or punished? If yes, how so? If no, why not? 1e. What have been the most effective strategies to promote accountability of GBV perpetrators in this organization? Stakeholders 2. During your participation in the X activity, did staff ask you about aspects of the activity that could improve? ● Do you believe your opinions about the X activity resonated with activity staff? Why? ACTIVITY CLUSTER QUESTIONS Needs assessment and intervention evidence 3a. Do you think activity X responded to the needs and priorities of your org/community? Why? 3b. What components do you remember most? Which were most useful to you? How were they useful? 3c. Are there any activities that you wish had been included in the activity? Specific to Activity 3d. Do you think that the changes made to your organization are appropriate to Kenyan culture? Why or why not? Monitoring and adaptions 4. During your interaction with the X activity staff, were there any changes in the activity? [IF YES:] Please, give me an example. [IF YES:] Why do you think these changes were implemented? Were there changes in the context of your community/org that led to these adjustments? [IF NOT:] Do you think there were adjustments that were necessary to the activity but were not implemented? Please, explain. Outcomes 5a. What’s your understanding of the X activity goals? 5b. To what extent did the activity accomplish x results? 5c. Do you think that the activity objectives matched the actual results? 5d. Did the X activity do what it was supposed to do? Why or why not? Specific to Activity 5f. Has this project led to improved income equity between women and men conservancy staff? Why or why not? Intervention Implementation 6a. Who benefited most from this activity? Did certain groups benefit more than others? Are there any groups of people that you think should have been included, but were not? 6b. Who else should be engaged and was not in the activity? Mechanisms 7a. What were the best and most helpful parts of this activity? 7b. Which components had the most positive results or impact? 73 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: RISE EVALUATION USAID.GOV Topic Question Sustainability 8a. Do you think that positive results from the X activity will continue in the future? Please, identify one or two, if possible. [Moderator, please go around the room and ensure that all participants give at least one response]. 8b. Which activities are more likely to continue? Why? Is this desirable for your community/org? 8c. Which activities will be less likely to continue? Why? Would the community receive benefits if these activities continued? 8d. What do you think your organization/community needs to do to make sure these activities continue? (open-ended response) 8e. Have you experienced any resistance from community members or leadership to the changes promoted by this activity? Please describe them. 8f. Have community members supported or expressed enthusiasm for this work? Describe? 8g. Have there been any unexpected consequences (good or bad) to these reforms or activity activities in general? Scalability 9a. What aspects of this activity could be useful to women in other communities or regions? Which ones? Could they be expanded geographically? Please explain. 9b. Are there any that you think would not work well in other places? Why? Or that could not be scaled up? Why? Closing Thank you all for taking the time to participate. This is the end of the discussion. 74 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: RISE EVALUATION USAID.GOV CONSERVATION OF THE ALTO MAYO LANDSCAPE WITHOUT GENDER VIOLENCE FGD GUIDE Date: Start Time: Genders of participants: Topic Question INTRO / ACKNOWLEDGE: Hello. My name is ______ and I work for NORC at the University of Chicago. I’ll be moderating today’s focus group discussion. I will let my colleague(s) introduce themselves. I want to thank you for coming and participating in this interview, which is part of an evaluation of RISE activity for USAID’s Office of Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment. NORC has been contracted as an external, independent organization to collect data for USAID that will inform current and future USAID-funded programming focused on GBV prevention and response. While NORC does a lot of work WITH USAID, we do not work FOR USAID. We are completely neutral on all the issues we will be talking about, and we’re just here to learn about your perspective and experiences. That means you don’t need to worry about making us happy or hurting our feelings. Please be candid in your answers. We ask that you respect everyone’s right to participate and share their experience. Feel free to answer directly after I pose a question or to chime in about what the other fellows are saying. Please speak one at a time and ensure that everyone has a chance to speak. Today’s focus group discussion is planned for 90 minutes. Your participation is voluntary. If you are unable to answer a question, you may skip it or even stop the interview at any time; there will be no repercussions for this. However, your feedback will be very useful in helping in informing current and future USAID-funded programming focused on GBV prevention and response. We ask each of you not to repeat today’s discussion to others. Please be mindful when you express your opinions that we cannot guarantee full confidentiality because of the group setting. Do you have any questions before we get started? [ANSWER QUESTIONS] If you have any questions later, please e-mail Ritu Nayyar-Stone, the project director for this study at nayyarstone-ritu@norc.org. [PUT RITU EMAIL IN CHAT] With your permission, I’d like to record today’s interview. This will enable us to go back and substantiate our notes. The recording will never be shared with USAID. It will be kept within this research team and destroyed at the end of this study. Do you agree to participate in today’s study and to have this interview recorded? [Moderator, go around the room and ask for everyone’s verbal approval] [START RECORDING] The recording has started. Could you please confirm for me one more time on the tape that you agree to participate in this study and have this interview recorded? Thank you. Introduction Today we are going to discuss the Conservation of the Alto Mayo Landscape without Gender Violence project. To get started, could you please go around the room and let me know how long you have been involved in this project, and which activities you have participated in? PORTFOLIO QUESTIONS 75 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: RISE EVALUATION USAID.GOV Topic Question Prevention 1a. In your opinion how has the X activity helped prevent episodes of GBV in your community, if it has at all? Please give a show of hands if you believe that it has. 1b. In the past X months, what have been the most important contributions of the X activity to prevent GBV in your community? [Moderator: Please try to get at least one response from all participants] 1c. What other services could activity X provide to your organization or community to prevent instances of GBV? Protection 1d. Do you think that the X activity has helped to improve access to services for GBV survivors in your community/organization/country? How? Accountability 1e. In your experience with the X activity, have the activities helped or not helped to make sure perpetrators are stopped or punished? If yes, how so? If no, why not? 1f. What have been the most effective strategies to promote accountability of GBV perpetrators in this organization? Stakeholders 2. During your participation in the X activity, did staff ask you about aspects of the activity that could improve? ● Do you believe your opinions about the X activity resonated with activity staff? Why? ACTIVITY CLUSTER QUESTIONS Needs assessment and intervention evidence 3a. Do you think activity X responded to the needs and priorities of your org/community? Why? 3b. What components do you remember most? Which were most useful to you? How were they useful? 3c. Are there any activities that you wish had been included in the activity? Specific to Activity 3d. Do you think that the trainings done by the project are appropriate and aligned with Indigenous culture? Why or why not? 3e. Was the approach of working with male leaders and spouses effective? Why or why not? Is there anything that you would change about these activities? Monitoring and adaptions 4. During your interaction with the X activity staff, were there any changes in the activity? [IF YES:] Please, give me an example. [IF YES:] Why do you think these changes were implemented? Were there changes in the context of your community/org that led to these adjustments? [IF NOT:] Do you think there were adjustments that were necessary to the activity but were not implemented? Please, explain. Outcomes 5a. What’s your understanding of the X activity goals? 5b. To what extent did the activity accomplish x results? 5c. Do you think that the activity objectives matched the actual results? 5d. Did the X activity do what it was supposed to do? Why or why not? Specific to Activity 5f. Has this project led to improved equity between men and women in your community? Why or why not? 5g. Do you think that local officials have changed how they address GBV? Why or why not? Could you give some examples? 5h. What about members of the local Indigenous federation? Have they changed how they address GBV? Please give examples if you can. 76 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: RISE EVALUATION USAID.GOV Topic Question Intervention Implementation 6a. Who benefited most from this activity? Did certain groups benefit more than others? Are there any groups of people that you think should have been included, but were not? 6b. Who else should be engaged and was not in the activity? Mechanisms 7a. What were the best and most helpful parts of this activity? 7b. Which components had the most positive results or impact? Sustainability 8a. Do you think that positive results from the X activity will continue in the future? Please, identify one or two, if possible. [Moderator, please go around the room and ensure that all participants give at least one response]. 8b. Which activities are more likely to continue? Why? Is this desirable for your community/org? 8c. Which activities will be less likely to continue? Why? Would the community receive benefits if these activities continued? 8d. What do you think your organization/community needs to do to make sure these activities continue? (open-ended response) 8e. Have you experienced any resistance from community members or leadership to the changes promoted by this activity? Please describe them. 8f. Have community members supported or expressed enthusiasm for this work? Describe? 8g. Have there been any unexpected consequences (good or bad) to these reforms or activity activities in general? Scalability 9a. What aspects of this activity could be useful to women in other communities or regions? Which ones? Could they be expanded geographically? Please explain. 9b. Are there any that you think would not work well in other places? Why? Or that could not be scaled up? Why? Closing Thank you all for taking the time to participate. This is the end of the discussion. 77 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: RISE EVALUATION USAID.GOV SECURING LAND RIGHTS & ENDING GENDER EXCLUSION (SLEDGE) FGD GUIDE Date: Start Time: Gender of participants: (circle one) Female Only FGD Participants Male Only FGD Participants Mixed Gender FGD Participants Location of Focus Group Discussion: Respondent Category: (circle one) Women who have completed or have started but not yet completed the process of land titling Community influencers trained by the activity (Community Activists, Influencers and Clan leaders) Community members in the activity’s zone of influence 78 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: RISE EVALUATION USAID.GOV Topic Question INTRO / ACKNOWLEDGE: Hello. My name is ______ and I work for a research organization called NORC at the University of Chicago. I’ll be moderating today’s discussion. I will let my colleague(s) introduce themselves. I want to thank you for coming and participating in this interview. We have been asked to ask for your opinions about [fill in name of activity] activities, which were funded by the United States Agency for International Development—or USAID, for their Office of Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment. NORC has been contracted as an independent organization to learn about the program so the funder will have information to guide their future work on gender-based violence. While NORC does a lot of work WITH USAID, we do not work FOR USAID or for the local groups who offered the activities. We are just here to listen to your honest opinions about the activities. That means you don’t need to worry about making us happy or hurting our feelings. We ask that you respect everyone’s right to participate and share their experience. Feel free to answer directly after I pose a question or to contribute to what the other people are saying. Please speak one at a time and ensure that everyone has a chance to speak. Today’s focus group discussion is planned for 90 minutes. Your participation is voluntary. That means you don’t have to take part and you can choose to leave whenever you want. If you are unable to answer a question or don’t want to answer, you don’t have to. There will be no problem for not answering questions or leaving. Your well-being is important and at any point you may choose to skip a question, take a break, or stop participating any time without consequences. However, we really appreciate hearing your ideas, because they will be very useful to future activities to address violence. We ask each of you not to repeat today’s discussion to others. Please be mindful when you express your opinions that we cannot guarantee full confidentiality because of the group setting. We will provide sheets with information about local resources and support to all participants. [PROVIDE SHEETS] Do you have any questions before we get started? [ANSWER QUESTIONS] If you have any questions later, please e-mail Ritu Nayyar-Stone, the project director for this study at nayyarstone-ritu@norc.org. With your permission, I’d like to record today’s interview. This will enable us to go back and substantiate our notes. The recording will never be shared with USAID. It will be kept within this research team and destroyed at the end of this study. Do you agree to participate in today’s study and to have this interview recorded? [Moderator, go around the room and ask for everyone’s verbal approval] [START RECORDING] The recording has started. Could you please confirm for me one more time on the tape that you agree to participate in this study and have this interview recorded? Thank you. Introduction Today we are going to discuss the Securing Land Rights & Ending Gender Exclusion (SLEDGE) project. To get started, could you please go around the room and let me know how long you have known about this project, and which activities you recall participating in? Needs assessment and intervention evidence 1a. What parts of the SLEDGE activities do you remember most? Which were most useful to you? How were they useful? 1b. What parts of the SLEDGE activities did you think were not so useful? Why? 1c. Are there any activities that you wish SLEDGE had offered but they weren’t? What things would you have wanted included? PORTFOLIO QUESTIONS 79 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: RISE EVALUATION USAID.GOV Topic Question Prevention 2a. In your opinion, what was SLEDGE trying to do? 2b. Has the SLEDGE activity had any good effects on [type of violence in local terms]? Please give a show of hands if you believe that it has. 2c. What effects have SLEDGE Activity had to prevent [type of violence]? 2d., Which activity has helped the most to prevent violence? [Moderator: Please try to get at least one response from all participants] Protection 3a. In your experience with the SLEDGE activity, has it helped increase access to services for survivors of GBV? If yes, how so? If no, why not? 3b. What other activities could increase access to services for survivors of GBV? Accountability 4a. In your experience with the SLEDGE activity, has it helped to make sure GBV perpetrators are stopped or punished? If yes, how so? If no, why not? 4b. What have been the most effective ways that SLEDGE has helped make sure violence perpetrators are punished or called out for their violent acts? (promoted accountability of GBV perpetrators?) Stakeholders 5. During your participation in the SLEDGE activity, did staff ask you about aspects of the activity that could improve? Did you give your opinions? ● Do you believe your opinions about the activity were considered seriously with activity staff? Why or why not? ACTIVITY CLUSTER QUESTIONS Specific to Activity 6a. Do you think the information and ideas on women’s land rights and violence were important and useful for your community? Were there any components that you would change? How? [Moderator Instruction: Please ask question 6b only to Community Activists, Influencers and Clan leaders (5c is for all groups)] 6b. Which information in the curriculum or activities from the training sessions was most effective? Are there any parts of the training curriculum that you think were not so useful? Which ones? Why? 6c. Do you feel that women’s level of participation in Alternative Dispute Resolution processes has changed? How has it changed? Monitoring and adaptions 7. Were there changes in the ways that SLEDGE sessions were offered or changes in the content from the beginning of the project until now? [IF YES:] Please, give me an example. [IF YES:] Why do you think they made these changes? Did anything happen locally, like events or community problems that affected the SLEDGE activities? Pleas explain. [IF NOT:] Do you think the activities should have been done differently to be more effective? Please, explain. Specific to Activity [Moderator instruction: Ask question 8 only to women participants who have gone through some or all of the titling process] 8. Have you had any problems or faced any challenges with the land titling process? What are they? Have any new challenges come up since the end of the activity? 80 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: RISE EVALUATION USAID.GOV Topic Question Intervention Implementation 9a. Who benefited most from this activity? Did certain groups benefit more than others? Are there any groups of people that you think should have been included, but were not? 9b. Who else should be invited to participate in the activity who was not participating? Sustainability 10a. Do you think that the effects of the SLEDGE activity will continue in the future? What effects will continue? Please, identify one or two, if possible. [Moderator, please go around the room and ensure that all participants give at least one response]. 10b. Which kinds of activities that were started by SLEDGE are more likely to continue? Why? 10c. Which kinds of activities that were started by SLEDGE will be less likely to continue? Why? 10d. What kind of support do you think your community needs to make sure these activities continue? 10e. Have you experienced any problems from community members or leadership to the land rights changes promoted by this activity? Please describe them. 10f. Have community members supported or expressed enthusiasm for this work? Describe? Did anyone complain? 10g. Have there been any unexpected consequences (good or bad) to these reforms or activity activities in general? Scalability 11a. What aspects of this activity could be useful to people in other communities or regions? Please explain. 11b. Are there any that you think would not work well in other places? Why? IMPLEMENTATION EVALUATION QUESTIONS Design 12a. In your opinion, what problems related to [type(s) of violence] should be prioritized here, in your community? 12b. Do you think the activity focused on the most important problems? Why? 12c. Were the SLEDGE activities and staffing and time enough to address the problem of [state problem again]? Why or why not? Target Participants 13a. Did you have any concerns about participating in the SLEDGE activity? Why? 13b. Did you have any difficulty participating in the SLEDGE activity? If yes, what would have made it easier to participate? 13c. Do you know of anyone that wanted to participate but couldn’t? If yes, why not? Closing 14. Do you have any other comments that you would like to make about the SLEDGE Activity? 15. Do you have any questions for us? Thank you all for taking the time to participate. This is the end of the discussion DRG-LER II TASKING NO. 54 GBV PPE - RISE CLUSTER QUESTIONS FOR USAID 81 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: RISE EVALUATION USAID.GOV WILDACT WEB SURVEY NOTES [Blue text in brackets] are survey instructions. CONSENT PURPOSE OF STUDY NORC at the University of Chicago, a non-partisan research institution based in the United States, is carrying out a performance evaluation of the portfolio of the gender-based violence (GBV) activities funded by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). One of the activity clusters is the Resilient, Inclusive and Sustainable Environments Challenge (RISE), a USAID-funded initiative to identify and fund the innovative application of promising approaches to address GBV across programs that address the access, use, control, and management of natural resources. We are inviting you to participate in this evaluation because of your role in implementing the activities under Combatting Gender-Based Violence in Vietnamese Conservation, a RISE Activity included in the portfolio performance evaluation. The purpose of this study is to understand what is working, challenges faced, knowledge gaps, and what can be improved in the USAID’s GBV portfolio. DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY PROCEDURES If you agree to be in this study, you will be asked to answer survey questions about your views on activity design, implementation, and uptake. The online survey will take approximately 20 minutes to complete. RISKS/DISCOMFORTS OF PARTICIPATING IN THIS STUDY Your participation in this study does not involve any risks other than what you would encounter in a normal workday at your workplace. If you are uncomfortable, you are free to not answer or to skip to the next question. However, we will always ask if you are sure you want to continue without providing an answer; your responses are very valuable to this study and for improving future grant opportunities. BENEFITS OF PARTICIPATING IN THE STUDY Your participation is important to help us and USAID learn more about the implementation of the GBV activities funded, including lessons learned and areas for improvement. COMPENSATION You will receive no economic or material incentive for participating. CONFIDENTIALITY Your responses to this survey will be kept strictly confidential. We will report all results as averages. We will never share any information that could be used to identify you outside of the research team. At the end of the study, we may share the data with USAID or others outside the study team. Before sharing the data, we will remove all details that could be used to identify you, such as names, DRG-LER II TASKING NO. 54 GBV PPE - RISE CLUSTER QUESTIONS FOR USAID 82 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: RISE EVALUATION USAID.GOV employer, or IP address used to answer the survey. As such, no one will know whether you participated in the survey or which answers are yours. Since no one will know which answers are yours, we ask that you answer all questions honestly. RIGHT TO REFUSE OR WITHDRAW The decision to participate in this study is entirely up to you. You may refuse to take part in the study at any time. You have the right not to answer any single question, as well as to withdraw completely from the study at any point during the process; additionally, you have the right to request that I delete your answers. There are no penalties for refusing or withdrawing. RIGHT TO ASK QUESTIONS AND REPORT CONCERNS You have the right to ask questions about this research study and to have those questions answered by me before, during or after the research. If you have any further questions about the study, feel free to contact Echeverria-Carlos@norc.org or by telephone at +1(312) 759-2658. If you have any other concerns about your rights as a research participant that have not been answered by the investigators, you may contact April Baker, NORC’s Senior Institutional Review Board Manager, at irb@norc.org. [Consent]. Do you agree to participate in this survey? 1. Yes 2. No [go to “end” page] DRG-LER II TASKING NO. 54 GBV PPE - RISE CLUSTER QUESTIONS FOR USAID 83 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: RISE EVALUATION USAID.GOV Section 1. Participation in the Activity To start, we will ask you a few questions about your experiences with WildAct Vietnam. [experience] How long have you worked in Vietnamese conservation? ● Number of years (please enter “0” if for less than a year): ___ [allow range between 0 and 35] ● Number of months: ___ [allow values from 0 to 11 except when “years” = 0, in such case, allow values 1-11] [activities] Which activities from WildAct Vietnam have you participated in? Please select all that apply. [Multiple select] a) Workshops and training with employees of wildlife conservation organizations and agencies b) Meetings with organization and agency managers to exchange knowledge, experience, and ideas to create a safer environment for employees c) Creation of safeguarding and supporting materials for women in conservation d) Establishment of the Wildlife Conservationists for a Better World of Work Network e) I did not participate in any WildAct Vietnam activities [No other options can be also chosen. Go to sp_familiar] f) Other, please specify: [Open-ended] g) Don’t know [No other options can be also chosen. Go to sp_familiar] h) No response Please, rate how important have the following program components been in preventing gender￾based violence or workplace sexual harassment. ● Gender-based violence (GBV) is any act that violates human rights due to gender differences (including workplace sexual harassment). ● Workplace sexual harassment is conduct of a sexual nature committed by a person aimed at another without their consent or against their will. Workplace sexual harassment can be physical (e.g., gestures or physical contact of a sexual or suggestive nature), verbal (e.g., sexual or suggestive remarks made face-to-face or through telecommunications), or non-verbal (e.g., display or description of sexually explicit materials face-to-face or through telecommunications). [Display the questions related to the program components selected in activities] [rate_prevent_workshop] Workshops and training with employees of wildlife conservation organizations and agencies DRG-LER II TASKING NO. 54 GBV PPE - RISE CLUSTER QUESTIONS FOR USAID 84 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: RISE EVALUATION USAID.GOV i. Very Important ii. Important iii. Neither important nor irrelevant iv. Not Important v. Not Important at All vi. Don’t Know vii. No Response [rate_prevent_meeting] Meetings with organization and agency managers to exchange knowledge, experience, and ideas to create a safer environment for employees i. Very Important ii. Important iii. Neither important nor irrelevant iv. Not Important v. Not Important at All vi. Don’t Know vii. No Response [rate_prevent_material] Creation of safeguarding and supporting materials for women in conservation i. Very Important ii. Important iii. Neither important nor irrelevant iv. Not Important v. Not Important at All vi. Don’t Know vii. No Response [rate_network] Establishment of the Wildlife Conservationists for a Better World of Work Network i. Very Important ii. Important iii. Neither important nor irrelevant iv. Not Important v. Not Important at All vi. Don’t Know vii. No Response Please, rate how important have the following program components been in increasing accountability for perpetrators of GBV and workplace sexual harassment: [Display the questions related to the program components selected in activities] [rate_account_workshop] Workshops and training with employees of wildlife conservation organizations and agencies viii. Very Important ix. Important x. Neither important nor irrelevant DRG-LER II TASKING NO. 54 GBV PPE - RISE CLUSTER QUESTIONS FOR USAID 85 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: RISE EVALUATION USAID.GOV xi. Not Important xii. Not Important at All xiii. Don’t Know xiv. No Response [rate_account_meeting] Meetings with organization and agency managers to exchange knowledge, experience, and ideas to create a safer environment for employees i. Very Important ii. Important iii. Neither important nor irrelevant iv. Not Important v. Not Important at All vi. Don’t Know vii. No Response [rate_account_material] Creation of safeguarding and supporting materials for women in conservation i. Very Important ii. Important iii. Neither important nor irrelevant iv. Not Important v. Not Important at All vi. Don’t Know vii. No Response [rate_account_network] Establishment of the Wildlife Conservationists for a Better World of Work Network i. Very Important ii. Important iii. Neither important nor irrelevant iv. Not Important v. Not Important at All vi. Don’t Know vii. No Response Section 2. Gender-Based Violence Safeguards and Protocols Thank you. Now, we will ask you some questions specifically about materials developed during the Activity. [sp_familiar] Are you familiar with the Gender-Based Violence Safeguards and Protocols developed by the Activity? a) Yes b) No [Go to target_most_impact] c) Don’t know [Go to target_most_impact] d) Refused [Go to target_most_impact] DRG-LER II TASKING NO. 54 GBV PPE - RISE CLUSTER QUESTIONS FOR USAID 86 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: RISE EVALUATION USAID.GOV [IF sp_familiar ="a”]: [sp_understand] To what extent do you consider them easy to understand? 1. Very easy 2. Somewhat easy 3. Neither easy nor difficult 4. Very Little 5. Not at All 6. Don’t know 7. No Response [sp_access] To what extent do you consider them accessible? By “accessible” we mean, do you know how to access them and use them? 1. Very accessible 2. Somewhat accessible 3. Neither accessible nor inaccessible 4. Somewhat inaccessible 5. Very inaccessible 6. Don’t know 7. No Response [sp_practical] To what extent do you consider them practical to use? 1. Very practical 2. Somewhat practical 3. Neither practical nor impractical 4. Somewhat impractical 5. Very impractical 6. Don’t know 7. No Response [sp_effective] To what extent do you consider them effective in addressing GBV and workplace sexual harassment? 1. Very effective 2. Somewhat effective 3. Neither effective nor ineffective 4. Somewhat ineffective 5. Very ineffective 6. Don’t know 7. No Response [sp_appropriate] To what extent are the Safeguarding Guidelines developed by the Activity to prevent GBV and workplace sexual harassment culturally appropriate for Vietnamese conservation? a) They are completely appropriate. b) Some elements are not appropriate. c) They are not appropriate. d) Don’t know e) Refuse DRG-LER II TASKING NO. 54 GBV PPE - RISE CLUSTER QUESTIONS FOR USAID 87 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: RISE EVALUATION USAID.GOV [IF sp_appropriate = “b” or sp_appropriate = ”c”]: [fo_appropriate] Please explain why the guidelines are not appropriate. [open-ended] [sp_sections] Are there any aspects of the safeguards and protocols that have been most informative or useful to your organization? a) Yes b) No [Go to ‘sp_improve’’] c) Don’t know [Go to ‘sp_improve’’] d) Refuse [sp_sections_open] Please indicate which ones. [open-ended] [sp_improve] How can WildAct Vietnam improve the safeguarding guidelines and protocols it designed? [Open ended] Section 3. Target Groups Thank you. Now, we will ask some questions about how the Activity impacted people. [target_most_impact] Please select up to three groups that were the MOST impacted by the Activity. [Multiple select] a) Female conservation staff who work in offices b) Male conservation staff who work in offices c) Female rangers d) Male rangers e) Female non-management staff (low- and mid-level) in conservation organizations f) Male non-management staff (low- and mid-level) in conservation organizations g) Female management staff (officers) in conservation organizations h) Male management staff (officers) in conservation organizations i) Don’t know [No other options can be also chosen] j) Refuse [target_least_impact] Please select up to three groups that were the LEAST impacted by the Activity [Multiple select. Discard those chosen in “target_most_impact”] a. Female conservation staff who work in offices b. Male conservation staff who work in offices c. Female rangers d. Male rangers e. Female non-management staff (low- and mid-level) in conservation organizations f. Male non-management staff (low- and mid-level) in conservation organizations g. Female management staff (officers) in conservation organizations h. Male management staff (officers) in conservation organizations i. Don’t know [No other options can be also chosen] j. Refuse [target_no_include] Are there people in your organization who you think should have been involved in the Activity but were not? DRG-LER II TASKING NO. 54 GBV PPE - RISE CLUSTER QUESTIONS FOR USAID 88 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: RISE EVALUATION USAID.GOV a. Yes b. No c. Don’t know d. Refused [IF “a” in target_no_include]: [fo_no_include] Please specify the group [open ended] Section 4. WildAct Vietnam Competition Thank you. Now, we will ask you some questions specifically about WildAct Vietnam’s competition for ideas and proposals. [comp_familiar] Are you aware of the competition for ideas and proposals that WildAct Vietnam launched for an equitable, GBV-free and sexual harassment free working environment in Vietnamese organizations? a. Yes b. No c. Don’t know d. Refused [IF “a” in “comp_familiar”]: [comp_submit] Are you or your organization planning to submit an idea or proposal? a. Yes b. No c. Don’t know d. Refused Section 5. Implementation and Feedback Thank you. Now, we will ask you some questions specifically about your experiences participating in the Activity. [feed_attend] Did you have any difficulties attending trainings or participating in activities? a. Yes b. No c. Don’t know d. Refused [IF “a” in feed_attend]: [fo_attend] Could you briefly describe these difficulties? Please select all that apply. [Select all] a. Lack of support from managers b. Too many work obligations c. Inconvenient timing of activities d. Lack of personal interest e. Other, please describe: [open ended] f. Don’t know g. Refused DRG-LER II TASKING NO. 54 GBV PPE - RISE CLUSTER QUESTIONS FOR USAID 89 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: RISE EVALUATION USAID.GOV [IF “a” in feed_attend] [feed_access] How could the activities and trainings from WildAct Vietnam be more accessible to users? Please, share your recommendations. [open ended] [feed_share] If you had feedback to share with WildAct Vietnam staff running this Activity, would you know how to share it? a. Yes b. No c. Don’t Know d. Refuse [feed_response] If you were to share feedback with WildAct Vietnam staff running this Activity, do you think that your feedback would lead to action? e. Yes f. No g. Don’t Know h. Refuse Section 6. Activity Outcomes Thank you. Now, we will ask you some questions specifically about outcomes of the Activity. [outcome_change] To what extent have beliefs in your organization changed to disapprove of GBV and workplace sexual harassment? a) To a Great Extent b) Somewhat c) Very Little d) Not at All e) Don’t know f) Refused [outcome_resistance] Have you encountered any resistance to the activities implemented under this Activity? a. Yes b. No c. Don’t know d. Refused [IF “a” in outcome_resistance]: [fo_resistance] What form did this resistance take? Please select all that apply: [Multiple select] 1. Not taking the content of the trainings seriously 2. Criticizing the objectives of the Activity 3. Refusing to participate in activities because they are seen as irrelevant or not needed 4. Refusing to participate in activities because they are deemed too sensitive 5. Other, please describe: [open ended] 6. Don’t know [No other options can be also chosen] 7. Refuse DRG-LER II TASKING NO. 54 GBV PPE - RISE CLUSTER QUESTIONS FOR USAID 90 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: RISE EVALUATION USAID.GOV Section 7. Activity Sustainability and Replicability Thank you. Now, we will ask you some questions specifically about the sustainability of the Activity. [sustain] Do you think that your organization will continue to take actions to address GBV and workplace sexual harassment after the Activity has ended? a. Yes b. No c. Don’t know d. Refused [IF “a” in sustain]: [fo_sustain_a] What actions will your organization likely take to address GBV and workplace sexual harassment after the Activity is finished? Select all that apply. [Multiple select] 1. Workshops and training with employees 2. Meetings with managers to exchange knowledge, experience, and ideas to create a safer environment for employees 3. Creation of safeguarding and supporting materials for women in conservation 4. Use of existing Safeguarding policies and procedures to prevent and address GBV 5. Other, please explain: [open ended] 6. Don’t know [No other options can be also chosen] 7. Refused [IF “b” in sustain]: [sustain_support] What kind of support would your organization need to continue to take actions to address GBV and workplace sexual harassment after the end of the Activity? [open ended] [sustain_barriers] Overall, what are barriers that your organization faces to address GBV and workplace sexual harassment? [open ended] [replicate_useful] Which activities do you think would be useful for other organizations in Vietnam? Please select all that apply: [Multiple select] a) Workshops and training with employees of wildlife conservation organizations and agencies b) Meetings with organization and agency managers to exchange knowledge, experience and ideas to create a safer environment for employees c) Creation of safeguarding and supporting materials for women in conservation d) Creation of working groups or communities of practice so that conservation actors can share information and discuss best practices for GBV prevention e) Other, please describe: [Open ended] f) Don’t Know [No other options can be also chosen] g) Refused 18a) [replicate_not_useful] Which aspects of this Activity do you think would NOT be useful for other organizations in Vietnam? Please select all that apply: [Multiple select] a) Workshops and training with employees of wildlife conservation organizations and agencies DRG-LER II TASKING NO. 54 GBV PPE - RISE CLUSTER QUESTIONS FOR USAID 91 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: RISE EVALUATION USAID.GOV b) Meetings with organization and agency managers to exchange knowledge, experience and ideas to create a safer environment for employees c) Creation of safeguarding and supporting materials for women in conservation d) Creation of working groups or communities of practice so that conservation actors can share information and discuss best practices for GBV prevention e) Other, please describe: [Open ended] f) Don’t Know [No other options can be also chosen] g) Refused Section 8. Suggestions and Comments Thank you. Now, we will ask you some questions specifically about how to improve the Activity. [suggestions] Are there any activities that WildAct Vietnam did not provide that you would like this Activity to include? a. Yes b. No c. Don’t know d. Refused [suggestions_open] Please, share your suggestions for future activities organized by WildAct. [Open ended] [comment] Are there any other comments on the Activity that you have not talked about and would like to make? [Open ended] Section 9. Demographic Data Thank you. Lastly, we will ask you some demographic questions. [gender] What is your gender? a) Male b) Female c) Other d) Don’t know e) No Response [age] What is your age? a. 18-25 years old b. 25-40 years old c. 40-60 years old d. More than 60 years old e. Don’t know f. No Response Marital_status. What is your current marital status? a. Single DRG-LER II TASKING NO. 54 GBV PPE - RISE CLUSTER QUESTIONS FOR USAID 92 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: RISE EVALUATION USAID.GOV b. Married c. Partnered but unmarried d. Divorced or separated e. Widow(ed) f. Don’t know g. No response Dem_edu. What is the highest degree or level of education you have completed? a. Never attended school b. Some primary school c. Complete primary school d. Some secondary school e. Complete secondary school f. Some higher education g. Complete higher education h. Advanced degree i. Technical school j. Don’t know k. No response RespType1.a. How many years have you worked with your current institution or organization? a. Less than one year b. One to three years c. Four to six years d. Seven or more years e. Don’t know f. No response RespType1.c At what level is your current position? a. Entry-level or early career b. Mid-career c. Senior d. Don’t know e. No response [end] Thank you for taking the time to participate in the survey. This is the end of the survey. DRG-LER II TASKING NO. 54 GBV PPE - RISE CLUSTER QUESTIONS FOR USAID 93 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: RISE EVALUATION USAID.GOV EXPERT KII GUIDE Respondent Name, Area(s) of Expertise, Institution Date: Start Time: Topic Question INTRO / ACKNOWLEDGE: Hello. My name is ______ and I work for NORC at the University of Chicago. I’ll be leading today’s interview. I will let my colleague(s) introduce themselves. I want to thank you for coming and participating in this interview, which is part of an evaluation of Resilient, Inclusive, and Sustainable Environments (RISE) activity for USAID’s Office of Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment. NORC has been contracted as an external, independent organization to collect data for USAID that will inform current and future USAID-funded programming focused on GBV prevention and response. While NORC does a lot of work WITH USAID, we do not work FOR USAID. We are completely neutral on all the issues we will be talking about, and we’re just here to learn about your perspective and experiences. That means you don’t need to worry about making us happy or hurting our feelings. Please be candid in your answers. Today’s interview is planned for 45 minutes. Your participation is voluntary. If you are unable to answer a question, you may skip it or even stop the interview at any time; there will be no repercussions for this. However, your feedback will be very useful in helping in informing current and future USAID-funded programming focused on GBV prevention and response. Your responses will be kept confidential and anonymous. The information you provide will not identify you as a participant of this interview/discussion. Do you have any questions before we get started? [ANSWER QUESTIONS] If you have any questions later, please e-mail Ritu Nayyar-Stone, the project director for this study at nayyarstone-ritu@norc.org. [PUT RITU EMAIL IN CHAT] With your permission, I’d like to record today’s interview. This will enable us to go back and substantiate our notes. The recording will never be shared with USAID. It will be kept within this research team and destroyed at the end of this study. Do you agree to participate in today’s study? Do you agree to have this interview recorded? [START RECORDING] The recording has started. Could you please confirm for me one more time on the tape that you agree to participate in this study and have this interview recorded? Thank you. Introduction Today we are going to discuss the big picture of GBV programming in your country, how the specific project that we are evaluating fits into it, and existing programming at the intersection of gender-based violence and conservation or natural resource management. To start, could you please tell me about your current role and your work on GBV? GBV Programming Big Picture Describing the Problem 1a. What forms of GBV are the most prevalent in your country? Probe: Physical, psychological, intimate partner violence, sexual harassment, economic or other? 1b. Are there specific forms of GBV that are more prevalent in communities or organizations involved in natural resource management, conservation, or environmental programming? What are they? DRG-LER II TASKING NO. 54 GBV PPE - RISE CLUSTER QUESTIONS FOR USAID 94 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: RISE EVALUATION USAID.GOV Topic Question RISE Focus 2a. Do you know of any programs or initiatives that focus on the intersection of GBV and environmental, conservation or natural resource management in your country? Please tell me about them. Populations 3a. Which populations or groups does current GBV programming in your country reach? Who do programs usually focus on or try to help? 3b. Are there any underserved or especially vulnerable groups that are affected by GBV but that are not reached by GBV programming in your country? ● If yes, who are they and why are the difficult to reach? ● What types of strategies or future interventions might be able to reach these groups? 3c. Are there any marginalized or under-served groups in communities or organizations involved in natural resource management, conservation, or environmental programming? Who are they? Intervention planning and design 4a. What is the most important evidence about GBV? In your opinion, what are the best programs or activities to prevent GBV? Why? 4b. What information or evidence would help to plan effective GBV interventions in your country? 4c. Is there any information that would help to plan interventions that combine GBV interventions with environmental, conservation or natural resource management? What type of evidence or information might help design good activities? Contextualizing and Commenting on the Specific Activity DRG-LER II TASKING NO. 54 GBV PPE - RISE CLUSTER QUESTIONS FOR USAID 95 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: RISE EVALUATION USAID.GOV Topic Question Activity Design 5a. Are you familiar with the X activity? What do you know about it? What kind of contact have you had with the activity? What do you think about it? What have you heard about it? Now, I’m going to share my screen and walk through the activities and the Theory of Change for the activity, and ask you to comment on: 5b. Are these kinds of activities effective in your opinion? Why, why not? How well do they reach the right people? Who might they be missing? What effects do they have? How? 5c. Is there anything that you would change about the activity’s approach? 5d. What things are missing to have a better effect? 5e. When thinking about how the activities might influence the main outcome of the X activity [re-read main outcome from TOC walk through if needed], Why do you think these activities will have this effect? I’m wondering what assumption might have been made about the activity, when thinking about the ‘causal pathway’ between the activity and the intended outcomes or behavior changes? 5f, Do you think there are any potential adverse consequences or ways these activities could cause harm? 5g. Do you think these types of activities are worth scaling up? Could they have a wider effect if they were bigger? “X” Activity Options ● Creative Capacity Building to Address Gender Based Violence in the Artisanal and Small-Scale Mining Sector (Colombia) ● Conservation of the Alto Mayo Landscape without Gender Violence (Peru) ● Combatting Gender-based Violence in Vietnamese Conservation ● Advancing Equitable Gender, Social and Power Norms in Community Conservancies in Kenya ● Gender Empowerment and Transformation: Tackling Resource-Based Conflict and Gender-based Violence in Fiji ● Rising Up!: Promoting Congolese Women’s Land Access and Preventing GBV in Eastern DRC Securing Land Rights & Ending Gender Exclusion in Uganda Remaining Gaps 6a. What types of activities do you think might complement the activity or make it stronger or more effective? What kinds of programs or interventions could compliment the activity that we are evaluating, to produce synergies or amplify impacts? Recommendations 7a. What kinds of intervention approaches would you recommend to funders like USAID to address the intersection of GBV and environmental, conservation or natural resource management in your country? 7b. Do you have any other recommendations around addressing GBV in communities or organizations involved in natural resource management, conservation, or environmental programming? Closing 8a. Do you have any other comments that you would like to make? 8b. Do you have any question for us? Thank you for taking the time to speak with me. This is the end of interview. DRG-LER II TASKING NO. 54 GBV PPE - RISE CLUSTER QUESTIONS FOR USAID 96 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: RISE EVALUATION USAID.GOV IP KII GUIDE Respondent Name, Area(s) of Expertise, Institution Date: Start Time: Topic Question INTRO / ACKNOWLEDGE: Hello. My name is ______ and I work for NORC at the University of Chicago. I’ll be leading today’s interview. I will let my colleague(s) introduce themselves. I want to thank you for coming and participating in this interview, which is part of an evaluation of X activity for the United States Department for International Development’s Office of Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment. “X” Activity Options ● Creative Capacity Building to Address Gender Based Violence in the Artisanal and Small￾Scale Mining Sector (Colombia) ● Conservation of the Alto Mayo Landscape without Gender Violence (Peru) ● Combatting Gender-based Violence in Vietnamese Conservation ● Advancing Equitable Gender, Social and Power Norms in Community Conservancies in Kenya ● Gender Empowerment and Transformation: Tackling Resource-Based Conflict and Gender-based Violence in Fiji ● Rising Up!: Promoting Congolese Women’s Land Access and Preventing GBV in Eastern DRC ● Securing Land Rights & Ending Gender Exclusion in Uganda NORC has been contracted as an external, independent organization to collect data for USAID that will inform current and future USAID-funded programming focused on gender-based violence (GBV) prevention and response. While NORC does a lot of work WITH USAID, we do not work FOR USAID. We are completely neutral on all the issues we will be talking about, and we’re just here to learn about your perspective and experiences. That means you don’t need to worry about making us happy or hurting our feelings. Please be candid in your answers. Today’s interview is planned for 60 minutes. Your participation is voluntary. If you are unable to answer a question, you may skip it or leave the discussion, if you want, and there will not be any problem. However, your feedback will be very useful in helping in informing current and future USAID-funded programming focused on GBV prevention and response. Your responses will be kept confidential and anonymous. The information you provide will not identify you as a participant of this interview/discussion. Do you have any questions before we get started? [ANSWER QUESTIONS] If you have any questions later, please e-mail Ritu Nayyar-Stone, the project director for this study at nayyarstone-ritu@norc.org. [PUT RITU EMAIL IN CHAT] With your permission, I’d like to record today’s interview. This will enable us to go back and substantiate our notes. The recording will never be shared with USAID. It will be kept within this research team and destroyed at the end of this study. Do you agree to participate in today’s study? Do you agree to have this interview recorded? [START RECORDING] The recording has started. Could you please confirm for me one more time on the tape that you agree to participate in this study and have this interview recorded? Thank you. Before we jump in, I’d like to get to know you bit. Could you please give a brief introduction to you and your area of focus within Resilient, Inclusive, and Sustainable Environments (RISE) activity cluster? DRG-LER II TASKING NO. 54 GBV PPE - RISE CLUSTER QUESTIONS FOR USAID 97 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: RISE EVALUATION USAID.GOV Topic Question Introduction Today we are going to discuss the overall design, progress, and performance of the X activity. “X” Activity Options ● Creative Capacity Building to Address Gender Based Violence in the Artisanal and Small-Scale Mining Sector (Colombia) ● Conservation of the Alto Mayo Landscape without Gender Violence (Peru) ● Combatting Gender-based Violence in Vietnamese Conservation ● Advancing Equitable Gender, Social and Power Norms in Community Conservancies in Kenya ● Gender Empowerment and Transformation: Tackling Resource-Based Conflict and Gender-based Violence in Fiji ● Rising Up!: Promoting Congolese Women’s Land Access and Preventing GBV in Eastern DRC Securing Land Rights & Ending Gender Exclusion in Uganda PORTFOLIO QUESTIONS Prevention 1a. What has been the most important contribution of the [name of activity] to help prevent GBV? Please, explain how. 1b. What have been the most effective aspects of your activities or approaches to prevent GBV in this activity? Why? 1c. What are the main lessons learned about prevention that you could share? Protection 2a. Please, briefly describe how [name of activity] has provided or facilitated access to services for GBV survivors? ● Which specific activity component or approach was most effective? 2b. Can you provide some examples of activity effectiveness in providing or facilitating access to these services? Coordination 3a. Have you or your organization participated in meetings with other implementing partners (IPs) via USAID’s USAID/GenDev? ● If yes, what was the purpose of these meetings? Please, provide examples if the meetings served multiple purposes. 3b. What information, ideas or other benefits did you obtain from this experience(s)? 3c. Would you recommend more exchanges between IPs and USAID? Why? Or why not? 3d. What other activities could USAID implement to benefit IPs from collaboration? Foundations 4a. Have you been briefed on USAID strategies and priorities around GBV? Populations 5a. Could you please tell me about the populations served by your activity? 5b. Are there any underserved or especially vulnerable groups that your activity has reached? ● If so, what are the approaches or strategies the RISE activity cluster has implemented to address the needs of these groups? 5c. How effective have these strategies been? 5d. Which vulnerable groups susceptible to GBV has the activity not been able to reach? Why? DRG-LER II TASKING NO. 54 GBV PPE - RISE CLUSTER QUESTIONS FOR USAID 98 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: RISE EVALUATION USAID.GOV Topic Question Stakeholders 6a. What other stakeholders were you able to engage to accomplish the goals of the RISE activity cluster? ● What were the contributions of these additional stakeholders? ● Was their participation valuable? ● Do you have any lessons learned that you could share about this? Intervention planning and design 7a. What are important knowledge and practice gaps in planning and designing GBV interventions? Forms of violence 8a. What are important knowledge and practice gaps in addressing specific forms of GBV that relate to environmental programming or natural resource management in X? “X” Country Options ● Colombia ● Peru ● Vietnam ● Fiji ● DRC ● Kenya ● Uganda Reach and effectiveness 9a. Are there any USAID USAID/GenDev learning or dissemination of lessons that are relevant for other areas? 9b. Have the strategies used by the 4 activity clusters influenced your ability to plan or strategize GBV prevention and protection initiatives? ACTIVITY CLUSTER QUESTIONS Needs assessment and intervention evidence 10a. What pre-implementation assessments did you do for this activity? Were they useful? 10b. How did those help your team plan and implement the activity? 10c. Would you recommend any other kinds of research before implementing similar activities? Assumption 11a. When formulating the TOC of the activity, what were the main assumptions about: ● The ability of the organization to deliver the activities; ● Of the potential participants to access the services; ● Of how the services would result in the desired outcomes? 11b. How relevant were the assumptions? DRG-LER II TASKING NO. 54 GBV PPE - RISE CLUSTER QUESTIONS FOR USAID 99 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: RISE EVALUATION USAID.GOV Topic Question Causal Pathways According to the document review, the theory of change or overarching causal pathways for the activity cluster is that ● IF USAID RISE incentivizes and facilitated partnerships between environment and gender organizations to design and test new interventions at the intersection of GBV and environmental or natural resource management programming; ● THEN RISE Grantees will engage in peer learning, and document and disseminate evidence, tools, and lessons learned, ● AND USAID will promote policies and practices, evidence, tools, and lessons learned. o SO that… RISE Grantees and USAID will have strengthened capacity to address GBV in environmental or natural resource programs; o SO that… programs that focus on the access, use, control, and management of natural resources to prevent and/or reduce instances of GBV and contribute to development outcomes are more effective. 12a. Was this TOC inclusive of the activity that your organization implemented? ● how well do you think it represented the way it worked? 12b. Once you started implementation did you need to adjust your own activity’s TOC? ● If yes, what adjustments were necessary? Monitoring and adaptions 13a. What was your strategy for activity monitoring and adapting the activities based on emerging findings? 13b. Could you share some examples of how you might have changed any aspects of activities based on emerging evidence? 13c. How accessible and user friendly were the monitoring tools/templates provided to the activity? 13d. Are there any lessons learned from your experience with the monitoring tools? Outcomes 14a. What were the primary outcomes of the activity? 14b.Were the outcomes stated in activity design realistic and achievable? Why? 14c. Was the length of the grant sufficient to achieve these outcomes? Please describe one or two of the main activity outcomes so far. ● Can you describe any facilitating factors? 14d. Are there outcomes that you would have liked to see but were not feasible to accomplish? Why? Planning and activity designs 15a. How did the co-creation process on activity design work for your organization? ● Could you identify advantages and down sides of this approach? 15b. If you were designing the activity again, is there anything that you would do differently? 15c. What are the main lessons learned from designing the activity? DRG-LER II TASKING NO. 54 GBV PPE - RISE CLUSTER QUESTIONS FOR USAID 100 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: RISE EVALUATION USAID.GOV Topic Question Intervention Implementation 16a. Was your activity able to reach the participants that it was designed to reach? ● How did you identify changemakers in the organization/community for activity? What role did they play? 16b. Were there any challenges in reaching the right people to influence change? 16c. Who else should be engaged and was not in the activity? Mechanisms 17a. What do you think were the most effective components of your activity? Please, identify one or two. Why? Sustainability 18a. How did you hear about the opportunity to participate in the RISE Challenge? How easy or difficult was the submission process? 18b. What, if any, changes would you like to make to the proposal submission process? ● What features of this activity were most suited to change the way that your organization operates? ● Which were most effective? 18c. What operational challenges did your organization have to implement the activity? 18d. What components or approaches in the RISE cluster have remained active even after the USAID funding ended? How did that happen? 18e. What components or activities in the RISE cluster ended? Why? (PROBE: funding, political willingness, cultural competency, etc.) 18f. What strategies could have enhanced sustainability of those components that ended? 18g. What have been the primary facilitators and barriers to the sustainability of the activity? 18h. Can you comment on the cost-effectiveness of the activities? Replicability, transferability, and adaptability 19a. What components or approaches do you think could be replicated in other communities or countries? 19b. Where else would you recommend implementing this activity? ● What approaches, components, or tools of the activity would need to be adapted for a different context? Scalability 20a. If you were to scale up your activity, which components of your intervention would you focus on? 20b. Are there any that you would drop? What changes would you make? 20c. What are the main challenges for scaling the activity up in your country/region? 20d. What do you think the cost implications of scaling up the activities? IMPLEMENTATION EVALUATION QUESTIONS (Only DRC) Design 21a. Could you speak to how this activity was designed? What factors influenced this design? 21b. What priorities were established? ● Who was involved in these design decisions? ● Would you change anything about the design? 21c. What are the barriers and potential facilitators to sustainable reform of land tenure/natural resource governance systems so that they contribute to the prevention of GBV? ● How did your activity address these? DRG-LER II TASKING NO. 54 GBV PPE - RISE CLUSTER QUESTIONS FOR USAID 101 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: RISE EVALUATION USAID.GOV Topic Question Implementation 22a. In your opinion which approaches/tools were most effective in achieving the objective of this activity? 22b. Were there specific challenges or enabling factors in implementing this activity? Please explain. ● Were the challenges overcome? And how? Flexibility 23a. Is there sufficient staffing to respond to local priorities? 23b. Is there flexibility to change approaches to respond to lessons and changing challenges in the local environment? Target participants 24a. Who were the main target individuals of this activity? ● Did you have any difficulty reaching them? ● If so, what were the difficulties? 24b. Are there particular sub-groups of target individuals that are difficult to reach? How do you think these barriers could be mitigated in the future? 24c. Among the groups of people in your community/zone of influence, who do you think most benefited and who might have been left out or not benefited sufficiently? ● [Probe on different kinds of populations] Why or why not? Monitoring of results 25a. Is the activity collecting evidence on what is working, not working and what could be done differently to achieve results? Sustainability 26a. Do you think that this activity is sustainable moving forward? 26b. What practices or activities have taken place to support the sustainability of the activity in DRC? 26c. Have you experienced any resistance from community members or leadership to the changes promoted by this activity? Please describe them. 26d. Have community members supported or expressed enthusiasm for this work? Describe? 26e. Have there been any unexpected consequences (good or bad) to these reforms or activity activities in general? Closing 27a. Do you have any other comments that you would like to make? 27b. Do you have any questions for us? Thank you for taking the time to speak with me. This is the end of interview. DRG-LER II TASKING NO. 54 GBV PPE - RISE CLUSTER QUESTIONS FOR USAID 102 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: RISE EVALUATION USAID.GOV RESONANCE KII GUIDE Respondent Names and Roles/Titles: Date: Start Time: Topic Question INTRO / ACKNOWLEDGE: Hello. My name is ______ and I work for NORC at the University of Chicago. I’ll be leading today’s interview. I will let my colleague(s) introduce themselves. I want to thank you for coming and participating in this interview, which is part of an evaluation of the Resilient, Inclusive, Sustainable, Environments (RISE) activity cluster for USAID’s Office of Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment. NORC has been contracted as an external, independent organization to collect data for USAID that will inform current and future USAID-funded programming focused on GBV prevention and response. While NORC does a lot of work WITH USAID, we do not work FOR USAID. We are completely neutral on all the issues we will be talking about, and we’re just here to learn about your perspective and experiences. That means you don’t need to worry about making us happy or hurting our feelings. Please be candid in your answers. Today’s interview is planned for 60 minutes. Your participation is voluntary. If you are unable to answer a question, you may skip it or even stop the interview at any time; there will be no repercussions for this. However, your feedback will be very useful in helping in informing current and future USAID-funded programming focused on GBV prevention and response. Your responses will be kept confidential and anonymous. The information you provide will not identify you as a participant of this interview/discussion. Do you have any questions before we get started? [ANSWER QUESTIONS] If you have any questions later, please e-mail Ritu Nayyar-Stone, the project director for this study at nayyarstone-ritu@norc.org. [PUT RITU EMAIL IN CHAT] With your permission, I’d like to record today’s interview. This will enable us to go back and substantiate our notes. The recording will never be shared with USAID. It will be kept within this research team and destroyed at the end of this study. Do you agree to participate in today’s study? Do you agree to have this interview recorded? [START RECORDING] The recording has started. Could you please confirm for me one more time on the tape that you agree to participate in this study and have this interview recorded? Thank you. Before we jump in, I’d like to get to know you bit. Could you please give a brief introduction to you and your role at Resonance? Introduction Today we are going to discuss the RISE Grant Challenge, how it functions as a whole, and what can be learned from RISE to inform future USAID gender-based violence programming. To start, could you please tell me about your involvement with RISE? DRG-LER II TASKING NO. 54 GBV PPE - RISE CLUSTER QUESTIONS FOR USAID 103 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: RISE EVALUATION USAID.GOV Topic Question Specific to Resonance 1a. At what point did Resonance begin managing RISE Challenge Grants? Were you involved in decision-making around which grants to choose? 1b. [If yes]: What considerations guided the choice of interventions besides being at the intersection of environmental programming and GBV? 1c. What was your involvement with developing the RISE Challenge monitoring, evaluation, and learning (MEL) plan? What were the most important MEL objectives for the RISE Challenge as a whole? 1d. Do you have any suggestions for improvement or lessons learned about structuring the grant challenge that could inform RISE II? Prevention 2a. What have been the most important contributions of the RISE cluster in preventing GBV? 2b. Which approaches from grantee activities were effective in preventing GBV? Why? Least effective? Why? What types of information or evidence was produced about the effects of the activities? Protection 3a. Thinking about all the grants in the RISE cluster, have any of them influenced access to effective services for GBV survivors? Which ones? ● Have any of them influenced the quality of services for GBV survivors? Which ones? 3b. Out of the RISE approaches that increased access to services, which were most effective? Least effective? Why? Accountability 4a. Thinking about all the grants in the RISE cluster, have any of these grants improved accountability for GBV perpetrators? Which ones? 4b. Out of the RISE approaches that increased accountability for perpetrators, which were most effective? Least effective? Why? Coordination 5a. Could you please tell me about the management structure for the RISE cluster? 5b. How does information flow from grantees up to USAID/GenDev? 5c. How does this information influence decision-making? Please, provide an example (probe past re-design, future programming, etc.). 5d. What is your assessment of the co-creation processes undertaken between USAID and IPs? Are there any lessons learned from these experiences? Foundations 6a. Have grantees been briefed on USAID strategies and priorities around GBV? Or the lessons learned from the cluster? How? What did you think about this process? Populations 7a. Could you tell me about the most vulnerable or underserved populations who have participated in RISE cluster programming? ● Who do you think these activities might have missed? Why? 7b. Are there certain populations that you would recommend be considered for future programming? Stakeholders 8a. Was there a strategy for engaging a broad range of stakeholders for the RISE cluster? 8b. What activities were able to effectively engage relevant stakeholders? Please, provide one or two examples. 8c. In contrast, what activities were less successful? Also, please provide one or two examples. Intervention planning and design 9a. What are important knowledge and practice gaps in planning and designing GBV interventions in environmental programming? What types of information or evidence might have improved the program or be useful for future projects? 9b. Were there particular gaps related to gender diversity? If yes, please describe. DRG-LER II TASKING NO. 54 GBV PPE - RISE CLUSTER QUESTIONS FOR USAID 104 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: RISE EVALUATION USAID.GOV Topic Question Forms of violence 10a. What are important knowledge and practice gaps in addressing specific forms of GBV pertinent to the RISE cluster (such as economic violence in natural resource sectors, or intimate partner violence associated with natural resources or land titling)? Do you have any thoughts about how these should be addressed? Reach and effectiveness 11a. How do all of the RISE grants together influence the reach and effectiveness of other GBV interventions, even those not funded by USAID? 11b. How do you think USAID will take advantage of the lessons learned or knowledge gained from the RISE grants for future work? Sustainability 12a. Which components of the RISE Challenge do you think are most likely to be sustained after the end of the grants? 12b. Have there been partnerships formed because of RISE that you think are likely to continue? 12c. What would you say is RISE’s biggest contribution to the knowledge base around the intersection of environmental programming and GBV? 12d. Do you have any suggestions that could improve the sustainability of RISE interventions? Closing 13a. Do you have any other comments that you would like to make about the RISE grant challenge? 13b. Do you have any questions for us? Thank you for taking the time to speak with me. This is the end of interview. DRG-LER II TASKING NO. 54 GBV PPE - RISE CLUSTER QUESTIONS FOR USAID 105 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: RISE EVALUATION USAID.GOV USAID KII GUIDE Respondent Name, Area(s) of Expertise Date: Start Time: Topic Question INTRO / ACKNOWLEDGE: Hello. My name is ______ and I work for NORC at the University of Chicago. I’ll be leading today’s interview. I will let my colleague(s) introduce themselves. I want to thank you for coming and participating in this interview, which is part of an evaluation of the RISE activity cluster for USAID’s Office of Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment. NORC has been contracted as an external, independent organization to collect data for USAID that will inform current and future USAID-funded programming focused on GBV prevention and response. While NORC does a lot of work WITH USAID, we do not work FOR USAID. We are completely neutral on all the issues we will be talking about, and we’re just here to learn about your perspective and experiences. That means you don’t need to worry about making us happy or hurting our feelings. Please be candid in your answers. Today’s interview is planned for 60 minutes. Your participation is voluntary. If you are unable to answer a question, you may skip it or even stop the interview at any time; there will be no repercussions for this. However, your feedback will be very useful in helping in informing current and future USAID-funded programming focused on GBV prevention and response. Your responses will be kept confidential and anonymous. The information you provide will not identify you as a participant of this interview/discussion. Do you have any questions before we get started? [ANSWER QUESTIONS] If you have any questions later, please e-mail Ritu Nayyar-Stone, the project director for this study at nayyarstone-ritu@norc.org. [PUT RITU EMAIL IN CHAT] With your permission, I’d like to record today’s interview. This will enable us to go back and substantiate our notes. The recording will never be shared with USAID. It will be kept within this research team and destroyed at the end of this study. Do you agree to participate in today’s study? Do you agree to have this interview recorded? [START RECORDING] The recording has started. Could you please confirm for me one more time on the tape that you agree to participate in this study and have this interview recorded? Thank you. Before we jump in, I’d like to get to know you bit. Could you please give a brief introduction to you and your area of focus? Introduction Today we are going to discuss the Resilient, Inclusive, and Sustainable Environments (RISE) Activity Cluster under GenDev’s GBV Portfolio. To start, could you please tell me about your involvement with RISE? Prevention 1a. How does the USG GBV strategy or other overarching GBV related policy measures align with the interventions included in the RISE cluster? And, how did the strategy or policy feed into the RISE design and activities? 1b. What have been the most important contributions of the RISE cluster in preventing GBV? Why? How have the worked? 1c. Which do you think were the most effective approaches among the grantee activities in preventing GBV? What made them effective? 1d. What data or information have you received about the influence or effectiveness of the activity cluster? 1e. Looking back, what do you think might have made this work stronger? DRG-LER II TASKING NO. 54 GBV PPE - RISE CLUSTER QUESTIONS FOR USAID 106 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: RISE EVALUATION USAID.GOV Topic Question Protection 2a. Thinking about the RISE cluster, have any of these grants influenced how survivors access services for GBV? Which ones? 2b. Out of the RISE approaches that increased access to services, which were most effective? Least effective? Why? Accountability 3a. Thinking about the RISE cluster, have any of these grants affected accountability for GBV perpetrators? Which ones? How did they do this? 3b. Out of the RISE approaches that increased accountability for perpetrators, which were most effective? Least effective? Why? Coordination 4a. Could you please tell me about the management structure for the RISE cluster? 4b. How does information flow from grantees up to USAID/GenDev? 4c. How does this information influence decision-making? Please, provide an example (probe past re-design, future programming, etc.). 4d. What is your assessment of the co-creation processes undertaken between USAID and IPs? Can you describe how it worked and what you think worked especially well? What worked less well? What would you say are the most important lessons from this process? Now I have some questions for you about the integration of RISE grants with other GenDev GBV programming. Integration 5a. Have you coordinated initiatives from this cluster with any other GBV efforts from USAID? If yes, what types of collaboration took place and how well did they work? ● What did not work so well? ● What benefits or learning emerged from that collaboration? 5b. How does this activity cluster fit into the full range of USAID's GBV programs? How do you think it might influence future programming? 5c. How has the RISE and GBV programming taken account of different forms of vulnerability or marginalization? For example, intersectionality including gender, social or economic status, ethnicity, age or marital status. ● Are there important intersections or types of discrimination or marginalization that should have been considered more? ● Are other intersections that were not considered for RISE 1 being considered for RISE II? 5d. What are the primary features of the RISE cluster that might differ or complement the other GBV activity clusters? Please can you talk about two or three? Data 6a. What types of data have been collected from the RISE cluster? How does USAID/GenDev use data collected from the RISE cluster or how might it be used in the future? If data are not being collected or used, are there reasons why? 6b. Are lessons and information from the RISE cluster ever used to inform higher level decision making across USAID/GenDev programs? Could you provide some examples? Expansion 7a. How is USAID/GenDev’s GBV portfolio helping to expand and/or improve GBV programming? 7b. How have lessons from the RISE activity cluster affected other GBV programming? Foundations 8a. Have grantees been briefed on USAID strategies and priorities around GBV? Or the lessons learned from the cluster? Populations 9a. Could you tell me about the most vulnerable or underserved populations who have participated in RISE cluster programming? ● Who do you think these activities might have missed? Why? ● Who do you think benefited most from these activities? 9b. Are there certain populations that you would recommend be considered for future programming? DRG-LER II TASKING NO. 54 GBV PPE - RISE CLUSTER QUESTIONS FOR USAID 107 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: RISE EVALUATION USAID.GOV Topic Question Stakeholders 10a. Was there a strategy for engaging a broad range of stakeholders for the RISE cluster? Can you describe the strategy and how well it worked or did not work? 10b. What activities were able to effectively engage relevant stakeholders? Please, provide one or two examples. 10c. In contrast, what activities were less successful? Also, please provide one or two examples. Intervention planning and design 11a. What information or evidence do you think is most important when planning an intervention to address GBV and the environment? 11b. For these types of activities, what are important knowledge and practice gaps in planning and designing GBV interventions that relate to environmental programming or natural resource management? 11c. Were there particular information gaps related to gender diversity? If yes, please describe. How might this evidence have influenced the programming? 11d. Have you made changes to the TOC or approach of RISE in designing RISE II? Please describe. 11e. When thinking about the TOC, how well do you think it represented the way it worked in practice? What would you change, if anything? 11f. In your opinion, which of these activities are worth continuing? How sustainable are these activities? What would be done to maintain these activities? Which ones do you think are most and least sustainable? Are any worth taking to scale? Why? Reach and effectiveness 12a. How do the 4 activity clusters together influence the reach and effectiveness of other GBV interventions, even those not funded by USAID? 12b. How will you take advantage of the lessons learned or knowledge gained from the 4 activity clusters for future work? Closing 13a. Do you have any other comments that you like to make? 13b. Do you have any questions for us? Thank you for taking the time to speak with me. This is the end of interview. DRG-LER II TASKING NO. 54 GBV PPE - RISE CLUSTER QUESTIONS FOR USAID 108 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: RISE EVALUATION USAID.GOV ANNEX D: SOURCES OF INFORMATION DOCUMENTS REVIEWED Alliance for Responsible Mining. (2019). Alliance for Responsible Mining Grant Application. Alliance for Responsible Mining & Massachusetts Institute of Technology Development Lab. (2019). Alliance for Responsible Mining Activity Summary. Alliance for Responsible Mining & Massachusetts Institute of Technology Development Lab. (2020a). Creative Capacity Building to Address Gender-Based Violence in the Artisanal and Small-Scale Mining Sector in Colombia: MIT D-Lab and ARM Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning Plan. Alliance for Responsible Mining & Massachusetts Institute of Technology Development Lab. (2020b). Creative Capacity Building to Address Gender-Based Violence in the Artisanal and Small-Scale Mining Sector in Colombia: MIT D-Lab and ARM Work Plan. Alliance for Responsible Mining & Massachusetts Institute of Technology Development Lab. (2020c). Creative Capacity Building to Address Gender-Based Violence in the Artisanal and Small-Scale Mining Sector in Colombia: Quarterly Report Quarter 1 (July 1, 2020 to October 31, 2020). Alliance for Responsible Mining & Massachusetts Institute of Technology Development Lab. (2020d). Creative Capacity Building to Address Gender-Based Violence in the Artisanal and Small-Scale Mining Sector in Colombia: Quarterly Report Quarter 2 (December 1st 2020 to March 31st 2021). Alliance for Responsible Mining & Massachusetts Institute of Technology Development Lab. (2021a). Creative Capacity Building to Address Gender-Based Violence in the Artisanal and Small-Scale Mining Sector in Colombia: MIT D-Lab and ARM Gender Analysis. Alliance for Responsible Mining & Massachusetts Institute of Technology Development Lab. (2021b). Creative Capacity Building to Address Gender-Based Violence in the Artisanal and Small-Scale Mining Sector in Colombia: Quarterly Report Quarter 3 (April 1st 2020 to April 30 2021). Alliance for Responsible Mining & Massachusetts Institute of Technology Development Lab. (2021c). Creative Capacity Building to Address Gender-Based Violence in the Artisanal and Small-Scale Mining Sector in Colombia: Quarterly Report Quarter 4 (May 1, 2021 to July 30, 2021). Alliance for Responsible Mining & Massachusetts Institute of Technology Development Lab. (2022a). Creative Capacity Building to Address Gender-Based Violence in the Artisanal and Small-Scale Mining Sector in Colombia: Alliance for Responsible Mining and MIT D-Lab Final Report (July 1, 2020 – June 10, 2022). Alliance for Responsible Mining & Massachusetts Institute of Technology Development Lab. (2022b). Creative Capacity Building to Address Gender-Based Violence in the Artisanal and Small-Scale Mining Sector in Colombia: Quarterly Report #5 (Aug-Dec 2021). Conservation International. (2019). Conservation International Grant Application. Conservation International. (2021a). Conservation of the Alto Mayo without Gender Violence: Conservation International Final Report. DRG-LER II TASKING NO. 54 GBV PPE - RISE CLUSTER QUESTIONS FOR USAID 109 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: RISE EVALUATION USAID.GOV Conservation International. (2021b). Conservation of the Alto Mayo without Gender Violence: Conservation International Quarterly Report (January-August 2021). Conservation International. (2021c). Conservation of the Alto Mayo without Gender Violence: Conservation International Quarterly Report (September-November 2021). Conservation International. (2021d). Conservation of the Alto Mayo without Gender Violence: Conservation International Work Plan and MEL Plan. Kenya Wildlife Conservancies Association. (2019). Kenya Wildlife Conservancies Association Grant Application. Kenya Wildlife Conservancies Association. (2021a). Advancing Equitable Gender, Social and Power Norms in Community Conservancies in Kenya: Kenya Wildlife Conservancies Association Progress Report 1 (11th January—8th July 2021). Kenya Wildlife Conservancies Association. (2021b). Advancing Equitable Gender, Social and Power Norms in Community Conservancies in Kenya: Kenya Wildlife Conservancies Association Progress Report 2 (9th July—29th November 2021). Kenya Wildlife Conservancies Association. (2021c). Advancing Equitable Gender, Social and Power Norms in Community Conservancies in Kenya: Kenya Wildlife Conservancies Association Work Plan and MEL Plan. Kenya Wildlife Conservancies Association. (2022a). Advancing Equitable Gender, Social and Power Norms in Community Conservancies in Kenya: Kenya Wildlife Conservancies Association Final Report. Kenya Wildlife Conservancies Association. (2022b). Advancing Equitable Gender, Social and Power Norms in Community Conservancies in Kenya: Kenya Wildlife Conservancies Association Progress Report 3 (30th November 2021 to 28th February 2022). Kenya Wildlife Conservancies Association. (2022c). Advancing Equitable Gender, Social and Power Norms in Community Conservancies in Kenya: Kenya Wildlife Conservancies Association Progress Report 4 (29th February 2021 to 30th May 2022). Marstel Day. (2019). Marstel Day Grant Application. Marstel Day. (2020a). Gender-Based Violence and REDD+ in Fiji: Tackling Resource Based Conflict and Addressing Gender-Based Risk in the Environment in Fiji FGRM+: Gender and Environment Analysis. Marstel Day. (2020b). Gender-Based Violence and REDD+ in Fiji: Tackling Resource Based Conflict and Addressing Gender-Based Risk in the Environment in Fiji FGRM+: Inception Report: Work, Consultation and MEL Plan. Marstel Day. (2020c). Gender-Based Violence and REDD+ in Fiji: Tackling Resource Based Conflict and Addressing Gender-Based Risk in the Environment in Fiji FGRM+: Quarterly Report (June￾August 2020). DRG-LER II TASKING NO. 54 GBV PPE - RISE CLUSTER QUESTIONS FOR USAID 110 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: RISE EVALUATION USAID.GOV Marstel Day. (2020d). Gender-Based Violence and REDD+ in Fiji: Tackling Resource Based Conflict and Addressing Gender-Based Risk in the Environment in Fiji FGRM+: Quarterly Report (March-May 2020). Marstel Day. (2020e). Gender-Based Violence and REDD+ in Fiji: Tackling Resource Based Conflict and Addressing Gender-Based Risk in the Environment in Fiji FGRM+: Quarterly Report (September-December 2020). Marstel Day. (2021a). Gender-Based Violence and REDD+ in Fiji: Tackling Resource Based Conflict and Addressing Gender-Based Risk in the Environment in Fiji FGRM+: Communications Strategy and Training Report. Marstel Day. (2021b). Gender-Based Violence and REDD+ in Fiji: Tackling Resource Based Conflict and Addressing Gender-Based Risk in the Environment in Fiji FGRM+: FGRM+ Design and Reporting. Marstel Day. (2021c). Gender-Based Violence and REDD+ in Fiji: Tackling Resource Based Conflict and Addressing Gender-Based Risk in the Environment in Fiji FGRM+: Quarterly Report (April￾September 2021). Marstel Day. (2021d). Gender-Based Violence and REDD+ in Fiji: Tackling Resource Based Conflict and Addressing Gender-Based Risk in the Environment in Fiji FGRM+: Quarterly Report (January-March 2021). Marstel Day. (2021e). Gender-Based Violence and REDD+ in Fiji: Tackling Resource Based Conflict and Addressing Gender-Based Risk in the Environment in Fiji FGRM+: Situational Assessment. Marstel Day. (2022). Gender-Based Violence and REDD+ in Fiji: Tackling Resource Based Conflict and Addressing Gender-Based Risk in the Environment in Fiji FGRM+: Final Report. Marstel Day. (2020f, November). USAID RISE Challenge Socialization Event: Gender-Based Violence and REDD+ in Fiji: Tackling Resource Based Conflict and Addressing Gender-Based Risk in the Environment in Fiji FGRM+. PROMSEX. (2021). Study on Social Tolerance of Gender-Based Violence in the Shampuyacu Awajún Native Community, Province of Rioja, San Martín Region. Resonance. (2021a). Resilient, Inclusive and Sustainable Environments (RISE) Challenge Annual Report. Resonance. (2021b). Resilient, Inclusive and Sustainable Environments (RISE) Challenge USAID/GenDev Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning Plan. Resonance. (2022). Resilient, Inclusive and Sustainable Environments (RISE) Challenge Final Report. Trócaire. (2019). Trócaire Grant Application. Trócaire. (2020a). Securing Land Rights and Ending Gender Exclusion (SLEDGE) Trócaire Baseline Survey Report July 2020. DRG-LER II TASKING NO. 54 GBV PPE - RISE CLUSTER QUESTIONS FOR USAID 111 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: RISE EVALUATION USAID.GOV Trócaire. (2020b). Securing Land Rights and Ending Gender Exclusion (SLEDGE) Trócaire Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning Plan. Trócaire. (2020c). Securing Land Rights and Ending Gender Exclusion (SLEDGE) Trócaire Quarterly Report (June 1st to 31st August 2020). Trócaire. (2020d). Securing Land Rights and Ending Gender Exclusion (SLEDGE) Trócaire Quarterly Report (March 1st to 31st May, 2020). Trócaire. (2020e). Securing Land Rights and Ending Gender Exclusion (SLEDGE) Trócaire Quarterly Report (September 1st-30th November 2020). Trócaire. (2020f). Securing Land Rights and Ending Gender Exclusion (SLEDGE) Trócaire Work Plan. Trócaire. (2021a). Securing Land Rights and Ending Gender Exclusion (SLEDGE) Trócaire Midterm Review Report March 2021. Trócaire. (2021b). Securing Land Rights and Ending Gender Exclusion (SLEDGE) Trócaire Quarterly Report (December 1st 2020-28th February 2021). Trócaire. (2021c). Securing Land Rights and Ending Gender Exclusion (SLEDGE) Trócaire Quarterly Report (March 1st 2021-31st May 2021). Trócaire. (2022a). Securing Land Rights and Ending Gender Exclusion (SLEDGE) Trócaire Endline Evaluation Report for SLEDGE Project. Trócaire. (2022b). Securing Land Rights and Ending Gender Exclusion (SLEDGE) Trócaire Final Report. WildAct Vietnam. (2021a). Activity Report: Gender-Based Violence in Wildlife Conservation from Managers’ Role. WildAct Vietnam. (2021b). Combatting Gender-Based Violence in Vietnamese Conservation: WildAct Quarterly Report First Progress Report (January 8th 2021 to July 31st 2021). WildAct Vietnam. (2021c). Combatting Gender-Based Violence in Vietnamese Conservation: WildAct Work Plan and MEL Plan. WildAct Vietnam. (2021d). Report on the Traiing for Focal Contact Points: Necessary Skills in the Process of Receiving and Supporting a Sexual Harassment Case 1. WildAct Vietnam. (2021e). Report on the Traiing for Focal Contact Points: Necessary Skills in the Process of Receiving and Supporting a Sexual Harassment Case 2. WildAct Vietnam. (2021f). Training Report: Sexual Harassment in the Workplace Definition and Response. WildAct Vietnam. (2021g). Workshop Report Gender-Based Violence in Conservation and Discussion on Solutions to Create a Better World of Work. WildAct Vietnam. (2022a). Combatting Gender-Based Violence in Vietnamese Conservation: WildAct Quarterly Report Second Progress Report (1st August-31st December 2021). DRG-LER II TASKING NO. 54 GBV PPE - RISE CLUSTER QUESTIONS FOR USAID 112 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: RISE EVALUATION USAID.GOV WildAct Vietnam. (2022b). Combatting Gender-Based Violence in Vietnamese Conservation: WildAct Quarterly Report Third Progress Report. WildAct Vietnam. (2022c). Guidelines for Developing Sexual Harassment Prevention and Conduct in Conservation Workplaces. WildAct Vietnam. (2023). Combatting Gender-Based Violence in Vietnamese Conservation: WildAct Final Report. Women for Women International. (2019). Women for Women International Grant Application. Women for Women International & Innovation and Training for Development and Peace. (2020a). Rising Up! Promoting Congolese Women’s Access and Preventing GBV in Eastern DRC: Quartlerly Progress Report Y1 Q1. Women for Women International & Innovation and Training for Development and Peace. (2020b). Rising Up! Promoting Congolese Women’s Access and Preventing GBV in Eastern DRC: Women for Women International Work Plan. Women for Women International & Innovation and Training for Development and Peace. (2020c). Rising Up! Promoting Congolese Women’s Land Access and Preventing GBV in Eastern DRC Gender Analysis Report. Women for Women International & Innovation and Training for Development and Peace. (2021a). Rising Up! Promoting Congolese Women’s Access and Preventing GBV in Eastern DRC: Annual Mel Report (Mid-Term Report: 1st July 2020-30th June 2021). Women for Women International & Innovation and Training for Development and Peace. (2021b). Rising Up! Promoting Congolese Women’s Access and Preventing GBV in Eastern DRC: Annual Report (Mid-Term Report: 1st July 2020-30th Jun 2021). Women for Women International & Innovation and Training for Development and Peace. (2021c). Rising Up! Promoting Congolese Women’s Access and Preventing GBV in Eastern DRC: Quartlerly Progress Report Q5. Women for Women International & Innovation and Training for Development and Peace. (2021d). Rising Up! Promoting Congolese Women’s Access and Preventing GBV in Eastern DRC: Quartlerly Progress Report Y1 Q2. Women for Women International & Innovation and Training for Development and Peace. (2021e). Rising Up! Promoting Congolese Women’s Access and Preventing GBV in Eastern DRC: Quartlerly Progress Report Y1 Q3. Women for Women International & Innovation and Training for Development and Peace. (2022). Rising Up! Promoting Congolese Women’s Access and Preventing GBV in Eastern DRC: Women for Women International Final Report. DRG-LER II TASKING NO. 54 GBV PPE - RISE CLUSTER QUESTIONS FOR USAID 113 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: RISE EVALUATION USAID.GOV KEY INFORMANTS Organizational Affiliation Name Title USAID Jamie Small Activity Cluster Manager USAID Corinne Hart Activity Cluster Manager USAID Chai Shenoy Former COR of RISE Resonance Chelsea Kay COP/RISE Director Resonance Eleonora Corsini RISE MEL Specialist Marstel-Day Senior Program Manager Marstel-Day Team Leader/Climate and Environmental Conflict Expert Mastel-Day Land Tenure and Law Expert WI-HER Gender and Impact Expert WI-HER GBV Researcher REDD+ Communications Director REDD+ Forestry Officer ARM Executive Director for Latin America MIT Local Project Coordinator WFWI Senior Program and Planning Officer WFWI Senior Program Officer IFDP Project Director IFDP Project Manager KWCA Gender Officer KWCA Chief Executive Officer LEMU Project Officer WildAct Director CI Project Lead/MEL Manager CI Manager Independent Expert Colombia: Gender, Mining, and Environment Independent Expert Peru: Gender-Based Violence Independent Expert Vietnam: Gender Equality, Empowerment, and Women’s Rights Independent Expert Kenya: Gender-Based Violence Independent Expert DRC: Conflict Sensitivity, Gender, and Social Inclusion DRG-LER II TASKING NO. 54 GBV PPE - RISE CLUSTER QUESTIONS FOR USAID 114 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: RISE EVALUATION USAID.GOV ANNEX E, DISCLOSURE CONFLICTS OF INTEREST DRG-LER II TASKING NO. 54 GBV PPE - RISE CLUSTER QUESTIONS FOR USAID 115 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: RISE EVALUATION USAID.GOV Name Tulay Akoglu Title Qualitative Specialist Organization NORC at the University of Chicago Evaluation Position? ☐Team Leader ☒ Team member Evaluation Award Number (contract or other instrument) GS-10F-0033M / 7200AA18M00016, Tasking N054 USAID Activity(s) Evaluated (Include activity name(s), implementer name(s) and award number(s), if applicable) GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: RESILIENT, INCLUSIVE & SUSTAINABLE ENVIRONMENTS I have real or potential conflicts of interest to disclose. ☐Yes☒ No If yes answered above, I disclose the following facts: Real or potential conflicts of interest may include, but are not limited to: 1.Close family member who is an employee of the USAID operating unit managing the activity(s) being evaluated or the implementing organization(s) whose activity(s) are being evaluated. 2.Financial interest that is direct, or is significant though indirect, in the implementing organization(s) whose activities are being evaluated or in the outcome of the evaluation. 3.Current or previous direct or significant though indirect experience with the activity(s) being evaluated, including involvement in the activity design or previous iterations of the activity. 4.Current or previous work experience or seeking employment with the USAID operating unit managing the evaluation or the implementing organization(s) whose activity(s) are being evaluated. 5.Current or previous work experience with an organization that may be seen as an industry competitor with the implementing organization(s) whose activity(s) are being evaluated. 6.Preconceived ideas toward individuals, groups, organizations, or objectives of the particular activities and organizations being evaluated that could bias the evaluation. I certify (1) that I have completed this disclosure form fully and to the best of my ability and (2) that I will update this disclosure form promptly if relevant circumstances change. If I gain access to proprietary information of other companies, then I agree to protect their information from unauthorized use or disclosure for as long as it remains proprietary and refrain from using the information for any purpose other than that for which it was furnished. Signature Tulay Akoglu Date 6/16/2023 DRG-LER II TASKING NO. 54 GBV PPE - RISE CLUSTER QUESTIONS FOR USAID 116 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: RISE EVALUATION USAID.GOV Name Jessica Wallach Title RISE Team Lead Organization NORC at the University of Chicago Evaluation Position? ☐Team Leader ☒Team member Evaluation Award Number (contract or other instrument) GS-10F-0033M / 7200AA18M00016, Tasking N054 USAID Activity(s) Evaluated (Include activity name(s), implementer name(s) and award number(s), if applicable) GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: RESILIENT, INCLUSIVE & SUSTAINABLE ENVIRONMENTS I have real or potential conflicts of interest to disclose. ☐Yes☐ No If yes answered above, I disclose the following facts: Real or potential conflicts of interest may include, but are not limited to: 1.Close family member who is an employee of the USAID operating unit managing the activity(s) being evaluated or the implementing organization(s) whose activity(s) are being evaluated. 2.Financial interest that is direct, or is significant though indirect, in the implementing organization(s) whose activitys are being evaluated or in the outcome of the evaluation. 3.Current or previous direct or significant though indirect experience with the activity(s) being evaluated, including involvement in the activity design or previous iterations of the activity. 4.Current or previous work experience or seeking employment with the USAID operating unit managing the evaluation or the implementing organization(s) whose activity(s) are being evaluated. 5.Current or previous work experience with an organization that may be seen as an industry competitor with the implementing organization(s) whose activity(s) are being evaluated. 6.Preconceived ideas toward individuals, groups, organizations, or objectives of the particular activitys and organizations being evaluated that could bias the evaluation. I certify (1) that I have completed this disclosure form fully and to the best of my ability and (2) that I will update this disclosure form promptly if relevant circumstances change. If I gain access to proprietary information of other companies, then I agree to protect their information from unauthorized use or disclosure for as long as it remains proprietary and refrain from using the information for any purpose other than that for which it was furnished. Signature Date DRG-LER II TASKING NO. 54 GBV PPE - RISE CLUSTER QUESTIONS FOR USAID 117 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: RISE EVALUATION USAID.GOV Name Rachel Rosenberg Title RISE Team Lead Organization NORC at the University of Chicago Evaluation Position? ☐Team Leader☐ Team member Evaluation Award Number (contract or other instrument) GS-10F-0033M / 7200AA18M00016, Tasking N054 USAID Activity(s) Evaluated (Include activity name(s), implementer name(s) and award number(s), if applicable) GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: RESILIENT, INCLUSIVE & SUSTAINABLE ENVIRONMENTS I have real or potential conflicts of interest to disclose. ☐Yes ☐ No If yes answered above, I disclose the following facts: Real or potential conflicts of interest may include, but are not limited to: 1.Close family member who is an employee of the USAID operating unit managing the activity(s) being evaluated or the implementing organization(s) whose activity(s) are being evaluated. 2.Financial interest that is direct, or is significant though indirect, in the implementing organization(s) whose activitys are being evaluated or in the outcome of the evaluation. 3.Current or previous direct or significant though indirect experience with the activity(s) being evaluated, including involvement in the activity design or previous iterations of the activity. 4.Current or previous work experience or seeking employment with the USAID operating unit managing the evaluation or the implementing organization(s) whose activity(s) are being evaluated. 5.Current or previous work experience with an organization that may be seen as an industry competitor with the implementing organization(s) whose activity(s) are being evaluated. 6.Preconceived ideas toward individuals, groups, organizations, or objectives of the particular activitys and organizations being evaluated that could bias the evaluation. I certify (1) that I have completed this disclosure form fully and to the best of my ability and (2) that I will update this disclosure form promptly if relevant circumstances change. If I gain access to proprietary information of other companies, then I agree to protect their information from unauthorized use or disclosure for as long as it remains proprietary and refrain from using the information for any purpose other than that for which it was furnished. Signature Date U.S. AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20523