This publication was produced for review by the United States Agency for International Development. It was prepared by NORC at the University of Chicago. 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. GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT Final July 21, 2023 Prepared under Contract No.: GS-10F-0033M / 7200AA18M00016, Tasking N054 Stocksy DRG LEARNING, EVALUATION, AND RESEARCH ACTIVITY II GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT Final (July 21, 2023) Prepared under Contract No.: GS-10F-0033M /7200AA18M00016, Tasking N054 Submitted to: Matthew Baker, USAID COR Submitted by: Ritu Nayyar-Stone, Team Lead Ingrid Rojas, Evaluation Specialist Ridhi Sahai, Women’s Economic Empowerment Activity Cluster Co-Lead Camille Smith, Research Analyst Cathy Zimmerman, Gender/GBV Expert 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: PORTFOLIO REPORT USAID.GOV TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT III ACRONYMS IV EXECUTIVE SUMMARY VII EVALUATION DESIGN VIII FINDINGS VIII LESSONS FROM THE IMPLEMENTATION EVALUATION XI RECOMMENDATIONS ACROSS THE PORTFOLIO XII 1. EVALUATION PURPOSE AND EVALUATION QUESTIONS 1 EVALUATION QUESTIONS 2 2. FOUR ACTIVITY CLUSTERS BACKGROUND 3 3. METHODS AND LIMITATIONS 11 DESK REVIEW 12 QUALITATIVE DATA COLLECTION – KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWS 12 QUALITATIVE DATA COLLECTION – FOCUS GROUPS DISCUSSIONS 12 QUANTITATIVE DATA COLLECTION – SURVEY 12 LIMITATIONS AND MITIGATION STRATEGIES 12 4. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS 14 4.1 FINDINGS FOR THE PORTFOLIO QUESTIONS 14 EVALUATION QUESTION 1: HOW ARE THE USG’S GUIDING PRINCIPLES AND PRIORITIES TO END GBV BEING INCORPORATED INTO THE FOUR ACTIVITY CLUSTERS? 18 EVALUATION QUESTION 2: TO WHAT EXTENT ARE THE USG OBJECTIVES BEING ACHIEVED ACROSS THE FOUR ACTIVITY CLUSTERS? 24 EVALUATION QUESTION 3: WHAT LESSONS ARE BEING LEARNED AND TO WHAT EXTENT IS THERE SHARING OF BEST PRACTICES, LESSONS, AND INFORMATION ACROSS THE FOUR ACTIVITY CLUSTERS? 34 EVALUATION QUESTION 4: WHAT PERVASIVE GAPS STILL EXIST IN UNDERSTANDING GBV AND ADDRESSING SPECIFIC TYPES OF GBV? 40 4.2 CONCLUSIONS FOR THE PORTFOLIO 58 EQ1: HOW ARE THE USG’S GUIDING PRINCIPLES AND PRIORITIES TO END GBV BEING INCORPORATED INTO THE FOUR ACTIVITY CLUSTERS? 58 EQ2: TO WHAT EXTENT ARE USG OBJECTIVES BEING ACHIEVED ACROSS THE FOUR ACTIVITY CLUSTERS? 58 EQ3: WHAT LESSONS ARE BEING LEARNED AND TO WHAT EXTENT IS THERE SHARING OF BEST PRACTICES, LESSONS, AND INFORMATION ACROSS THE FOUR ACTIVITY CLUSTERS? 59 EQ4: WHAT PERVASIVE GAPS STILL EXIST IN UNDERSTANDING GBV AND ADDRESSING SPECIFIC TYPES OF GBV? 59 ii | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT USAID.GOV 5. LESSONS FROM THE IMPLEMENTATION EVALUATION ACROSS THE PORTFOLIO 60 6. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE PORTFOLIO 69 6.1 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUNDING DESIGN 72 6.2 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ACTIVITY DESIGN 74 6.3 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPLEMENTATION 76 6.4 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SUSTAINABILITY 77 TABLES Table 1. Activities by Cluster........................................................................................................................................ vii Table 2. Evaluation Findings.......................................................................................................................................... viii Table 3. Recommendations for GenDev ................................................................................................................... xii Table 4. Portfolio-level Evaluation Questions for the Four Activity Clusters.................................................... 2 Table 5. Activity Component Within Each Activity Cluster................................................................................... 4 Table 6. Summarized Data Collection Across All Four Activity Clusters......................................................... 11 Table 7. Summary Findings Across the 4 Activity Clusters................................................................................... 14 Table 8. Summary of the Activity Selected for the Implementation Evaluation.............................................. 61 Table 9. Implementation Successes and Challenges............................................................................................... 64 Table 10. Activity Funding and Period of Performance......................................................................................... 66 Table 11. Outcomes and Challenges Identified by the Implementation Evaluation......................................... 68 Table 12. Recommendations for Future GBV Activities........................................................................................ 69 FIGURES Figure 1. Geographic Location of the Activities Included in the Portfolio Performance Evaluation............. 3 iii | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT 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 (ACs): (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 that are directly funded by USAIDs Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment Hub (USAID/GenDev) to integrate GBV prevention and response activities. This evaluation report focuses on 20 activities across the world and addresses the following four main questions: (1) How are the US Government’s guiding principles and priorities to end GBV being incorporated into the four ACs? (2) To what extent are the US Governments objectives being achieved across the four ACs? (3) What lessons are being learned and to what extent is there sharing of best practices, lessons, and information across the four ACs? And (4) What pervasive gaps still exist in understanding GBV and addressing specific types of GBV? NORC applied a mixed-methods approach to answer these research questions, using a combination of desk review, key informant interviews (KIIs), focus group discussions (FGDs), direct observations, web-based surveys, and face-to-face surveys. The United States Government (USG) priorities for prevention and protection included addressing the causes of GBV and assistance for violence survivors. Only a limited number of activities (six) focused on accountability – and only indirectly by providing legal services and publicly calling out perpetrators. Coordination on GBV prevention and response was spearheaded by USAID, but faced challenges due to understaffing. Implementing partners (IPs) led information sharing between similar activities, but grantees reported that their meetings (often short or not occurring periodically) had little space for knowledge exchange and peer learning happened informally. Grantees from the BTC, CARE-GBV, and WEE clusters worked collaboratively with their partners to improve the effectiveness of their work and integrated their partners’ knowledge and processes into their activities. The four clusters also leveraged their experience or used data to improve their capacities and programming, and regularly shared lessons with their partners, learning from each other and complementing approaches. All four ACs worked with clearly defined target populations that included men with varying degrees of involvement. Activities across the clusters made reasonable progress in achieving planned objectives and indicated positive outcomes for survivors, communities, and local stakeholders in target areas. But some important knowledge and practice gaps still prevail. iv | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT USAID.GOV ACRONYMS AC Activity Cluster ACOFOP Association of Forest Communities of Petén ADR Alternative Dispute Resolution APESSA Association Pour l’Education, la Sexualité et la Santé en Afrique ARM Alliance for Responsible Mining BTC Better Together Challenge BTG4VM Bridging the Gap for Venezuelan Migrants CAPI Computer Assisted Personal Interviewing CARE Cooperative for Assistance and Relief Everywhere CARE-GBV Collective Action to Reduce Gender-Based Violence CCB Creative Capacity Building CCH Crisis Center Hope CI Conservation International CPS Centres de Promotion Sociale CREAW Center for Rights Education and Awareness CRS Catholic Relief Services CSO Civil Society Organization DDASM Departmental Directorates of Social Affairs and Microfinance DDI Development, Democracy, and Innovation DI Democracy International DISCO Discussing Issues Surrounding Career Opportunities DPDFS Department of Planning and Development of Social and Family Affairs DRC Democratic Republic of Congo DRG-LER Democracy, Human Rights, and Governance Learning, Evaluation, and Research E4W Enabling Environment for Economic Empowerment of Women ET Evaluation Team FCT Federal Capital Territory FEDECOVERA Federation of Cooperatives of the Verapaces FFI Fauna & Flora International FGD Focus Group Discussion FGRM+ Feedback and Grievance Redress Mechanism Plus FIDA Federation of Women Lawyers in Lesotho GBV Gender-based Violence GBVH Gender-based Violence and Harassment GEM Gender Equitable Men GenDev Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment Hub GLP Global Labor Program HIAS Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society IBEDC Ibadan Electricity Distribution Company IDB Inter-American Development Bank IDUL Independent Democratic Union of Lesotho IE Implementation Evaluation IFDP Innovation et Formation pour le Développement et la Paix/Innovation and Training for Development and Peace v | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT USAID.GOV IGA Income-generating Activity IMAGES International Men & Gender Equality Survey IP Implementing Partner IPV Intimate Partner Violence IUCN International Union for the Conservation of Nature KII Key Informant Interview KWCA Kenya Wildlife Conservancies Association LEMU Land Equity Movement of Uganda LGBTQIA+ Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, Intersex, and Asexual LMIC Low- and/or Middle-income Countries MCI Making Cents International MEL Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning MIT D-LAB Massachusetts Institute of Technology Development Lab NCC National Coordinating Coalition NGO Non-governmental Organization NH Nien Hsing NORC NORC at the University of Chicago PMP Project Management Platform PPE Portfolio Performance Evaluation PROMSEX Center for the Promotion and Defense of Sexual and Reproductive Rights R4V Inter-Agency Coordination Platform for Refugees and Migrants from Venezuela RA Rainforest Alliance REDD+ Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation RISE Resilient, Inclusive & Sustainable Environment SAA Social Analysis and Action SFCG Search for Common Ground SGBVRT Sexual & Gender Based Response Team SLEDGE Securing Land Rights & Ending Gender Exclusion SMART Strengthening Marriages Through Communication and Planning SOAR Sexual Offences Awareness and Response SOCADIDO Soroti Catholic Diocese Integrated Development Organization SOW Scope of Work SPD Shifting the Power Dynamics SV Sexual Violence SVRI Sexual Violence Research Initiative SWC Sera Wildlife Conservancy T&T Trinidad & Tobago ToC Theory of Change ToT Training of Trainers UN United Nations USAID The United States Agency for International Development USG U.S. Government WAR Women Against Rape WEBDA Women’s Empowerment Business Development Approach WEE Women’s Economic Empowerment WELCOME Women Exercising Leadership for Cohesion and Meaningful Empowerment vi | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT USAID.GOV WfWI Women for Women International WJI Women’s Justice Initiative WLSA Women and Law in Southern Africa WRW Workers Rights Watch ZSU Zene Sa Une vii | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT USAID.GOV EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NORC at the University of Chicago was contracted to complete a portfolio performance evaluation of USAID’s gender-based violence (GBV) activity clusters (AC), as part of the Democracy, Human Rights, and Governance Learning, Evaluation, and Research (DRG-LER) II Activity. The evaluation’s purpose is to identify facilitators and barriers to effectiveness, where knowledge still needs to be developed, and what can be improved upon 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 portfolio-level evaluation questions, presents lessons from the implementation evaluation (one activity per cluster), and suggests recommendations based on findings across all ACs. NORC answered the following key portfolio-level evaluation questions: 1. How are the USG’s guiding principles and priorities (prevention, protection, and accountability) to end GBV being incorporated into the four ACs? 2. To what extent are the USG objectives (coordination, integration, use of data and research, expansion of GBV programming) being achieved across the 4 ACs? 3. What lessons are being learned and to what extent is there sharing of best practices, lessons, and information across the 4 ACs? 4. What pervasive gaps still exist in understanding GBV and addressing specific types of GBV? Table 1. Activities by Cluster Cluster Activity Country BTC (3) Bridging the Gap for Venezuelan Migrants (BTG4VM) Guyana Shifting Power Dynamic: Engaging Men in Gender-based Violence Reduction (SDP) Panama Women Exercising Leadership for Cohesion and Meaningful Empowerment (WELCOME) Trinidad & Tobago CARE￾GBV (5) Supporting Innovative Practices in Self-Care, Wellness, and Resiliency among GBV Workers North Macedonia Promoting Staff Wellness and Resilience for Effective Response to Sexual and Gender-Based Violence Programming Nigeria We Care –Institutionalizing Accessible Staff Wellness and Resilience Policies, Tools, and Practices for the GBV Field Global Thuso Ya Bathusi (Enhancing Staff Resilience and Wellness) Botswana Žene sa Une Staff Wellness Program Bosnia and Herzegovina RISE (7) Creative Capacity Building to Address Gender Based Violence in the Artisanal and Small-Scale Mining Sector (Creative Capacity Building) Colombia Conservation of the Alto Mayo Landscape without Gender Violence (Alto Mayo without GBV) Peru Reducing Gender-based Violence in Vietnamese Conservation Vietnam viii | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT USAID.GOV Cluster Activity Country Advancing Equitable Gender, Social and Power Norms in Community Conservancies in Kenya (Advancing Equitable Norms in Conservancies) Kenya Gender Empowerment and Transformation: Tackling Resource￾Based Conflict and Gender-based Violence (GBV/FGRM+) Fiji Rising Up!: Promoting Congolese Women’s Land Access and Preventing GBV in Eastern DRC (Rising Up!) Democratic Republic of the Congo Securing Land Rights & Ending Gender Exclusion (SLEDGE) Uganda WEE (5) A Micro-Journey to Self-Reliance: Economic Reintegration for Victims of GBV Benin Enabling Environment for Economic Empowerment of Women (E4W) Burundi Engendering Industries Nigeria Global Labor Program (GLP): Levi-Strauss Partnership Lesotho Women’s Economic Empowerment in Mesoamerica (WEE in Mesoamerica) Guatemala EVALUATION DESIGN The NORC team employed a mixed-methods approach including a document review and qualitative and quantitative data collection to generate credible evidence to answer each portfolio-level evaluation question. Qualitative methods included a desk review of 280 documents, 129 key informant interviews (KIIs), and 30 focus group discussions (FGDs) from all four clusters. On the quantitative side, NORC reviewed monitoring, evaluation, and learning (MEL) data and primary data collected through 8 web￾based (209 responses) and 3 face-to-face surveys (351 responses). FINDINGS We present a summary of the evaluation main findings in Table 2. Table 2. Evaluation Findings Findings EQ1. How are the USG’s guiding principles and priorities to end GBV being incorporated into the four ACs? ● For prevention, activities from the RISE and WEE clusters focused on addressing the causes of GBV. In RISE this included developing targeted training and sensitization for men and building awareness about GBV in the community. The WEE cluster focused on education and awareness raising and the BTG4VM activity (BTC cluster) had a Champions Campaign that used different media platforms, such as radio and television, to inform people about GBV and xenophobia. Key informants from one activity felt that prevention of GBV seemed like an impossible goal : WELCOME (BTC cluster) informants felt that GBV exists and “the best you can do is to protect and support.” ix | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT USAID.GOV Findings ● Protection activities generally focused on assistance for violence survivors. Activities applied a variety of techniques to protect GBV survivors such as safe places, referrals, community structure, and engaging men. Several used a combination of techniques. ● Only a limited number of activities focused on accountability – and only indirectly. These included GLP (WEE), BTG4VM and WELCOME (BTC), and Rising Up!, SLEDGE, and GBV/FGRM+ (RISE). Some addressed impunity via legal services and others by aiming to publicly call out perpetrators or getting perpetrators to apologize for abuses. EQ2. To what extent are the USG objectives being achieved across the 4 ACs? ● USAID provided guidance on integrating prevention and response efforts to each cluster. CARE-GBV and RISE’s IPs valued USAID’s inputs received during the design and planning process, and periodic check-in meetings with GenDev that fostered the exchange of ideas during the implementation phase. However, understaffing at USAID headquarters limits (i) its capacity to provide technical assistance to IPs and grantees, and (ii) systematic information￾sharing and coordination within the Agency. ● Implementing partners (Resonance and Making Cents International) provided assistance and led information-sharing between similar activities within the BTC, CARE-GBV, and RISE clusters. However, some grantees reported that their meetings (often short or not occurring periodically) had little space for knowledge exchange and peer learning happened informally. Furthermore, the activities under RISE were very context-specific, which limited the exchange of knowledge and lessons learned among grantees. ● Grantees from the BTC, CARE-GBV, and WEE clusters worked collaboratively with their partners to improve the effectiveness of their work. Across the BTC, RISE, and WEE clusters, IPs and grantees integrated their partners’ know-how into their activities. ● The four clusters leveraged their experience or used data to improve their capacities and programming. o The BTC, CARE-GBV, and RISE clusters used monitoring data to improve programming, and relied on previous experience and well-established approaches to guide prevention and response efforts. o The BTC, RISE, and WEE clusters used data from studies and assessments, including formal studies conducted by local partners, to enhance prevention and response efforts. o The WEE and BTC clusters leveraged their GBV work and partnerships to expand their capacities and reach more participants. ● Conservation organizations and local governments expressed interest to replicate or expand RISE and WEE cluster’s activities. However, limited evidence linking improved gender outcomes with improved environmental outcomes could hinder the expansion of RISE activities. EQ3. What lessons are being learned and to what extent is there sharing of best practices, lessons, and information across the 4 ACs? ● IPs and grantees’ staff of all clusters received training on best practices and foundations of GBV related to their activities. Also, grantees regularly shared lessons with their partners, learning from each other and complementing approaches. These learning initiatives were especially helpful for organizations that had no previous experience working with migrants (BTC), dealing with vicarious trauma (CARE-GBV), addressing GBV (BTC, RISE, WEE), or promoting women’s economic empowerment (WEE). x | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT USAID.GOV Findings ● The four ACs worked with clearly defined target populations. All of them also included men in their target population, but the degree of male involvement in each activity varied. Many IPs, grantees, and activity participants considered that engaging men in GBV programming is key to achieve lasting results. Moreover, the BTC, RISE, and WEE clusters engaged vulnerable populations, including Indigenous communities, minors, people with disabilities, widowed women, refugees, and the LGBTQIA+ community. ● Resonance followed a participatory approach to design the BTC and the RISE Challenge, including a 2-day co-creation workshop with 35 stakeholders from the environment and gender sectors to define the problem statement and RISE’s objectives. Activities of both clusters hired representatives of key organizations or population groups to support their staff. Furthermore, RISE grantees developed stakeholder maps that helped them engage with the right actors and identify assumptions about how the activities might influence and impact key stakeholders. In addition, the grantees of the CARE-GBV and BTC clusters worked with and strengthened the capacities of local organizations providing services related to GBV to enhance referral pathways. EQ4. What pervasive gaps still exist in understanding GBV and addressing specific types of GBV? ● Activities across the clusters made reasonable progress in achieving planned objectives and indicated positive outcomes for survivors, communities, and local stakeholders in target areas. However, our analysis suggests several areas where there are still important knowledge and practice gaps: o At the planning and design stages, activity teams relied on available data and information gathered from their own needs assessments to design intervention components. The degree of availability of access to relevant such data differed across activities and clusters, with several activities being the first of its kind. As a result, needs assessments were conducted with varying levels of rigor across the four clusters. These assessments, primarily focused on local circumstances and rarely seemed to incorporate international evidence bases. For contexts where there is limited time for a robust needs assessment, there are also guidance documents on conducting ‘good enough’ needs assessments that can be useful, as well. o Adaptive management and flexibility were valuable for all activities to adjust their activities to respond to the emerging realities, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, natural disasters, political instability, and other unanticipated events. USAID was supportive throughout this process, however, because the pandemic worsened already-existing vulnerabilities of survivors and other activity participants, groups were not able to address all emerging challenges. o Across the clusters, it appears that the assigned budget and the period of performance may not have been commensurate to meet relative to the expected activities and impact, specifically for the BTC and WEE clusters. ● Three of 4 clusters addressed various forms of GBV, including IPV, sexual harassment, violence at workplace, rape and sexual coercion, and one cluster focused on responses to vicarious trauma among service providers. Key lessons include the importance of considering the direct effects of the social and cultural power dynamics, male involvement from the beginning, addressing vulnerabilities that are exacerbated because of the pandemic, and the need to consider the historical and recent context while designing programs (especially in conflict settings). In particular, across the four clusters, it emerged that male engagement and xi | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT USAID.GOV Findings involvement at the GBV activity design stage is critical. Sensitizing men reduces instances of violence and men can be key change agents in their communities and critical advocates for gender equality. ● Apart from the BTC cluster, LGBTQIA+ participant inclusion in the other three clusters was limited. BTC workshops covered LGBTQIA+ equality and addressed specific needs of individuals belonging to this group, especially to provide GBV-related support in Guyana, Panama, and T&T. Under CARE-GBV, only the SOAR Nigeria activity included developing a manual to discuss self-care practices for LGBTQIA+ care providers. The RISE Alto Mayo Landscape without Gender Violence in Peru activity included a partnership between Conservation International and PROMSEX, an LGBTQIA+-run feminist organization that contributed knowledge on inclusion of these populations. A majority of WEE activities, four of which were set in Africa, excluded LGBTQIA+ participants due to unsupportive cultural contexts and local government’s lack of recognition of LGBTQIA+ groups. ● Through the four clusters, the GBV portfolio reached a diverse group of participants exposed to GBV in 19 countries, including Venezuelan migrants and survivors of GBV under BTC; GBV frontline service providers under care-GBV; community leaders, employees of environmental organizations, indigenous women, and GBV survivors under RISE; and garment factory workers, women entrepreneurs, and electric company employees under WEE. All activities were small to medium scale and constrained by challenging guidelines and funding limitations and in many cases could only focus on certain communities, without the option of scaling up. Therefore, the activity’s reach was limited to a smaller geographic area in countries of implementation. LESSONS FROM THE IMPLEMENTATION EVALUATION ● Activities were guided in implementation by their theory of change. ● Design flexibility and adaptability was important for traction and to mitigate challenges. ● Where used, volunteers were overtaxed due to high demand for services, did not get sufficient stipends and operational support, and therefore constrained activity results. ● Context specific intervention techniques had the best implementation results while the COVID￾19 pandemic disrupted services for WEE in Mesoamerica and funding, timeline and sustainability issues contributed to other challenges across all four activities. ● Three of four activities expanded their target populations during implementation. ● All four activities felt constrained by their funding and period of performance. ● Activities differed in their methods for data collection and use of monitoring data to adapt interventions. ● All four activities cited funding limits as the key constraint to sustainability. ● Planned outcomes were achieved, but with challenges. ● In Rising Up! (RISE cluster), women were left worse off than if the service had never been offered since they paid for customary land titles (by sometimes taking loans) which they never received. xii | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT USAID.GOV The following are a non-prioritized list of recommendations along with action ideas for GenDev. Each recommendation is also specified either across all activity clusters, or a specific cluster or activity as appropriate. Table 3. Recommendations for GenDev RECOMMENDATIONS ACROSS THE PORTFOLIO xiii | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT USAID.GOV xiv | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT USAID.GOV Notes: Stop an existing practice. Start doing something. Expand something that is being done on a limited basis. Continue doing something that is already established or being done regularly. 1 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT USAID.GOV 1. EVALUATION PURPOSE AND EVALUATION QUESTIONS Under the Democracy, Human Rights, and Governance Learning, Evaluation, and Research (DRG-LER) II Activity, the United States Agency for International Development’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 assignment included co-creation of the scope of work (SOW) with GenDev (see Annex A), an evaluability assessment,1 an evaluation design report,2 implementation evaluation, performance evaluation, and dissemination. The purpose of the evaluation was 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. Additionally, one activity was selected from each activity cluster (AC) for an implementation evaluation. The four ACs included in the PPE are: 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 that are directly funded by USAID/GenDev in integrating GBV prevention and response activities. NORC has produced five separate evaluation reports: - One for each AC (N=4), which cover AC-level and implementation evaluation questions; and - This full PPE report, which focuses on portfolio-level evaluation questions, presents lessons from the implementation evaluation (one activity per cluster), and compares findings across all ACs. Note that the above four ACs do not compose the full portfolio of GenDev’s work. These ACs were not designed together as part of a portfolio; they have different funding sources and were crowdsourced (BTC) or initiated based on ad hoc financing (RISE) and a perceived need/gap (WEE and RISE). They were included in the “portfolio evaluation” because they were not evaluated in the past. However, during codesign of the SOW, both GenDev and NORC saw an opportunity to examine lessons across the activity cluster based on the evaluation questions. Primary and secondary data collection for the evaluation was carried out between March 2022 and May 2023, with field work from February to April 2023. A large team contributed to this evaluation. From NORC, it includes Ritu Nayyar-Stone (team lead for the overall PPE), Cathy Zimmerman (gender/GBV expert), Ingrid Rojas (evaluation specialist), Carlos Echeverria-Estrada (BTC evaluation lead),3 Vaiddehi 1 NORC conducted an evaluability assessment (EA) to determine if the original 35 activities suggested by GenDev for the PPE were evaluable. The EA report can be found here. 2 NORC’s Evaluation Design Report (EDR) presents the methodology and proposed stakeholders that the team hoped to contact and get information from for the evaluation. The EDR can be found here. 3 Camille Smith (Qualitative Specialist), Paige Pepitone (Quantitative Specialist), Mithila Iyer (Quantitative Specialist), Christel Bamfield (Local Technical Consultant, Guyana), Andrea Bolaños (Local Technical Consultant, Panama), Kerry Burris (Local Technical Consultant, Trinidad and Tobago), and Laura Ortiz Salazar (Qualitative Specialist) provided support. 2 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT USAID.GOV Bansal (CARE-GBV evaluation lead),4 Jessica Wallach and Rachel Rosenberg (co-team leads for the RISE evaluation),5 and Ridhi Sahai and Katrina Kamara (co-team leads for the WEE evaluation).6 A framework to provide direction for the rest of the report is as follows. After the evaluation questions below, Section 2 presents a brief summary of the four activity clusters and the 20 activities evaluated by NORC. Section 3 includes evaluation methodology and limitations, Section 4 showcases the findings and conclusions of the portfolio-level evaluation questions, Section 5 shares lessons from the implementation evaluation, and Section 6 offers recommendations for the entire GBV portfolio. EVALUATION QUESTIONS In this report, NORC addresses the following portfolio-level evaluation questions. Table 4. Portfolio-level Evaluation Questions for the Four Activity Clusters EVALUATION QUESTIONS EVALUATION SUB-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 U.S. government (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 USAID/GenDev work and informing related programs? Data: How is USAID/GenDev’s GBV portfolio collecting, analyzing, and using data and research to enhance prevention and response efforts? Expansion: How is USAID/GenDev’s GBV portfolio helping to expand and/or 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 Activity Clusters? 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 Brooke Jardine (Qualitative Specialist) and Samantha Austin (Quantitative Specialist) provided support. 5 Tulay Akoglu (Qualitative Specialist), Liliana Delgado (Local Technical Consultant, Colombia), Pacifique Zigomane (Local Technical Consultant, Democratic Republic of Congo), Marisol Arestegui (Local Technical Consultant, Peru), Violet Wawire (Kenya), Thuy Nguyen (Local Technical Consultant, Vietnam), and Richard Wamimbi (Local Technical Consultant, Uganda). 6 Mayumi Rezwan (Mixed-Methods Specialist), Mithila Iyer (Quantitative Specialist), McKinzie Davis (Qualitative Specialist), Kennely Wongla, (Local Technical Consultant, Benin), Laura Garcia (Local Technical Consultant, Guatemala), Nthabiseng Senekane (Local Technical Consultant, Lesotho), and Abdulrasheed Abdulraheem (Local Technical Consultant, Nigeria). 3 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT USAID.GOV EVALUATION QUESTIONS EVALUATION SUB-QUESTIONS 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? 2. FOUR ACTIVITY CLUSTERS BACKGROUND Figure 1 and Table 5 below show the geographic location and key components of the activities within each AC that are included in this PPE. Originally more activities were included within each AC, but after discussions with GenDev and the evaluability assessment several were dropped, leaving a total of 20 activities for the PPE; 3 for BTC, 5 each for CARE-GBV, and WEE, and 7 for RISE.7 Figure 1. Geographic Location of the Activities Included in the Portfolio Performance Evaluation 7 For BTC, 3 of the 4 activities are included in the PPE; for CARE-GBV all 5 of the original grantees are included; In RISE 7 of the 9 grantees are included and for WEE 5 of the original 16 activities. Notes: Fiji and Vietnam are not to scale. Nigeria has both WEE d CARE GBV Activity BTC CARE-GBV RISE WEE Cluster WEE and CARE-GBV 4 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT USAID.GOV Table 5. Activity Component Within Each Activity Cluster ACTIVITY CLUSTER INDIVIDUAL ACTIVITIES IMPLEMEN TING PARTNER ACTIVITY COMPONENTS BTC: Launched in September 2019, is a regional initiative implemented by Resonance Global to crowdsource, fund, and scale forward-thinking solutions from anywhere in the world to improve the lives of Venezuelans and communities hosting them across Latin America and the Caribbean affected by the regional crisis. (Period of performance July 2020 – December 2021) Guyana: Bridging the Gap for Venezuelan Migrants (BTG4VM) National Coordinating Coalition Inc. (NCC) ● Map GBV service providers ● Establish One-stop shop for GBV services ● Develop awareness campaign ● Initiate data collection, communication, and use Panama: Shifting Power Dynamic: Engaging Men in Gender-based Violence Reduction (SDP) Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society (HIAS) ● Engage migrant men in GBV reduction workshops ● Create gender dialogues between men and women in migrant communities ● Hold gender inclusion training for national police ● National dialogue table on continuing to involve men in preventing GBV Trinidad & Tobago:Women Exercising Leadership for Cohesion and Meaningful Empowerment (WELCOME)* Democracy International (DI) ● Recruit and train advocates ● Establish a trusted referral network ● Match advocates with survivors ● Train advocates to support survivors ● Use social media ● Support scalability and sustainability CARE-GBV: Implemented by Development Professionals, Inc.- Making Cents International (DPI￾MCI), CARE-GBV awarded grants from $50,000 to $125,000 over a one-year period to five organizations, each lead by women, North Macedonia: Supporting Innovative Practices in Self￾Care, Wellness, and Resiliency among GBV Workers Crisis Center Hope (CCH) ● Develop a training curriculum on self-care, wellness, and resiliency of GBV workers ● Conduct two training workshops ● Organize a national conference for dissemination of best practices in policies and work protocol ● Develop and disseminate a guide for GBV workers as a key tool for support in self-care ● Provide mentoring and psychosocial support to GBV workers and GBV organizations 5 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT USAID.GOV ACTIVITY CLUSTER INDIVIDUAL ACTIVITIES IMPLEMEN TING PARTNER ACTIVITY COMPONENTS including women who identify as survivors of GBV. Grants were given to new, local, and under-utilized partners to improve staff wellness and resiliency in GBV programming, fill global data gaps related to self- and collective care and wellness for staff of GBV organizations, and promote learning. (Period of performance July 2021–July 2022) Nigeria: Promoting Staff Wellness and Resilience for Effective Response to Sexual and Gender-Based Violence Programming* Sexual Offences Awareness and Response Initiative (SOAR) ● Strengthen institutional capacity and equip others CSOs in Nigeria’s Federal Capital Territory region to promote staff wellness and resilience and undertake effective GBV prevention and response ● Conduct a Stress Risk Assessment Audit to identify and control potential causes and areas of work￾related stress conditions of staff ● Meet with relevant stakeholders and conduct an online review of existing sexual abuse and exploitation policies to inform SOAR’s policies Global:We Care –Institutionalizing Accessible Staff Wellness and Resilience Policies, Tools, and Practices for the GBV Field Sexual Violence Research Initiative (SVRI) ● Develop an online course module focused on self- and collective care, wellness, and resilience ● Institutionalize policies and practices that support staff well-being and resilience ● Host a knowledge-exchange series focused on self-, staff, and collective care, wellness, and resilience, including live events, and knowledge products Botswana:Thuso Ya Bathusi (Enhancing Staff Resilience and Wellness) Women Against Rape (WAR) ● Establish a permanent Human Resources position to serve as the health and wellness officer ● Develop a locally relevant training curriculum of seven two-hour modules ● Develop a smart phone-based Wellness Check Tool (WCT) to enable counselors, particularly those working in remote locations, to share feelings, experiences, and challenges 6 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT USAID.GOV ACTIVITY CLUSTER INDIVIDUAL ACTIVITIES IMPLEMEN TING PARTNER ACTIVITY COMPONENTS Bosnia and Herzegovina: Žene sa Une Staff Wellness Program Žene sa Une (ZSU) ● Use somatic techniques to renew bonding among staff while being cognizant of the overlap between one’s personal and professional life ● Facilitate learning about staff wellness, care, and resilience, as well as demonstrate and model approaches to embed these principles into the organizational culture ● Disseminate findings externally to promote awareness among other GBV prevention and response actors and stakeholders in the sector RISE Challenge: Implemented by Resonance Global, this activity supports organizations to adapt and implement approaches addressing gender￾based violence in environmental programming. The Challenge aims to: (a) raise awareness of linkages between GBV and environmental programming; (b) test new programming approaches; (c) share learning on interventions and policies; and (d) Colombia: Creative Capacity Building to Address Gender Based Violence in the Artisanal and Small-Scale Mining Sector (Creative Capacity Building) Massachusetts Institute of Technology Development Lab (MIT D￾Lab), Advocacy Capacity Building (ARM) ● Develop and use three movement￾building methodologies: o Public narrative: use personal and collective stories to build solidarity and mobilize groups into action around joint objectives. o Creative capacity building: use co-design to harness local creativity and knowledge to design solutions to identified challenges. o Advocacy capacity building: empower miners with advocacy skills to influence changes in governance at local and national levels Peru: Conservation of the Alto Mayo Landscape without Gender Violence (Alto Mayo without GBV) Conservation International (CI); PROMSEX ● Train women ● Develop informal support system for GBV survivors ● Build capacity of CI and partners ● Study of social tolerance of GBV 7 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT USAID.GOV ACTIVITY CLUSTER INDIVIDUAL ACTIVITIES IMPLEMEN TING PARTNER ACTIVITY COMPONENTS increase attention to this issue with other organizations, implementing partners, and donors for collaboration and co-investment. The activity fosters partnerships across sectors to reduce rates of GBV related to access to and control over natural resources in contexts that are affected by environmental degradation and climate change. (Period of Performance January 2020 – August 2022) Vietnam: Reducing Gender￾based Violence in Vietnamese Conservation WildAct Vietnam; CARE International, Vietnam Association of National Parks and Protected Areas, Women in Conservation Canterbury Network ● Hold workshops and training with employees of wildlife conservation organizations and agencies ● Meet with organization and agency managers to exchange knowledge ● Develop safeguarding materials and network for female conservation staff Kenya: Advancing Equitable Gender, Social and Power Norms in Community Conservancies in Kenya (Advancing Equitable Norms in Conservancies) Kenya Wildlife Conservancie s Association (KWCA); Fauna & Flora International (FFI), , CARE International in Kenya (CARE), Centre for Rights Education and Awareness (CREAW) ● Raise awareness ● Develop organizational policies and programming ● Build capacity of organizations 8 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT USAID.GOV ACTIVITY CLUSTER INDIVIDUAL ACTIVITIES IMPLEMEN TING PARTNER ACTIVITY COMPONENTS Fiji: Gender Empowerment and Transformation: Tackling Resource-Based Conflict and Gender-based Violence (GBV/FGRM+) Marstel Day; Wi-Her, University of the South Pacific, the Fiji Environmental Law Association, Live & Learn Environmental Education, Fiji’s Reducing Emissions from Deforestation, and forest Degradation (REDD+) Program ● Apply GBV lens onto existing grievance mechanism Democratic Republic of Congo: Rising Up!: Promoting Congolese Women’s Land Access and Preventing GBV in Eastern DRC* (Rising Up!) Women for Women International (WfWI); Innovation et Formation pour le Développeme nt et la Paix (IFDP) ● Train existing land management structures ● Train male community leaders and women change agents ● Integrate GBV prevention into IFDP’s model Uganda: Securing Land Rights & Ending Gender Exclusion (SLEDGE) Trócaire, SOCADIDO, and LEMU ● Train community leaders and partner staff ● Support norms change and awareness-raising in community ● Establish referral systems ● Document land rights ● Provide alternative dispute resolution mechanism 9 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT USAID.GOV ACTIVITY CLUSTER INDIVIDUAL ACTIVITIES IMPLEMEN TING PARTNER ACTIVITY COMPONENTS WEE: These activities encompass a broad range of interventions to overcome barriers and foster women’s economic participation through directly working with grassroots participants or enabling systems￾level and environmental change related to gender equality. Benin: A Micro￾Journey to Self￾Reliance: Economic Reintegration for Victims of GBV Management Sciences for Health, Inc. (MSH), Ministry of Health, Ministry of Justice, Association Pour l’Education, la Sexualité et la Santé en Afrique (APESSA) ● Combat intimate partner violence (IPV) and other forms of GBV through entrepreneur trainings, mentoring and support ● Create physical and virtual centers for treatment of GBV victims ● Provide access to income-generating activity (IGA) women’s groups, mentoring, and coaching ● Provide access to networks of organizations/businesses for GBV survivors ● Hold business and entrepreneurship training for victims of GBV and their spouses Burundi: Enabling Environment for Economic Empowerment of Women (E4W) Freedom House, Search for Common Ground (SFCG), Catholic Relief Services (CRS), Kahawatu Foundation ● Combat IPV and other forms of GBV through entrepreneur trainings, community awareness raising and media professionals’ capacity building ● Offer economic support for women￾led coffee farms, including coaching and business support ● Hold entrepreneur training activities and learning tours ● Awareness-raising sessions for men and women in coffee cooperatives and other key male community stakeholders ● Hold gender-sensitivity trainings for media professionals ● Hold media broadcasts, radio shows, and town hall forums for awareness raising and promoting positive masculinities Nigeria: Engendering Industries Tetra Tech, Inc., Ibadan Electricity Distribution Company (IBEDC) ● Strengthen company policies around GBV and training staff and engaging men in GBV topics, such as the below: o Gender Equity Executive Leadership Program o Change management coaching o Women mentorship activities o DISCO 4 Women conference and platform o Anti-GBVH training and sensitization o Male engagement training 10 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT USAID.GOV ACTIVITY CLUSTER INDIVIDUAL ACTIVITIES IMPLEMEN TING PARTNER ACTIVITY COMPONENTS Lesotho: Global Labor Program (GLP): Levi￾Strauss Partnership Solidarity Center, Federation of Women Lawyers in Lesotho (FIDA), Women and Law in Southern Africa – Lesotho (WLSA), Workers’ Rights Watch (WRW), Independent Democratic Union of Lesotho (IDUL), United Textiles Employees, National Clothing, Textile and Allied Workers Union (NACTWU) ● Address employment-related gender￾based violence and harassment (GBVH) and domestic violence for female apparel workers in 2 Nien Hsing-owned garment factories through: o Anti-GBVH workshops o Information line o Investigations of GBVH by Workers’ Rights Watch Guatemala: Women’s Economic Empowerment in Mesoamerica (WEE in Mesoamerica)* Rainforest Alliance (RA), Association of Organizations of the Cuchumatane s (ASOCUCH), Women’s Justice Initiative (WJI) ● Combat IPV and other forms of GBV through entrepreneur trainings, mentoring and support ● Hold value-chain, leadership, and entrepreneurship training for poultry and café business owners ● Create gender sensitization campaigns, community forums, and awareness sessions on sexual and reproductive health ● Hold IGA livelihood activities ● Provide access to women’s groups and other networks Note: * Activity selected for implementation evaluation within the cluster. 11 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT USAID.GOV 3. METHODS AND LIMITATIONS NORC employed a mixed-methods approach including a document review and qualitative and quantitative data collection to generate credible evidence to answer each portfolio-level evaluation question. The design included key informant interviews (KIIs), focus group discussions (FGDs), and review and analysis of project and portfolio documents and monitoring, evaluation, and learning (MEL) data. Table 6 below shows a summary of the data collected across all four ACs. Table 6. Summarized Data Collection Across All Four Activity Clusters Activity Cluster Document Review No. of Key Informant Interviews No. of Focus Group Discussions Survey(s) (estimate of N) BTC 26 documents across AC and the 3 activities 50 total with USAID/GenDev, IP, IDB, grantees, and activity participants 3 FGDs with grantee staff and partners of activity participants 2 web-based surveys backed by local monitors with network service providers (N=20) CARE-GBV 81 documents across all 5 grantees 8 total with USAID, MCI, grantee senior staff and partner org, and grantee staff selected for IE (SOAR) N/A 1 web-based survey with all grantee staff plus external stakeholders who participated in workshop/training course/webinar (N=1,121) RISE 73 documents across all 7 grantees 33 total with USAID, Resonance, IP staff, and local GBV experts who can contextualize activities into the larger picture of GBV programming 16 FGDs with activity participants 1 web-based survey with activity participants in Vietnam (N=47) WEE 100 documents across all 5 grantees 38 total with IP senior leadership, representatives from local partner organizations, USAID/GenDev staff, and activity participants 11 FGDs with IP staff, activity participants, and representatives from local partner organizations 3 face-to-face surveys with activity participants in Lesotho, Burundi, and Guatemala (N=351) 12 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT USAID.GOV DESK REVIEW NORC reviewed all portfolio documents provided by GenDev and relevant project documents covering 20 activities across the four clusters—BTC, CARE, RISE, and WEE. Key document types reviewed include theories of change (ToCs), logic models, MEL plans, project work plans, quarterly and annual reports and annexes, baseline, midline and endline study reports, MEL data records, gender assessments, public outreach and communications documents and webpages, other relevant internal documents, and data collected by the activity. In total, we reviewed over 300 documents to provide context for our instrument design and to support findings for the portfolio-, activity- and implementation-level evaluation questions. QUALITATIVE DATA COLLECTION – KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWS NORC conducted a total of 129 KIIs at the portfolio, activity, and implementation level. At the portfolio level, NORC conducted in-person and remote semi structured KIIs with USAID GenDev activity managers and experts, key grantee and IP staff, and local partner staff across the four activity clusters. Interviews ranged between 60–90 minutes and were audio-recorded (with respondents’ consent) to enable transcription and in-depth analysis. Transcripts were uploaded to MAXQDA TeamCloud (version 2022), a qualitative analysis software for coding and analysis. A detailed codebook was iteratively developed and tested to include portfolio-level, AC-level, and implementation-level evaluation codes across the four activity clusters in this PPE. KIIs were analyzed using the codebook, and coded segments were exported to conduct in-depth analysis and prepare code summaries. QUALITATIVE DATA COLLECTION – FOCUS GROUPS DISCUSSIONS A total of 30 FGDs were conducted with purposefully selected grantee, IP and local partner staff, and activity participants at the portfolio, activity, and implementation level. Similar to the KIIs, NORC analyzed FGDs using MAXQDA to conduct in-depth analysis and inform the portfolio-level report. QUANTITATIVE DATA COLLECTION – SURVEY On the quantitative side, the NORC conducted four web-based surveys and three face-to-face surveys with grantee staff and activity participants. Survey data informed the portfolio-, activity- and implementation-level analyses and findings. LIMITATIONS AND MITIGATION STRATEGIES 1) Cannot pinpoint causality: The PPE does not intend to attribute changes in outcomes to the activities evaluated. An impact evaluation would be required to rule out other factors that may have also contributed to results. 2) Recall bias: Respondents cited lack of remembrance of specific aspects of their activities or clusters. The activities were implemented between July 2020 and December 2021 in the case of BTC, July 2021 and July 2022 in the case of CARE-GBV, January 2020 and August 2022 in the case of RISE, while data collection for this evaluation started at the end of 2022. 13 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT USAID.GOV 3) Extreme response bias: Recollection of remote facts from the past tends to distort perceptions on accomplishments and failures, often increasing their dimensions in the respondents’ minds and lessening their ability to nuance their descriptions. For instance, a question like ‘Did you like participating in this activity?’ would elicit a strong response bias supporting or against the activity. To mitigate this bias, NORC asked questions about the activities’ components or features so that the respondents could think about and provide answers on specific characteristics of the activities evaluated. 4) Selection bias: Staff turnover in the IPs and grantees was significant, and staff members we were able to approach could have differed in their experiences with and perceptions of the activities as well as socioeconomic characteristics compared to staff that we were not able to interview. Similarly, the web-based survey responses we obtained are not representative of all service providers or activity participants, as we received outdated contact information in multiple cases. For this PPE, NORC has avoided generalizations of opinions and carefully indicated who provided answers to our questions while also maintaining their anonymity. We have also triangulated results by obtaining and presenting different perspectives. 5) Hawthorne effect: Respondents may change their answers to please the researchers and provide “desirable answers.” For instance, respondents may reply favorably with regards to services or support received if they believe the evaluators or donors would like to hear this kind of answer. NORC trained interviewers and enumerators to maintain neutrality during the interviews, and to say to the informants that there are no good or bad answers when appropriate. 6) Limited survey sample sizes: We cannot make generalizations about activities’ performance and effectiveness based solely on the face-to-face survey data collected. Even if the WEE activities were implemented countrywide, in-person surveys occurred in specific locations given this evaluation’s small sample sizes (n=100). NORC’s methodology included qualitative data collection and a desk review to triangulate findings from the survey across the three data sources. 7) Delays in securing local IRB approvals: It was not possible to conduct surveys with the participants of the A Micro-Journey to Self-Reliance: Economic Reintegration for Victims of GBV activity in Benin. 14 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT USAID.GOV 4. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS 4.1 FINDINGS FOR THE PORTFOLIO QUESTIONS Table 7. Summary Findings Across the 4 Activity Clusters BTC CARE-GBV RISE WEE EQ1: Are USG guiding principles and priorities (prevention, protection, and accountability) being incorporated? -BTG4VM used media to inform about GBV and xenophobia, counseling to help migrants recognize toxic and damaging relationships, and information on GBV referral options. -SDP offered participants safe spaces to reflect and deconstruct ideas about gender. -Respondents from WELCOME felt that “you can’t prevent GBV.” They provided migrants a safe place to get help via an Advocates program. -BTG4VM sensitized law enforcement officers to avoid re￾victimizing survivors and provided pro bono legal services for women seeking justice. -WELCOME focused on publicly calling out perpetrators, and SDP tried to increase accountability by encouraging men to apologize to their victimized partners. Not applicable since CARE-GBV did not provide direct services to survivors. -Several activities focused on the causes of GBV at the community or institutional level. -Creative Capacity Building, SLEDGE, and GBV/FGRM+ updated referral lists and shared them with community leaders. - Alto Mayo without GBV, Advancing Equitable Norms in Conservancies, SLEDGE, Rising Up! and Reducing GBV in Vietnamese Conservation activities engaged men and people in power to address cultural and structural barriers to women’s advancement. SLEDGE and Rising Up! used a training of trainers’ model to reach more people via sensitization. -Rising Up!, SLEDGE, and GBV/FRGM+ aimed to improve gender-sensitive alternate dispute resolution mechanisms. -A GBV lens was introduced in this cluster based on research and the realization that empowering women economically can sometimes put them in danger of intimate partner violence. -E4W respondents felt that empowering women reduced GBV because it transforms perceptions regarding the role and place of women. -GLP installed a toll-free line for workers to report GBV and harassment in factories, and victim-centered safe spaces. -Engendering Industries established One Stop GBV centers in Cotonou, Parakou, and Abomey. 15 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT USAID.GOV BTC CARE-GBV RISE WEE EQ2: Are USG objectives (coordination, integration, use of data and research, expansion of GBV programming) being achieved across the 4 ACs? -WELCOME integrated La Casita’s prevention and response efforts into their programming. -WELCOME engaged local partner Lucent to collect baseline data. -BTG4VM designed a “one-stop shop” approach after reviewing the findings from the rapid needs assessment and services mapping. -BTG4VM used monitoring data to plan activities beyond USAID’s support and expand to new regions with IDB funds. -SDP used its global male engagement model already implemented in other countries to inform and scale up the activity. -CARE-GBV and its grantees had periodic check-in meetings with GenDev. -SVRI partnered with various organizations to deliver case studies, webinars, and online courses. -CARE-GBV’s prevention and response efforts were modeled after public health approaches. -The Violence of Inequality study, which documents the existing literature on GBV across natural resource management sectors, informed the design of the RISE challenge. -RISE had quarterly reflection sessions with GenDev and hosted peer learning and training events that the grantees considered useful. -Advancing Equitable Gender, Social and Power Norms in Community Conservancies in Kenya integrated its previously designed gender strategy (completed through Mission funding) with GBV. -GBV/FGRM+ prevention and response efforts in Fiji to create a feedback and grievance redress mechanism will be scaled and integrated into other national￾level payment for ecosystems services schemes. -Reducing Gender-based Violence in Vietnamese Conservation received requests from conservation organizations to support them in addressing sexual harassment. -Engendering Industries’ relationship with Equimundo informed its approach to male engagement. -GLP: Levi-Strauss Partnership was informed by a cultural study funded by another donor to identify permissive behaviors that lead to GBVH. -E4W’s baseline study identified cultural barriers that limit women's economic empowerment in Burundi. -WEE in Mesoamerica conducted a diagnostic analysis that provided information on the structural causes of GBV and allowed them to adjust the activity to local needs. -E4W’s positive masculinity approach was novel and became highly recognized in Burundi, so local administrations requested SFCG to expand its interventions. -Engendering Industries has received requests to explain their comprehensive TOC. 16 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT USAID.GOV BTC CARE-GBV RISE WEE EQ3: What lessons are being learned and is there sharing of best practices, lessons and information across the 4 ACs? -Each activity’s staff received information on working with migrant populations and providing GBV services. -BTG4VM staff learned about foundations of GBV through the Rapid Gender Based Violence Assessment, training Ladysmith conducted for them, and participation in the R4V GBV national working group. -BTG4VM, WELCOME, and SDP partnered with local CSOs, the public sector, and international organizations to enhance the effectiveness of national GBV referral pathways. -BTG4VM and WELCOME were available to migrants from different LAC countries as not only Venezuelans called their hotlines. -Men with disabilities and those who identify as homosexuals participated in SDP. -Well-known and trusted Venezuelan “champions” were hired to join the SDP team. - ZSU’s approaches to GBV work were reinforced via their partnership with Common Threads. -CARE-GBV grantees engaged with other organizations to disseminate information. -CCH informed GBV professionals about their activities during their National Conference and regular meetings with stakeholders. -SOAR worked with local organizations providing services related to GBV. -CCH worked with Albanian women, Roma women, and women with disabilities. -CCH valued the quarterly meetings with CARE-GBV staff to help inform best practices, lessons, and learning on GBV foundations. -Resonance facilitated a workshop with 35 stakeholders from the environment and gender sectors to define RISE’s objectives. -RISE grantees developed stakeholder maps that helped them engage with the right actors and identify key assumptions. -The RISE AC focused on working with Indigenous communities in Fiji, Kenya, and Peru, and people in conflict and post-conflict areas in Colombia, the DRC, and Uganda. -The Rising Up! and GBV/FGRM+ activities had sensitizations specifically for male leaders, which were facilitators of program effectiveness. -Creative Capacity Building, Reducing Gender-based Violence in Vietnamese Conservation, and Alto Mayo without GBV struggled to engage men. -Advancing Equitable Norms in Conservancies in Kenya organized a learning session with its network members. -Grantees worked collaboratively and benefitted from sharing learning on the foundations of GBV related to work with women’s economic empowerment. - Receiving lessons on the foundations of GBV helped shape the Micro-Journey activity -WEE in Mesoamerica targeted low-income areas, serving many women who are single mothers, but it was difficult to reach vulnerable groups of women with no land and who work as day laborers. -E4W and WEE in Mesoamerica engaged men in messaging on positive masculinities, but Micro￾Journey worked with men in rare cases. -E4W worked with widowed women and refugee women but did not reach the LGBTQIA+ community. EQ4: What pervasive gaps still exist in understanding GBV and addressing specific types of GBV? -Had to rely on local partner knowledge to prioritize needs of the migrant population. -Limited country or community￾level information on vicarious trauma interventions. -All seven activities did gender analysis and audits to inform their design. -Only three of the five activities evaluated did a gender barrier analysis or other needs assessment. 17 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT USAID.GOV BTC CARE-GBV RISE WEE -Provided psychosocial, health, and legal services, referral pathways, safe spaces, and workshops to promote positive masculinities. -Incorporated male participants from the beginning -Only activity to include LGBTQIA+ community. -BTG4VM was able to secure additional funding. -Focused on staff well-being and self-care to better deal with vicarious trauma. -Included both women and male GBV responders while providing vicarious trauma support services. -Several grantees scaled up beyond their immediate staff. -Provided access to referral mechanisms, community awareness and mobilization, workplace harassment training and dissemination. -Had mixed results when trying to engage males. -Management structures and operational procedures deterred progress. -Explicit focus on sustainability relative to other clusters. -Focused on IPV and GBVH. -WEE in Mesoamerica and Engendering Industries adapted their activity to include males. -Management structures and operation procedures deterred progress. 18 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT USAID.GOV EVALUATION QUESTION 1: HOW ARE THE USG’S GUIDING PRINCIPLES AND PRIORITIES TO END GBV BEING INCORPORATED INTO THE FOUR ACTIVITY CLUSTERS? At the time of funding and design of the activities evaluated in this report, GBV was defined as “an umbrella term for any harmful threat or act directed at an individual or group based on actual or perceived biological sex, gender identity and/or expression, sexual orientation, and/or lack of adherence to varying socially constructed norms around masculinity and femininity.”8 The US Government’s (USG’s) guiding principles for GBV and the ultimate vision of the strategy is to build a future free from GBV for all people. ” The US strategy therefore incorporates the following priorities to ending GBV: ⮚ Prevention of GBV from accruing in the first place, and from recurring, by reducing risk and by working with local grassroots organizations, civil society, and key stakeholders in the community; ⮚ Protection from GBV by identifying and providing services to survivors once the violence occurs: and ⮚ Accountability to end impunity and ensure that those responsible for GBV are prosecuted by strengthening legal and judicial systems. This question therefore examines the prevention of GBV, protection of survivors, and accountability of perpetrators. (Please note that findings from CARE-GBV are not relevant for this section since their grants did not provide any direct services to survivors. Instead, the grant focused on promoting the well-being, self-care, and resilience of those experiencing vicarious trauma from working with GBV survivors.) PREVENTION: IN WHAT WAYS ARE THE USG ACTIVITY PORTFOLIO CONTRIBUTING TO REDUCED RISKS? USG funding supported a number of activities designed to reduce the incidence of GBV, specifically those in the BTC, RISE, and WEE clusters. While the activities adopted different approaches to prevention, many, if not most, were underpinned by concerns about social and cultural acceptability or negligence of gender-based abuses. Therefore, many activities included awareness-raising and sensitization components, as described below. Targeting Causes of GBV with a Sensitization Approach Activities from the RISE and WEE clusters focused on addressing the causes of GBV. Common causal factors that activities addressed included, for instance: cultural and structural influences that sustain gender inequalities and disempower women; poor recognition support by individuals in positions of power or in institutional decision-making posts; poor awareness of GBV by men, women, and the community; and economic, financial, and livelihood disadvantages. For RISE, effective GBV prevention and response is a core objective, and they focused on this at the community and institutional level. Several activities in the RISE cluster developed targeted training and sensitization for men and built awareness about GBV in the community. The RISE Final Report notes that many grantees recognized that empowering women alone would not be sufficient and that there was a need to engage men and 8 US Strategy to Prevent and Respond to GBV Globally, 2016, page 6. 19 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT USAID.GOV people in power to “address cultural and structural barriers to women’s advancement, and that five activities, (CI, KWCA, Trócaire, WfWI and WildAct9) successfully engaged men in dialogues about positive masculinity and gender norms to shift long-standing perceptions of men’s and women’s roles and foster related behavioral changes.” SLEDGE and Rising Up! employed a training of trainers (ToT) model to reach more people, with local individuals and/or organizations taught to further train other community members. As stated in the RISE Final Report, “Trócaire [SLEDGE] indicated that ToT accounted for 75 percent of their results” and Rising Up! remarked that the ToT was critical to the success of the project: “It allowed us to have a pool of male trainers with experience in training other men and with influence in the community.” Identifying community leaders who can become “champions” and engaging them in training was deemed as key to achieving positive changes in the attitudes and behaviors of the community. KIIs also confirmed findings from the document review, with respondents noting that the common approach for prevention was first identifying and changing key gender norms, and this was done by involving trusted leaders, religious leaders, and community members, who then had discussions on these issues within the community in gender￾segregated groups. In another KII, however, a respondent stated that “one of our goals was behavior and more positive models of masculinity, and while most of the project went incredibly well, part of the challenge was involving men and getting them to attend the trainings.” According to a USAID respondent, the WEE cluster introduced a GBV lens due to research and a realization that in highly patriarchal societies elevating women to aspects of livelihood and economic empowerment can increase the possibility of intimate partner violence. Building on a gender analysis that looked at risk mitigation during the design, before implementation, and then constantly monitoring, evaluating, and learning led to the identification of the need for a GBV component. Another point of view was provided in the E4W (Burundi) activity where a couple of respondents noted that empowering women to become economically independent helps prevent GBV because it “transforms the perception of the role and place of woman … and it allows you to open up a lot about discussion, decisions, and dialogue within the family.” Another respondent mentioned that the positive conflict transformation tool10 9 Alto Mayo without GBV, Advancing Equitable Norms in Conservancies, SLEDGE, Rising Up!, and Reducing GBV in Vietnamese Conservation 10 The positive conflict transformation tool teaches women to understand biological and physiological differences between men and women so that they understand themselves and the roots of problems that produce violence at home. They also learn different strategies to discuss and have a dialogue with their husbands on these issues. Women in Action This forum was held to celebrate Women International Day on May 30, 2021. The keynote speaker, a GBV survivor shared the support provided by women leaders in her community to sensitize her on human rights, gender, and entrepreneurship. Several other women shared their own personal experience of overcoming the Burundian society attributing different roles to men and women and specifying “suitable female occupation.” Another speaker shared her experience of 15+ years as a driver, a profession that is still seen as a male occupation. According to her, women are obstacles to themselves, and it is time to break these blockages. A women civil engineer shared that she grew tired of being constantly reminded that she was a woman and decided to fight stigma and discouragement and start her own building company despite all the stereotypes in her profession. According to her, it is up to girls and women to change victimizing mentalities and make positive approaches. January – March 2021 Quarterly Report, E4W, WEE Cluster 20 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT USAID.GOV changed the perception that people have regarding women in relation to their role in the community and that they are now consulted on issues. Focusing on women’s ability to report violence and harassment, one respondent described the GLP (Lesotho) activities in the Nien Hsing (NH) factory, which established “an information line which is a toll￾free line where a worker can call in to lodge their complaints of experiencing gender-based violence and harassment within the factories and an independent entity which is called Worker’s Rights Watch, which does the investigations of cases that have been forwarded by the information line.” This toll-free line was combined with an education and awareness-raising component, which included a two-day curriculum to explain what constitutes GBVH. In total, 937 workers, 90 local supervisors, and 142 expatriates from the four NH factories were trained (NORCs evaluation focused on two factories). Engendering Industries had a male engagement program and change management coaching targeting prevention of sexual harassment. Raising Awareness of GBV to Foster Prevention RISE conducted different activities to raise awareness and build a greater understanding of GBV, which were believed to influence GBV-related to cultural and social drivers, as noted in the document review and Final Report: “As the GBV-environment nexus was a new topic for many grantees, they used a multi-prong awareness campaign [for GBV prevention], first focusing on their staff and other key implementing partners and then designing outreach efforts to reach target community members. Activities employed a range of communication methods best suited to their target audience, including workshops, community dialogues, radio broadcasts, podcasts, theater performances, Instagram posts, and Facebook groups.” Additionally, RISE was able to pivot during the pandemic. The Final Report noted: “When community gatherings were prohibited due to COVID-19, some organizations drove through towns broadcasting their messages via loudspeaker. These sensitization interventions, often aimed at leaders or other respected community members, became foundational elements of RISE activities.” Other activities also identified community leaders as important change-makers. In Guyana, the BTG4VM activity (BTC cluster) had a Champions Campaign that used different media platforms, such as radio and television, to inform people about GBV and xenophobia. Messages aimed to improve migrants’ awareness of GBV, understanding about discrimination, and support better access to legal and medical services. Key informants for BTG4VM explained that counseling was also central to helping migrants understand the emotional and mental health effects of various forms of psychological abuse, in addition to physical violence. Counseling helps them recognize toxic and damaging situations so they can consider leaving these relationships. The document review for the SDP activity in Panama also reflected the importance of violence risk mitigation among forcibly displaced populations. For example, HIAS piloted and scaled up its global model offering participants safe spaces to reflect and deconstruct ideas about gender. They incorporated reflexive discussions of gender roles and how these contribute to violence and promoted men’s role in reducing risk and mitigating the consequences of sexual violence (SV), intimate-partner violence (IPV) and child, early, and forced unions (CEFMU). In an FGD with participants, some noted that the workshops helped them realize that domestic violence is not normal and that it is a crime. Others 21 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT USAID.GOV stated that the workshops helped them detect violence and therefore prevent it. One participant said it “helped us realize we could be committing domestic violence. I learned to identify that after the course.” In some cases, female partners reported improvements in their interactions. In FGDs with partners of men who attended the workshops, participants described how the workshops had influenced men’s behavior and their perceptions of gender equality: “The workshops came into our lives at a perfect time, my husband was a male chauvinist, and the workshops came at the moment when I needed care, and I thought he was going to leave me ... and he began to get better, to change and to do things that made me feel good. I hope that these workshops for men will take place more often.” “These courses have helped us.... Before I had to do most of the things ... but with these courses they have helped us greatly: we do things together.... These courses should be offered more to many men so that all people be equal.” “My husband did not cook, he did not clean, he did not wash, only when things fell behind. Now he has begun to clean, cook, wash.... The masculinity workshops refreshed his memory ... and he understood gender equality .... and even began to be a couple’s counselor...” [FGDs with participants partners, BTC - SDP, Panama] While no quantitative data are available to determine the prevalence of these changes, these comments suggest that women observed a difference in their partner’s attitudes, and in some cases, how they acted in their relationship. Perceptions of GBV Prevention Evaluation findings suggest that some key informants from at least one activity felt that prevention efforts were futile and that prevention seemed like a difficult goal.. For example, from the BTC activity, key informants for WELCOME said that “you can’t prevent it [GBV] in any community. It happens. It exists. The best you can do is to protect and support … [via] survivors support group meetings.” Another respondent was also skeptical about current efforts for prevention: “There is very little in the way of prevention.” An important element of the WELCOME activity was therefore giving migrant GBV survivors “a place where to get help for the problem no matter what” since survivors had concerns regarding going to the police due to lack of registration and papers. Others suggested that prevention requires more than awareness￾raising alone. For instance, some noted that prevention requires understanding what GBV is and how it can manifest i. At the same time, several warned that when considering awareness-type activities, protection, safety, and confidentiality are serious concerns. For example, when publicizing and raising awareness about GBV, one must be cautious that these activities do not inadvertently create gender tensions and hostility among men. PROTECTION: HOW DOES THE PORTFOLIO CONTRIBUTE TO ACCESSIBLE, EFFECTIVE SERVICES FOR VIOLENCE SURVIVORS? Protection activities generally focused on assistance for violence survivors. Activities applied a variety of techniques to protect GBV survivors, such as safe spaces, referrals, and community structures. Several used a combination of techniques. 22 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT USAID.GOV Providing Safe Spaces In the BTC cluster, the WELCOME activity in Trinidad and Tobago (T&T) assisted domestic violence survivors to get protection orders, if needed, and helped them move to a safe place to stay, according to one respondent. To foster culturally appropriate support, WELCOME also trained advocates from within the Venezuelan community to provide survivors with personalized, culturally relevant, survivor￾centered support. This helped overcome language barriers, distrust, and fear of government and facilitated access to formal and informal support. As one WELCOME staff member noted: “It’s a traumatic time, a traumatic experience. And so having somebody to kind of guide you, who understands the system, who could kind of help you speak when you are unable to really advocate for yourself was the idea. And so we decided to work with training advocates.” [WELCOME staff] The SDP activity in Panama (BTC cluster) focused on reducing threats to women and girls by conducting a security mapping in displacement areas. From the mapping, they provided information and improved women’s and girls’ awareness of GBV, plus supported access to safe spaces. In the WEE cluster, the GLP staff in Lesotho also centered their activities around survivor-centered safe spaces, which are currently very limited in the country. The existing spaces are also underfunded and vulnerable to actions by perpetrators of GBV, thus compromising the safety of survivors. Reports by GLP staff suggested that survivors’ fears for their safety severely constrained their willingness to report violence. Activity staff also highlighted the importance of informing workers who were experiencing GBVH about redress mechanisms and how to report abuse or harassment. Moreover, during the period of the grant, penalties were instituted for reported violations of the code of conduct, including compulsory attendance of education and awareness trainings, final written warnings, and termination of employment. Nien Hsing enforced all determinations from Workers Right Watch (WRW).11 Survivors’ Referral to Additional Services A number of activities took account of a survivor’s need for multiple types of services, with many activities viewing service referral options as an essential component to GBV protection. Numerous activities appeared to recognize that survivors would likely require diverse forms of assistance, and to ensure they could provide this, they set up different referral processes. For instance, BTG4VM (BTC cluster) in Guyana—using the findings from its rapid GBV assessment—decided to provide information on GBV referral options and facilitated access to services in Spanish and Indigenous languages. This information was also provided alongside activities to make migrants aware of their rights. In the RISE activity cluster, while providing safe spaces for women to discuss their experiences, they also established procedures to refer survivors to organizations that offered GBV support services, according to the RISE Final Report. Data collected for the activity indicated a need for GBV services—physical, emotional, and/or legal support. In addition, the COVID-19 crisis also highlighted that referral lists are living documents that need to be regularly updated to remain useful. Thus, several grantees developed or updated and distributed information to support referrals to organizations in the support network. For example, Creative Capacity Building, SLEDGE, and GBV/FGRM+ updated referral lists and shared them with community leaders and other stakeholders. According to a respondent, Creative Capacity 11 WRW is an independent entity that receives and investigates complaints about GBVH from factory workers in Lesotho. 23 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT USAID.GOV Building empowered women miners as a group through a series of workshops about creating their own narrative and getting formal protection against GBV. Rising Up! formed a partnership with Panzi Foundation, a local non-governmental GBV services organization, and Alto Mayo without GBV formed a connection with a local support center operated by the Peru Ministry of Women. These linkages likely established important inter-agency relationships to support better continuity of care for survivors. Referrals for the WEE cluster in the Engendering Industries activity in Nigeria were less about specific forms of survivor referral to care and more focused on instituting reliable procedures for victims to report abuse and harassment. But activity staff described difficulties faced by public entities from an external board when they tried to change the original sexual harassment policy. The activity therefore had to take a more informal approach two ways: 1) engaging men and improving their awareness about sexual harassment, and 2) ensuring that the grievance channel is user friendly to survivors. The document review indicated that for the Micro-Journey activity in Benin, activity staff avoided sending survivors through a series of referral processes and approached survivors’ need for multiple services by establishing One Stop GBV centers in Cotonou, Parakou, and Abomey where survivors could access an integrated package of services, including medical and psychosocial care. According to the PY3 Annual Report for the Micro-Journey in Benin: “3,690 people were reached by a USG funded intervention providing GBV services (e.g., health, legal, psycho-social counseling, shelters, hotlines, other) between Q1 and Q4 FY21.” ACCOUNTABILITY: HOW DOES THE PORTFOLIO CONTRIBUTE TO ENDING IMPUNITY? Among the main questions for the USG portfolio evaluation was the inquiry into activities that addressed accountability, specifically impunity for perpetrators. However, only a limited number of activities focused on accountability—and only indirectly. Some addressed impunity via legal services and others by aiming to publicly call out perpetrators or getting perpetrators to apologize for abuses. As noted by a respondent from the GLP activity in Lesotho, “We don’t have programs that are geared and designed to us working with perpetrators.” This respondent stated that the GLP’s local partner, Worker’s Right Watch, did some follow-up with perpetrators when factory workers complained about GBVH, but “it’s not likely a program that has been fully crafted to address perpetrators of GBV.” In fact, few to no IP/grantee aimed to define “accountability” or examine questions such as: what does perpetrator accountability look like in practice? Or what would be safe ways to “end impunity”? Activities were generally indirectly addressing accountability, and more likely to focus on women’s interactions with law enforcement officials or legal aid services versus the judicial system’s interactions with perpetrators. Law Enforcement and Legal Services Several activities focused on law enforcement and legal aid to strengthen GBV responses for those reporting abuses. Respondents from BTG4VM (BTC cluster) stated that part of increasing awareness of GBV services included improving law enforcement responses. Therefore, they designed activities to sensitize law enforcement officers: for example, giving guidance to avoid re-victimizing survivors. The BTG4VM activity also provided pro bono legal services for women who wanted to seek justice. However, this was used primarily to seek protection of children, obtain child custody, file police reports about abusive partners for protection, and resolve property issues, versus holding perpetrators accountable. The WELCOME legal service was too slow, according to one survivor, since she had been waiting to get custody of her daughter for almost two years. However, she also noted that the service was respectful of the local values and traditions and did its job. 24 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT USAID.GOV In the RISE cluster, three activities—Rising Up! SLEDGE, and GBV/FGRM+—aimed to improve gender￾sensitive alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanisms, according to the document review and KIIs. The RISE Final Report listed several benefits of ADR, claiming that they can be more effective than formal systems since they are more accessible, less costly, faster, conducted in local languages, promote consensus, and provide a mechanism for disputing parties to reach resolution. However, as noted in a KII, even though some activities instituted ADR mechanisms “we’re still far from talking about accountability directly.” As such, there were no activities that directly aimed to hold violent perpetrators legally accountable for their actions or even to interact with perpetrators. Calling Out Perpetrators “Calling out perpetrators” or public shaming was included among the accountability activities proposed in WELCOME’s workplan (component two), which focused on publicly calling out perpetrators. While there were limited data on the impact of these types of accountability mechanisms, one survivor explained how she had filed a complaint against her partner and felt relieved when he was taken prisoner by the police. However, another noted the difficulty of holding perpetrators accountable if they have influence with the police or are former police officers. She said, “It is the first time that this man is denounced, before taking him to court. And they ignored it. They only gave me the report, and they ignored the lawsuit, because the man is a former police officer.” The SPD activity workshops tried to increase men’s sense of accountability for their physical, mental, and verbal violence by encouraging them to apologize to their partners. There were not sufficient data to learn the influence of these workshops. Based on limited available findings on this activity of “calling out perpetrators,” the impact of promoting public “shaming” is unclear. In fact, there has been contradicting evidence on the effectiveness and safety of these types of interventions.12 For instance, recent studies of online dialogue about violence against women seem to suggest that public shaming may be more likely to result in condemnation of the survivors.13 EVALUATION QUESTION 2: TO WHAT EXTENT ARE THE USG OBJECTIVES BEING ACHIEVED ACROSS THE FOUR ACTIVITY CLUSTERS? COORDINATION: HOW ARE THE GBV PREVENTION AND RESPONSE EFFORTS BEING COORDINATED AND MANAGED AT THE AGENCY, ACTIVITY CLUSTER AND ACTIVITY LEVELS? Agency level Information-sharing within USAID For this evaluation, NORC enquired how GBV-related plans, funded projects, and findings are being shared within USAID. Findings indicated that there are relatively few systems to foster regular communications or coordination across relevant programs at USAID headquarters (HQ). Yet, according to one USAID staff member, GenDev staff share information on programming during staff meetings so 12 https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/bulr98&div=49&id=&page= 13 https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/facpub/4155/ 25 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT USAID.GOV other teams are aware of their work and provide feedback. This individual added, however, “at the moment, we are a little understaffed, and people are very busy so fewer staff attend these meetings, and I think that that goes back to being siloed.” When discussing BTC, a respondent from USAID explained that coordination at the agency level happened informally, and information was shared because the activity managers overlap (i.e., managers were responsible for more than one activity). Activity design input and guidance for individual activities According to a USAID respondent, their support to IPs and grantees mainly happens during the activities’ design phase. USAID staff members ensure GBV inclusion during the review of work plans and MEL plans, suggesting “indicators that are appropriate, making sure that the gender analysis does consider GBV risks and do no harm principles.” The same informant mentioned that USAID tries to “make sure that there is a gender expert on staff at the implementing partner organization, but then we try to fade out because we don’t have the capacity to be the gender advisor.” Findings generally suggest that coordination between grantees and USAID staff leaves space for grantees to reflect on and reconsider their original plans and make adjustments when needed. For example, when asked to reflect on their rapport with USAID staff, a respondent from Engendering Industries suggested they had a productive relationship, stating, “There's a lot of back and forth, what’s working, what’s not… I think that has resulted in—you know, there hasn’t been fear of shifting gear or trying different things.” The same individual described collaborative interactions in which “we come up with a new approach, like the survivor-centered approach, so we discuss it with USAID … and we get feedback.… Or, in other times, USAID would say, ‘We have a specialist working on that topic.’” Cluster level USAID’s support and oversight Findings from the evaluation indicate that IPs and grantees of the RISE and CARE-GBV clusters generally appreciated discussions with USAID staff about their activities. When interviewed about RISE, a Resonance representative described quarterly reflection sessions with GenDev to go over the learning questions and reflect on what was working and what was not. In addition, USAID provided feedback through monthly meetings and review of deliverables. However, one USAID respondent described staffing constraints on USAID’s side, stating that “there has been a lot of staff turnover... we do not have as much co-management right now because of a staffing issue.” It appears that the USAID programming office has intentions to provide ongoing support and feedback to grantees, but perhaps the remit for individual staff members is larger than they can manage. MCI staff from the CARE-GBV cluster also described how their bimonthly meetings supported the adjustments they made to their activities: “GenDev technical focal points, focal points from the Mission or the region, CARE-GBV, and MCI staff discuss[ed] progress, successes, challenges, and actions moving forward. Those discussions informed decisions and the adaptations of the activities.” Additional coordination between MCI and GenDev occurred during joint reviews of grantees’ deliverables (such as monthly reports or draft curriculums). Moreover, one SOAR staff member noted that USAID staff periodically offered additional technical input, explaining that during these check-in meetings, USAID allowed “grantees and funders to be on the same page about the implementation and the results that are being achieved and any support that grantees require.” 26 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT USAID.GOV Information exchange between activities Umbrella organizations led information-sharing between similar activities within the BTC, CARE-GBV, and RISE clusters. For example, in the BTC cluster, Resonance played a key role as a guide and spearheading force to bring grantees together and share lessons learned. Resonance reportedly shared IPs’ lessons when they perceived these would be relevant to others in the group. For instance, one of the Resonance technical leads explained how they communicated with NCC to share case management models used by other organizations. This experience was informal though, as a Resonance staff member suggested: “I would say that the peer learning component of Better Together could have been more emphasized, because peer learning did happen, but more informally or ad hoc.” When asked about information exchange between implementing agencies, CARE-GBV respondents talked about regular meetings, during which a main objective was to provide status updates. For example, a respondent from CCH said many meetings discussed the achievements of each grantee: “All of us were discussing which activities we planned, which activities are implemented, what results we have achieved, what were the planned activities for the future, and what we planned to achieve.” Likewise, a respondent from SOAR noted that most meetings with MCI were check-ins with the grants management team, focusing primarily on the status of the activities, explaining that the purpose of their meetings was to “just [get] clarification about it before giving us approval … and then answering any questions we may have had.” But they also indicated that a few meetings were geared toward sharing experiences amongst grantees. It was not unusual for grantees to report that meetings had little space for knowledge exchange: “[The meetings] were so few and short.… We had one and then the rest didn’t happen.” However, at the same time, another grantee indicated that sometimes the exchanges were useful: “The workshop to know what other people are doing in the field, in different parts of the world, was quite helpful.” RISE Peer Learning Calls According to the grantees and the RISE Final Report, the grantees valued the virtual peer learning calls that included RISE staff, grantees, and USAID representatives, mostly from GenDev. Topics for the calls were sourced through an advanced survey that is sent to the cohort and then selected according to grantees’ needs and preferences. For each topic, grantees with identified best practices and shareable results are featured as experts who present their learning to the cohort. Calls also featured different technical experts addressing topics such as safeguarding, engaging men and boys, and land tenure, which were highly valued by grantees. The expert panel is followed by a discussion. During peer learning sessions, organizations were often grouped by region or sector, which facilitated conversations between individuals who spoke the same native language or worked in the same technical area. Grantees appreciated that the composition of breakout rooms stayed the same, allowing the groups to build a rapport, even though it limited engagement across the cohort. Grantees would have liked more time for breakout sessions to allow for more in-depth discussions but valued that RISE project facilitators participated in small group discussions to help report back key lessons and ideas. Moreover, 95 percent of RISE grantees reported an increased ability to work with other organizations to implement policies and practices to address GBV in environmental programs as a result of peer learning. However, grantees noted that it would be helpful to receive materials in advance, particularly those struggling to overcome poor internet connectivity. 27 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT USAID.GOV The RISE Final Report notes that Resonance worked with partners such as IUCN, FHI-360, and CARE to share external expertise with RISE grantees. Moreover, RISE hosted nine virtual peer learning sessions, three virtual training sessions, and one in-person learning event to foster knowledge-sharing among grantees and build grantee capacity. According to the report and interviewees, grantees confirmed these benefits, noting increased knowledge and collaboration from both the calls and the training sessions. Moreover, participants of the in-person learning event believed it was helpful to build connections and increase grantees’ understanding of the GBV-environment nexus. In general, there seems to have been intentions to benefit from shared learning across the clusters. At the same time, no mechanisms tracked how information-sharing activities occurred or whether shared knowledge benefited different organizations. Activities’ diversity limited collaboration The lack of commonality among the RISE grantees limited the exchange of knowledge and lessons learned. A USAID respondent mentioned significant variability in the RISE activities they had to manage: “What was happening in the DRC was not at all related to what was happening on the Peru calls.… Very different challenges … the nature of their locations … their goals … the types of interventions.” Furthermore, a RISE respondent said that “it would be helpful to potentially focus on one geographic location or one environmental sector.... We were operating across four environmental sectors, three continents, and three languages.” RISE’s peer learning calls included breakout rooms, but the grantees would have preferred sharing sessions for grantees with a similar focus, even if they were working in different geographical contexts. As a respondent from GBV/FGRM+ in Fiji put it, “To learn what it is that you’re doing and how that might be applied.… It might have just been nice to do that with the smaller group as opposed to the whole group.” However, time differences make it difficult to plan learning activities with people from different regions. A respondent from Reducing Gender-based Violence in Vietnamese Conservation suggested to “divide it into sessions. Have the Asia Pacific session, the America session, and so on.... At least the timing would be better for us.” Activity level Umbrella organization’s support Grantees valued the assistance provided by the umbrella organizations of the CARE-GBV, BTC, and RISE clusters. A CCH staff member mentioned that support was offered by CARE-GBV specialists (DI￾MCI) during the design phase so they would have required procedures in place to run their activity. Also, during the implementation phase, “every time we needed help from them, they quickly answered us, and scheduled all the meetings … to track what we were doing the whole time.” In the BTC cluster, Resonance’s monthly check-in calls gave WELCOME staff a forum to share information and have an external perspective challenging their assumptions during the adaptation stage. RISE grantees also expressed that Resonance was very engaged, responsive to their needs, and available to support them. A respondent from the Reducing Gender-based Violence in Vietnamese Conservation activity stated, “If we need any help, I can reach out to them through WhatsApp, and I can ask to have a meeting.… They were really super helpful.” 28 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT USAID.GOV Collaboration with local or expert partners Grantees from the WEE, CARE-GBV, and BTC clusters worked collaboratively with their partners to improve the effectiveness of their work. In the WEE cluster, staff from E4W felt that collaboration with other partners implementing similar GBV projects was essential to success: “I recommend even more projects or activities that are implemented by many partners at the same time and together so that the action is the most complete, that it can really meet the needs, which are diverse and complex, of these women.” In the CARE-GBV cluster, SVRI partnered with various organizations to deliver case studies, webinars, and online courses. SVRI’s advisory group partners included representatives from Raising Voices, HaRT Yoga, Breathe International, and We are Feminist Leaders. The same respondent said that partners focused on developing content for the self-paced online materials. In North Macedonia, CCH’s partnership with Pleiades Organization aimed to strengthen outreach efforts to the target group and combine the joint experience and expertise of the organizations to develop a holistic program to support the staff at GBV organizations. As indicated in a CCH Progress Report, “Our weekly meetings help us to be up to date with our work and progress, and we continue to learn from each other about things that are a specialty for each of the organizations.… The CCH team shares the knowledge and long-term experience about GBV, while Pleiades Organization passed on to us their knowledge about management of social media & PR.” In the BTC cluster, a respondent from BTG4VM mentioned, “Working alongside NCC, the internal process to make the designed one-stop shop become a program came from the valuable interaction with local actors.” Also, the review of documentation revealed that SDP learned about the services provided by civil society groups, public agencies, and international organizations and created alliances with strategic partners to establish clear referral pathways in Panama. Moreover, according to the activity’s documents, WELCOME was implemented in collaboration with local actors and provided close monitoring and coaching to improve their partners’ administrative capacity and strengthen the service offered for Venezuelan migrants and T&T nationals. INTEGRATION: HOW ARE GBV PREVENTION AND RESPONSE EFFORTS BEING INTEGRATED INTO CURRENT AND FUTURE USAID/GENDEV WORK AND INFORMING RELATED PROGRAMS? In each AC, grantees were able to integrate prevention and response efforts thanks to a number of methods. USAID’s assistance USAID provided guidance on integrating prevention and response efforts to each cluster. According to USAID, they reviewed their GBV strategy with grantees of the CARE and RISE clusters as a sort of orientation session. Its purpose was to help both cluster grantees integrate USAID standards as well as prevention and response efforts for RISE into their programs. Further, USAID continued to inform the grantees on approaches to GBV prevention during bi-monthly meetings. Regarding the WEE cluster, USAID staff shared that the Agency had the goal of continuously sharing knowledge on GBV prevention and response with IPs. 29 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT USAID.GOV Integrating previous experiences The BTC, CARE-GBV, and RISE clusters relied on previous experience and well-established approaches to guide prevention and response efforts. For BTC, the SDP MEL and Work Plan described that their proposed intervention integrates “approaches to stakeholders to raise awareness about GBV” in Panama. SDP used its global male engagement model already implemented in other countries to inform and scale up the program. According to CARE-GBV staff KIIs, their prevention and response efforts were modeled after public health approaches. The CARE-GBV grant focused on self- and collective care of organizations providing GBV prevention and response services. The RISE Final Report mentions that Advancing Equitable Gender, Social and Power Norms in Community Conservancies in Kenya integrated its previously designed gender strategy (completed through Mission funding) with GBV. RISE support allowed the grantee to implement the gender strategy, and USAID provided technical assistance and additional funding for integrated climate change and GBV programming. Integrating partners’ know-how Across RISE, BTC, and WEE, partners were crucial in informing activities. For the RISE cluster, SLEDGE engaged men in its programming after learning from another RISE grantee that this is a key aspect to prevent GBV, according to SLEDGE’s staff. In the BTC cluster, the activities integrated approaches to work with migrants and GBV survivors. WELCOME in T&T integrated La Casita’s prevention and response efforts into their program. As described in the final report, “For WELCOME, it became apparent that La Casita brought the experience and expertise working with migrants and GBV Survivors, while DI brought the technical and project management expertise that allowed the Advocates and other La Casita personnel to focus primarily on giving emotional and service support to survivors.” Also, BTG4VM in Guyana integrated multiple prevention and response efforts into their one-stop-shop model. For WEE, in Nigeria, Engendering Industries’ leadership explained that their relationship with Equimundo helped inform their approach to male engagement. This collaboration helped them develop the curriculum, pilot the program, and scale up with partners. Moreover, this respondent commented that partnering with IBEDC helped provide input into national dialogue around male engagement in GBV. In Benin, MSH, the Ministry of Health, and the Ministry of Justice worked together to integrate prevention and response efforts with the Departmental Directorates of Social Affairs and Microfinance (DDASM), social agents, health care professionals, the judiciary, police, local authorities, and other organizations working on GBV, according to the WEE Final Report. In Guatemala, staff from WEE in Mesoamerica spoke to the importance of their partnerships in integrating prevention and response efforts into future programming, “These foreign NGOs we work with in each country, local governments, to the extent that they get involved, the results are exponential. They are incredible, and they also begin to integrate other women, not necessarily within WEE, but because they have 30 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT USAID.GOV already gained experience that allows them to serve more women in more territories, and allows us at the same time because we always exchange some type of work.” Scaling up One USAID staff member commented that they wanted to see prevention and response efforts scaled up to include more partners and other sectors, such as education and health. The RISE Final Report mentions that GBV/FGRM+ prevention and response efforts in Fiji to create a feedback and grievance redress mechanism will be scaled and integrated into other national-level payment for ecosystems services schemes. DATA: HOW IS USAID/GENDEV’S GBV PORTFOLIO COLLECTING, ANALYZING, AND USING DATA AND RESEARCH TO ENHANCE PREVENTION AND RESPONSE EFFORTS? ACs employed various methods for collecting, analyzing, and using data and research to enhance their prevention and response efforts. Collecting monitoring data The BTC, CARE-GBV, and RISE clusters used monitoring data to enhance prevention and response efforts. In the BTC cluster, grantees and sub-grantees periodically collected monitoring data to learn how front-line workers and advocates were doing, assess the need for changes, and improve the activities’ design and implementation. In T&T, WELCOME staff collected data through surveys and interviews, although not as frequently as originally envisioned: “We wanted to get different data points to identify trends.” In addition, local IPs expressed that monitoring data, gathered via intake forms, interagency referral forms, advocate logs, and case closure forms, were useful: “We didn't have any kind of database or figures.… The reference system allowed us to have statistics, and other organizations take you more seriously when you report numbers.” However, according to service providers that responded to NORC’s survey, the organizations that worked with BTG4VM and WELCOME to assist referrals of GBV survivors had no access to any monitoring data and said these activities did not adapt their strategies based on those data. In Panama, SDP staff identified effective mechanisms to attract participants after reviewing data: “Personalized calls give better results than Women’s Empowerment Business Development Approach (WEBDA) A WEE in Mesoamerica staff member said: “I believe it is key to synthesize or systematize all our experiences, methodologies, and all the lessons learned in a document, which is what we call WEBDA. WEBDA is nothing more than a toolbox of all these lessons learned, of how the two main lines of WEE converge. The first is the issue of violence prevention, rights, and social justice. And the second is productive systems as a mechanism for economic empowerment. As these two lines come together, they generate a lot of experiences, lessons, and tools. And all of this is being grouped together in WEBDA, which is a toolbox that is evolving year by year. Our expectation is that this WEBDA will be finalized by year 5 and will remain, not only for sub￾agreements, but also for RA and USAID itself as a starting point for other initiatives related to these issues, and that they will not have to go through everything or start from scratch and learn everything all over again, but that they can take back or take what they need to be able to start working faster and more efficiently with the groups that need our support.” 31 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT USAID.GOV advertisements on social networks.” In addition, participants thought SDP staff listened to their opinions about the program: “At the beginning of each workshop, they asked what we thought, and they took our opinion into account.” Moreover, the desk review indicated that CARE-GBV worked with the grantees to collect data for the Quarterly Technical Progress Report that was submitted to USAID. These products reported monitoring indicators and were used to track activity progress. For RISE, GBV experts interviewed for this evaluation stated that having good data was critical to identifying gaps for future research and programming. In the context of the AC, experts highlighted the need to have data on: 1) salient GBV and environmental issues, and 2) organizations that can address those issues. They noted: “To design effective interventions, it is important to understand the linkages between gender-based violence and environmental issues. This involves collecting and analyzing data on the prevalence of GBV and the ways in which environmental degradation or conservation efforts impact women and girls. This data can help identify vulnerable populations and areas where interventions are most needed.” Data must also be available to be useful. In Kenya, more information is needed on incidences of GBV and where they occur. Similarly, in Peru, more information on GBV and environmental issues in indigenous communities is needed. In DRC, finding reliable statistics to help identify gaps can reportedly be a challenge. For example, while data on organizations in the DRC that work on GBV and conservation may be available, information on what they do is not readily available. Internal learning sessions The BTC and WEE ACs conducted internal learning sessions. USAID held a meeting to share BTC’s lessons learned when it ended, according to a staff member KII. At the meeting, staff discussed using these lessons to enhance prevention and response efforts. Several grantee staff members expressed their desire for more frequent learning sessions during implementation, with USAID. In the WEE cluster, USAID is fostering information-sharing through the community of practice and gender champions meetings. An interviewee mentioned, “I am sure there are things that we miss, but we are trying to disseminate findings and research within our USAID family.” However, USAID staff recognized that funding is not always allocated based on research as there are evidence gaps because of underreporting. The same respondent also said, “Political leadership has decided areas of interest where they want to put funding based on the administration’s agenda. They do not always have to review data because sometimes the information is generally known.” Studies and assessments BTC, RISE, and WEE analyzed data from studies and assessments to improve prevention and response efforts. For BTC, WELCOME engaged local partner Lucent to collect baseline data in T&T. Moreover, BTG4VM designed a “one-stop shop” approach after reviewing the findings from the rapid needs assessment and services mapping that their local partner Ladysmith conducted in Guyana. A similar initiative did not exist before BTG4VM’s work. Moreover, the desk review found that the one-stop shop was well received by its users, based on the ratings from client feedback forms. 32 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT USAID.GOV Regarding RISE, the studies and assessments prepared for this cluster were used to design and implement programming. USAID staff mentioned that the Violence of Inequality study prepared by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature documents the existing literature on GBV across natural resource management sectors. This study found that GBV is an important problem in the environmental sector, and there is a lack of evidence regarding the best ways to address it. Therefore, “the Challenge mechanism was a good venue to try to find solutions and implement RISE.” RISE supported the activity teams to conduct pre-implementation assessments regarding the risks of GBV within the environment sector. Overall, RISE grantees have a positive opinion about these rigorous studies. In the DRC, staff from Rising Up! felt that extensive feedback received from people with different specialties elevated the quality of the assessments: “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.… It made our approach more scientific.” Similarly, in Uganda, SLEDGE staff mentioned that the analysis was useful because they did not have enough background information on GBV: “We are more environmental experts.” Furthermore, these assessments were considered “our guiding documents” by GBV/FGRM+ staff in Fiji and gave Conservation of the Alto Mayo Landscape without Gender Violence “a more clear strategy on topics we should focus on with the women that we worked with” in Peru. However, a respondent from Creative Capacity Building mentioned that it was challenging to gather the appropriate information in rural communities in Colombia: “USAID was asking us for safety nets and who were the people that could be accessed if something happened, but we found out that there is an absence of the State.” Moreover, one respondent from Resonance mentioned that more due diligence was needed on the gender analysis. As for the WEE cluster, research shows that women’s economic empowerment could cause harm or revictimization. Thus, USAID staff felt it was important to conduct gender analysis to help the WEE activities prevent GBV. As one USAID informant said, “Enhancing women’s economic empowerment could put them at risk of GBV in highly patriarchal communities.” WEE in Mesoamerica conducted a diagnostic analysis that gave its staff a new perspective on the structural causes of GBV and allowed them to adjust the activity to local needs, using adaptive programming in Guatemala. The main factors identified include being Indigenous, poverty, being a minor, and being a single mother. Women’s lack of access to land was particularly challenging, so WEE in Mesoamerica had to look for spaces in communal lands or women with access to lands who were willing to employ other women. WEE in Mesoamerica staff also emphasized the importance of measuring the capabilities of local organizations and the business knowledge they had from the beginning, which allowed them to develop business models that the local organizations could handle well. In addition, the gender analysis allowed WEE in Mesoamerica to select value chains considering the women’s preferences and plan events knowing that female participants could bring their children. Moreover, a midline evaluation is planned for 2023 to collect information from women and validate what is working. A WEE in Mesoamerica staff member said, “All these diagnostic studies helped us to make decisions based on better-informed science about the situation of women and how we can better serve them with WEE tools.” Additionally, the GLP: Levi-Strauss Partnership used the Worker Rights Consortium’s 2017 study’s findings related to sexual harassment in the NH factories to design the activity in Lesotho. GLP was also informed by a cultural study funded by another donor to identify permissive behaviors that lead to 33 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT USAID.GOV GBVH. Similarly, E4W’s baseline study identified cultural barriers that limit women’s economic empowerment in Burundi. EXPANSION: HOW IS USAID/GENDEV’S GBV PORTFOLIO HELPING TO EXPAND AND/OR IMPROVE GBV PROGRAMMING? Each AC grantee engaged in different strategies to expand and improve GBV programming. Using monitoring data Both the BTC and CARE-GBV clusters used their activity monitoring data to improve programming. Overall, BTC hired third-party validators in each country; these monitors were local GBV experts whose task was to go to the field and talk to grantees and beneficiaries to validate implementation. “It was more of a validation than like a deep DQA [Data Quality Assessment] exercise, and also sort of flagging some challenges up to us.” In Guyana, BTG4VM staff said they are using the monitoring data to plan activities beyond USAID’s support and scale up to new regions with IDB funds: “The key performance indicators helped to keep us accountable and to see where things were heading in the scale up phase.” In the case of CARE-GBV, the monitoring data and lessons learned by this AC were used to produce guiding documents for USAID. The topics included engaging with youth and engaging with locally led survivor organizations, according to a USAID staff respondent. Expanding capacities and populations served The WEE and BTC clusters leveraged their current or previous GBV work and partnerships and found opportunities to expand their capacities to reach more participants. In the WEE cluster, initially, WEE in Mesoamerica was not providing services to women under the age of 18 in Guatemala. However, most single mothers in marginalized communities are adolescents. Thus, WEE in Mesoamerica reached an agreement with USAID so they could serve young women starting at 16 years old. Regarding the BTC cluster, a local partner staff member mentioned that WELCOME strengthened their organizational capacity by drafting written policies and standard operating procedures so they could expand their services to the GBV area in T&T: “having a structure to be able to serve people as it should be.” Also, the document review found that HIAS adapted and piloted SDP’s engagement model on positive masculinities in Kenya, Colombia, and Panama to scale up this program and create safe spaces at the global level. However, one KII respondent mentioned that there was not continuity of the activity in Panama: “It was made as an initial base project, but it should have continued once the results were analyzed.” Further, BTG4VM expanded its one-stop shop presence from regions 3 and 4, under USAID funding, to regions 1, 7, and 8 in Guyana, with IDB funds. Increased interest for GBV approaches The RISE and WEE clusters’ activities have drawn interest from different parties. In the RISE cluster, Reducing Gender-based Violence in Vietnamese Conservation received requests from conservation organizations in Laos and Cambodia to support them in addressing sexual harassment, as mentioned in the final report. 34 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT USAID.GOV As for the WEE cluster, E4W’s positive masculinity approach was novel and became highly recognized in Burundi. Some local administrations requested SFCG expand its interventions. According to a staff member, SFCG extended their approach to empower youth as a result. Also, a respondent from Engendering Industries, in Nigeria, commented that their TOC is very comprehensive. Thus, they have received requests to describe their approach to other implementers. Engendering Industries staff have explained their activity and shared lessons learned with interested parties. Also related to the WEE cluster, a USAID staff member said that their yearly call for proposals allows USAID operating units and missions to work on gender projects using GEEA funding (or WGDP in the past). The applicants must show that they are meeting one or more of GEEA’s priorities in their activity, so their proposals highlight the role GBV plays in, for instance, employment or safety in the workplace, even if it's not the main component of the activity. Limiting factors Two factors limited the expansion of the RISE activities, which could be potentially relevant for other GBV programming. First, there is limited evidence linking improved gender outcomes with improved environmental outcomes. Staff from Creative Capacity Building noted: “We made many attempts to create the connection between GBV and environmental outcomes in our movement-building workshops with no luck.” The final report mentions that grantees found it quite challenging to help their stakeholders understand the interrelationship. Thus, RISE staff expressed that more data is needed to enhance additional interest and motivation among environmental organizations to engage in GBV initiatives. This reveals that there is an opportunity to build evidence on the linkages between environmental and gender programming. Second, securing more actors to fund the RISE challenge has been difficult for USAID. “I do not know why … I cannot get other donors to co-fund the challenge.” [USAID staff] EVALUATION QUESTION 3: WHAT LESSONS ARE BEING LEARNED AND TO WHAT EXTENT IS THERE SHARING OF BEST PRACTICES, LESSONS, AND INFORMATION ACROSS THE FOUR ACTIVITY CLUSTERS? FOUNDATIONS: ARE LESSONS REGARDING FOUNDATIONS OF GBV BEING SHARED WITH AC IMPLEMENTING PARTNERS? AC-specific learning In each activity cluster, lessons regarding foundations of GBV related to each activity were shared with and among BTC, CARE-GBV, RISE, and WEE partners. In the case of BTC, each activity’s staff received information on working with migrant populations and providing GBV services because many organizations were new to working with migrants, or with migrants at the intersection of GBV. WELCOME staff in T&T learned lessons regarding working with migrant GBV survivors through their training and collaboration with La Casita. Specifically, they received resources on measuring gender norms and attitudes including the Gender Equitable Men (GEM) Scale, International Men & Gender Equality Survey (IMAGES), Measuring Gender-Transformative Change, and Measuring Social Norms. For the SPD program in Panama, in the final report, staff shared that they had learning gaps regarding GBV at the onset of the project and how they addressed them: “[Staff] did not have prior training on 35 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT USAID.GOV gender issues: for example, the incorporation of the gender perspective, knowledge of country law projects related to the right to live in a society of equality, or how to address cultural beliefs or have information on programs at the national level to involve men more in the prevention of violence against women and girls. It was achieved along with the adaptations to the manual, by implementing weekly spaces to reinforce basic concepts such as equity, masculinity, condoning, among others.” Also, trainings and courses were provided within organizations in the CARE-GBV cluster on foundations of GBV specific to their activities. In their indicator tracking data document, SVRI outlined the course created for SVRI members to address violence against women and children in a variety of civil society organizations and academia. In addition, SVRI partnered with Breathe International to do a trauma￾informed meditation session for the activity. Moreover, ZSU staff commented that partnering with Common Threads helped inform their approaches to GBV work. As cited in the RISE cluster final report, RISE staff and grantees engaged in strategic communications efforts at multiple levels to share information on the need for GBV-sensitive environmental programming, both internally within their own organizations as well as externally among other stakeholders. USAID and RISE staff underlined the need to continually share GBV foundation knowledge with grantees. For most grantees, RISE was their first time working on a program focused on the intersection of environmental programming and GBV. RISE staff shared in KIIs that local organizations and staff often lacked strong conceptual understanding of gender norms, which required training. Further, all nine RISE activities included awareness-raising components to increase community understanding of both GBV prevention and response in connection to environmental stewardship. In KIIs, staff from the Advancing Equitable Norms in Community Conservancies activity (Kenya) and from the Alto Mayo without Gender Violence activity (Peru) affirmed they were familiarized with the USG GBV Strategy during their meetings with USAID. For WEE in Benin, staff explained how receiving lessons on the foundations of GBV helped shape the Micro-Journey activity: “This guided us at the formulation stage. Those key principles have governed the development of working and intervention approaches. The main objective here is to ensure that GBV victims have financial sustainability so that they can easily reintegrate into society, have access to health services, and avoid falling back into the cycle of violence.” Learning through collaboration Grantees in each cluster participated in trainings and regularly collaborated to share lessons with one another and their partners. RISE grantees continually shared knowledge on GBV and environmental conservancy with each other and their audiences, also working with USAID to become familiar with the USG GBV Strategy. In the BTC cluster, BTG4VM collaborated with the R4V GBV national working group through monthly virtual meetings, collecting information on GBV patterns, lessons learned, and best practices in Guyana. BTG4VM staff also mentioned learning about foundations of GBV through the Rapid Gender Based Violence Assessment and training Ladysmith conducted for them. For the CARE-GBV cluster, grantees collectively participated in learning and training to inform best practices for GBV. CARE-GBV staff shared that there were quarterly meetings with CARE-GBV grantees to share progress and lessons. CCH staff emphasized the value of these meetings to help 36 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT USAID.GOV inform best practices, lessons, and learning. One staff member said, “They helped us in the beginning before we started with the project to create different procedures that were [a] must have for even starting the whole program and project, and during every time we need that help from them.” In the WEE cluster, grantees worked collaboratively and benefitted from sharing learning on the foundations of GBV related to work with women’s economic empowerment. Staff who implemented the GLP activity commented that sharing strategies with the other activities delivering similar gender projects was useful in strengthening their strategy toward GBV. One staff member said, “I think the more experiences and the more expertise and the more understanding will help in terms of dealing with issues of gender-based violence and harassment globally, not just in Lesotho.” In Nigeria, Engendering Industries staff also reiterated the value of collaborative learning with other activities: “We are influencing each other in terms of sharing knowledge, sharing approaches, and also discussing with each other how we want to proceed.” POPULATIONS: WHAT TYPES OF POPULATIONS ARE BEING ENGAGED IN THE AC? WHICH VULNERABLE AND UNDERSERVED POPULATIONS HAVE BEEN INCLUDED? Defined target populations The four ACs worked with clearly defined target populations dependent on each AC context. The BTC cluster mainly focused on female and male Venezuelan migrants who are survivors of GBV, but also engaged Venezuelan men in GBV reduction workshops and served people from other nationalities in smaller amounts (e.g., Colombian, Cuban, Dominican, Guyanese, Honduran, Panamanian, and Salvadorian). In the case of SDP in Panama, the final report mentions that 165 Venezuelan refugee and migrant men were engaged to reduce risks and mitigate consequences of IPV in Panama City, San Miguelito, and West Panama. SDP’s primary users mentioned that only people applying for refugee status or recognized refugees could receive services or attend the workshops, limiting the activity’s reach. However, SDP recruited participants through community-based organizations and one of them included a small group of Panamanian men. The IP found benefits from including members of the host community in the workshops and Inter-Gender Dialogues, which included building a common ground in terms of the communities they share and the aspects of masculinity that cause conflict and other problems with their partners. Additionally, Panamanian men could listen to the migrants’ challenges and perspectives, helping them to gain further understanding about the life of male refugees and immigrants in these communities, and erode negative stereotypes. BTG4VM primarily served female Venezuelan migrants and Guyanese impacted by GBV in Guyana. Similarly, according to its final report, WELCOME primarily targeted migrant Venezuelan women in Northeast (Arima), Central (Chaguanas), and South (Debe) Trinidad who experienced GBV. The same document and interviews with WELCOME staff revealed that other direct beneficiaries included the women recruited and trained to be advocates (who later assisted one to four women each) and staff included in all training activities. KIIs also revealed that BTG4VM and WELCOME hotlines were available to migrants from other LAC countries. A USAID staff member noted, “It’s hard to identify only Venezuelan migrants because other people are calling the hotline.” The CARE-GBV cluster provided grants to promote capacity-building and learning focused on GBV staff and organizational wellness and resiliency. Thus, the populations engaged were mostly GBV staff and partners who received training, capacity-building, and internal policy guidance. CCH targeted GBV workers and organizations in North Macedonia. In interviews with CCH staff, they emphasized that 37 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT USAID.GOV their society was multi-ethnic and that they wanted to include as many ethnic groups in the project as they could. CCH’s work with Pleiades Organization helped them reach Albanian women, and other partners helped CCH work with Roma women and women with disabilities. SVRI’s target audience comprised SVRI members, including researchers, practitioners, SVRI grant recipients, and others working in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) to address violence against women and violence against children in a variety of institutions, including CSOs and academia. Additionally, ZSU’s intervention in Bosnia and Herzegovina aimed to help internal staff and those at other GBV prevention and response organizations move from threat to safety through somatic techniques, learning about staff wellness, care, and resilience, and disseminating external findings to other GBV prevention and response actors as well as stakeholders in the sector. The RISE AC focused on working with Indigenous communities in Fiji, Kenya, and Peru and people in conflict and post-conflict areas in Colombia, the DRC, and Uganda. The RISE Final Report also mentions that conservation organizations were part of the target population of the activities in Kenya, Peru, and Vietnam. The RISE Challenge gave opportunity for nontraditional MEL approaches for models developed by Indigenous-led organizations or centering qualitative data on Indigenous-lived experiences. However, many of the organizations in the RISE cluster lacked previous experience working with Indigenous populations, including PROMSEX in Peru, as cited in the RISE Final Report. The target populations of the WEE cluster activities were women who could benefit from workforce development, vocational education and access to capital, markets, technical assistance, and networks. The Micro-Journey activity targeted GBV survivors who were unemployed to submit proposals for income-generating activities to promote autonomy in Benin, while the Engendering Industries activity in Nigeria targeted potential women employees to provide them with job opportunities, trainings, and mentorship. Also, the GLP activity targeted female garment workers in Lesotho. Furthermore, the WEE in Mesoamerica activity in Guatemala sought to provide economic opportunities to at-risk and marginalized women, including migrants and survivors of human trafficking. Staff shared in KIIs that they targeted low-income areas, serving many women who are single mothers. Staff also explained that it was difficult to reach vulnerable groups of women with no land and who work as day laborers. Male engagement All clusters included men in their target populations. In KIIs for the CARE-GBV cluster, CCH staff emphasized the importance of male participation. As shared by staff members, BTC provided support to male survivors of domestic violence in Guyana and Trinidad. For instance, a KII respondent from BTG4VM in Guyana said: “While our primary users were … generally Venezuelan women, we found that one of the most vulnerable groups were actually Venezuelan men.… Men actually called the helpline.” Furthermore, some activities of the WEE cluster engaged men in messaging on positive masculinities to address the social norms and barriers that limit women’s access to economic opportunities. This was the case of the E4W and WEE in Mesoamerica activities in Burundi and Guatemala, respectively. However, staff from the Micro-Journey in Benin noted in KIIs that they worked with men in rare cases: “We had to make special groups of men in the communities to raise awareness. Just as we had special groups for women only. We had to work on the issue with men, alternative or new masculinities, whatever you want to call it, and make them aware that we had to continue with behavioral change.” 38 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT USAID.GOV According to RISE cluster document review, KIIs and FGDs, engaging men was a central component of multiple activities, but their involvement and intervention uptake varied. For example, Creative Capacity Building in Colombia and Reducing Gender-based Violence in Vietnamese Conservation experienced difficulties in their engagement with men. In Peru, Alto Mayo without Gender Violence struggled to engage men from the Shampuyacu community: of the 36 men invited to attend trainings on positive masculinity, only 21 participated, with 10 of those dropping out after the first session. Also, Reducing Gender-based Violence in Vietnamese Conservation found that many of the male directors of national parks or conservation groups were averse to conversations about GBV, making it difficult to address the issue within their organizations. In contrast, the Rising Up! and GBV/FGRM+ activities had sensitizations specifically for male leaders, who were facilitators of program effectiveness. Moreover, FGD participants in Uganda were pleased with SLEDGE’s efforts to engage men: “The good thing about the SLEDGE project is it also involved the men in the trainings and the men learnt… Today they are so different; a man can now even serve a woman with a cup of drinking water, cook and do laundry, which was not the case before.” Vulnerable populations served The BTC, RISE, and WEE clusters engaged vulnerable populations. These included specific demographic groups of women, people with disabilities, and the LGBTQIA+ community. In the BTC cluster, interviews with SDP’s staff and primary users revealed that men with disabilities and those who identify as homosexuals participated in the activity. A staff member noted: “There was a Venezuelan man, elderly and blind, who was part of the team like any other and participated in all four workshops.” Also, RISE supported Indigenous women as a key vulnerable population. USAID staff noted in KIIs that the RISE Challenge included people from various ethnicities and with disabilities as well as the LGBTQIA+ community into gender programming. Nevertheless, RISE staff felt that they could have engaged LGBTQIA+ people more. In the DRC, Rising Up! staff explained that their organization usually works with vulnerable women as their target population. In the WEE cluster, WEE in Mesoamerica staff advocated to USAID to allow girls ages 16 and up to participate in the activity in Guatemala. Conversely, staff from the E4W activity in Burundi were surprised to not work with as many younger women as intended. Many older women over 50 at coffee grower associations participated in the activity, and one staff member commented that widowed women were often some of the most vulnerable women engaged. E4W also targeted refugee women according to staff, but senior leadership expressed that the activity has not reached the LGBTQIA+ community. STAKEHOLDERS: WHICH STAKEHOLDERS ARE BEING ENGAGED TO ACHIEVE RESULTS? Co-creation Resonance followed a participatory approach to design the BTC and the RISE Challenge. As part of this co-creation process, Resonance worked with NCC and HIAS to make sure these grantees found individuals with substantial experience working with Venezuelan migrants: “We insisted that they hired someone that while not being Venezuelan, had worked with the Venezuelan community. And I think they all knew they needed that for a trusted entry point.” Another respondent from Resonance mentioned that they 39 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT USAID.GOV facilitated a 2-day co-creation workshop with 35 stakeholders from the environment and gender sectors to define the problem statement and RISE’s objectives before the request for applications was issued. Stakeholder maps RISE grantees developed stakeholder maps that helped them engage with the right actors and identify key assumptions about how the activities might influence and impact key stakeholders. According to the RISE Final Report, the stakeholder mapping exercise helped grantees develop and implement inclusive, locally driven activities. Engaging stakeholders to support the activities’ staff Activities of the BTC and RISE clusters hired representatives of key organizations or population groups. In the BTC cluster, in Panama, SDP staff mentioned that well-known and trusted Venezuelan “champions” were hired to join their team; and in T&T, La Casita was able to gain institutional capacity to launch and implement WELCOME through a group of partnering organizations. For RISE, Alto Mayo Landscape without Gender Violence in Peru involved GBV experts, not necessarily from environmental organizations, because the activity is “less of an environmental project and more of a gender project with an environmental context,” as reported by a staff member. Dissemination events to engage different audiences Across clusters, the IPs and grantees conducted dissemination activities to engage wide audiences. In the RISE cluster, Advancing Equitable Norms in Conservancies in Kenya organized a learning session with its network members. According to a staff member, various organizations had the opportunity to describe what they do to opinion leaders in this event. Also, a respondent mentioned that CARE-GBV grantees “engaged with other organizations and sometimes coalitions to get information out.” Moreover, CCH reported that they informed GBV professionals about their activities during their National Conference and regular meetings with stakeholders. In the BTC cluster, promoting good relationships with the local governments was a crucial part of SDP’s work, with engaged municipalities disseminating information about the program among potential users, according to SDP staff. Strengthen local capacity to enhance referral pathways The grantees of the CARE-GBV and BTC clusters worked with local organizations providing services related to GBV. In the CARE-GBV cluster, SOAR Initiative is a member of the Federal Capital Territory Sexual & Gender Based Response Team (FCT-SGBVRT) in Nigeria. The team comprises the most relevant agencies in the fight against domestic and sexual violence from both the private and public sectors in the FCT. According to a respondent from SOAR, “Rather than look for organizations that we could work with and strengthen their stand[ards] and practices around self-care and wellness, we decided to go through the network.… They selected 12 organizations that needed priority … and the capacity strengthening we provided would be best needed.… Apart from strengthening the capacity of these 12 organizations on improving self-care and wellness practices… we also succeeded in strengthening the operations of the Response Team as a network.” 40 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT USAID.GOV Also, the document review found that grantees of the BTC cluster partnered with local CSOs, the media, the public sector, and international organizations14 to reinforce the effectiveness of national referral pathways. In Guyana, BTG4VM engaged the civil society, local organizations,15 media, government agencies,16 UN agencies, and other members of national Inter-Agency Coordination Platform for Refugees and Migrants from Venezuela (R4V) working group for GBV to create and strengthen the national GBV referral pathway. Also, WELCOME engaged CSOs, NGOs, faith-based groups, government agencies, and local businesses around La Casita, to create the advocate-centered model.17 According to the document review, primary users in T&T recognized the importance of involving different actors because all services are not provided by a single entity. In Panama, SDP worked with strategic actors to strengthen local capacity and ensure effective referral pathways. Local partners included youth and women rights organizations and NGOs,18 the public sector, international organizations, the University of Panama’s Women’s Institute, El Venezolano Newspaper, and the delivery company Pedidos Ya. However, a KII respondent said that some administrative staff of these institutions attended SDP workshops and dialogue tables, “instead of those providing services on the streets.” Further male engagement Interviewed experts and IP staff remarked that engagement with men should be incorporated in future research and programming. For instance, in the WEE cluster, a respondent from E4W, said: “Most of the activities that were carried out in the past, we did them just for the woman, to strengthen her, to make her aware of these rights, to help her to become economically independent, but we had forgotten that ultimately the man is an essential and important element in the fight against GBV. This means that a program can only be completed or can only succeed if the man supports this change that is being promoted among women.” Related to the RISE cluster, men’s leadership in conservation and prevalence as perpetrators of GBV make them an ideal target group for programming at the intersection of GBV and the environment. According to GBV expert from Kenya, “They [men] are the main perpetrators in those areas, it’s even culturally sanctioned. And because of the issues we were discussing about the environment, they are to be directly targeted with activities but with responsibilities […] at the institutional level, they should also be able to demonstrate working consciously towards achieving the results of enhancement of gender equality and significant reduction environment.” Similarly, a GBV expert in Peru recommended working with men and addressing the topic of masculinity as part of an intercultural approach to programming. EVALUATION QUESTION 4: WHAT PERVASIVE GAPS STILL EXIST IN UNDERSTANDING GBV AND ADDRESSING SPECIFIC TYPES OF GBV? In this section, NORC reports on findings tied to the gaps that still exist in understanding and addressing specific types of GBV based on the 20 activities covered under this evaluation. 14 Including UN Women, United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), United Nations Development Program (UNDP), United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR), and the International Organization for Migration (IOM). 15 Including feminist research organization, Ladysmith, Catholic Charities Organization Guyana (CCOG), Voices Gy, and HIAS. 16 Including the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Human Services and Social Security (MHSS), and the Domestic Violence Unit and Child Care and Protection Agency. 17 Local partners included YWCA, La Casita, Rape Crisis Society of Trinidad & Tobago (RCSTT), Families in Action (FIA), Women’s Institute for Alternative Development (WINAD), Institute for Gender and Development Studies (IGDS), Lucent Research, and GeoPoll. 18 Including Panama Red Cross, Calicanto Foundation, Grupo Activados, Alianza Comunitaria Panama Oeste, Convergencia Sindical, Masculinity for Equity, Independientes Pro Derechos Humanos (IPDH), and Women and Families’ International Coalition (CIMUF). 41 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT USAID.GOV INTERVENTION PLANNING AND DESIGN: WHAT ARE IMPORTANT KNOWLEDGE AND PRACTICE GAPS IN PLANNING AND DESIGNING GBV INTERVENTIONS? Activities across the clusters made reasonable progress in achieving planned objectives and indicated positive outcomes for survivors, communities, and local stakeholders in target areas. However, our analysis suggests several areas where there are still important knowledge and practice gaps. Data and Information Limitations At the planning and design stages, activity teams relied on available data and information gathered from their own needs assessments to design intervention components. The degree of access to relevant data differed across activities and clusters. Foundational evidence for programming may depend on: a) the group’s capacity to seek and analyze relevant information; b) availability of local relevant data, reports, etc.; c) time available under the terms of the grant to collect and synthesize information; and d) available research support to strengthen a needs assessment. In this evaluation it is unclear if the results of commissioned evidence syntheses, evidence maps, intervention evaluation reviews (e.g., what works), or evidence synthesized from other resources such as 3ie19 or from the Prevention Collaborative20 were considered before planning interventions. Several activities were the first of its kind and had limited existing research to pull from. As a result, needs assessments were conducted with varying levels of rigor across the four clusters. These assessments primarily focused on local circumstances and rarely seemed to incorporate international evidence bases. For contexts where there is limited time for a robust needs assessment, there are also guidance documents on conducting ‘good enough’ needs assessments that can be useful, as well21. BTC activities, working with vulnerable Venezuelan migrants in Guyana, Panama, and T&T, had limited data on the migrant population. With the exception of Ladysmith who worked along NCC in Guyana, groups drew on local partners’ knowledge to assess what needs should be prioritized. Like above, it was unclear how much support was given to grantees to identify intervention-focused evidence on violence prevention and support programs for migrants, such as reviews and analyses of current literature. For example, findings from a review of sexual violence interventions for refugee women suggest that many of the features of USAID-funded activities have been useful in other intervention models, as the review authors conclude: “This review suggests that SV interventions that engage community members in their design and delivery, address harmful gender norms through education and advocacy, and facilitate strong cooperation between stakeholders, could maximize the efficient use of limited resources”22. CARE-GBV’s focus was on addressing vicarious trauma experiences of frontline service providers and counselors who provide GBV social services, which is a relatively new area of intervention in international development. To date, literature on secondary trauma among care workers comes primarily from high-income countries23 and cater to researchers working in the field. There is comparatively limited work on secondary trauma among case workers supporting violence survivors in 19 https://developmentevidence.3ieimpact.org/ 20 https://prevention-collaborative.org/knowledge-hub/ 21 https://www.acaps.org/sites/acaps/files/resources/files/humanitarian_needs_assessment-the_good_enough_guide_2014.pdf 22 Gianna Maxi Leila Robbers & Alison Morgan (2017) Programme potential for the prevention of and response to sexual violence among female refugees: a literature review, Reproductive Health Matters, 25:51, 69-89, DOI: 10.1080/09688080.2017.1401893 23 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1049731513517142?casa_token=1UqlbBZcvDIAAAAA:2WAlWm0i01yqxNGGRPDWF8B6TGGG rrM6S_uL30a3ROWpMnsJvBFqQOvg_Np2ZMpuqqc-7ccKguJrPA 42 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT USAID.GOV developing countries24. For CARE-GBV activities, information, country- or community-specific information on vicarious trauma interventions was absent. For the RISE activities, gender analyses and audits were central to the design of all seven activities. For WEE activities three of five included a gender barrier analysis or other needs assessment. Overall, when implemented, needs assessments proved to be important for planning and designing activities, especially for implementing activities in underserved communities and while groups were trying to incorporate innovative methods. Streamlined and clear directives on pre-implementation needs assessments could ensure that appropriate data are collected to inform activity design. During implementation, activities were required to collect and report MEL data to assess progress and determine useful adaptations. This was sometimes challenging. For instance, under BTC, community￾level outcomes of activities could not be assessed because the number of activity participants were not equally distributed across the communities of focus. For RISE, activities had many elements embedded (land rights, wildlife conservation, mining, GBV, etc.) and were set in many varied contexts (Peru, Kenya, Vietnam, etc.). This diversity likely limited the comparability of progress across clusters and to understand what is working well or not. Like RISE, WEE activities also had several integrated components, including economic participation, community awareness and service provision for GBV survivors. This made it difficult to compare the influence across the cluster. In addition, for all four clusters, the activity implementation time was relatively short (anywhere between 12–24 months). These features may mean that the MEL indicators were not suited to capture the effects. For future complex interventions, it will be useful to draw on evaluation methods such as ‘realist’ approaches and systems perspectives, which help take account of these features25. Particularly for new interventions such as many of these, it will be useful for groups to draw on approaches and tools used to foster the early development of prototypes26. Incorporating Adaptive Management and Flexibility Adaptive management and flexibility were valuable for all activities to adjust their activities to respond to the emerging realities, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, natural disasters, political instability, and other unanticipated events. The pandemic presented challenges for all activities across all clusters. IPs and grantees worked with USAID to make necessary adaptations to continue progress. USAID was supportive in adjusting activity timelines, issuing no-cost extensions, brainstorming on virtual implementation strategies, and integrating pandemic awareness and safety protocols in activities to the extent possible. However, because the pandemic worsened the already-existing vulnerabilities of survivors and other activity participants, groups were not able to address all the emerging challenges. Under BTC, WELCOME’s initial activity focus in T&T was on sexual harassment in the public space; however, because of the lockdown, there was no harassment to observe and report on while women were isolating at home. However, during the pandemic, reports of domestic violence at home increased, and the activities pivoted to address IPV through advocates and change agents instead of focusing on public harassment at markets and other venues. In addition, the IP highlighted that the pandemic exacerbated vulnerabilities of Venezuelan migrants who had far fewer resources at their disposal and 24 https://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/jsbhs/vol14/iss1/2/ 25 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1356389018803219 26 https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/9/8/e029954.abstract 43 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT USAID.GOV possessed fewer rights due to the lack of legal status, which made it more difficult to provide support services. In addition, there remains very little research on what works to help Venezuelan migrant women access and use services, and overcome barriers such as higher relative poverty, inequalities and vulnerability, as indicated in a study of sexual and reproductive health service use27. A KII respondent from Resonance noted, “This context exacerbates power imbalances between abusers and their Venezuelan targets, as language barriers, low self-efficacy, and/or fear and distrust of the government and unfamiliar organizations and migration status can lead to challenges in reporting and accessing support services.” Trainings were a key part of CARE-GBV activities, and all grantees had to adapt programming to a virtual or hybrid format. One of the grantees, ZSU in Bosnia and Herzegovina, had to adapt its programming to accommodate a 30–40 percent increased need for GBV services during the pandemic and, as a result, had increased needs for vicarious trauma support provided under CARE-GBV. Two-thirds of RISE grantees partnered with each other for the first time, and there were some large￾scale alliances with global partners that required all grantees to become familiar with each other and build a base for successful partnership. This was affected by the pandemic, too—requiring everyone to adapt to virtual collaboration, and peer learning and partnership building did not happen to the extent intended. Progress for WEE activities also stalled due to difficulty adapting economic participation and empowerment-related activities to a virtual or hybrid setup. For WEE in Mesoamerica in Guatemala, implementation of value chain activities in remote areas was extremely challenging, and under the GLP activity in Lesotho, three garment factories had to withdraw from the training on workplace sexual harassment and GBV due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition to pandemic-related adaptations, activities had to adjust to other emerging realities as well. For instance, the WEE in Mesoamerica Guatemala implementation was affected by natural disasters, Engendering Industries Nigeria had to adapt to a change in the implementing partner from RTI to Tetra Tech Inc., and GLP Lesotho took over from an existing hotline initiative against which there was retaliation. Findings above emphasize the benefits of incorporating an adaptive management approach and building in the time and resources for flexibility in the activity design, planning, and targeting. While the value of adaptive management has been recognized for other complex interventions, there remains relatively little research evaluating this has been used for violence activities. However, where research has been conducted to document an intervention development and adaptive management process for a violence prevention program, findings seem to suggest the benefits of programmatic flexibility, combined with co￾production approaches to make iterative modifications. Budget and Period of Performance Constraints Across the clusters, it appears that the assigned budget and the period of performance may not have been commensurate to meet the expected activities and impact, specifically for the BTC and WEE clusters. Under BTC, for the WELCOME activity in T&T, the stipend paid to advocates was perceived as disproportionate to the level of effort involved in their roles, since most of them were working as 27 Guijarro S, Torres AL, Montero G, Garcia M, Sabay H, Iribarren S, Ocaña JA, Yánez P, Murgueytio P. Perspectives of health practitioners on the challenges to accessing sexual and reproductive health care services for Venezuelan migrant women during the COVID-19 pandemic in Quito, Ecuador. Rev Panam Salud Publica. 2023 Mar 31;47:e58. doi: 10.26633/RPSP.2023.58. PMID: 37008676; PMCID: PMC10065305. 44 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT USAID.GOV advocates in addition to their regular jobs. As a result, IP staff observed a high degree of staff burnout. Similarly, in BTG4VM in Guyana, the team lawyer was only contracted for two days per week, which was insufficient to support and respond in a timely manner to the volume of cases. Moreover, some BTG4VM participants noted insufficient funding provisions for them to access health care services, and the SDP activity did not continue beyond the piloting and baseline phase, even though grantees observed positive results and goals achieved. Although there is limited research on remuneration for community volunteers, a review of studies engaging community health workers for five or more years suggests that well-trained, supervised volunteers and full-time volunteers who receive regular payment, or a combination of both, are more likely to be sustainable28. Notably, the review authors indicated five years was determined to be the minimum period in which sustainability could potentially be achieved. Respondents also flagged that the men-focused workshops ended before they should have. Interviews with WELCOME and SDP grantees and local partners highlighted that a key consideration that program designers did not consider was the burden that economic constraints imposed on activity participants involved in the training and awareness sessions. They indicated that migrant men, especially, may not want or be able to attend sessions at the expense of regular work or overtime wages. So, any future programming should combine economic support activities with the workshops to increase participation, ensure participants are not hurt financially by their participation and to reduce dropout rates. For CARE-GBV, KII informants indicated the need to reflect on feasibility of smaller organizations to incorporate vicarious trauma support within assigned budgets and their limited operational structure— “So there’s gaps there that need to be filled and vicarious trauma, and also kind of the role of the small organizations that don’t have a lot of overhead, you know. Can they afford all of the things that even in the United States we don’t give.” For SOAR in Nigeria, funding was described as a substantial barrier to sustainability and scalability of vicarious trauma support services across partner organizations. Grantees working on RISE, such as SLEDGE in Uganda, Advancing Equitable Norms in Conservancies in Kenya, and Rising Up! in DRC emphasized that two years is too short a period to implement activities and generate sizable impacts in communities. 29 In addition, Rising Up! did not provide sufficient support to change agents for their sensitizations, such as transport stipends for traveling between remote villages. WEE activities also seem to have been allocated fewer resources than required, and Micro￾Journey, E4W, and GLP also considered the implementation period of two years to be too short to implement activities and generate an impact. An E4W staff member noted, “The most important shortcomings are in relation to the time allocated to these projects. Sometimes donors give funds over two years or even three years. However, if we want to work on the economic empowerment of women, it must be a project that lasts over time to be sure that the seeds we have sown will bear good fruit. Also, it’s in terms of budget limits versus the needs that are on the ground.” Overall, the implementation periods seem too short for achieving intended outcomes because interventions focused on GBV survivors usually take a longer time to affect survivor outcomes. 28 Singh, D., Negin, J., Otim, M. et al. The effect of payment and incentives on motivation and focus of community health workers: five case studies from low- and middle-income countries. Hum Resour Health 13, 58 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12960-015-0051-1 29 This is a feature of the Challenge mechanism and there will be longer timelines in the next iteration under IUCN. 45 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT USAID.GOV To date, there have been surprisingly few published and rigorous assessments of donor expenditures for violence programming to determine what is needed to achieve strong results30. Although questions about the architecture of international aid funding arise fairly regularly, there remains little understanding whether most applicants in the Global South try to propose minimum budgets for maximum work. In an era where the dialogue on equitable power dynamics, decolonization and partnerships are central to international aid relationships, there appears to be little inquiry about donor review processes and how they might incorporate the needs, views and feedback from applicants in the Global South31. For example, it would be useful to learn whether improved pre- and post-application consultation stages might foster better calls for proposals, stronger aid partnerships and more informed agreements about what is genuinely feasible within the available time and budget. FORMS OF VIOLENCE: WHAT ARE IMPORTANT KNOWLEDGE AND PRACTICE GAPS IN ADDRESSING SPECIFIC FORMS OF GBV? Learnings from Addressing Various Forms of GBV Three clusters addressed various forms of GBV, including IPV, sexual harassment, violence at workplace, rape and sexual coercion, and one cluster focused on responses to vicarious trauma among service providers. Key lessons include the importance of considering the direct effects of the social and cultural power dynamics, male involvement from the beginning, addressing vulnerabilities that are exacerbated because of the pandemic, and the need to consider the historical and recent context (especially in conflict settings). BTC focused on providing GBV survivors’ access to psychosocial, health, and legal services, and referral pathways through communication campaigns, workshops to promote positive masculinities, and strengthening peer support networks. The onset of the pandemic made Venezuelan migrants more vulnerable to IPV and domestic violence, so activities adapted to focus on these forms of abuse. However, it was challenging and time-consuming to identify victims of domestic violence amidst the lockdown. The pandemic exacerbated migrants’ vulnerability to abuse because of their limited access to resources. While activities adapted to try and address their needs, funders and program designers must think about the long-term implications of the pandemic influences, such as further isolation from public life at the local level, lower participation in school district boards, lower quality of education for migrant children and children of migrants, and longer unemployment among migrants with reduced job skills, among others. CARE-GBV focused on vicarious trauma experienced by counselors and staff providing GBV social services. Despite the lack of local evidence from each setting to inform the activity design, grantees partnered with researchers and used innovative solutions, such as wellness check-in applications, institutionalizing wellness policies, and having designated mental health and psycho-social support staff for implementation in five countries. A CARE-GBV KII respondent noted: “I think that all of the partners came to the space with a lot of humility. I know that’s like not a programming intervention per se, but it is something that I think you want: it was really important that 30 World Health Organization. Regional Office for South-East Asia. (2012). SEA/RC65/4 - Programme Budget performance assessment: 2010- 2011. WHO Regional Office for South-East Asia. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/128309 31 Jean, V. International aid to education: Power dynamics in an era of partnership. Int Rev Educ 66, 431–433 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11159-020-09835-0 46 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT USAID.GOV people understand that there really isn’t already a lot of research on this. I emphasized to MCI that it’s okay. If people fail like that’s kind of expected and that we weren’t looking for any like hard data like this.” RISE activities had various elements embedded, such as land rights, wildlife conservation, mining, etc. along with GBV support, such as access to referral mechanisms, community awareness and mobilization, workplace harassment trainings, and dissemination. However, psychological support was flagged as a key missing component from activities, such as in Creative Capacity Building in Colombia, where participants noted that women could not share and receive required support while discussing their GBV experiences. The SLEDGE activity in Uganda experienced high levels of resistance from communities, highlighting the need to carefully assess community buy-in, which is a key element for ensuring sustainability in addressing GBV. Similarly, GBV/FGRM+ in Fiji also experienced resistance from land groups, which had to be overcome through continued sensitization. Moreover, in Reducing GBV in Vietnamese Conservation, there was strong resistance towards activities from some conservancy senior leadership because they feared threats to their reputations if accusations surfaced. Regarding intersectionality, RISE interviews highlighted how individuals with multiple, intersecting identities are particularly vulnerable to GBV and environmental issues. In Kenya, despite indigenous women’s major role in agriculture, they experience marginalization due to cultural constraints that block their access to and management of resources. In Vietnam, while people with multiple, intersecting identities play important roles in natural resource conservation, “these groups may have limited access to resources, decision-making processes, and may face discrimination and exclusion, which can make them more vulnerable to GBV.” In Colombia, gender, poverty, and exploitative mining practices are entrenched in a way that makes female miners vulnerable to GBV and environmental hazards. For interventions targeting climate change and GBV, it should be noted that although there has been extremely little evidence on the links between climate change and violence against women and girls, a recent systematic review indicates that as extreme climate events increase, these will create additional stressors that exacerbate gender-based violence32. WEE activities focused on IPV and GBVH. The W-GDP fund guiding policies and the previous administration’s prioritization of economic empowerment interventions led to activities being designed to address broader gender equality objectives. The promotion of systems-level and environmental change related to gender equality more broadly for a majority of the implementation period means that GBV was not always an explicit focus of WEE activities; this was embedded in programming with the change in administration in 2020, at which point many activities were past the halfway mark in their implementation timeline. As a result, GBV was addressed primarily through providing economic support to survivors and engaging participants and communities in awareness and sensitization campaigns and, in the case of GLP in Lesotho and Engendering Industries in Nigeria, providing anti-GBVH trainings to employees. 32 Thurston AM, Stöckl H, Ranganathan MNatural hazards, disasters and violence against women and girls: a global mixed-methods systematic reviewBMJ Global Health 2021;6:e004377. 47 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT USAID.GOV Male Engagement and Involvement Are Key Across the four clusters, it emerged that male engagement and involvement at the GBV activity design stage is critical. Sensitizing men reduces instances of violence. In addition, men can be key change agents in their communities and critical advocates for gender equality. A majority of activities under the BTC cluster integrated male participants from the beginning, and the integration/involvement of men in two activities was assessed at the early implementation stage. While BTG4VM did not focus on male survivors, they did implement awareness campaigns that involved men from communities. The WELCOME program adapted its initial approach of only focusing on women to integrating male survivors of GBV and recruited and trained a male advocate to support them. For SPD in Panama, HIAS piloted and implemented a male engagement model on Positive Masculinities used previously in Kenya and Colombia; the model also used lessons learned from a previous eight-week men’s engagement pilot program in Panama in July 2020. However, it was flagged that training approaches might need to be adjusted based on the age cohort of men. One SPD participant noted in a KII: “Here we see that machismo is normal, and HIAS showed us that machismo is not normal. It is not good, and we change, and with that we instill a change in values leading to a better social life; we change tradition.” CARE-GBV activities included both women and men GBV responders while providing vicarious trauma support services. However, some implementers realized that they might need to change their approach for engaging male responders due to traditional outlooks toward mental health. Through their programming, CCH in North Macedonia learned that male-identifying GBV responders did not want to engage in group discussions about self- and collective care, given the stigma around mental health. CCH explored alternative ways of reaching out to and engaging male participants in the discussions: “One of the lessons learned that we find out is that men in our country are not aware enough that they need help, and that they need to take care of their self-care. It’s something that we knew, but we proved it with our project, and it’s something that we need to work on more in the future. We live in the Balkans, and here men can take everything they need they don’t need help, so they think in that way.” In addition, it appears that men responders may have been excluded from mentor process and psychosocial support sessions, per one KII respondent: “Yes, that was really one of the topics that we discussed very often actually—that very, very few men were included in the mentor process. I don’t remember if there were any in the psychosocial support sessions.” A key lesson is that the perception of self-care differs by gender, and male responders may require different coping techniques to mitigate vicarious trauma. Going forward, organizations should explore how self-care trainings and wellness support can be customized for male GBV responders. RISE’s implementer also acknowledged the importance of engaging with men throughout activity implementation to ensure changes in social norms. One respondent noted that: “You’ll find these things in in our final report and also in the document we will share with you on the recommendation. We already put one thing … maybe making it a requirement to engage with men 48 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT USAID.GOV throughout the program to ensure changes of social norms and all of that. The role of men throughout the great majority of our grantees came out as a key role and very important.” [RESONANCE KII] In addition to interviews, the IUCN feedback document flagged that male engagement should be include as a key requirement in RISE GBV programs. Activities involved men in different ways. In interviews, CCB participants in Colombia called for more male engagement as it had not been implemented by the activity. The Alto Mayo without Gender Violence activity in Peru engaged with men through discussions; however, they experienced some pushback as some men considered GBV to be a “women’s issue.” Rising Up! in DRC included trainings of male community leaders to raise community awareness and integrate GBV prevention in land management. An IP representative 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.” In Vietnam, even though men were involved, some male senior leadership members were averse to conversations about GBV, which made it difficult to address the issue. For the GBV/FGRM+ activity in Fiji, engagement with male leaders was a facilitator of program effectiveness. In the WEE cluster, male engagement in all activities was highlighted as critical to bringing about sustainable change in societal norms and attitudes around violence against women and women’s economic participation. The Micro-Journey in Benin and E4W in Burundi activities involved working with women’s spouses to facilitate economic participation and engage them in conversations against GBV. For the Engendering Industries activity in Nigeria and WEE in Mesoamerica activity in Guatemala, the male engagement component was not included at initial stages, but the programs were adapted to involve men in GBVH training and discussions and community awareness campaigns. Implementers used innovative methods to engage men and involve them in activities. E4W in Burundi applied a Strengthening Marriages and Relationships Through Communication and Planning (SMART) couples approach through trainings and awareness sessions focused on enabling better communication, joint decision-making, and reducing instances of domestic violence among couples. The activity also promoted “positive masculinities” through media campaigns and community discussions, which involved identifying male role models capable of positively influencing hypermasculine norms and the unequal power dynamics that accompany them so that social norms and cultural barriers that limit women’s access to economic opportunities are reduced. The Engendering Industries activity piloted a male engagement course targeting mid- to senior-level managers at IBEDC, with a focus on changing workplace culture in male-dominated industries. Male participants initially hesitated as they felt that the activity would promote women’s dominance; however, through additional sessions and as time went by, they became more receptive to the importance of the trainings. Over the past decade, there has been a very rapidly growing body of evidence on interventions that target or seek to engage men in initiatives to reduce violence against women. However, findings of a 2019 systematic review of published literature on engaging men and ‘gender-transformative’ interventions indicated that the evidence quality at that time was relatively weak33. Moreover, there seems to be even less knowledge about how to involve men in the workplace in interventions to protect women against sexual coercion and harassment or support safe reporting and penalty mechanisms. While studies on gender-transformative interventions have focused on activities such as 33 Ruane-McAteer E, Amin A, Hanratty J, et alInterventions addressing men, masculinities and gender equality in sexual and reproductive health and rights: an evidence and gap map and systematic review of reviewsBMJ Global Health 2019;4:e001634. 49 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT USAID.GOV outreach and recruitment of previously unengaged males, engagement to promote gender-equitable attitudes and behavior among men, and gender equity-related social action34, there have been many fewer activities to engage men in the workplace. In fact, only a limited number of countries have national policies on sexual harassment35 and there appear to be few work-site interventions (or intervention evaluations) to address sexual coercion and harassment in low- and middle-income settings. Given the dominance of inequitable gender norms and their negative effects on individuals’ withdrawal from work and the effects of stress on their mental and physical health, harassment often remains ignored or condoned, particularly for disadvantaged populations, such as garment workers in the global supply chain. As noted in USAID funding locations, there is a need for a critical review of when and how men should be engaged in violence interventions, especially to examine how to avoid reiterating the male￾female power hierarchies by putting men in the lead for interventions to protect women. Local Contextualization of Activities Findings from across the clusters highlight the potential for further contextualization of activities based on country, language, community priorities, and varied needs of activity participants (migrants and working men and women in BTC, different kinds of frontline service providers under CARE-GBV, community members in RISE, women entrepreneurs with varied skill levels in WEE). The importance of context and the influence on interventions has been increasingly recognized, not least by a growing body of process evaluations and literature on ‘realist evaluations’ and ‘realist reviews’ of the literature36. For the BTC cluster, grantees emphasized the importance of considering that socio-political dynamics that caused the departure of many Venezuelans might be transferred to the countries where they migrate, and it is important to take these into consideration to understand the forms of GBV that migrants experience. Implications include further isolation from public life at the local level, lower participation in schools, lower quality of education and fewer skillsets, and longer unemployment cycles. In HIAS’s SPD activity, one workshop participant was unable to share during a session because they were in the same group as another participant who was part of the political group for which he was forced to leave the country. Moreover, given the unauthorized status of these migrants, activities need to be carefully designed to not expose them and their political, ethnic, or cultural background. Therefore, future activity design targeting Venezuelan migrants should consider additional vulnerabilities that migrants experience and how these contribute to their experiences of GBV. Our analysis of CARE-GBV highlights the need to consider limited capacities of smaller grassroots organizations and the needs of the communities they serve to adapt activity design. For further iterations, it is worth considering to what extent the programs can also be adapted and contextualized at the community level, since wellness needs may greatly vary based on the communities that providers come from. One KII respondent noted: “How do we learn to make our learning, agendas, and our policies and strategies more community oriented when we work in so many communities that don’t necessarily have the same approaches work.” 34 Casey, E., Carlson, J., Two Bulls, S., & Yager, A. (2018). Gender Transformative Approaches to Engaging Men in Gender-Based Violence Prevention: A Review and Conceptual Model. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 19(2), 231–246. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838016650191 35 Heymann, J., Moreno, G., Raub, A., & Sprague, A. (2022). Progress Towards Ending Sexual Harassment at Work? A Comparison of Sexual Harassment Policy in 192 Countries. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis. 25(2), 172-193. https://doi.org/10.1080/13876988.2022.2100698 36 https://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=woH3oHF_egEC&oi=fnd&pg=PA405&dq=pawson+tilley+tilley+realist+evaluation&ots=cvytkm Sypo&sig=hz3BH53Q2LG_L90IQvwdSpRW-Eo&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=pawson%20tilley%20tilley%20realist%20evaluation&f=false 50 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT USAID.GOV In addition, different kinds of GBV providers have different needs in self-care and wellness based on their gender or nature of responsibilities. For instance, a ZSU activity implementer stated that service providers were split between those working in safe houses and those working with refugees at the Bosnian-Croatian border, and the operating realities were very different for these two groups and the kind of self-care support they needed is very different given their day-to-day work. Service providers working at the border work with a larger volume of survivors and amidst a difficult operating environment, and would benefit from self-care support targeted to address greater susceptibility to vicarious trauma. RISE cluster findings pointed to the need for contextualizing activities based on recent events and history, especially in countries that are just coming out of conflict, such as Guatemala and DRC. Collective community trauma has implications on the forms of violence that can manifest itself and should be carefully considered at the activity design stage. Moreover, it was reported that while actual implementation was done in a multitude of languages, at the application stage, RISE challenge applications and materials were in English and likely deterred qualified applicants with non-English language proficiencies from applying. Eventually, the challenge adapted, but it could have benefitted from involving translators to facilitate more dialogue with a larger group of local partners from the earlier stages. Under the WEE cluster, the active joint engagement of key stakeholders, local grassroots organizations and community members played a crucial role in ensuring contextual relevance of activity components. A collaborative approach and co-creation process ensured that the activities were specifically tailored to address the specific needs and contextual considerations of the community, which improved their acceptance and fostered engagement. For instance, the local government was highly engaged in implementation of the Micro-Journey activity and contributed knowledge for contextualization. In the case of E4W in Burundi, community leaders and local media professionals were engaged in town forums and other exchanges so they could inform activity design. Inclusion of LGBTQIA+ Community Apart from the BTC cluster, LGBTQIA+ participant inclusion in the other three clusters was limited. BTC workshops covered LGBTQIA+ equality and addressed specific needs of individuals belonging to this group, especially to provide GBV-related support in Guyana, Panama, and T&T. Under CARE-GBV, only the SOAR Nigeria activity included developing a manual to discuss self-care practices for LGBTQIA+ care providers. The RISE Alto Mayo Landscape without Gender Violence in Peru activity included a partnership between Conservation International and PROMSEX, an LGBTQIA+-run feminist organization that contributed knowledge on inclusion of these populations. A majority of WEE activities, four of which were set in Africa, excluded LGBTQIA+ participants due to unsupportive cultural contexts and local government’s lack of recognition of LGBTQIA+ groups. However, during workplace trainings conducted by GLP in Lesotho and Engendering Industries in Nigeria, trainers discussed and answered emerging questions on LGBTQIA+ issues. REACH AND EFFECTIVENESS: HOW IS THE GBV PORTFOLIO INFLUENCING THE REACH AND EFFECTIVENESS OF INTERVENTIONS? Through the four clusters, the GBV portfolio reached a diverse group of participants exposed to GBV in 19 countries,37 including Venezuelan migrants and survivors of GBV under BTC; GBV frontline service 37 Nigeria had activities for both CARE-GBV and WEE. Thus the 20 activities evaluated span 19 countries. 51 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT USAID.GOV providers under CARE-GBV; community leaders, employees of environmental organizations, Indigenous women, and GBV survivors under RISE; and garment factory workers, women entrepreneurs, and electric company employees under WEE. All activities were small to medium scale and constrained by challenging guidelines and funding limitations and in many cases could only focus on certain communities, without the option of scaling up. Therefore, activity reach was limited to a smaller geographic area in countries of implementation. Management Structures and Operational Procedures Findings from the RISE and WEE clusters suggest that issues such as GenDev staff turnover, a decentralized management structure, lengthy operational procedures, and limited intra-cluster coordination deterred portfolio progress. Staff turnover for key positions, such as activity leads, creates knowledge gaps, making it harder to monitor and support activities on the ground. In addition, staff seem overstretched in terms of the different roles they are expected to play for each of their activities. This also likely influenced the amount of involvement and control that activity managers had at the activity design and planning stages. As noted previously, GBV components for WEE were embedded in existing economic empowerment activities only after the change in administration in 2020. In some interviews, it was flagged that the degree to which GBV components are integrated depended on the activity manager and their priorities and does not happen consistently. This suggests a need for streamlined guidance and operating procedures for key GenDev staff managing clusters or activities. For the WEE in Mesoamerica activity in Guatemala, delays in receiving USAID approvals deterred activity progress and loss of resources and surplus product among activity participants. Similarly, the IP did not receive approvals on communications materials in time, and as a result communication campaigns for behavioral change were significantly delayed. Finally, the IP’s local partners had limited capacity to carry out all of USAID’s administrative procedures, which were considered lengthy. In a KII one respondent noted: “USAID has not been able to respond to our needs at the pace that is needed in the field. For example, there was a year when we missed the planting season, and they did not allow us to buy seeds, only because they misplaced the application, and that was a lost year of production. Also, for example, since last year we have submitted a request for the purchase of a refrigerated vehicle so that the women can take the vegetables to the surrounding towns and also sell them to the schools, but the purchase has not been granted. So, we have a surplus product that is lost: it is lost work.” Finally, per KIIs, clusters tend to operate independently due to GenDev’s decentralized structure. Coordination between activity managers is not systematic and depends on individual relationships. Thus, there is room to increase coordination, knowledge sharing, discussion, and sharing of resources. Sustainability A majority of activities across the four clusters incorporated different components to try and make the activities sustainable beyond the end of the funding period. However, the extent to which sustainable components were integrated varied greatly. Findings suggested that some factors that may promote the sustainability of the activities included, for example, engagement with local stakeholders such as governments, community leaders and grassroots organizations, and attempts to secure additional 52 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT USAID.GOV funding. For interventions other than health interventions, there are few studies assessing sustainability and what contributes to the duration of projects beyond a closed funding cycle. One systematic review examining intervention sustainability found that among the very few studies (n=4 of 20) conducted in low-income settings, the most important barrier to sustainability was ‘lack of funding’. Among those that reported better sustainability in high income settings, positive influences were the ability of the intervention to adapt to the setting and funding.38 Partnerships with local organizations and the government Findings from across the clusters suggest that activity reach and effectiveness strongly depended on alliances with local government and law enforcement institutions, and local partners, the community, and civil society in general. However, findings underscore the importance of identifying the right kind of partners with sufficient capacity for effectiveness. All BTC activities involved partnerships with local organizations that have experience working with target populations; however, the BTG4VM activity in Guyana initially had difficulty finding local service providers to partner whom had the requisite resources desired due to the small ecosystem of organizations there. CARE-GBV grantees partnered with local organizations and subject matter experts from local universities. For example, CCH partnered with Pleiades Organization that had experience working with Albanian women that were targeted, WAR partnered with the University of Botswana, and ZSU with a local organization that supports survivors of trauma in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The RISE cluster, per its design, mandated partnerships between environmental organizations, local communities, Indigenous people’s organizations, and GBV experts to bridge knowledge gaps and build an activity based on effective GBV interventions. These partnerships fostered collaboration and relationships that would have been difficult for one organization to achieve. WEE activity implementers partnered with local grassroots organizations that had experience working on economic participation and GBVH trainings, and relevant worker’s unions. This included partnering with Kahawatu Foundation, a women’s coffee grower cooperative, under E4W in Burundi; Workers Rights Watch under GLP in Lesotho; and ASOCUCH, a grassroots organization working with Indigenous people, under WEE in Mesoamerica in Guatemala. Despite a good partnership with ASOCUCH, the WEE in Mesoamerica activity reported that due to contractual mandates, they had to work with other local partners who did not end up having sufficient capacity to implement the activities, which reduced overall activity effectiveness. In addition to local organizations, activities worked with local governments and relevant authorities to create buy in and extend reach and sustainability. While a majority of activities were able to engage with government stakeholders, implementers still encountered some challenges, specifically around reaching concrete agreements with Ministries and getting commitment from law enforcement officials to continue efforts beyond the end of activities. Some experienced pushback or backlash against activities. It appears that BTC cluster activities had the highest level of engagement with government and law enforcement authorities, while CARE cluster activities had the least. Under BTC, BTG4VM in Guyana worked with both the local government and law enforcement authorities through trainings and sensitizations to coordinate GBV service delivery and create awareness 38 Hailemariam, M., Bustos, T., Montgomery, B. et al. Evidence-based intervention sustainability strategies: a systematic review. Implementation Sci 14, 57 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-019-0910-6 53 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT USAID.GOV about the myriad issues that survivors face. In cooperation with the Ministry of Social of Human Services, BTG4VM worked on revising the national resource directory for GBV service providers. In a KII a respondent noted: “A next achievement on the back of that was we really did improve the coordination of the collaboration between those government agencies and the CSOs because we actually have a much better relationship with a lot of the police stations because of those interventions. So, when our clients go there, we know police officers in those regions that we provide the sensitization for: you could pick up the phone, you could call, you can get some traction and assistance for those clients.” Panamanian government officials from the National Police and the Ministry of Gender, who have direct contact with communities, were involved in SPD workshops and sessions. In addition to participating in the workshops, officials invited other men from their communities, encouraged by the results they experienced in their own lives, family, and community environments. Municipality-level authorities also provided physical spaces for the execution of sessions. However, despite their efforts in facilitating conversations with the National Police and the Women’s Ministry to adopt the curriculum, there was no uptake from either entity. As part of the WELCOME activity, implementers worked with local law enforcement to refer GBV cases. The grantee also formalized its local partner La Casita’s relationships with local police, anti￾trafficking enforcement, and migration authorities. During early stages of implementation, survivors participating in WELCOME recounted being treated poorly by the police and hospital workers when they went in for help with their cases. GBV survivors feared interacting with the police due to their migrant status. However, WELCOME worked with law enforcement officials through training sessions and advocacy to overcome these barriers to services. Under CARE-GBV, CCH in North Macedonia engaged with state institutions working with GBV survivors, Ministry of Internal Affairs, and inspectors for domestic violence, and even modified their stakeholder outreach strategy to include informal modes of contact and accommodate the local election schedule. CCH discussed how connections with other CARE-GBV grantees, with local GBV organizations, or with local government officials were a giant boon—and how they still utilize them. A KII respondent noted, “I can say that the meetings that we had with every stakeholder included in this project was very important to us, and we have those connections even after the project ended, and we are still using them in order to prevent our stress and to make everything that is best for the victim.” Apart from CCH, none of the other grantees reported on engaging with local governments and other authorities. For the RISE cluster, some activities worked with government and other local authorities. In the Alto Mayo Landscape without Gender Violence activity in Peru, local government services adapted their protocols to be more in line with Indigenous preferences as a result of IP advocacy efforts. The SLEDGE grantee in Uganda flagged that staff turnover in Ministries and local governments posed challenges in implementation. For the Rising Up! activity, 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 of government services to refer survivors. As part of the GBV/FGRM+ activity, REDD+ staff in Fiji developed a communications strategy for the government of Fiji and REDD+ staff. Despite working with government authorities, staff felt that GBV/FGRM+ sustainability was in doubt because the government of Fiji did not necessarily have funding to invest in keeping the program well staffed. 54 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT USAID.GOV Most WEE activities engaged with national and local government in some capacity during implementation. The Micro-Journey activity in Benin appears to have fostered a highly collaborative partnership with the government. The activity was implemented with support from several government ministries and institutions, such as the Ministry of Health and Ministry of Social Affairs and Microfinances, specifically the Centres de Promotion Sociale (CPS) (community centers) under the Ministry of Social Affairs. GBV survivors registered in government systems were referred to the activity to receive economic reintegration support. E4W in Burundi worked closely with the Department of Planning and Development of Social and Family Affairs (DPDFS), which improved the delivery of GBV survivor services. In addition, DPDFS will continue to regularly monitor activities even beyond the end of the activity, which ensures consistent oversight and a strong foundation for ongoing influence. On the other hand, for activities like GLP in Lesotho and WEE in Mesoamerica in Guatemala, even though some efforts were made to work with local authorities, they were not as impactful. Implementers flagged the lack of involvement of government and policy stakeholders in the planning and implementation of the activities. While changes made at the interpersonal level through education and the institutional level through policies within a company or services provided in the community are effective, these need legal and policy support for systemic change and greater effectiveness. To an extent, these findings reflect results on intervention sustainability from other fields. For example, one recent systematic review of school-based health interventions (n=18) found that no interventions were sustained in their entirety and, interestingly, effectiveness was not associated with sustainability. For elements that were sustained, the authors suggested that, like several of the USAID interventions, facilitating factors included commitment from senior leaders, and contextual barriers like time and resource constraints and the absence of ongoing training for staff, hindered sustainability. And, like the USAID-funded interventions, an interventions’ ability to adapt itself to existing school routines was helpful.39 Community engagement Including community engagement was critical for bringing about norms and social change, generating awareness against GBV and creating a sustainable support system for victims. The RISE cluster involved significant community engagement components relative to the other clusters. One of BTC’s key objectives was to connect Venezuelan migrants and host communities in Guyana, Panama, and T&T. BTG4VM launched a widespread social media and communication campaign to strengthen solidarity between migrant and local communities and provide information about available GBV services. SPD workshops included Panamanian men and women whose participation added valuable insights to the conversations among men and an opportunity to create allies in the host community. Per its initial design WELCOME aimed to target xenophobia against migrants in host communities but adapted to focus solely on GBV survivors among the Venezuelan migrant population in T&T. To improve awareness of available services in communities, the grantee shared the resources it developed on social media and communicated with the referral network members about other GBV resources. There was insufficient information about the extent to which CARE-GBV grantees worked on local community engagement. However, while discussing project sustainability, two grantees mentioned they 39 Herlitz, L., MacIntyre, H., Osborn, T. et al. The sustainability of public health interventions in schools: a systematic review. Implementation Sci 15, 4 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-019-0961-8 55 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT USAID.GOV have already begun (or continued) assisting other organizations in their communities that want to incorporate various self-care and wellness measures into their work with GBV responders. RISE activities included several mechanisms to engage local communities and community leaders during implementation to align with the challenge’s goal to integrate communities and local organizations in activity design and implementation. Creative Capacity Building in Colombia guided women on best practices in organizing themselves into regional and national movements and provided instruction on how to effectively implement a strategy to address GBV in their communities. The Alto Mayo Landscape without Gender Violence in Peru 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. SLEDGE in Uganda trained community leaders and partner staff to support positive social norms, increase awareness, and improve understanding of the needs of women who are facing GBV. They also incorporated annual learning and reflection sessions with communities, which they used to determine any necessary activity adaptations. In Kenya, under the Advancing Equitable Norms in Conservancies, the Social Analysis and Action (SAA) model was used to facilitate staff transformation and raise awareness and confidence in discussing gender and power norms in conservancies, which involved individuals and communities challenging harmful gender norms that negatively impact women’s and men’s well-being and enable them to collectively envision and create gender-equitable alternatives. Some RISE activities also involved working directly with community leaders who could be key agents for change, given their standing in local communities—building capacities of women to become community leaders. Under the Creative Capacity Building activity in Colombia, women were trained to be community leaders and will continue advocacy efforts beyond the end of the activity. SLEDGE in Uganda trained community leaders using the SASA! Faith methodology that addresses the power imbalances between men and women to ultimately create social norm change and decrease GBV. A substantial achievement of the Rising Up! activity in DRC 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. For the GBV/FGRM+ activity, engagement with male leaders was a facilitator of program effectiveness. However, while community engagement strategies helped create awareness and community buy-in, unintended outcomes such as community backlash and interpersonal conflict in some activities suggest the need to carefully consider the most contextually appropriate community engagement activities. For instance, those not involved in Creative Capacity Building expressed some skepticism around it, a community member noted: “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.’” Under the Alto Mayo Landscape without Gender Violence activity in Peru, 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. 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. Three of the five WEE activities heavily involved community leaders and relied on community awareness and engagement for impact. The Micro-Journey activity in Benin identified social agents in the community to create awareness about GBV resources and advocate against domestic violence. 56 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT USAID.GOV The E4W activity in Burundi had multiple mechanisms to work with communities to bring about change in social norms that limit women’s economic participation and make them susceptible to GBV. Activities such as the women’s forum provided an opportunity for media professionals to meet GBV survivors and report on their experiences to create community awareness. In addition, participatory theatre initiatives and town forums were focused on creating awareness about the dynamics that perpetuate violence and create community awareness on strategies to limit violence against women. The WEE in Mesoamerica activity in Guatemala worked in remote communities and directly with women leaders and municipal officials to build capacity for advocacy efforts and create a local support system for GBV survivors and women entrepreneurs. The activity also planned to organize gender sensitization campaigns, community forums, and awareness sessions on sexual and reproductive health; however, there is limited information about the extent to which these were implemented. Scaling up and institutionalization BTC’s BTG4VM activity in Guyana obtained additional funding from IDB to expand activities and strengthen local partnerships for a second year, but SPD in Panama did not replicate workshops and has not procured any additional funds. WELCOME is still being implemented at a smaller scale using individual donations; however, it is limited by funding constraints. A staff respondent noted: “It just by the time you raise your head from implementation, the time is past, and you are just scrambling to find funds again. WELCOME needs somebody to give them money to implement for like a five-year period with the right amount of staff.” CARE-GBV grantees used different strategies for scaling up training activities. CCH in North Macedonia is disseminating workshop knowledge within the organization and implementing a “training of trainers” approach. For SOAR in Nigeria, training manual policies are being shared within the network; however, lack of funding is a barrier to sustainability. SVRI, based in South Africa, continues to maintain the online course and is scaling up by translating course material into Spanish. For WAR in Botswana, the innovative WCT application has been maintained for staff check-ins, and the course curriculum is in the process of being accredited. ZSU in Bosnia and Herzegovina continues to implement their self-care plan in the organization and has program elements that can be replicated with contextualization. For the RISE cluster, there seem to be more explicit sustainability components integrated in activities relative to other clusters. Under the Creative Capacity Building activity in Colombia, women trained to be community leaders are continuing advocacy efforts, and in Peru, Alto Mayo without Gender Violence continues working in target communities with improved staff capacities, but the community patrol is no longer mobilized due to backlash and lack of community support. Communities in SLEDGE, Uganda, reported fewer instances of GBV, but sustainability is limited because people can’t afford to pay fees to have their land demarcated. The Advancing Equitable Norms in Conservancies grant shows encouraging evidence of norm change and safeguarding policies that will likely continue. In the Rising Up! activity in DRC, sufficient exit planning was lacking, and women who paid for land titles did not receive them after the activity finished; participants mentioned there is no way for women interested in obtaining land titles to do so now that the activity has ended. In the Reducing Gender-based Violence in Vietnamese Conservation activity, resistance from organization leaders prevented policy changes that would enhance sustainability, but there is clear interest from organizations for continued work. The GBV/FGRM+ team in Fiji operationalized the grievance mechanism in March 2023 after many delays and did not use the communication strategy developed by the activity. 57 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT USAID.GOV Bringing RISE under the IUCN umbrella, which is a 15-year partnership, instead of implementing under a contract, contributed toward its sustainability, from an operational and financial standpoint: “With a $20 million ceiling. It's a PIO partnership, which means it's just a much more flexible way of working. And you can fundraise, you know, like I can't help Resonance get money. That's like not really how it works, but IUCN and I can go out and try to fundraise for this challenge. And IUCN has gender and climate experts on their team, whereas the Resonance team implementing the Rise Challenge were amazing, but they were challenge experts. They weren't gender or climate experts.” [USAID KII] In addition, the GBV Environment Center launched under IUCN’s AGENT project that is hosting the next round of RISE, could be a key platform to continue and grow the community of practice at the intersectionality of environment and GBV. The platform is still yet to take off; however, it shows potential to be a key space for fostering partnerships and facilitating dialogue for organizations engaged in such work. Under the WEE cluster, the Micro-Journey Benin IP involved key stakeholders, such as local governments and care chain actors in interventions, which enhanced sustainability. However, funding constraints, a lack of reporting mechanisms, and community resistance to change could be barriers in sustainability. E4W participants in Burundi were hopeful that women’s inclusion activities would continue even after the end of the activity, and the IP fostered key partnerships with the government, local partners, and communities that contribute to continuation. However, IP and local partners flagged that the activity duration was too short to have the intended impact. The information line and complaint mechanisms set up under GLP in Lesotho will likely continue, and partnerships with local organizations and trade unions could contribute toward sustainability. The Engendering Industries activity in Nigeria experienced leadership changes at an early stage, but adaptations were made to ensure the continuation of activities with minimal disruptions. In addition, the IP’s direct engagement with IBEDC management should contribute toward continuation of activities, such as the DISCO40 programming, male engagement programming, and sensitization around sexual harassment. For WEE in Mesoamerica Guatemala, local partnership-related contractual obligations affected sustainability as local partners often did not have sufficient capacity or skill sets to effectively implement activities, let alone ensure sustainability. Overall, for shorter-period projects focused on survivors, it is important that they take account of factors that are likely to promote sustainability and scalability of activities so that these resources remain viable beyond the end of activity implementation. For future projects on social norms change, it may be useful to consider sustainability frameworks from other studies,41 particularly as there is some evidence suggesting that, for public health interventions, greater endurance is fostered by having “theoretically informed approaches to guide the design, development, implementation, evaluation and sustainability.42 43 40 Discussing Issues Surrounding Career Opportunities (DISCO). This serves as a hub of knowledge-sharing and networking for women employees. 41 Yamin P, Fei M, Lahlou S, Levy S. Using Social Norms to Change Behavior and Increase Sustainability in the Real World: a Systematic Review of the Literature. Sustainability. 2019; 11(20):5847. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11205847 42 Cassar, S., Salmon, J., Timperio, A. et al. Adoption, implementation and sustainability of school-based physical activity and sedentary behaviour interventions in real-world settings: a systematic review. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 16, 120 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12966-019-0876-4 43 Walugembe, D., Sibbald, S., Le Ber, M. et al. Sustainability of public health interventions: where are the gaps?. Health Res Policy Sys 17, 8 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-018-0405-y 58 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT USAID.GOV 4.2 CONCLUSIONS FOR THE PORTFOLIO EQ1: HOW ARE THE USG’S GUIDING PRINCIPLES AND PRIORITIES TO END GBV BEING INCORPORATED INTO THE FOUR ACTIVITY CLUSTERS? What Worked: Focusing on the causes of GBV, RISE activities targeted community and institutional factors to prevent GBV. Grantees such as Alto Mayo Landscape without Gender Violence, Advancing Equitable Norms in Conservancies, SLEDGE, Rising Up!, and Reducing GBV in Vietnamese Conservation developed targeted training and sensitization for men and cascaded awareness about GBV at the community level using a ToT model. The WEE cluster introduced GBV based on the realization that empowering women sometimes put them in danger of IPV. However, respondents from one WEE activity felt the opposite—that empowering women changes perception about them and involves them in discussion, decisions, and dialogue within the family. RISE activities and BTG4VM had awareness campaigns to inform the community about GBV. Activities such as WELCOME, SDP, and GLP provided safe spaces for violence survivors, and several grantees in RISE, such as Creative Capacity Building, SLEDGE, and GBV/FGRM+, updated referral lists and shared them with community leaders and other stakeholders. Micro-Journey in Benin established One-Stop GBV centers in three cities, allowing survivors to access multiple services. Challenges: Respondents from one of the BTC activities, WELCOME, felt that not much can be done about GBV, it exists and at most you can protect and support survivors. A limited number of activities focused on accountability and only indirectly: some by providing legal services, others by publicly calling out perpetrators or raising perpetrators’ awareness and getting them to apologize. EQ2: TO WHAT EXTENT ARE USG OBJECTIVES BEING ACHIEVED ACROSS THE FOUR ACTIVITY CLUSTERS? What Worked: The umbrella organizations of the CARE-GBV, BTC, and RISE clusters coordinated efforts and provided assistance that grantees valued. WELCOME and Reducing Gender-based Violence in Vietnamese Conservation considered Resonance to be very engaged, open to discuss ideas, responsive to needs, and available to support them. Also, the clusters’ IPs appreciated USAID’s inputs for activity design and joint reviews of the grantees’ deliverables. In addition, E4W, CCH, and WELCOME worked collaboratively with experts and local partners to improve the effectiveness of their work and integrated the strengths of their partners into their programming. Moreover, WELCOME, BTG4VM, Rising Up!, SLEDGE, GBV/FGRM+, and WEE in Mesoamerica used data from studies and assessments to improve the design and engaged men in messaging on positive masculinities to address the social norms and barriers that limit women’s access to economic opportunities. Also, the BTC, RISE, and WEE clusters engaged Indigenous women, people with disabilities, and the LGBTQIA+ community to a certain extent. E4W also worked with widowed women and refugee women. In addition, Resonance followed a participatory approach to design the BTC and the RISE Challenge with key stakeholders. RISE grantees also developed stakeholder maps that helped them develop and implement inclusive, locally driven activities. Moreover, grantees of the BTC cluster partnered with local CSOs, the public sector, and international organizations to enhance the effectiveness of national GBV referral pathways. 59 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT USAID.GOV Challenges: SDP’s primary users mentioned that only people applying for refugee status or recognized refugees could receive services or attend the workshops, limiting the activity’s reach. Many of the organizations in the RISE cluster lacked previous experience working with Indigenous populations. A Micro-Journey, Creative Capacity Building, Reducing Gender-based implementation of efforts, while CARE-GBV’s monitoring data and lessons learned were used to produce guiding documents for USAID. Furthermore, E4W’s novel positive masculinity approach and Engendering Industries’ comprehensive theory of change (ToC) has drawn interest from parties who want to learn from the experiences or have the activities expand their reach. Challenges: Frequent communication and coordination between ACs are not happening systematically at USAID HQ. Several grantee staff members expressed their desire for more frequent learning sessions with USAID during implementation. Information-sharing between grantees happened in an informal way in the BTC cluster. Despite RISE’s efforts, the lack of commonality among its grantees limited the exchange of knowledge and lessons learned. Also, the lack of evidence linking improved gender outcomes with improved environmental outcomes limits the expansion of RISE activities. EQ3: WHAT LESSONS ARE BEING LEARNED AND TO WHAT EXTENT IS THERE SHARING OF BEST PRACTICES, LESSONS, AND INFORMATION ACROSS THE FOUR ACTIVITY CLUSTERS? What Worked: Grantees in each cluster participated in trainings and regularly shared knowledge and lessons learned with each other and their partners on the foundations of GBV related to their work. The four ACs worked with clearly defined target populations but maintained flexibility and added groups dependent on the local context. For instance, the BTC cluster mainly focused on female and male Venezuelan migrants who are survivors of GBV but also engaged Venezuelan men in GBV reduction workshops and served people from other nationalities. Furthermore, all clusters included men in their target populations, with different degrees of participation. Challenges: Engaging men was a central component of multiple activities in RISE, but their involvement and intervention uptake varied. For example, Creative Capacity Building in Colombia and Reducing Gender-based Violence in Vietnamese Conservation experienced difficulties in their engagement with men. In Peru, Alto Mayo without Gender Violence struggled to engage men from the Shampuyacu community: of the 36 men invited to attend trainings on positive masculinity, only 21 participated, with 10 of those dropping out after the first session. Also, Reducing Gender-based Violence in Vietnamese Conservation found that many of the male directors of national parks or conservation groups were averse to conversations about GBV, making it difficult to address the issue within their organizations. In the WEE cluster, E4W and WEE in Mesoamerica also experienced limited engagement of males, and E4W did not reach the LGBTQIA+ community. EQ4: WHAT PERVASIVE GAPS STILL EXIST IN UNDERSTANDING GBV AND ADDRESSING SPECIFIC TYPES OF GBV? What Worked: Activities relied on existing data and information from their initial needs assessment to design intervention components, relying on local partners’ knowledge to assess which needs to prioritize. Flexibility and adaptive programming were applied across the activities, and discussions with USAID during the COVID-19 pandemic enabled necessary adaptations. The four activities addressed: 60 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT USAID.GOV IPV, sexual harassment, violence in the workplace, rape and sexual coercion, and vicarious trauma among service providers. Various factors were included in programming, including: socio-political dynamics in the country, male involvement from the beginning, exacerbated vulnerabilities due to the pandemic, local context including conflict settings, and consideration of community and other country￾level factors. Factors that aided potential sustainability included focusing on sustainability from the design phase, engagement with local stakeholders, and obtaining additional funding sources.44 Challenges: The degree of available data differed across activities and clusters since several activities were first of its kind and had limited research to draw on. MEL data were collected and used by all during implementation. However, varying locations, local contexts, and different components constrained comparisons cluster-wide. The pandemic exacerbated vulnerabilities of survivors due to isolation and made it more difficult to find them. It also slowed implementation due to virtual collaboration. Nearly all grantees and IPs noted that the period of performance and budget resources were insufficient to achieve ambitious outcomes, since changing gender and social norms takes time. Despite consideration of country contexts, involvement of males, local organizations, local government, and the community, several activities received high levels of resistance from the community, land groups, and senior leadership. Apart from the BTC cluster, LGBTQIA+ participant inclusion was limited. Issues such as GenDev staff turnover, a decentralized management structure, lengthy operational procedures, and limited intra-cluster coordination deterred progress across the portfolio. 5. LESSONS FROM THE IMPLEMENTATION EVALUATION ACROSS THE PORTFOLIO The GBV PPE included an implementation evaluation (IE) of one activity within each of the four activity clusters. Evaluation questions for the IE were distinct from the evaluation questions for the AC. Activities were selected for the IE in discussion with GenDev for the following reasons including keen interest by the IP: redesign and shift in implementation due to COVID-19 (BTC), the type of GBV they focused on - child sexual abuse (CARE-GBV), type of intervention – reforming the system of customary land tenure (RISE) and focus on indigenous women and capacity building of local government (WEE).45 The activities selected for the IE included: 1. BTC cluster: WELCOME activity in Trinidad & Tobago 2. CARE-GBV cluster: SOAR activity in Nigeria 3. RISE cluster: Rising UP! activity in the Democratic Republic of Congo 4. WEE cluster: WEE in Mesoamerica activity in Guatemala In addition to the information in Table 5 above, Table 8 includes more details on the activities selected for the IE, followed by key lessons from the evaluation. 44 Jewkes R, Willan S, Heise L, Washington L, Shai N, Kerr-Wilson A, Gibbs A, Stern E, Christofides N. Elements of the Design and Implementation of Interventions to Prevent Violence against Women and Girls Associated with Success: Reflections from the What Works to Prevent Violence against Women and Girls? Global Programme. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2021; 18(22):12129. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182212129 Heise, L; (2011) What Works to Prevent Partner Violence? An Evidence Overview. Working Paper. STRIVE Research Consortium, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London. http://strive.lshtm.ac.uk/resources/what-works-pre... https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1524838020939130 45 Details can be found in the evaluation design report https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00ZZ7W.pdf. 61 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT USAID.GOV Table 8. Summary of the Activity Selected for the Implementation Evaluation BTC Cluster: WELCOME, Trinidad & Tobago, July 2020–August 2021. Advocate-centered services to Venezuelan survivors of IPV. Implementer: Resonance Grantee: Democracy International (DI) Subgrantee: La Casita ● Recruit and train advocates ● Establish a trusted referral network ● Train advocates ● Match advocates with survivors ● Advocates support survivors ● Employ social media ● Support scalability and sustainability CARE-GBV Cluster: SOAR, Nigeria, July 2021–July 2022. Grants to improve staff wellness and resiliency for child survivors of sexual assault. Implementer: Making Cents International Grantee: Sexual Offences Awareness and Response Initiative ● Strengthen institutional capacity ● Equip others CSOs in Nigeria’s FCT region to promote staff wellness and resilience and undertake effective GBV prevention and response ● Identify and control potential causes and areas of work-related stress conditions of staff ● Online review of existing sexual abuse and exploitation policies to inform SOAR’s policies RISE Cluster: Rising Up! DRC, 2020–2022. Promote Congolese women’s land access and prevent GBV in Eastern DRC. Focus on economic, physical, and psychological GBV. Implementer: Resonance Grantee: Women for Women International Sub-grantees: Formation pour le Dévelopement et la Paix (IFDP) ● Train existing land management structures ● Train male community leaders and women change agents ● Integrate GBV prevention into IFDP’s model ● Facilitate women obtaining land titles in target communities WEE Cluster: WEE in Mesoamerica, Guatemala. 2020–2025. Provide economic opportunities to women entrepreneurs in poultry and coffee value chains. Focus on IPV and other forms of GBV through entrepreneur trainings, mentoring, and support. Implementer: Rainforest Alliance (RA) Subcontractors: Federation of Cooperatives of the Verapaces (FEDECOVERA), Association of Forest Communities of Petén (ACOFOP), and Association of Organizations of the Cuchumatanes (ASOCUCH) ● Provide value-chain, leadership, and entrepreneurship training for poultry and café business owners ● Hold gender sensitization campaigns, community forums, and awareness sessions on sexual and reproductive health ● Promote IGA livelihood activities ● Offer access to women’s groups and other networks ● Create partnership with local partners focused on economic empowerment and regional partners focused on GBV Design flexibility and adaptability was important for traction and to mitigate challenges. Organizations that were able to pivot their activities to meet current needs seemed to have more traction. SOAR noted that they had the flexibility to change their approach to meet the needs of their staff and were able to effectively monitor the intervention and its impact on staff. WELCOME used findings from their needs assessment to change their design due to COVID-19. They used an approach that promoted accountability of perpetrators of sexual harassment in public spaces and developed their local partner’s capacity (La Casita) to deliver a client-centered, tailored advocacy model. After a gender analysis and during implementation, Rising Up! expanded its design to involve more men, customary leaders, and youth. This adaptation was key to implementing the activity. 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. There was substantial flexibility in program implementation, which allowed the program to respond to and mitigate resistance from eldest sons. On the other hand, there was limited flexibility to respond to the requests of change agents: for example, 62 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT USAID.GOV they were not provided with weatherproofing for their sensitization sessions during the rainy season or support for their transport between villages. The role of regional-local partnerships appears to have been central to the design of the WEE cluster, which then affected the implementation of WEE in Mesoamerica activities. WEE in Mesoamerica activities were funded under USAID’s New Partnerships Initiative, which was intended to promote a regional and local partnership structure. However, the activity structure seemed to place greater emphasis on the role of local partners without considering their capacities and skills to implement GBV activities, which hindered the effectiveness of key activity components. Also, local partner sub￾agreements lasted only the first three years while regional partner agreements lasted five years. The reasoning for this split timeline is unclear to NORC. Also, an IP representative explained that the initial design was based on the assumption that women would have their own enterprises and productive systems but did not consider that “women do not have access to land in our countries,” which prompted a change in approach. Where used, volunteers experienced hardship and constrained activity results Using volunteers was central to the design of BTC/WELCOME and RISE/Rising Up!, but the absence of sufficient remuneration for their time and effort caused them hardship and constrained activity results. WELCOME focused on IPV and abuse against Venezuelan women at home. Being migrants, Venezuelan GBV survivors have many challenges to follow service referrals. Difficulties include competing priorities to meet basic needs for themselves and their families, language barriers, low self-efficacy, and/or fear and distrust of the government and unfamiliar organizations. The WELCOME advocate model aimed to help Venezuelan women experiencing GBV access support. Advocates were recruited, trained, and matched with survivors who they supported by visits, biweekly calls, telephone interpreting services, and accompaniment to police stations. However, GBV advocates were limited in their ability to take on many cases since they were volunteers and experienced burnout, plus they received only a small stipend to “thank them” for their work. Grantee staff suggested that a remedy could be higher pay and making the position of advocate into a more official role, so advocates did not feel they had to choose between their own income-generating work and the work with survivors. The design of the Rising Up! activity in DRC was a land tenure intervention that sensitized community members and leaders by 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 change agents received minimum transportation stipends, and no supporting items such as raincoats or boots during the rainy season. They also faced backlash from their community when women who had paid a fee to get their land title did not receive the title by the time the activity ended, and there were no longer implementing agencies to assist them. 63 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT USAID.GOV Activities were guided in implementation by their theory of change All four activities had theories of change—either at the cluster level or for the activity— which guided the activities in their implementation. There was no cluster-level ToC for CARE-GBV, but SOAR developed one to ground its intervention. SOAR’s ToC emphasized the knowledge gaps around self-care and wellness for GBV responders both within their organization and their wider network in Nigeria. They therefore aimed to empower their staff with information and resources to support their well￾being. Since WELCOME had to redesign its activities due to the COVID-19 pandemic, they focused on outputs and short￾term outcomes following La Casita’s advocate-centered model of assistance and did not redesign their ToC nor use USAID’s key performance indicators. Implementation successes and challenges The four activities experienced several successes and had to deal with multiple challenges as well. Context specific intervention techniques had the best implementation results while the COVID-19 pandemic disrupted services for WEE in Mesoamerica and funding, timeline and sustainability issues contributed to other challenges across all four activities. Theories of Change WELCOME: “Through WELCOME, DI will connect GBV survivors to trusted referral services through known community members, provide social support to promote survivors’ feelings of self-efficacy, and provide the necessary information and support to survivors to receive referral services.” SOAR: improved counselling and psychosocial services for child survivors of sexual abuse, adoption of self-care practices by GBV responders as part of their lifestyle, and institutionalization of stress management and wellness practices by the grantee and other GBV organizations would result in improved support against vicarious trauma and burnout in Nigeria’s FCT region. RISING UP!: If Rising Up! increases IFPD’s capacity to integrate GBV prevention into their Decentralized Land Resource Management Model, trains community land management structures (Land Reflection Groups) in GBV prevention, trains and engages local male leaders as well as women Change Agents in advocating for women’s land rights and GBV prevention in their communities, then 1) IFDP will have improved knowledge of land rights, gender and GBV prevention, capacity to better educate women on land rights, and support for women to access land possession documents through an improved Decentralized Land Resource Management Model; 2) land resource management structures will have increased awareness of issues related to GBV and support safe, equitable land management models; 3) trained and engaged local male Community Leaders will have improved knowledge of land rights and increased capacity to educate and influence community members as well as identify and act on women’s land rights and GBV issues; and 4) trained Change Agents will have improved increased capacity to educate other women and men and advocate for community changes to support women’s land rights and prevent GBV. WEE in Mesoamerica: Gaining greater economic independence and capacity will reduce women’s vulnerability to and likelihood of falling into high-risk situations. This goal can be achieved by addressing the threats of lack of economic opportunity and gender-based social exclusion linked to poverty and migration, as well as the lack of institutional will and capacity that drive the systemic inequalities faced by women at risk in Mesoamerica's rural landscapes. 64 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT USAID.GOV Table 9. Implementation Successes and Challenges ACTIVITY SUCCESSES CHALLENGES WELCOME - Having bilingual advocates bridge the gaps between survivors and the protection services they needed, and translate for the GBV survivors. - Success in reaching the migrant community via media coverage and networking. - Capacity-building for service providers and formalized referral processes for survivors. -Learning how to interact with service providers, especially the police and hospitals. - Varying language abilities and burnout among overworked advocates. SOAR - Monthly self-care and wellness meetings that communicated an understanding of vicarious trauma and best practices to strengthen self-care, wellness, and resilience. - Focus group discussion and wellness policy helped institutionalize self-care and wellness within the organization. - Inability to maintain the sustainability of the project as well as determine the effectiveness of their policy across network organizations. This was largely due to overall project timelines and access to continued funding. Rising Up! - Engagement and sensitization of men, especially customary leaders (Mwami) whose support strengthened the efficacy of the intervention. -The ‘Model Couples’ approach which trained the women and their husbands. - A lack of government services to refer survivors. -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. - 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. 65 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT USAID.GOV ACTIVITY SUCCESSES CHALLENGES WEE in Mesoamerica -High satisfaction with market-based trainings, technical assistance, audio￾visual story telling models, and legal literacy on women’s rights for Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities. - Presence of national partners and their knowledge of the local context, language, and markets. - Local partners’ extensive experience working with Indigenous populations. - The pandemic initially had a large impact on coffee exchange activities between national organizations, as participants could not be physically present, and remote exchanges were limited due to poor access to technology and internet. - Some activities required modification and others were reduced in scope, particularly for regional organizations, thus reaching fewer participants. - Poor continuity or follow-up when regional organizations engaged directly with activity participants - Regional organizations tend to employ a “one size fits all” approach instead of considering local capacities and context. - Long approval processes from USAID, which has resulted in multiple instances of lost work, time, and products. Three of four activities expanded their target population during implementation. While SOAR worked with first responders to provide self-care and wellness activities to their own staff, WELCOME, Rising Up!, and WEE in Mesoamerica expanded their target populations during implementation from initially reaching female Venezuelan migrant survivors of GBV, to also including Cuban and Dominican female survivors as well as some male survivors. None of the latter were originally targeted. WELCOME also noted barriers to reaching beneficiaries, including service locations; COVID-19; scheduling challenges of GBV survivors; lack of standard operating procedures at La Casita; language barriers; and initially not having male staff. WEE in Mesoamerica targeted women who face marginalization and barriers to economic participation in Guatemala, Honduras, and Mexico. Target participants also expanded to include men to foster “an understanding of equality between men and women '' and facilitate dialogues and sensitization of positive masculinities. Even though WEE in Mesoamerica targeted many participants who were already engaged with their local partners and pursued strategic alliances and dialogue with institutions to facilitate this, they encountered substantial barriers. Across all WEE in Mesoamerica activities, between 21 to 56 percent of participants expressed difficulties participating (CAPI survey conducted by the ET). Interviews with the IP indicate that barriers included the size and distance between the communities, women not having access to land, and a 20% economic contribution as a requirement for participation, that limited the more economically vulnerable populations from taking part in the activity. The original model for Rising Up! focused primarily on sensitizing women on land tenure and empowerment interventions. However, during the gender analysis and implementation periods, the design was expanded to involve more men, customary leaders, and youth. Specifically, the design was expanded to include activities targeting male youth, as eldest sons that had been first in line to inherit land expressed resistance to activities that promoted land tenure for women. This adaptation ended up being key to the success of the activity. Intervention components that were reported to be effective 66 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT USAID.GOV included sensitization activities targeting men and the relationship that the activity built with the Mwami. These components reportedly helped the activity exceed its targets in terms of women starting or completing the process of land titling, with the caveat that some women did not receive the customary land titles that they paid for when the activity ended. All four activities felt constrained by their funding and period of performance The four activities evaluated had varied funding and period of performance, as shown below in Table 10. Among the grantees, WEE in Mesoamerica had the longest implementation period and highest funding, while SOAR had the shortest implementation period and lowest funding. Despite the variation in funding and period of performance all grants/implementing partners indicated that the time and resources available for the work were insufficient. This indicates a need to set clear expectations and an understanding of expected results from the grant/contract. The process could include USAID and regular check-ins between the grantee and IP to adjust expectations as needed and identify ways to increase efficiency of resources and effort by, for example, focusing the activity on a smaller target group. Table 10. Activity Funding and Period of Performance WELCOME: $499,817; July 2020–December 2021 (with re￾design between January and June 2020) SOAR: $112,691; July 2021–July 2022 Rising Up!: $284,654; July 2020–March 2022 WEE in Mesoamerica: $ 7,500,000; June 2020–June 2025 Activities differed in their methods for data collection and use of monitoring data to adapt interventions. All four activities applied various types of monitoring approaches. In WELCOME, Resonance coordinated with the activity team to create an ad hoc monitoring system that relied on a brief qualitative log and a short set of survey questions, after they had to redesign their activity due to COVID-19. WELCOME did not use or modify any of USAID’s key performance indicators. The qualitative log provided information and progress about each GBV survivor’s well-being and state of mind. The survey with advocates asked about the topics of any calls or meetings, challenges encountered by the advocate, time spent on the follow-up call, and related expenses. Activity staff expressed their satisfaction with this monitoring system and their ability to react to these logs and adapt immediately when it was required. However, service providers reported not having access to these data and perceived that WELCOME did not make any program adaptations based on the monitoring data. The document review for WELCOME suggests that the activity did not plan a common learning agenda with their network of service providers. Throughout the implementation period, SOAR conducted check-ins to determine what program aspects were or were not working for staff. Staff indicated that the monthly self-care and wellness meetings were the most successful mechanisms. The management team believed the wellness policy would institutionalize self-care in their organization, leading to more sustainable practices to support staff well￾being. Throughout the grant period, these activities reportedly influenced changes to the program. 67 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT USAID.GOV Rising Up! staff said they did not have any major challenges with the monitoring structure of the activity, even though it was rigorous and time consuming. One staff member explained how monitoring led to more engagement with eldest sons and helped mitigate resistance to their mothers getting land titles. The risk of sons’ objections was not identified during the gender analysis and highlights the importance of timely monitoring and adaptation. In KIIs, WEE in Mesoamerica staff explained that they found the WEBDA tool useful and that it contributes to strong implementation. Other monitoring mechanisms included Environmental Mitigation and Monitoring Plans for each of the three WEE in Mesoamerica countries, quantitative and qualitative data to monitor activity-specific indicators and progress (and presented through success stories and written narratives), and databases of socio-economic data of participants to monitor trends. The activity also made an effort to digitize the monitoring process through use of electronic systems such as the Project Management Platform (PMP) and Kobo Toolbox. All four activities cited funding limits as the key constraint to sustainability Even though WELCOME improved relationships with local GBV organizations, built local capacity for case management, grew their network, and developed a referral pathway, their reach, sustainability, and potential scale-up were limited by funding and staffing challenges. Funding opportunities have been scarce in T&T, according to the director and other staff. The evaluation found that La Casita’s staff does not have sufficient resources for an aggressive fundraising campaign, even though sustainability strategies are key performance monitoring indicators, and Resonance supported La Casita to become listed as an UNHCR potential grantee. At the same time, GBV survivors’ needs grow, including the need for shelter and job training, psychosocial support, police and legal assistance, and health services. The future of the program is uncertain, and its existence relies heavily on the willingness of La Casita’s Director to continue helping Venezuelan women in Trinidad. SOAR staff expressed concerns that funding constraints and the short project timeline may hinder SOAR’s ability to maintain these activities and continue to respond to staff needs. For example, the team was unable to track change, use, or institutionalize some mechanisms, which would have benefitted from more time. In Rising Up!, the grantee developed an exit plan with customary authorities, members of land reflection groups, women change agents, and male champions. Land reflection groups said that they would continue awareness-raising past the end of the activity. However, the exit plan was insufficient, and it did not ensure that women who had paid for land titles would receive them. There were no follow ups with customary leaders after the end of the activity to ensure that the systems put into place would persist, and focus group discussion participants for this evaluation said that women who wanted to pursue land titles had no way to do so, and women who had already paid for land titles did not receive them. Change Agents reported tensions in their communities as they had no way to address these issues. For WEE in Mesoamerica, concerns about the sustainability of women’s economic empowerment components for both the poultry and coffee farmers reflected the somewhat weak integration of GBV activities with the economic activities. Reports suggested that GBV activities were led primarily by the regional partners while economic activities were the responsibility of local partners. As part of the GBV activities, WEE in Mesoamerica also aimed to raise awareness about violence against women and promote local counseling services, though how these activities affected service use is unclear. 68 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT USAID.GOV Planned outcomes were achieved but with challenges All four activities reported achieving their planned outcomes, but with challenges such as funding, period of performance, sustainability, and reaching their target population. However, there were also several unintended and adverse outcomes that require careful consideration, especially those that left participants worse off after the activity. Table 11 summarizes the outcomes and challenges. Table 11. Outcomes and Challenges Identified by the Implementation Evaluation ACTIVITY POSITIVE OUTCOMES CHALLENGES WELCOME -Assisted migrant GBV survivors to gain access to services -Expanded target population to include Cuban and Dominican survivors, and also Venezuelan men -Raised local awareness about GBV -5/10 service providers said the activity had a moderate or major effect on reducing GBV -Funding amount and timeline -Sustainability -Reaching target population and competing with busy schedules -Used volunteers who were burned out and could not keep up with demand SOAR - All survey respondents felt that the activities improved their understanding of vicarious trauma: 20 responded that activities improved their understanding to a great extent, while 3 responded that the activities somewhat improved their understanding -Approaches such as the Group Discussion, three-day online learning visits, and Self-Care and Wellness Meetings were also received positively -Funding -Sustainability or institutionalization of mechanisms such as the staff wellness policy Rising Up! -Original intention of sensitizing women on land tenure and empowerment was extended to include more men, customary leaders, and resistance from eldest sons -Exceeded targets of women starting or completing the process of land titling -Had change agents for sensitization who were given a very limited stipend -Inability to respond to the need of change agents, such as waterproofing during heavy rain season and providing a travel allowance -Women paid for land titles but did not receive them 69 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT USAID.GOV ACTIVITY POSITIVE OUTCOMES CHALLENGES WEE in Mesoamerica - 97 percent of survey respondents who participated in income-generating productive activities linked to the poultry, sheep, coffee, and vegetable chains for women entrepreneurs reported satisfaction with these activities - 75 percent of all participants indicated that the COVID-19 pandemic impacted the effectiveness of the services they received - 21–56 percent of program participants are estimated to have faced some difficulty participating in activities such as size and distance between communities; access to land; access to women's groups; response from the government’s assistance systems; and lost income to attend trainings. Ultimately, there appears to have been substantial learning produced. However, it is unclear how these lessons will be applied to future programming. It also remains relatively unclear the extent to which the trainings, awareness-raising, and similar activities intended to change attitudes and improve understanding of gender equity will translate into behavior changes or reduced incidence of abuse or harassment or increased assertion of power and independence by women. Finally, the measurement of specific activity-generated outcomes and this evaluation’s ability to attribute impact to these interventions are difficult to determine because of the post-hoc nature of the evaluation. 6. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE PORTFOLIO The NORC team offers the following recommendations across the GBV portfolio (Table 12). We have grouped the recommendations into four categories: 1) funding design; 2) activity design; 3) implementation; and 4) sustainability. We have not prioritized these in any order, since it is subject to USAID/GenDev funding, timeframe, and internal priorities. A consultation with stakeholders will be helpful to confirm or negate the importance and priority of these recommendations. We specify if the recommendations are for each AC (all future GBV programming) or targeted at a specific cluster or activity from this evaluation. We also include action steps for GenDev for each recommendation, indicating if it should be stopped, started, continued (if already in practice) or expanded (if done very limitedly). Table 12. Recommendations for Future GBV Activities RECOMMENDATION CATEGORY & RECOMMENDATIONS CLUSTER- OR ACTIVITY-SPECIFIC PROGRAMMING ACTION STEPS FOR GENDEV* 6.1 FUNDING DESIGN 6.1.1 Develop a GBV funding portfolio that is explicitly gender inclusive. AC Expand 6.1.2 Ensure: (a) funding is sufficient to pay for individuals involved in activities and (b) move away from reliance on unpaid “volunteers.” AC; WELCOME, Rising Up! (a)Start (b)Stop 6.1.3 Require synergies between activities and strengthen cross-organization collaboration. AC Expand 70 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT USAID.GOV RECOMMENDATION CATEGORY & RECOMMENDATIONS CLUSTER- OR ACTIVITY-SPECIFIC PROGRAMMING ACTION STEPS FOR GENDEV* 6.1.4 Provide funding for multi-sector interventions that integrate GBV activities with activities in other sectors. RISE, WEE Continue 6.1.5 Continue to fund initial intervention-focused needs assessments, providing guidance or technical assistance as needed. AC Continue 6.1.6 Promote participatory and co-produced intervention development processes. AC Expand 6.1.7 Integrate support for fundraising in future programming. AC Start 6.1.8 Support monitoring and adaptations to self-care interventions, making them responsive to the needs of service staff in GBV programs. CARE-GBV Expand 6.1.9 Promote collaboration and fundings structures to foster equitable partnerships. AC, WEE in Mesoamerica Start 6.1.10 Identify local causal drivers of GBV and evidence on relevant interventions to inform local prevention interventions. AC Start 6.1.11. Future evaluations should be commissioned to work closely with implementing agencies prior to the start of the activities. AC Expand 6.2 ACTIVITY DESIGN 6.2.1 Encourage activity designs that are gender￾inclusive but that also remain sufficiently targeted to ensure they address the needs of victims of specific gender-targeted violence. AC Expand 6.2.2 Ensure sufficient time to assess causal linkages between the activities and achievable outcomes. AC Expand 6.2.3 Involve survivor-beneficiaries in program design and prioritize survivors who are safe from violence. AC Expand 6.2.4 Require that ToCs specify the components of the intervention causal pathway. AC Continue 6.2.5 Promote inclusive engagement of both migrant and host communities. BTC Expand 6.2.6 Ensure gender-inclusive programming for survivors. AC Start 6.2.7 Engage men. AC Expand 6.2.8 Invest in self-care and wellness interventions, especially for care-providers CARE-GBV Expand 6.2.9 Encourage knowledge and resource-sharing for service professionals likely to experience vicarious trauma and burnout. CARE-GBV Expand 71 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT USAID.GOV RECOMMENDATION CATEGORY & RECOMMENDATIONS CLUSTER- OR ACTIVITY-SPECIFIC PROGRAMMING ACTION STEPS FOR GENDEV* 6.2.10 Expand training topics to bridge the gap in understanding and addressing specific types of GBV. AC Expand 6.2.11 Find safe ways to identify survivors of GBV for effective protection. AC Continue 6.2.12 Define who is accountable for what aspects of prevention, protection, and prosecution, in addition to perpetrators’ accountability for their violence. AC Expand 6.2.13 Require coordination/exchange between grantees to share lessons learned, challenges and successes. AC Expand 6.3 IMPLEMENTATION 6.3.1 Build capacity for local partners to engage directly with donors. AC Start 6.3.2 Improve strategies to ensure wide awareness of and easy access to services. AC Expand 6.3.3 Monitor emerging effects and use data to adapt programs. AC Continue 6.3.4 Promote a start-up phase for local partners to develop intervention-focused evidence from the community and integrate GBV. AC Expand 6.3.5 Review and streamline administrative processes that hinder or delay adaptive implementation of activities. AC Expand 6.4 SUSTAINABILITY 6.4.1 Develop a complex systems approach to implementation and obtain local buy-in and ownership from different responsible agencies. AC Expand 6.4.2 Ensure implementation plans and timelines are designed to fulfill beneficiaries’ and local groups’ expectations. AC Start 6.4.3 Require an exit plan for all activities that will end after the funding period and remain accountable to program participants. AC Expand 6.4.4 Prevent adverse outcomes by ensuring ethical program completion. AC, Rising Up! Expand 6.4.5 Develop a Theory of Change that articulates GEN-DEV’s investment causal pathways to achieve effective intervention models to guide GBV investments AC Start Notes: *We use the term “Expand” to indicate actions that are happening on a limited scale. “Continue” is used to indicate a practice that is already ongoing. 72 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT USAID.GOV 6.1 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUNDING DESIGN 6.1.1 Develop a GBV funding portfolio that is explicitly gender inclusive.46 New funding calls should explicitly acknowledge gender diversity and the different gender-targeted forms of violence, including violence against women, girls, men, boys, and LGBTQIA+ individuals. The term “gender-based violence” should not be treated as synonymous with violence against women. However, because the overwhelming majority of gender-targeted violence globally is by males against females, funding should remain proportionate with the prevalence of women’s and girls’ vulnerability to abuse, while simultaneously allocating funding to protect men, boys, and LGBTQIA+ groups. This would promote gender-inclusive beliefs and practices and improve the uptake and effectiveness of activities aimed to reduce GBV in challenging operating environments. 6.1.2 Ensure funding is sufficient to pay for individuals involved in activities and move away from reliance on unpaid community “volunteers.” While it may be possible to rely on the good will of local individuals, underpaying case managers and advocates to undertake important work like supporting violence survivors severely undervalued their time and the work that they do. Underfunding their labor leads to high turnover and poor program sustainability. 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. Few good programs, if any, can rely primarily on community volunteers. Especially among resource-poor individuals, for large donor agencies to ask them to give their time for free is at the least impractical and at the worst unethical. Similarly, short-term jobs that last only for the life of the funding cycle often prove wasteful for the program, unfair for survivor-clients, and disappointing for the persons who are trained to do the work. Building the knowledge and skills of workers and exciting their enthusiasm to support survivors raises hopes and expectations and creates an important resource that often simply disappears when the funding ends. At the very least, the activity, at design and implementation stages, should establish measures to help trained individuals be hired by other relevant organizations if the activities will not be sustained. 6.1.3 Require synergies between activities and strengthen cross-organization collaboration. Improving an organization’s network of local and international partners can foster greater sustainability by creating potentially mutually supportive relationships and possibility of shared workload and joint funding. Donors should also encourage grantees to submit joint funding proposals. Additionally, when donors are funding large international organizations, donors should be cautious to support truly equitable partnerships between large organizations and local groups versus funding for large organizations that commission poorly funded short-term work by local organizations. 6.1.4 Provide funding for multi-sector interventions that integrate GBV activities with activities in other sectors. As a GBV-aware donor, USAID is in a good position to foster stronger integration of GBV protection mechanisms into other types of programming, such as economic empowerment and women’s entrepreneurship activities, environment, infrastructure, etc. A growing number of proven interventions that combine economic empowerment with GBV programming could 46 NORC feels that a gender inclusive portfolio requires a clear approach during funding design and activity design. We have therefore include the same recommendation under both these categories the first focusing on having adequate funding and the latter requiring this while designing an activity. 73 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT USAID.GOV serve as models for future investments in multi-sector designs. For example, the Intervention with Microfinance for AIDS and Gender Equity (IMAGE) study47 describes a successful intervention design that demonstrated the combined impact of women’s empowerment activities with micro-credit programs—within a program funding period. 6.1.5 Continue to fund initial intervention-focused needs assessments, providing guidance or technical assistance as needed. It will be of regular benefit to donors and recipients alike for donors to allow sufficient time and funded specialist intervention research expertise so groups can gather essential evidence to inform their intervention design. During this formative work, groups should be encouraged to consult with proposed project beneficiaries and local stakeholders and examine relevant international practices. This early intervention-focused and context-specific research can make the difference between an effective activity versus a missed opportunity. Initial needs assessments also motivate implementing agencies to think evaluatively and can serve as baseline information to compare with data collected during and after implementation. 6.1.6 Promote participatory and co-produced intervention development processes. Given the benefits of early needs assessments and consultations, donors should provide adequate funding and technical support for implementing agencies to engage and pay a diverse range of beneficiary representatives to participate in the intervention development processes. Techniques such as user- or human-centered design of activity components can help generate well-targeted and more effective interventions that are informed by actual users. 6.1.7 Integrate support for fundraising in future programming. Small organizations (like La Casita in Trinidad) lack the experience, time, and staff to work on fundraising. It is not realistic for small organizations to simultaneously carry out important survivor work and invest in funding efforts— especially if they have no expertise in fundraising or grant-writing. Fundraising and grant development skills-building can be included in the grant requirements. Especially in resource-limited locations like Guyana and T&T, donors must consider strategies to support small organizations to secure additional resources to properly pay staff and to continue their work beyond the original funding. Future GBV￾client-centered donations might, for example, include additional funds for a dedicated fundraising initiative, with guidance from development professionals experienced with international funding. 6.1.8 Support monitoring and adaptations to self-care interventions, making them responsive to the needs of service staff in GBV programs. To continually promote well-being among service provider staff, include sufficient funds and time to track the influence of self-care interventions, including gaps in responses to current needs. By detecting emerging stressors, service groups can maintain effective activities beyond the funding cycle. Respondents specifically suggested biannual refresher and feedback sessions with project participants to reinforce learning outcomes. Donors should consider funding a central Wellness Contact Point, which can serve multiple agencies simultaneously, to maximize funding value. 6.1.9 Promote collaboration and funding structures to foster equitable partnerships. While it can be difficult to untangle international working relationships, donors should structure grants so that partnership arrangements are equitable, funding allocation is transparent, and local partners are 47 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31792711/ 74 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT USAID.GOV sufficiently funded and trained to build their ongoing capacity—and are respected for their equal if not greater value to activities. 6.1.10 Identify local causal drivers of GBV and evidence on relevant interventions to inform local prevention interventions. Funding for effective GBV prevention-focused activities need to examine local direct and indirect drivers of abuse. Interventions need to go beyond broad empowerment and awareness-raising initiatives, since violence can be rooted in specific social norms and local structural drivers. When funding prevention activities, it is important to identify modifiable causal drivers of GBV to develop relevant prevention plans. It is also essential to inform activity components with findings from high-quality literature of previous interventions to see what worked (and what did not). Whenever possible, donors should aim to support this type of professional intervention evidence review as part of the call for proposals. Funding activities that decrease the prevalence of violence require being strategic about specific activity targets: for example, land titles for women. 6.1.11. Future evaluations should be commissioned to work closely with implementing agencies prior to the start of the activities. Rigorous independent evaluations should be commissioned to work closely with the implementing agencies from the start. Donors must decide what questions need to be answered to choose the best study type. Donors and implementing agencies must review the evaluation design and data collection instrument and share feedback with the independent evaluators before fieldwork. Engaging implementing agencies is vital to access secondary data and gather primary data from their staff and activity users. 6.2 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ACTIVITY DESIGN 6.2.1 Encourage activity designs that are gender-inclusive, but also remain sufficiently targeted to ensure they address the needs of victims of specific gender-targeted violence. While violence against women and girls should remain a priority for GBV programming, some prevention and protection activities can be designed to address simultaneously or separately violence against males and sexual and gender minorities. Groups should be encouraged to take advantage of opportunities to extend programs to be gender-inclusive. 6.2.2 Ensure sufficient project time to assess causal linkages between the activities and achievable outcomes. Activities need sufficient time to affect change, especially when dealing with traditional norms and embedded gender biases. When monitoring and indicators are set up to identify changes across the causal pathway, initially, programs need to establish what can be achieved in what timeframe. In addition, GenDev and its IPs should review the way timelines and workplans are set up, especially their degree of flexibility. Hard ends in terms of project timelines can be a hindrance for progress; more flexibility should be built into project timelines and contracts, even without budgetary additions. 6.2.3 Involve survivor-beneficiaries in program design and prioritize survivors who are safe from violence. Given the benefits of early needs assessments and consultations, donors should provide adequate funding and technical support for groups to engage and pay beneficiary representatives to undertake intervention co-development processes. Tools such as user- or human-centered design of activity components can help generate well-targeted and more effective interventions that are informed by actual users. However, when working with vulnerable populations, involve previous not current 75 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT USAID.GOV survivors in the activity design since the latter are recovering from trauma; other ambassadors can be enlisted. 6.2.4 Require that ToCs specify the components of the intervention causal pathway. Activities incorporating a ToC need to have clear pathways to follow during implementation. By articulating the specific causal pathway within a ToC, the intervention will have specific targets and will identify and test context-specific assumptions. 6.2.5 Promote inclusive engagement of both migrant and host communities. One important lesson from the BTC activity was the potential value of bringing together migrant and non-migrant groups. USAID and other donors should make further investment in joint migrant/non-migrant programming and corresponding research to understand the potential added value of reducing barriers between groups and find common spaces of growth and incorporation. 6.2.6 Ensure gender-inclusive service provision for survivors. Future programming should be designed to ensure service providers are prepared to respond to the needs of female, male, and gender non-binary GBV survivors. Program models will need to consider the different ways survivors might learn about services, decide to access them and how they want to engage with case workers. Initial research and ongoing monitoring should be designed to identify accessibility, acceptability, and emerging effectiveness of service provision by gender and other influential factors, such as language, ethnicity, migration status, cultural background, education level, and socioeconomic status. 6.2.7 Engage men who are gatekeepers in decision-making and power positions and boys in programs focused on changing social norms. In programs focused on changing social norms, engaging men and boys in training, sensitization, and advocacy is critical to change gendered norms and behaviors. GBV is often erroneously viewed as a “women’s issue,” leading many stakeholders and programs to focus on only half of the population. Changing the social norms that underpin GBV, however, requires shifting mindsets across entire communities. Men, especially men in decision-making or power positions, are often the gatekeepers or key decision-makers who can help unlock broader change, and their support—or lack thereof—can enhance or hinder project objectives. 6.2.8 Invest in self-care and wellness interventions, especially for care-providers. Caring for trauma-affected populations is a very challenging and stress-filled profession. Providing this type of care often creates burnout, which risks both harm to these care professionals and subsequent losses for vulnerable individuals. Findings clearly indicated that support for self-care was used, highly valued, and beneficial to care providers. 6.2.9 Encourage knowledge and resource sharing for service professionals likely to experience vicarious trauma and burnout. These psychological phenomena are not uncommon among workers in caring professions. Based on the lessons learned about implementing wellness programs and about self-care by recipients, it seems that a next funding round could offer the opportunity for learning to be shared across more care sectors, which might make these resources more cost-effective and sustainable. 6.2.10 Expand training topics to bridge the gap in understanding and addressing specific types of GBV. In the CARE-GBV survey, respondents suggested the addition of topics to focus on the reintegration processes and other support for victims/survivors after receiving services; prevention of SGBV; and accessibility of psychosocial support and its sustainability for the survivors of SGBV. 76 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT USAID.GOV 6.2.11 Find safe ways to identify survivors of GBV for effective protection. Protection of GBV survivors should include more than provision of safe spaces, legal services, and referral pathways. It is critical to identify survivors of violence and ensure safe ways for first responders to protect them in ways that are constructive. In traditional or rural settings, men, village chiefs or traditional leaders can help intervene and suggest safe options for survivors. 6.2.12 Define who is accountable for what aspects of prevention, protection, and prosecution, in addition to perpetrators’ accountability for their violence. Beyond those perpetrating violence, it is important to clearly define accountability at multiple levels and indicate who is responsible for what aspects of each program—and to whom they are accountable. Accountability to victims is fundamental. Accountable actors might include individuals or agencies at the state, business, NGO, or community level. 6.12.13 Require coordination/exchange between grantees to share lessons learned, challenges and successes. Some coordination/exchange among clusters was seen in the BTC, CARE￾GBV, and RISE cluster. This was initiated by the implementing partner (Resonance for BTC and RISE, and MCI for CARE-GBV) and mostly focused on logistics and grant management. Knowledge sharing and lessons learned emerged more organically or informally by the grantees and on an ad hoc basis, and would benefit from being formalized. 6.3 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPLEMENTATION 6.3.1 Build capacity for local partners to engage directly with donors. Equity and sustainability of local agencies often depends on their relationships with international donors and their ability to seek funding directly. Having opportunities to advocate for themselves is important in the short term and essential in the longer term. Efforts must be made to put local actors in leadership positions to pursue funding opportunities directly from donors. 6.3.2 Improve strategies to ensure wide awareness of and easy access to services. Findings indicated that word of mouth was a common way survivors learned about services. Future funding should be allocated to help grantees investigate the most effective ways for survivors to learn about available services (e.g., beyond word of mouth). These channels should be used to increase survivors’ awareness and ability to access the care they need. Similarly, because it is not uncommon for migrants to have difficulty navigating and freely moving in new locations, especially if they cannot leave jobsites, etc., organizations should consider different ways of delivering assistance, including the possible outreach, remote sessions, and mobile technology. 6.3.3 Monitor emerging effects and use data for adaptive management. Monitoring systems should provide emerging evidence to improve intervention models. RISE’s strong monitoring system allowed program implementers to identify and mitigate resistance from eldest sons. Local organizations should be provided the technical assistance they require to set up monitoring systems for future programming. Likewise, research and ongoing monitoring should be designed to identify accessibility, acceptability, and emerging effectiveness of service provision by gender and other influential factors, such as language, ethnicity, migration status, cultural background, education level, and socioeconomic status. 77 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT USAID.GOV 6.3.4 Promote a start-up phase for local partners to develop intervention-focused evidence from the community and integrate GBV. For future GBV funding, it will be important to ensure grant structures allow local partners adequate time, resources, and technical support to research the GBV-related needs of their community. Sufficient time should enable groups to identify and set up collaborations with other local or international groups working on GBV. Lessons can be learned from the other USAID interventions in this evaluation that demonstrated the value of “formative research” focused specifically on the intervention targets. Moreover, for partners with limited experience undertaking GBV work, they should be provided GBV-specific technical support and time to learn how to implement safe, ethical GBV prevention or survivor services, particularly if they plan to address multiple forms of abuse and include a gender-diverse target group. 6.3.5 Review and streamline administrative processes that hinder or delay adaptive implementation of activities. Administrative delays not only affect implementers but also activity participants directly. USAID should consult with former grantees to consider how to improve the efficiency of review and approval processes. Processes should be developed to respond to implementing organizations in a timely manner to ensure that activity progress doesn’t stall, and critical resources are not wasted. 6.4 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SUSTAINABILITY 6.4.1 Develop a “complex systems'' approach to implementation and obtain local buy-in and ownership from different responsible agencies. Drawing on complex systems approaches means recognizing the social and structural interactions that can influence intervention effectiveness. Groups should be encouraged to engage a broad base of government, non-governmental, and community members in their programs. Gaining wider “buy-in” and potential co-ownership of activity goals can help prevent opposition and might foster greater assistance and solidarity for women affected by GBV. Findings suggested that activities to address violence against women often benefited from gaining support from men (family members and those in positions of power), customary leaders, and youth. At the national level, government institutions and organizations can help set policy and help with the protection and accountability of stakeholders. 6.4.2 Ensure implementation plans and timelines are designed to fulfill beneficiaries’ and local groups’ expectations. Organizations should be aware that offering services or providing jobs for individuals raises expectations among community members and the staff who have been trained to implement the activities. Intervention recipients and staff should be informed clearly about the timeline, funding constraints, and the limits of what can be provided. For example, for grants like RISE specifically, funding should ensure that 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. 6.4.3 Require an exit plan for all activities that will end after the funding period and remain accountable to program participants. Organizations need to consider how to wind down any services that individuals may have come to rely on. Comprehensive exit plans should be designed to ensure that individuals are sufficiently prepared for services to end, and most importantly, ensure that individuals are not left worse off than if the service had never been offered. Whenever possible, there 78 | GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT USAID.GOV should be a planned handover of training, advocacy, and other materials to a local entity who might be able to continue the activity. 6.4.4 Prevent adverse outcomes by ensuring ethical program completion. 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 needs to assure follow-up actions would be conducted to ensure women receive land titles they had paid for—in some cases at great cost to themselves, such as taking loans. No women should ever lose money because they trusted the land titling process. 6.4.5 Develop a Theory of Change that articulates GEN-DEV’s investment causal pathways to achieve effective intervention models to guide GBV investments. The 2016 US Strategy to Prevent and Respond to GBV Globally was updated in 2022, and the Biden-Harris administration developed a first-ever United States Government’s National Strategy on Gender Equity and Equality in October 2021. In line with these goals, and the broad Theory of Change articulated in the US Strategy to Prevent and Respond to GBV, Gen-Dev should develop an actionable Theory of Change (ToC) that guides coordinated and strategically-focused investments within Gen-Dev and across USAID to reduce, prevent and respond to GBV. The ToC will benefit from a well-articulated causal pathway, including pathway outcomes and ultimate outcomes that include ‘effective’, ‘replicable’ and potentially ‘scalable’ intervention models. In this way, Gen-Dev will identify ‘what works’ for key GBV intervention areas. Guided by a well-defined ToC, the Gen-Dev team can fund aligned programming to allocate precious resources in strategic versus ad hoc or disconnected ways. Ultimately, a well-developed TOC can help GenDev invest in a limited number of strategies with clear and achievable goals. U.S. AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20523 USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 1 ANNEX A. EVALUATION STATEMENT OF WORK GENDER BASED VIOLENCE: PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION SCOPE OF WORK FINAL VERSION 1. 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 3b7 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. 2. 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 projects 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 partners. Findings USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 2 will inform recommendations for USAID’s future programming and guide future monitoring and evaluation approaches to strengthen USAID’s evidence for decision-making. 3. 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 A.1: 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. HIAS’s Shifting Power Dynamics: Engaging Men in Gender-Based Violence Reduction 3. 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) 1. Bosnia & Herzegovina 2. Botswana 3. Nigeria 4. North Macedonia 5. 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. Combatting 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 1. Colombia 2. Democratic Republic of Congo 3. Peru 4. Guatemala 5. Vietnam 6. Kenya 7. Fiji 8. Democratic Republic of Congo 9. 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 1. Lesotho 2. Global 3. Benin 4. Burundi 5. Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 3 4. EVALUATION QUESTIONS Table A.2 includes the evaluation questions and sub-questions at the portfolio, activity cluster and individual activity level. Table A.2: 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 are 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 are 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? USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 4 EVALUATION QUESTION EQ-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 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? 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? USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 5 5. 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.) 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. 6. EVALUATION TIMELINE Table A.3: Evaluation Timeline TASK JULY - SEPT OCT￾DEC JAN￾MAR APR￾JUN JUL￾SEPT 2022 2022 2023 2023 2023 Phase 3B – Evaluation Design Report Phase 4 – Portfolio and Activity Cluster Performance Evaluations & Reporting Project Document Review Finalizing instruments for KIIs, FGDs, and Surveys Data Collection Transcription, Coding and Data Analysis Phase 5 – Implementation Research Reporting Project Document Review Finalizing instruments for KIIs, FGDs, and Surveys Data Collection Transcription, Coding and Data Analysis Phase 6 – PPE Report, Evaluation Debriefing & Dissemination Report Writing Dissemination USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 6 7. 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. USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 7 ANNEX B. DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENTS PE OF USAID GBV PORTFOLIO – BETTER-TOGETHER CHALLENGE CLUSTER PROTOCOL TO INTERVIEW USAID’S ACTIVITY CLUSTER MANAGER Respondent Name: ____________________________________________________ Date: _________________________________________________________________ Start Time: ___________________________________________________________ NOTES [Red text in brackets] are interviewer instructions. 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 the Performance Evaluation of the USAID's GBV Portfolio. USAID commissioned NORC, an independent and non-partisan organization, to collect data that will inform current and future USAID-funded programming focused on GBV prevention and response. As evaluators, we maintain neutrality 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. Your participation is voluntary. If you are unable or prefer not 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. All the information you decide to share with me today will be handle confidentially. This means that only I will know the personal information of respondents, including you. We will anonymize all transcriptions and the analysis we conduct of them so that any comments or quotes NORC includes in reports or publications will not be linked to any person or household. Today’s interview is planned for 60 minutes. Do you have any questions before we get started? [ANSWER QUESTIONS] If you have any questions later, please e-mail Carlos Echeverria-Estrada, the lead of this study at echeverria-carlos@norc.org or at the phone number +1(312) 759 2658. 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, nor the implementing partners or any third party. 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? [OBTAIN CONSENT] [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? [OBTAIN CONSENT] Thank you. Before we jump in, I’d like to get to know you bit. Introduction Today we are going to discuss one of the USAID Activity Clusters, the funded activities within the Better-Together Challenge (BTC). We would like to know more about the activities USAID funded and you helped manage, its design effects in the communities, your experience managing the clusters, and lessons for future programming and sustainability at USAID. USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 8 TOPIC QUESTION 1. Relevance, Design, & Planning In our first section, I’d like to talk about how this cluster was designed and planned. Assumptions Could you comment on the elements of the theory of change for the BTC cluster? I will pull it up so that we can all see it and let us walk through it together and comment on how it worked in practice. [INTERVIEWER: Show or read aloud] - Did the underlying assumptions and reasoning prevail? - What was the capacity of the implementing partners to deliver services? - Were there availability partners and network to bring the ToC to life? - Overall, was the uptake of services well accepted or were there resistances to it? Needs Assessment and Intervention Evidence Were grantees in the activity cluster required to conduct pre-implementation assessments? Needs Assessment and Intervention Evidence What assessments were conducted, and could you comment on their usefulness and robustness? Design What USG principles and policy measures drove the choice of included interventions in the BTC cluster? 2. Cluster Co-creation, Coordination, & Planning Thank you very much for your responses so far, they are really helpful. Now we’re going to talk about how the cluster coordinated the activities and the communication flow. Coordination Could you please tell me about the management structure for the BTC activity cluster? Coordination How did the information flow from grantees up to GenDev? Coordination How does this information influence decision-making? Please, provide an example. [If necessary, probe: past re-design, future programming, adjustment to current programming]. Coordination What is your assessment of the co-creation processes undertaken between USAID and IPs? Are there any lessons learned from these experiences? Co-creation Were grantees briefed, at some point, on USAID strategies and priorities around GBV? Or the lessons learned from the BTC cluster? Integration Have you coordinated initiatives from this cluster with any other GBV efforts from USAID? If so, what types of collaboration took place and how well did they work? What did not work so well? Integration What benefits or learning emerged from that collaboration? Integration How does this activity cluster fit into the full range of USAID's GBV programs? What gendered aspects or diverse gender populations are being considered in GBV programing? What aspects are being prioritized? Are other intersections being considered? USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 9 TOPIC QUESTION Integration What are the primary features of the BTC cluster that might differ or complement the other GBV activity clusters? Please identify two or three. Reach and effectiveness How do the 4 ACs together influence the reach and effectiveness of other GBV interventions, even those not funded by USAID? 3. Target Groups and Engagement I want to thank you again for your collaboration so far. Now, let’s explore the cluster targeting and engaging important actors. Populations Could you tell me what are the most vulnerable or underserved populations who participated in the BTC programming? Populations Who do you think these activities might have missed? Why? Populations Are there certain populations that you would recommend that should have been considered in the BTC activities? Stakeholders What other stakeholders were you able to engage to accomplish the goals of BTC? Stakeholders What activities were able to effectively engage relevant local or regional stakeholders? Please, provide one or two examples. Stakeholders In contrast, what activities were less successful in engaging important local actors? Also, please provide one or two examples. 4. Effectiveness in GBV Protection, Prevention, & Accountability Thanks for your responses to these questions, we really value your insight. Now, I’d like to know about how effective this activity was. Protection Thinking about the BTC cluster, how have its grants affected access to effective services for GBV survivors? Why? Protection What approaches were most effective in increasing access to services? Which were least effective? Why? Prevention What have been the most important contributions of the BTC cluster in preventing GBV? Prevention Which activity approaches were effective in preventing GBV? Why? Accountability [Ask only if the cluster funded any strategies to combat impunity of GBV perpetrators] In your opinion which strategy implemented by the BTC cluster to stop or punish GBV perpetrators was most effective, and why? Outcomes Overall, were the outcomes stated in activity designs for this activity cluster realistic? Why? Outcomes Was the length of the grants sufficient to achieve these outcomes? Why? Outcomes Which activities were most successful in achieving the outcomes in their activity design, and which were less successful? Can you identify facilitating factors and challenges either way? Outcomes Were there any unanticipated positive or negative effects from this activity? USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 10 TOPIC QUESTION Intervention planning and design Were there particular gaps related to gender diversity? If yes, please describe. Forms of violence What are important knowledge and practice gaps in addressing specific forms of GBV? 5. Monitoring, Learning, & Adaptation Again, I really appreciate your answers, thank you. I’d like to move on to a few questions about activity monitoring and adaptation. Data How did GenDev use data collected from the BTC cluster? Data Are lessons and information from the BTC cluster ever used to inform higher level decision making across GenDev programs? Could you provide some examples of this? Expansion How have lessons from the BTC cluster affected other GBV programming? Reach and effectiveness How will you take advantage of the lessons learned or knowledge gained from the 4 ACs for future work? 6. Replicating, Adapting, Transferring & Scaling Up Thanks for this helpful information. Now I want to discuss if and how you think this activity could be replicated, adapted, transferred, or scaled up. Replicability, transferability, and adaptability Are there any interventions or approaches in the BTC cluster that you think could be replicated in or adapted to other contexts? Replicability, transferability, and adaptability Has the experience with the BTC cluster informed the potential for scale up or replicability elsewhere? Please explain. Replicability, transferability, and adaptability Are there any that you think could not be replicated or adapted? Why? Scalability Which interventions in the BTC cluster do you see as having potential for scaling up? Are there any that you think would be very costly or difficult to scale up? Why? Scalability Conversely, are there interventions that you would cut? If yes, why? 7. Sustainability Thank you. To finish, I have some additional questions regarding the sustainability of this activity. Sustainability What components or approaches in the BTC cluster ended? Why? (PROBE: funding, political willingness, cultural competency, etc.) Sustainability What strategies were absent or could have been improved to increase sustainability for those activities or approaches that ended? USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 11 TOPIC QUESTION Sustainability Are there any lessons learned for the activity cluster about sustainability in the current context and existing stakeholders? 8. Closure I don’t have any more questions. Is there anything else you would like to add to what we have discussed today? Thank you. I have learned a lot and I thank you for your participation and comments. Before leaving, do you have any questions for me? USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 12 PE OF USAID GBV PORTFOLIO – BETTER-TOGETHER CHALLENGE CLUSTER KII GUIDE WITH IP LEADS (RESONANCE, DI, HIAS, NCC, LA CASITA) AND TWO TECHNICAL ADVISORS (HIAS) Respondent Name, Position, Institution _________________________________ Date: _________________________________________________________________ Start Time: ___________________________________________________________ NOTES [Red text in brackets] are interviewer instructions. 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 [ACTIVITY NAME] activity, funded by the Office of Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment at the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). USAID commissioned NORC, an independent and non-partisan organization, to collect data 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 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. 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. All the information you decide to share with me today will be handled confidentially. This means that only I will know the personal information of respondents, including you. We will anonymize all transcriptions and the analysis we conduct of them so that any comments or quotes NORC includes in reports or publications will not be linked to any person or household. While the questions I have for us to discuss today focus on your experience with the [ACTIVITY NAME] activity, this form includes the information I just read to you, as well as a list of counseling and psychosocial support resources available to you [HAND THE PRINTED COPY TO RESPONDENT]. Today’s interview is planned for 60 minutes. Do you have any questions before we get started? [ANSWER QUESTIONS] If you have any questions later, please e-mail Carlos Echeverria-Estrada, the lead of this study at echeverria-carlos@norc.org or at the phone number +1(312) 759 2658. 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, nor the implementing partner [NAME OF ORGANIZATION] or any third party. 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? [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 tell me your name, position at [ORGANIZATION], your role in the [ACTIVITY] activity, and or how long have you worked here? USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 13 TOPIC QUESTION Introduction Today we are going to discuss the USAID funding of [ACTIVITY]. We would like to know more about the activity you helped implement, its design and management, its effects in the community, and your experience working with USAID. 1. Co-creation & Relevance Let me start with the stage prior to implementation, its design. Design Could you speak to how this activity was designed? What factors influenced this design? What priorities were established? Who was involved in these design decisions? Would you change anything about the design? Needs Assessment and Intervention Evidence What pre-implementation assessments did [ORGANIZATION] do for this activity? Were they useful? How did those help your team plan and implement the activity? Needs Assessment and Intervention Evidence Would you recommend any other kinds of research before implementing similar activities? Please, give me an example. Assumptions [ONLY IF NO TOC AVAILABLE]: Could you please tell me about your theory of change? Assumptions I have taken the time to review the activity’s theory of change and have a few follow up questions about it. According to document review, the theory of change is… [Interviewer: Read TOC] When formulating the TOC of the [ACTIVITY] activity, what were the main assumptions about? a. the ability of the organization to deliver the activities; b. who were the potential participant to use the services; c. how would the services result in the desired outcomes? d. How relevant were the assumptions? Causal Pathways According to the theory of change, the overarching causal pathways for the [ACTIVITY] activity should lead from [PROGRAM INPUTS] TO [OUTCOMES]. Upon implementation, was this TOC applicable to the [ACTIVITY] activity? Were there any caveats? Please, explain. Causal Pathways Once you started implementation did you need to adjust your TOC? If yes, what adjustments were necessary? Planning and Activity Designs If you were designing the activity again, is there anything that you would do differently? Planning and Activity Designs What are the main lessons learned from designing the [ACTIVITY] activity? Forms of Violence [Specify for each activity] What are important knowledge and practice gaps in addressing specific forms of GBV? USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 14 TOPIC QUESTION 2. Coordination & Target Groups Thank you very much for your responses so far, they are really helpful. Now, I’d like to talk about how this activity was coordinated and planned. Planning and Activity Designs Did you carry out a co-creation process with USAID to design the [ACTIVITY] activity? How did the co-creation process on activity design work for your organization? Could you identify advantages and down sides of this approach? Foundations Have you been briefed on USAID strategies and priorities around GBV? [IF NOT]: Would you be interested in such a briefing? Coordination What other activities could USAID implement to benefit IPs from collaboration? Coordination Have you or your organization participated in meetings with other IPs via USAID's GenDev? a. If so, what was the purpose of these meetings? Please, provide examples if the meetings served multiple purposes. b. What information, ideas or other benefits did you obtain from this experience(s)? Would you recommend more exchanges between IPs and USAID? Why? Or why not? Populations Could you please tell me about the populations or groups served by your activity? a. Are there any underserved or especially vulnerable groups that your activity has reached? b. If so, what are the approaches or strategies the [ACTIVITY] activity has implemented to address the needs of these groups? How effective have these strategies been? Stakeholders What other stakeholders were you able to engage to accomplish the goals of the [ACTIVITY] activity? Stakeholders What were the contributions of these additional stakeholders? Was their participation valuable? Stakeholders Do you have any lessons learned that you could share about this? 3. Effectiveness in GBV Protection, Prevention, & Accountability I want to thank you again for your collaboration so far. Now, let’s talk about the activity’s effectiveness in preventing GBV, protecting from it and, if applicable, keep perpetrators accountable. Outcomes What were the primary outcomes of the X activity? Outcomes Please describe one or two of the main activity outcomes so far. Protection Can you provide some examples of program effectiveness in providing or facilitating access to these services? Prevention Now, I would like to talk about prevention of GBV. What has been the most important contribution of the [ACTIVITY] activity to preventing GBV among Venezuelan migrants in [COMMUNITY]? Please, explain how. USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 15 TOPIC QUESTION Prevention What have been the most effective aspects of your strategies or approaches to prevent GBV in the [ACTIVITY] activity? Please, elaborate on the reasons you consider these aspects effective. Probe, if necessary: Could you give me an example? Accountability [Dependent on activity focus] How has your activity, directly or indirectly, contributed to increasing perpetrator accountability? Accountability [Dependent on activity focus] What else could the activity or future programming in a similar area do to foster further perpetrator accountability? Outcomes Were the outcomes stated in activity design realistic and achievable? Why? Outcomes Are there outcomes that you would have liked to see but were not feasible to accomplish? Why? Outcomes Was the length of the grant sufficient to achieve these outcomes? Protection-Prevention￾Accountability From your experience implementing the [ACTIVITY] activity, what are the main lessons about prevention, protection, and accountability of GBV that you could share? Now we’re going to talk about how relevant this activity was for the setting and context. 4. Implementation Thanks for your responses to these questions, we really value your insight. Now, a few points about the implementation of [ACTIVITY]. Implementation Were there specific challenges or enabling factors in implementing this activity? Please explain. Were the challenges overcome? And how? Target Participants Who were the main target individuals of this activity? Did you have any difficulty reaching them? If so, what were the difficulties? Target Participants 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? Flexibility Was there sufficient staffing to respond to local priorities? Was there flexibility to change approaches to respond to lessons and changing challenges in the local environment? 5. Monitoring & Adaptation Again, I really appreciate your answers, thank you. I’d like to move on to a few questions about activity monitoring and adaptation. Monitoring and Adaptations What was your overall strategy for activity monitoring and adapting the activities based on emerging findings? Monitoring and Adaptations Could you share some examples of how you might have changed any aspects of activities based on emerging evidence from monitoring? Monitoring and Adaptations How accessible and user friendly were the USAID monitoring tools/templates provided to you? USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 16 TOPIC QUESTION Monitoring and Adaptations Are there any lessons learned from your experience with the monitoring tools? 6. Replicating, Adapting, Transferring, & Scaling Up Thanks for this helpful information. Now I want to discuss if and how you think this activity could be replicated, adapted, transferred, or scaled up. Replicability, transferability, and adaptability What components or approaches do you think could be replicated in other communities or countries? Replicability, transferability, and adaptability What approaches, components, or tools of the [ACTIVITY] activity would need to be adapted for a different context? Replicability, transferability, and adaptability Where else would you recommend implementing this activity? Scalability If you were to scale up your activity, which components of your intervention would you focus on? Scalability Are there any that you would drop? What changes would you make? Scalability What are the main challenges for scaling the activity up in your country/region? 7. Sustainability Thank you. I have some additional questions regarding the sustainability of this activity. Sustainability Do you think that this activity is sustainable moving forward? Sustainability What practices or activities have taken place to support the sustainability of X activity? Sustainability [IF ACTIVITY ENDED]: What strategies could have enhanced sustainability of the activity? Sustainability What have been the primary facilitators and barriers to the sustainability of the X activity? 8. Lessons Learned Thanks again. I’m almost finished with my questions; I have some final things I want to ask about lessons learned from this activity. Prevention Based on implementing the [ACTIVITY] activity, what are the main lessons learned about prevention that you could share? BTC Cluster Has your organization changed its approach to migrants after experience with the activity? Please explain? BTC Cluster Are there any lessons learned on how to engage host community members? Please, provide an example. USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 17 TOPIC QUESTION 9. Closure I don’t have any more questions. Is there anything else you would like to add to what we have discussed today? Thank you. I have learned a lot and I thank you for your participation and comments. Before leaving, do you have any questions for me? Implementation Evaluation Items [ONLY FOR T&T] 9A. IMPLEMENTATION EVALUATION As you know, we are also assessing the implementation of this grant. I have a few additional questions on that regard. BTC IE Please, identify the main factors that determined the re-design of the activity. BTC IE How did your organization identify the needs of the target population after redefining it? BTC IE Have any members of the host communities supported or expressed enthusiasm for this work? Please, describe. BTC IE Are there any migrant groups or any other social agreements in the implementation area that could promote these efforts in the future? Please, explain. Intervention Implementation Was your activity able to reach the participants that it was designed to reach? How did you identify changemakers in the org/community for X activity? Intervention Implementation Were there any challenges in reaching the right people to influence change? Intervention Implementation Who else should be engaged and was not in the X activity? Mechanisms What do you think were the most effective components of your activity? Please, identify one or two. Why? USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 18 PE OF USAID GBV PORTFOLIO – BETTER-TOGETHER CHALLENGE CLUSTER FGD TOPIC GUIDE WITH GRANTEE STAFF (LA CASITA) Respondent Names, Roles, Institutions: _________________________________ Date: _________________________________________________________________ Start Time: ___________________________________________________________ NOTES [Red text in brackets] are interviewer instructions. TOPIC QUESTION INTRO / ACKNOWLEDGE: Hello. My name is ______ and I work for NORC at the University of Chicago. I’ll be facilitating today’s discussion. I will let my colleague(s) introduce themselves. I want to thank you for coming and participating in this group discussion, which is part of an evaluation of the Women Exercising Leadership for Cohesion and Meaningful Empowerment (WELCOME) Activity, funded by the Office of Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment at the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). USAID commissioned NORC, an independent and non-partisan organization, to collect data in several countries, including Guyana 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 neutral on all the issues we will be talking about, and we’re just here to learn about your perspectives and experiences. That means none you don’t need to worry about making us happy or hurting our feelings. Please be candid in your comments and answers. However, this is a safe space to all perspectives and opinions as long as those are respectful of each other’s. Feel free to respond to the topics I will be bringing up and to comment on what others say. While you don’t have to wait for me to call you, let’s keep only one person speaking at a time. Your participation is voluntary. If you are unable to answer a question, you may wait to the next topic or stop your participation at any time; there will be no repercussions for this not this would change your relationship to NCC, NORC, or USAID. However, your comments will be very useful in helping in informing future USAID￾funded programming focused on GBV prevention and protection. NORC will handle the information you decide to share with me confidentially. This means that, at the organization, only I will know your personal information as participants. But that does not mean that any of the participants today may repeat anything of what is said today. Please, consider that when deciding what you would feel comfortable sharing with me. NORC will anonymize all transcriptions so that any comments or quotes NORC includes in reports or publications will not be linked to any person or organization. Today’s discussion is planned for 50 minutes. Do you have any questions before we get started? [ANSWER QUESTIONS] If you have any questions later, please e-mail Carlos Echeverria-Estrada, the lead of this study at echeverria-carlos@norc.org or at the phone number +1(312) 759 2658. With your permission, I’d like to record today’s discussion. This will enable us to go back and substantiate our notes. The recording will never be shared with USAID, nor NCC or any third party. 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? [GET EVERYONE’S CONFIRMATION AROUND THE ROOM] [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. A FEW GROUND RULES FOR TODAY’S DISCUSSION: USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 19 TOPIC QUESTION • If you need to get up for any reason, you may feel free to do so and don’t need to ask for permission. When you return, please wait until the next question to jump back in. • Since our meeting is only 45 minutes, and we have a lot of ground to cover, we kindly ask that you cover 1-2 points in your responses to give others time to respond as well. This is meant to be a free-flowing discussion, but for ease of facilitation, please raise your hand if you would like to join the discussion. • Say what you believe, even if it’s not what everyone thinks. There are no bad answers, just different opinions, and we want to hear them all. If you agree with what has been said, please say that. Otherwise, please share your points. • From time to time, I may have to interrupt you to finish on time. I’m not trying to be rude, but there’s a lot to cover in a limited amount of time, so I apologize in advance if that happens. Now, let’s get started. Before we jump in, I’d like to get to know you bit. Could you please give tell me your name, position at La Casita, your role in the WELCOME program, and or how long have you worked here? Introduction We would like to know more about the activity you helped or are helping to implement, its design and management, its effects in the community, and your experience working with Democracy International and Resonance. 1. Design & Implementation In our first section, I will ask you to discuss how the activity contributes to GBV Protection and Prevention Design Who could you speak to how this activity was designed? What factors influenced this design? What priorities were established? Who was involved in these design decisions? Planning and Activity Designs If you were designing the activity again, is there anything that you would do differently? Implementation During implementation, were there any specific challenges or factors that facilitated its success? Please explain. Implementation [LIST CHALLENGES AND DISCUSS EACH OF THEM]: Were the challenges overcome? And how? Target Participants Who were the main target individuals of this activity? Did you have any difficulty reaching them? If so, what were the difficulties? Target Participants Have there been any particular sub-groups of target individuals that are difficult to reach? How do you think these barriers could be mitigated in the future? Staffing Has there been sufficient staffing to respond to local priorities? Flexibility Has there been flexibility to change approaches to respond to lessons and changing challenges in the local environment? USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 20 TOPIC QUESTION 2. Monitoring We are aware that USAID requires their grantees to monitor their activities. I would like to talk about the monitoring system in place. Monitoring and Adaptations What was your overall strategy for activity monitoring and adapting the activities based on emerging findings? Monitoring and Adaptations [TO THE MONITORING STAFF] How accessible were the USAID monitoring tools/templates provided to you? Monitoring and Adaptations [TO THE MONITORING STAFF] How user-friendly were the USAID monitoring tools/templates provided to you? Monitoring and Adaptations Are there any lessons learned from your experience with the monitoring tools? 3. Results I appreciate everyone’s contributions so far. Now, I would like to hear about the results of the activity including outcomes and adaptation. Outcomes Please describe one or two main outcomes of the WELCOME program so far. Facilitating factors Can you describe any facilitating factors to accomplish these outcomes? Protection Who would like to share with me how does the WELCOME activity has provided Venezuelan GBV survivors with access to services that protect them? Protection What specific protection components or approaches of the WELCOME activity were the most effective? Prevention Now, I would like to talk about prevention of GBV. What has been the most important contribution of the BTG4VM activity to preventing GBV among Venezuelan migrants in the areas of implementation in Guyana? 6. Lessons Learned Thank you again to everyone for your participation. I have just a one final point about the future of this activity and what lessons were learned. Sustainability Do you think that this activity is sustainable moving forward? Why? Are there any plans to find new funds? Closure I don’t have any more topics to discuss. Does anyone have anything else you would like to add to what we have discussed today? Thank you. I have learned a lot and I thank you for your participation and comments. Before leaving, do you have any questions for me? USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 21 PE OF USAID GBV PORTFOLIO – BETTER-TOGETHER CHALLENGE CLUSTER FGD TOPIC GUIDE WITH GRANTEE STAFF (NCC) Respondent Names, Roles, Institutions: _________________________________ Date: _________________________________________________________________ Start Time: ___________________________________________________________ NOTES [Red text in brackets] are interviewer instructions. TOPIC QUESTION INTRO / ACKNOWLEDGE: Hello. My name is ______ and I work for NORC at the University of Chicago. I’ll be facilitating today’s discussion. I will let my colleague(s) introduce themselves. I want to thank you for coming and participating in this group discussion, which is part of an evaluation of the Bridging the Gap for Venezuelan Migrants (BTG4VM) Activity, funded by the Office of Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment at the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). USAID commissioned NORC, an independent and non-partisan organization, to collect data in several countries, including Guyana 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 neutral on all the issues we will be talking about, and we’re just here to learn about your perspectives and experiences. That means none you don’t need to worry about making us happy or hurting our feelings. Please be candid in your comments and answers. However, this is a safe space to all perspectives and opinions as long as those are respectful of each other’s. Feel free to respond to the topics I will be bringing up and to comment on what others say. While you don’t have to wait for me to call you, let’s keep only one person speaking at a time. Your participation is voluntary. If you are unable to answer a question, you may wait to the next topic or stop your participation at any time; there will be no repercussions for this not this would change your relationship to NCC, NORC, or USAID. However, your comments will be very useful in helping in informing future USAID￾funded programming focused on GBV prevention and protection. NORC will handle the information you decide to share with me confidentially. This means that, at the organization, only I will know your personal information as participants. But that does not mean that any of the participants today may repeat anything of what is said today. Please, consider that when deciding what you would feel comfortable sharing with me. NORC will anonymize all transcriptions so that any comments or quotes NORC includes in reports or publications will not be linked to any person or organization. Today’s discussion is planned for 50 minutes. Do you have any questions before we get started? [ANSWER QUESTIONS] If you have any questions later, please e-mail Carlos Echeverria-Estrada, the lead of this study at echeverria-carlos@norc.org or at the phone number +1(312) 759 2658. With your permission, I’d like to record today’s discussion. This will enable us to go back and substantiate our notes. The recording will never be shared with USAID, nor NCC or any third party. 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? [GET EVERYONE’S CONFIRMATION AROUND THE ROOM] [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. A FEW GROUND RULES FOR TODAY’S DISCUSSION: USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 22 TOPIC QUESTION • If you need to get up for any reason, you may feel free to do so and don’t need to ask for permission. When you return, please wait until the next question to jump back in. • Since our meeting is only 45 minutes, and we have a lot of ground to cover, we kindly ask that you cover 1-2 points in your responses to give others time to respond as well. This is meant to be a free-flowing discussion, but for ease of facilitation, please raise your hand if you would like to join the discussion. • Say what you believe, even if it’s not what everyone thinks. There are no bad answers, just different opinions, and we want to hear them all. If you agree with what has been said, please say that. Otherwise, please share your points. • From time to time, I may have to interrupt you to finish on time. I’m not trying to be rude, but there’s a lot to cover in a limited amount of time, so I apologize in advance if that happens. Now, let’s get started. Before we jump in, I’d like to get to know you bit. Could you please give tell me your name, position at NCC, your role in the BTG4VM activity, and or how long have you worked here? Introduction Today we are discussing the USAID funding of BTG4VM. We would like to know more about the activity you helped or are helping to implement, its design and management, its effects in the community, and your experience working with USAID. 1. Protection & Prevention In our first section, I will ask you to discuss how the activity contributes to GBV Protection and Prevention Protection Who would like to share with me how does the BTG4VM activity has provided or facilitated access for Venezuelan GBV survivors to services that protect them? Protection Which specific activity component or approach of the BTG4VM activity was most effective? Prevention Now, I would like to talk about prevention of GBV. What has been the most important contribution of the BTG4VM activity to preventing GBV among Venezuelan migrants in the areas of implementation in Guyana? 2. Design & Implementation Thank you for all of your responses so far, they’re really valuable to us. Now, I’d like the group to think about the design and implementation of this activity. Design Who could you speak to how this activity was designed? What factors influenced this design? What priorities were established? Who was involved in these design decisions? Planning and Activity Designs If you were designing the activity again, is there anything that you would do differently? Implementation During implementation, were there any specific challenges or factors that facilitated its success? Please explain. Implementation [LIST CHALLENGES AND DISCUSS EACH OF THEM]: Were the challenges overcome? And how? USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 23 TOPIC QUESTION Target Participants Who were the main target individuals of this activity? Did you have any difficulty reaching them? If so, what were the difficulties? Target Participants Have there been any particular sub-groups of target individuals that are difficult to reach? How do you think these barriers could be mitigated in the future? Staffing Has there been sufficient staffing to respond to local priorities? Flexibility Has there been flexibility to change approaches to respond to lessons and changing challenges in the local environment? 3. Monitoring We are aware that USAID requires their grantees to monitor their activities. I would like to talk about the monitoring system in place. Monitoring and Adaptations What was your overall strategy for activity monitoring and adapting the activities based on emerging findings? Monitoring and Adaptations [TO THE MONITORING STAFF] How accessible were the USAID monitoring tools/templates provided to you? Monitoring and Adaptations [TO THE MONITORING STAFF] How user-friendly were the USAID monitoring tools/templates provided to you? Monitoring and Adaptations Are there any lessons learned from your experience with the monitoring tools? 4. Results I appreciate everyone’s contributions so far. Now, I would like to hear about the results of the activity including outcomes and adaptation. Outcomes Please describe one or two of the main activity outcomes so far. Facilitating factors Can you describe any facilitating factors to accomplish these outcomes? 5. Lessons Learned Thank you again to everyone for your participation. I have just a one final point about the future of this activity and what lessons were learned. Sustainability Do you think that this activity is sustainable moving forward? Closure I don’t have any more topics to discuss. Does anyone have anything else you would like to add to what we have discussed today? Thank you. I have learned a lot and I thank you for your participation and comments. Before leaving, do you have any questions for me? USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 24 PE OF USAID GBV PORTFOLIO PROTOCOL TO FOCUS GROUPS DISCUSSION WITH PARTNERS OF PROJECT PARTICIPANTS (HIAS-SPD) Respondent Name: ____________________________________________________ Date: _________________________________________________________________ Start Time: _______________________________________________________ NOTES [Red text in brackets] are interviewer instructions. TOPIC QUESTION INTRO / ACKNOWLEDGE: Hello. My name is ______ and I work for NORC at the University of Chicago. I’ll be facilitating today’s discussion. I want to thank you for coming and participating in this exercise, which is part of an evaluation of the “Shifting the Power Dynamics: Engaging Men in Gender-Based Violence Reduction” Activity, funded by the Office of Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment at the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). I understand most of you participated in the inter-gender dialogues of this Activity. NORC was contracted as an external, independent organization to collect data that will inform current and future USAID-funded projects focused on preventing and responding to gender-based violence. While we do a lot of work with USAID, I do not work for USAID. NORC is completely neutral on all the issues we will be talking about, and we’re just here to learn about your experiences. That means none you don’t need to worry about making us happy or hurting our feelings. Please be candid in your comments and answers. This is a safe space to all perspectives and opinions as long as those are respectful of each other’s. Feel free to respond to the topics I will be bringing up and to comment on what others say. While you don’t have to wait for me to call you, let’s keep only one person speaking at a time. INFORMED CONSENT: Your participation is voluntary. If you are unable to answer a question, you may wait to the next topic or stop your participation at any time; there will be no repercussions for this not this would change your relationship to HIAS, NORC, or USAID. However, your comments will be very useful in helping in informing future USAID￾funded programming focused on GBV prevention and protection. NORC will handle the information you decide to share with me confidentially. This means that, at the organization, only I will know your personal information as participants. But that does not mean that any of the participants today may repeat anything of what is said today. Please, consider that when deciding what you would feel comfortable sharing with me. NORC will anonymize all transcriptions so that any comments or quotes NORC includes in reports or publications will not be linked to any person or organization. Today’s discussion is planned for 50 minutes. Do you have any questions before we get started? [ANSWER QUESTIONS] If you have any questions later, please e-mail Carlos Echeverria-Estrada, the lead of this study at echeverria-carlos@norc.org or at the phone number +1(312) 759 2658. If any of you had further questions about your rights as participant, please contact the University of Panama’s Bioethics Committee (CBUP) at comitebioetica.invup@up.ca.pa or dialing to (+507) 523 5769. Do you agree to participate? [GET EVERYONE’S CONSENT AROUND THE ROOM] CONSENT TO RECORD: With your permission, I’d like to record today’s discussion. This will enable us to go back and substantiate our notes. The recording will never be shared with USAID, nor HIAS or any third party. 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? [GET EVERYONE’S CONFIRMATION AROUND THE ROOM] [START RECORDING] USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 25 TOPIC QUESTION 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. A FEW GROUND RULES FOR TODAY’S DISCUSSION: If you need to get up for any reason, you may feel free to do so and don’t need to ask for permission. When you return, please wait until the next question to jump back in. Our meeting is only 50 minutes long and we have a lot of ground to cover. Thus, we kindly ask that you cover 1- 2 points in your responses to give others time to respond as well. This is meant to be a free-flowing discussion, but for ease of facilitation, please raise your hand if you would like to join the discussion. Say what you believe, even if it’s not what everyone thinks. There are no bad answers, just different opinions, and we want to hear them all. If you agree with what has been said, please say that. Otherwise, please share your points. From time to time, I may have to interrupt you to finish on time. I don’t mean to be rude, but there’s a lot to cover in a limited amount of time, so I apologize in advance if that happens. Now, let’s get started. Before we jump in, I’d like to get to know you bit. Could each of you please give tell me your name, where are you from, for how long have you been living in Panama, and what is your occupation here? I. Introduction Today, I would like to talk about the “Shifting the Power Dynamics: Engaging Men in Gender-Based Violence Reduction” program, implemented by HIAS and funded by USAID. We would like to know more about the activity, the services it provided, its role in the engaging with the community of Venezuelan migrants and members of the communities that host them, as well as your experience and your partners’ experience with it. I will refer to it as the HIAS workshops henceforth. Awareness First off, I would like to know how you learned about the HIAS workshops. Participation What activities did you participate in with the HIAS workshops? [INTERVIEWER: If not coming spontaneously, explore Inter-gender dialogues] Participation Did your spouse participate? [IF YES]: What did you hear from your spouse about these workshops? Did your spouse share anything they learned from the workshops? Did your spouse do anything differently after these workshops? 2. Relevance and Beneficiaries Thank you for your responses. Now, I would like to know your perspectives about the HIAS program in detail. Target Participants Do you know of anyone, man or woman, who wanted to participate in the HIAS workshops but couldn’t? If so, were they invited to join? [IF YES]: What prevented those people from participating? Target Participants [INTERVIEWER: Only if there are Inter-Gender Dialogue participants in the room]: When you decided to participate in the Inter-Gender Dialogues, how did you decide whether or not to participate? Did you have any concerns about participating? Was there anything specific that you hoped would be offered? Stakeholders During your participation in the HIAS workshops, did the HIAS staff ask you about aspects of the program that could be improved? [IF YES]: Do you believe the HIAS staff listened to your opinions about the workshops? What makes you believe that? Please explain USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 26 TOPIC QUESTION Needs Assessment and Intervention Evidence Do you think the HIAS workshops responded to the needs and priorities of male participants? [IF YES]: Could you give me an example? [IF NOT]: Can you tell us what things you would have wanted them to discuss? What about your needs and priorities as a female participant? How well did the HIAS program talk about things you thought were important? Please, help me understand that with an example. 3. Activity Implementation We appreciate your thoughts so far. Now, my questions will talk about the actual implementation or hands-on practice of the HIAS workshops. Implementation What activities do you think the HIAS program did very well? Which ones could be improved? Which ones did you think were most important or relevant for you or your community? Could you help me understand the reason you think that? Needs Assessment and Intervention Evidence Are there any activities that you wish had been included in the HIAS workshops but were not? Assumptions Do you think that the HIAS workshops were responsive to the values and traditions of the community where you live? Please, could you explain the reason you think that? Please, give me an example. Assumptions [INTERVIEWER: Only if Target Participants was exclusive or incomplete] Do you have any recommendations on how the HIAS workshops could have reached Venezuelan migrants and their partners better? Assumptions Let’s talk now about challenges to the HIAS workshops. What have been the main challenges or difficulties in your community, to administer these workshops or reach other Venezuelan migrants in the area? Staffing and content [INTERVIEWER: Only if there are Inter-Gender Dialogue participants in the room]: Do you think that HIAS had enough staff to conduct the dialogues? [INTERVIEWER: Only if there are Inter-Gender Dialogue participants in the room]: • Did you like the facilitator? Tell me how she conducted the sessions • Did she talk about things that were important or relevant to you? • Were the sessions interesting or were you bored? • Did you think she knew her subject well? • Did you think she was respectful of all participants? 4. Activity Outcomes We are close to the end of the interview. Thank you so much for the comments made so far. All of them are very valuable. I want to talk briefly about the goals of the program. Outcomes What’s your understanding of the HIAS workshops´ goals? Outcomes To what extent did the HIAS workshops accomplish these results? [INTERVIEWER: DISCUSS EACH OUTCOME MENTIONED BY RESPONDENT] USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 27 TOPIC QUESTION Protection What is the most important contribution of the HIAS workshops to protect Venezuelan migrants from gender-based violence? [INTERVIEWER: If not coming spontaneously, probe]: In addressing sexual violence, inter-partner violence, or forced early marriages? Prevention In your opinion, have the HIAS workshops helped to prevent acts of gender-based violence in your community? If yes, please explain. [INTERVIEWER: If not coming spontaneously, probe into sexual violence, inter-partner violence or forced early marriages] Prevention What other things could the HIAS workshops have offered to your community to prevent gender-based violence? Accountability Do you think that participating in the HIAS workshop increases men’s awareness about the responsibility of gender-based violence perpetrators in these incidents? Could you help me understand with an example? 5. Community Needs & Sustainability You have provided with great information. Thank you so much! I have a few last questions about your community needs and the future of the program. Design In your opinion, what problems related to gender-based violence should be prioritized in your community? Design Do you think the HIAS workshops prioritized the most important problems? [IF NOT]: Please, elaborate on it and give me an example. Design [IF YES]: Were the resources the program invested adequate to address that problem? Sustainability Considering your experience with the Inter-Gender Dialogues and your knowledge of your partner’s experience with the HIAS workshops, do you think that the sessions will have a long-lasting effect? Do you think these types of sessions will be important for your community in the future? Please, explain which ones and what is the reason you think so. Sustainability Last question, what should your community do to continue having those services? Closure I don’t have any more topics to discuss. Does anyone have anything else you would like to add to what we have discussed today? Thank you. I have learned a lot and I thank you for your participation and comments. Before leaving, do you have any questions for me? USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 28 PROTOCOL TO INTERVIEW PROJECT PARTICIPANTS (BTG4VM) Respondent code/name# ______________________________________________ Date: _________________________________________________________________ Start Time: ___________________________________________________________ Continued (if applicable) Date: _________________________________________________________________ Start Time: _______________________________________________________ NOTES [Red text in brackets] are interviewer instructions. Blue text in highlight indicate when a survey question or set of response options will need to be adjusted for country-specific/activity-specific use. TOPIC QUESTION INTRO / ACKNOWLEDGE: Hello. My name is ______ and am a researcher working for NORC at the University of Chicago. I appreciate you being here and sharing your thoughts and experiences with me. Today you’ll be participating in an interview as part of an evaluation of the Bridging the Gap for Venezuelan Migrants (BTG4VM) program for the Office of Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment at the United States Agency for International Development, USAID. USAID contracted NORC as an external, independent organization to collect data that will inform USAID on their current and future funded projects, focused on preventing and responding to gender-based violence. While we do a lot of work with USAID, I do not work for USAID. NORC is completely neutral on all the issues we will be talking about and we’re just here to learn about your experiences. That means you don’t need to worry about making us happy or hurting our feelings. I am just a facilitator of this interview, and I am here to listen to you and keep the conversation moving. INFORMED CONSENT: Our interview is planned for 60 minutes. Your participation in this study is voluntary. If you are unable or prefer not 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 informing current and future USAID-funded projects 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. If you have questions, please e-mail Carlos Echeverria-Estrada, the director for this research at +1(312) 759 2658 or at echeverria￾carlos@norc.org. If you have any other concerns about your rights as a research participant that have not been answered by the investigators, you may contact [NAME] at the Ministry of Health’s Institutional Review Board (IRB) and Ethics Committee at XXX-XXXX or echeverria-carlos@norc.org. Do you agree to participate? [RECEIVE CONSENT OR WITHDRAWAL, HAND A PRINTED COPY OF THE INFORMED CONSENT TO PARTICIPANT] CONSENT TO RECORD: Thank you very much for your participation. We would like to record this interview with your permission. This will enable us to go back and substantiate our notes. The recording and notes will never be shared with USAID or anyone outside of this research team. Once we’ve compared the recording and notes, we will destroy the recording. [START RECORDER] Do you agree to participate and to have this session recorded? [OBTAIN VERBAL CONSENT AND AVOID RECORDING ANY NAMES] USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 29 TOPIC QUESTION I. Introduction Today, I would like to talk about the Bridging the Gap for Venezuelan Migrants (BTG4VM) program and your participation in it. I will call this program “BTG4VM” hereafter. I would like to learn more about the activity, the services it provides, your experience with it, and its influence on the role you play in your community, among both migrants and hosts. Awareness First, I would like to know how you learned about the BTG4VM program? Outreach When you were invited to participate, did you have any concerns or questions about participating? What type of concerns or questions did you have? Participation Could you let me know which of the following services you received from the BTG4VM program? [If necessary, probe the following: • Referral pathways? • Legal assistance for protection orders? • Legal assistance for police report? • Legal assistance for custody and other family related matters? • Hotline services? • Psychosocial support services? • Housing shelters and safe spaces? • Economic empowerment services (including professional skills training and entrepreneurial opportunities)? • Immigration documentation support services • Healthcare services (including sexual and reproductive health rights)? • Document translation? • Provide other information (migration, translation services, and local transportation assistance for school age children)? • Other?] 2. Activity Implementation Thank you for sharing that with me. Now, I would like to ask about your experience with each of the services you received from BTG4VM more in detail. Is that OK? [INTERVIEWER: Keep the list of services received at hand and administer the rest of this section for each of them.] Service delivery Was it easy to access the USED SERVICE? If not, how could it have been easier to access? Cultural competency Do you think that the USED SERVICE you received from BTG4VM was respectful of and responsive to the values and traditions of your community? Could you explain the reason you think that? Please, give me an example. What about the values and traditions of your host community? Did the USED SERVICE you received from BTG4VM consider those too? Please, give me an example. USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 30 TOPIC QUESTION Service target groups Do you think that there are other people in your community who did not receive the USED SERVICE from BTG4VM and should have received it? If so, what prevented those people from receiving the service? [NOTE: if they don’t know or cannot recall, ask]: ‘Can you think of some ways that BTG4VM might be able to help other female Venezuelan migrants like you?’ Staffing What do you think about the USED SERVICE staff? [PROBE:] a. What did you like about their work? b. What could they have done better to help you? c. Did they listen to you to understand your problem? d. What could they have done better to help you? Was the staff member who worked with you knowledgeable of the USED SERVICE you received? Service uptake and suitability Did the USED SERVICE you received from BTG4VM program meet the needs you had at the time you approached the program? [INTERVIEWER: If ‘don’t know’ or ‘cannot recall’, probe on what the needs were.] Service quality In your opinion, what type of things could BTG4VM do to improve the delivery of the USED SERVICE that you received? Could you give me an example of this? 3. Responsiveness and Adaptability Thank you for sharing that with me. Now, I would like to ask about your experience with these services and BTG4VM regarding the way they use feedback and experience with migrants. Is that OK? [INTERVIEWER: The following two sections refer to summative questions, ask them to refer to the activity itself, not isolated services, to the extent possible] Responsiveness During your participation in BTG4VM, did program staff ask you about aspects of the service that could improve? If yes, what did you suggest? If not, what would you have suggested? Monitoring and adaptations [IF YES to above]: Do you believe the program staff listened to your opinions about the services you received from the program? What makes you believe that? Monitoring and adaptations [IF YES to above]: Do you think BTG4VM program was able to adapt the USED SERVICE when it was working well to address your needs? Could you give an example, please? [IF NO to above]: Could you share with me why you think that way? Please give me an example. Staffing Do you think that BTG4VM had enough staff to provide the services you received? Needs Assessment and Intervention Evidence Are there any things you wish had been included in the USED SERVICES service but were not? Please, explain. 4. Program Results I appreciate your thoughts so far. Now, my questions will talk about the results of your participation in BTG4VM. [INTERVIEWER: The following two sections refer to summative questions, ask them to refer to the activity itself, not isolated services, to the extent possible] USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 31 TOPIC QUESTION Perception If someone asked you, what would you tell your friends about BTG4VM? Do you think you’d want to participate in BTG4VM again? Satisfaction Which of the services you received were the most useful for you? Which were least useful? Please, share with me an example of these experiences. Outcomes What were the main changes that happen after your participation in the services you received from BTG4VM? Were these changes good for you? Did your interaction with your community of migrants change after you received the USED SERVICE from BTG4VM? Could you help me understand and share an example, please? What about your interaction with the host community of Panamanians? Did your relationships with them changes too? If so, could you give me an example? [INTERVIEWER: if they don’t know or cannot recall ask “Can you give me some examples of services you can remember?”] Needs Assessment and Intervention Evidence Are there any things you wish the BTG4VM or its services could have accomplished but did not? Please explain. Others’ perception Did you hear other people talking about BTG4VM? If yes, what were they saying? 5. Community Needs & Sustainability You have provided with great information. Thank you so much! I have a few last questions about your community needs and the future of the program. Design In your opinion, what problems related to gender-based violence still should be prioritized in your community? Outcome When thinking about BTG4VM, can you think of anything that changed for anyone in your community because of the it? Sustainability Considering your experience with the services that BTG4VM provided, does your community, including your host community, still need any of these services in the future? Please, explain which ones and what is the reason you think so. Sustainability Last question, what should this community do to continue having those services? I don’t have any more topics to discuss. I have learned a lot and I thank you for your participation and comments. Before leaving, is there anything else you think we should talk about that we have not done so far? Again, I appreciate the time, experiences, and perspective you shared with me today. USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 32 PROTOCOL TO INTERVIEW PROJECT PARTICIPANTS (WELCOME) Respondent code/name# _______________________________________________ Date: _________________________________________________________________ Start Time: ___________________________________________________________ Continued (if applicable) Date: _________________________________________________________________ Start Time: _______________________________________________________ NOTES [Red text in brackets] are interviewer instructions. Blue text in highlight indicate when a survey question or set of response options will need to be adjusted for country-specific/activity-specific use. TOPIC QUESTION INTRO / ACKNOWLEDGE: Hello. My name is ______ and am a researcher working for NORC at the University of Chicago. I appreciate you being here and sharing your thoughts and experiences with me. Today you’ll be participating in an interview as part of an evaluation of the Women Exercising Leadership for Cohesion and Meaningful Empowerment (WELCOME) program for the Office of Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment at the United States Agency for International Development, USAID. USAID contracted NORC as an external, independent organization to collect data that will inform USAID on their current and future funded projects, focused on preventing and responding to gender-based violence. While we do a lot of work with USAID, I do not work for USAID. NORC is completely neutral on all the issues we will be talking about and we’re just here to learn about your experiences. That means you don’t need to worry about making us happy or hurting our feelings. I am just a facilitator of this interview, and I am here to listen to you and keep the conversation moving. INFORMED CONSENT: Our interview is planned for 60 minutes. Your participation in this study is voluntary. If you are unable or prefer not 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 informing current and future USAID-funded projects 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. If you have questions, please e-mail Carlos Echeverria-Estrada, the director for this research at +1(312) 759 2658 or at echeverria￾carlos@norc.org. 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, IRB Director at NORC at the University of Chicago, at +1 (312) 759-4014 or irb@norc.org. Do you agree to participate? [RECEIVE CONSENT OR WITHDRAWAL, HAND A PRINTED COPY OF THE INFORMED CONSENT TO PARTICIPANT] CONSENT TO RECORD: Thank you very much for your participation. We would like to record this interview with your permission. This will enable us to go back and substantiate our notes. The recording and notes will never be shared with USAID or anyone outside of this research team. Once we’ve compared the recording and notes, we will destroy the recording. [START RECORDER] Do you agree to participate and to have this session recorded? [OBTAIN VERBAL CONSENT AND AVOID RECORDING ANY NAMES] USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 33 TOPIC QUESTION I. Introduction Today, I would like to talk about the Women Exercising Leadership for Cohesion and Meaningful Empowerment (WELCOME) program and your participation in it. I will call this program “WELCOME” hereafter. I would like to learn more about the activity, the services it provides, your experience with it, and its influence on the role you play in your community, among both migrants and hosts. Awareness First, I would like to know how you learned about the WELCOME program? Outreach When you were invited to participate, did you have any concerns or questions about participating? What type of concerns or questions did you have? Participation Could you let me know which of the following services you received from the WELCOME program? [If necessary, probe the following: • Counseling and other psychosocial services • Health care • Legal services • Services for refugees and asylum seekers • Services for victims of human trafficking • Emergency shelter services • Youth services • Other?] 2. Activity Implementation Thank you for sharing that with me. Now, I would like to ask about your experience with each of the services you received from WELCOME more in detail. Is that OK? [INTERVIEWER: Keep the list of services received at hand and administer the rest of this section for each of them.] Service delivery Was it easy to access the USED SERVICE? If not, how could it have been easier to access? Cultural competency Do you think that the USED SERVICE you received from WELCOME was respectful of and responsive to the values and traditions of your community? Could you explain the reason you think that? Please, give me an example. What about the values and traditions of your host community? Did the USED SERVICE you received from WELCOME consider those too? Please, give me an example. Service target groups Do you think that there are other people in your community who did not receive the USED SERVICE from WELCOME and should have received it? If so, what prevented those people from receiving the service? [NOTE: if they don’t know or cannot recall, ask]: ‘Can you think of some ways that WELCOME might be able to help other female Venezuelan migrants like you?’ USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 34 TOPIC QUESTION Staffing What do you think about the USED SERVICE staff? [PROBE:] e. What did you like about their work? f. What could they have done better to help you? g. Did they listen to you to understand your problem? h. What could they have done better to help you? Was the staff member who worked with you knowledgeable of the USED SERVICE you received? Service uptake and suitability Did the USED SERVICE you received from WELCOME program meet the needs you had at the time you approached the program? [INTERVIEWER: If ‘don’t know’ or ‘cannot recall’, probe on what the needs were.] Service quality In your opinion, what type of things could WELCOME do to improve the delivery of the USED SERVICE that you received? Could you give me an example of this? 3. Responsiveness and Adaptability Thank you for sharing that with me. Now, I would like to ask about your experience with these services and WELCOME regarding the way they use feedback and experience with migrants. Is that OK? [INTERVIEWER: The following two sections refer to summative questions, ask them to refer to the activity itself, not isolated services, to the extent possible] Responsiveness During your participation in WELCOME, did program staff ask you about aspects of the service that could improve? If yes, what did you suggest? If not, what would you have suggested? Monitoring and adaptations [IF YES to above]: Do you believe the program staff listened to your opinions about the services you received from the program? What makes you believe that? Monitoring and adaptations [IF YES to above]: Do you think WELCOME program was able to adapt the USED SERVICE when it was working well to address your needs? Could you give an example, please? [IF NO to above]: Could you share with me why you think that way? Please give me an example. Staffing Do you think that WELCOME had enough staff to provide the services you received? Needs Assessment and Intervention Evidence Are there any things you wish had been included in the USED SERVICES service but were not? Please, explain. 4. Program Results I appreciate your thoughts so far. Now, my questions will talk about the results of your participation in WELCOME. [INTERVIEWER: The following two sections refer to summative questions, ask them to refer to the activity itself, not isolated services, to the extent possible] Perception If someone asked you, what would you tell your friends about WELCOME? Do you think you’d want to participate in WELCOME again? USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 35 TOPIC QUESTION Satisfaction Which of the services you received were the most useful for you? Which were least useful? Please, share with me an example of these experiences. Outcomes What were the main changes that happen after your participation in the services you received from WELCOME? Were these changes good for you? Did your interaction with your community of migrants change after you received the USED SERVICE from WELCOME? Could you help me understand and share an example, please? What about your interaction with the host community of Panamanians? Did your relationships with them changes too? If so, could you give me an example? [INTERVIEWER: if they don’t know or cannot recall ask “Can you give me some examples of services you can remember?”] Needs Assessment and Intervention Evidence Are there any things you wish the WELCOME or its services could have accomplished but did not? Please explain. Others’ perception Did you hear other people talking about WELCOME? If yes, what were they saying? 5. Community Needs & Sustainability You have provided with great information. Thank you so much! I have a few last questions about your community needs and the future of the program. Design In your opinion, what problems related to gender-based violence still should be prioritized in your community? Outcome When thinking about WELCOME, can you think of anything that changed for anyone in your community because of the it? Sustainability Considering your experience with the services that WELCOME provided, does your community, including your host community, still need any of these services in the future? Please, explain which ones and what is the reason you think so. Sustainability Last question, what should this community do to continue having those services? I don’t have any more topics to discuss. I have learned a lot and I thank you for your participation and comments. Before leaving, is there anything else you think we should talk about that we have not done so far? Again, I appreciate the time, experiences, and perspective you shared with me today. USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 36 WOMEN EXERCISING LEADERSHIP FOR COHESION AND MEANINGFUL EMPOWERMENT (WELCOME) OPERATIONAL STAFF SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE NOTES This instrument be administered to the service providers for WELCOME in Trinidad and Tobago. [Red text in brackets] are survey programmer instructions Blue text in highlight indicate when a survey question or set of response options will need to be adjusted for country-specific/activity-specific use. 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 activities funded by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). One of the activity clusters is the Better Together Challenge (BTC), a USAID-funded initiative to crowdsource, fund, and scale innovative solutions from anywhere in the world to improve the lives of Venezuelan migrants and communities hosting them in Latin America and the Caribbean. We are inviting you to participate in this evaluation because of your role in implementing the activities under “Women Exercising Leadership for Cohesion and Meaningful Empowerment (WELCOME)”, a BTC activity. 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, service provision, implementation, uptake, and monitoring. The online survey will take approximately 15-20 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 confirm you want to continue without providing an answer; your responses are very valuable to this study and for improving future grant opportunities. USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 37 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. 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 name, 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 Carlos Echeverria-Estrada at echeverria-carlos@norc.org or by telephone at +1(612) 876 6339. 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 SCREENER RespType. What institution(s) or organization(s) are you affiliated with in implementing the Women Exercising Leadership for Cohesion and Meaningful Empowerment (WELCOME) program? You may select up to three. 1. La Casita Hispanic Cultural Center 2. Rape Crisis Society of T&T 3. Families in Action 4. National Family Services 5. Living Water Community 6. Family Planning Association of Trinidad & Tobago 7. TTVSOLNET (TTV Solidarity Network) 8. International Organization for Migration 9. United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 38 10. Counter Trafficking Unit (T&T Police Service) 11. Institute of Gender and Development Studies (IGDS) at University of the West Indies COMMUNITY SERVICES To start, we will ask you a few questions about the availability of services in the community. Service_avail. From the following list, please indicate what services are available for Venezuelan migrants who are GBV survivors in your community, including those that you or your organization provides. [select all that apply] 1. Referral pathways 2. Legal assistance for protection orders 3. Legal assistance for police report 4. Legal assistance for custody and other family related matters 5. Hotline services 6. Counseling services 7. Psychosocial support services 8. Emergency shelter services 9. Economic empowerment services (including professional skills training and entrepreneurial opportunities) 10. Immigration documentation support services 11. Healthcare services (including sexual and reproductive health rights) 12. Services for refugees and asylum seekers 13. Services for victims of human trafficking 14. Youth services 15. Document translation 16. Provide other information (migration, translation services, and local transportation assistance for school age children) 17. Other [Specify] 18. Don’t know 19. No response Service_use. [For each service selected in service_avail] To your knowledge, have Venezuelan migrants who are survivors of GBV used or received this service: [selected service]? 1. Yes 2. No 3. Don’t know 4. No response Thinking about Venezuelan migrants who have received GBV survivor support services… Service_access. To your knowledge, to what extent are they satisfied with their overall access to services in the community? 1. Very satisfied 2. Satisfied 3. Dissatisfied 4. Very dissatisfied 5. Don’t know 6. No response USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 39 Service_effect. To what extent are they satisfied with the overall effectiveness of these community services? 7. Very satisfied 8. Satisfied 9. Dissatisfied 10. Very dissatisfied 11. Don’t know 12. No response Learn_satisfaction. [If service_effect = 5 or 6] To what extent do you agree that learning about GBV survivors’ satisfaction with the services provided is important for improving these services? 1. Strongly agree 2. Agree 3. Neutral (neither agree nor disagree) 4. Disagree 5. Strongly disagree 6. Don’t know 7. No response WELCOME NETWORK COMPONENTS Thank you. Now, we will ask you some questions specifically about the WELCOME program and the network of services provided. Service_provided. From the following list, please select the services you or your organization(s) provided in partnership with the WELCOME program. [Select all that apply] Direct services to GBV survivors 1. Counseling and other psychosocial services 2. Health care 3. Legal services 4. Services for refugees and asylum seekers 5. Services for victims of human trafficking 6. Emergency shelter services 7. Youth services Advocate Recruitment and Training 1. Recruiting Advocates 2. Advocate training – Information on GBV and its context in Trinidad and Tobago 3. Advocate training – Survivor and Advocate safety protocols 4. Advocate training – Building capacity to provide psychological first aid 5. Advocate training – Information on migrant rights 6. Advocate training – Survivor referral information and processes 7. Advocate training – Self-care 8. Providing ongoing training of Advocates Partnerships & Organizational Capacity Building 1. Developing referral pathways USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 40 2. Matching Advocates with Survivors 3. Sharing information and resources on social media 4. Additional Training of Trainers 5. Knowledge and expertise on data collection tools 6. Other [Specify:] 7. Don’t know 8. No response Resource_needed. What are the top three resources, services, or programs that the migrant community in your city or neighborhood need most to prevent or combat GBV? We are interested specifically in identifying gaps in community service provision, which include lack of a particular service or inadequate provision of a service. [Select up to three] 1. Referral pathways 2. Legal assistance for protection orders 3. Legal assistance for police report 4. Legal assistance for custody and other family related matters 5. Hotline services 6. Counseling services 7. Psychosocial support services 8. Emergency shelter services 9. Economic empowerment services (including professional skills training and entrepreneurial opportunities) 10. Immigration documentation support services 11. Healthcare services (including sexual and reproductive health rights) 12. Services for refugees and asylum seekers 13. Services for victims of human trafficking 14. Youth services 15. Document translation 16. Provide other information (migration, translation services, and local transportation assistance for school age children) 17. Other [Specify] 18. Don’t know 19. No response [for each selected service] Service_provision. To what extent did the WELCOME program and its network of partnering organizations provide this service via advocate work or referral: [selected service]? 1. To a Great Extent 2. Somewhat 3. Very Little 4. Not at All 5. Don’t know 6. No response [for each selected service that was provided to some extent] Service_use. To what extent did GBV survivors use this service: [selected service]? 1. To a Great Extent 2. Somewhat USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 41 3. Very Little 4. Not at All 5. Don’t know 6. No response [for each selected service that was used to some extent] Service_satisfy. In your opinion, to what extent were GBV survivors satisfied with this service: [selected service]? 1. Very satisfied 2. Satisfied 3. Dissatisfied 4. Very dissatisfied 5. Don’t know 6. No response TARGET GROUPS Now, we are going to ask you some questions about the groups of people your organization(s) serves. Group. Please, select the groups with which your organization(s) works [select multiple] Venezuelan migrants: girls and female teenagers (up to age 17) o Venezuelan migrants: boys and male teenagers (up to age 17) o Venezuelan migrants: women o Venezuelan migrants: men o Venezuelan migrants: female members of the LGBTQIA+ community o Venezuelan migrants: male members of the LGBTQIA+ community o Venezuelan migrants: non-binary or non-gender conforming individuals o Trinidadian or Tobagonian nationals: women o Trinidadian or Tobagonian nationals: men o Trinidadian or Tobagonian nationals: female members of the LGBTQIA+ community o Trinidadian or Tobagonian nationals: male members of the LGBTQIA+ community o Trinidadian or Tobagonian nationals: non-binary or non-gender conforming individuals o Individuals recruited and trained to be Advocates o La Casita employees included in all training activities o Other [Specify] o Don’t know o No response [LOOP FOR EACH GROUP SELECTED]: Group_needs. In what ways the WELCOME program addressed [Group’s] needs? [Select multiple] 1. Providing referral services 2. Counseling and other psychosocial services 3. Health care USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 42 4. Legal services 5. Services for refugees and asylum seekers 6. Services for victims of human trafficking 7. Emergency shelter services 8. Youth services 9. Promoting services to prevent or protect from GBV 10. Other [Specify] 11. Don’t know 12. No response Group_approach. To what extent has your organization(s) used a tailored approach in delivering its services to [Group]? 1. To a Great Extent 2. Somewhat 3. Very Little 4. Not at All 5. Don’t know 6. No response Group_resources. To what extent has your organization had to invest additional resources since 2020 to satisfy [Group]’s needs? 1. To a Great Extent 2. Somewhat 3. Very Little 4. Not at All 5. Don’t know 6. No response [If 1 or 2 selected]: Group_resources_specify. Please, indicate the additional resources that were invested [Select multiple] 1. Additional staffing 2. Additional funding 3. Additional activities 4. Additional planning 5. Longer implementation time 6. Additional community outreach 7. Other [Specify] 8. Don’t know [exclusive] 9. No response [exclusive] Thank you for your responses. We would like to ask you a few more questions about these groups’ access to and participation in GBV services. As a reminder, the groups mentioned are: [pipe in Groups response options]. Group_access. Did all groups have equal access to the services your organization(s) provided through WELCOME program, or were there differences in the access across groups? USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 43 1. They were even 2. There were differences 3. Don’t know 4. No response [IF DIFFERENCES:] Group_access_dif. If there were differences in access, please name which groups did not participate as much. (open-ended) Group_outcomes. Did the services your organization(s) provided through WELCOME program impact all target groups equally, or were there differences in the results across groups? 1. They were even 2. There were differences 3. Don’t know 4. No response [IF DIFFERENCES:] Group_outcomes_dif. Please briefly describe the differences in results of your WELCOME program related between the target groups (open-ended) Group_participation. Are there people in your community who you think should have received the WELCOME services but did not? 1. Yes 2. No 3. Don’t know 4. No response [If Yes]: Please specify the group (open ended) Other_providers. Are there organizations in your community that you think should have provided services for the WELCOME network but did not? 1. Yes 2. No 3. Don’t know 4. No response [If Yes]: Please specify who (open ended) CONTEXT APPROPRIATENESS [Transition] Thank you very much for your responses this far. We’re also interested in learning about your views on how the WELCOME program fit the community and any challenges encountered during implementation. Activity_fit. To what extent did the services provided as part of the WELCOME program fit well in your community? 1. To a Great Extent 2. Somewhat 3. Very Little USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 44 4. Not at All 5. Don’t know 6. No response Adaptation. To what extent do you agree with this statement: The WELCOME program and its service network staff adapted to the context of my community? 1. Strongly agree 2. Agree 3. Neutral (neither agree nor disagree) 4. Disagree 5. Strongly disagree 6. Don’t know 7. No response Adaptation_explain_y. [If “Strongly Agree” or “Agree”]. Please, briefly elaborate on your answer above to describe how the staff adapted to the context of your community. (open￾ended) Adaptation_explain_n. [If “Disagree” or “Strongly Disagree”]. Please, briefly elaborate on your answer above to describe how the staff failed to adapt to the context of your community. (open-ended) Challenge_context. What were the three main challenges in implementing services in partnership with the WELCOME program? [select up to three]? 1. Limited transportation/mobility of Survivors 2. Difficulty of Survivors to commit to schedules 3. Scheduling conflicts with Advocate training 4. Small number of trained Advocates 5. Advocates and Survivors not living in the same general locations 6. Language barriers between Advocates and Survivors 7. Lack of capacity to support male survivors 8. COVID-19 limiting service availability 9. Lack of standardized processes 10. Slow pace of information gathering 11. Difficulty in documenting if the beneficiary received referral service 12. Organizational barriers with the main grantee 13. No challenges [exclusive] 14. Other [Specify:] 15. Don’t know [exclusive] 16. No response [exclusive] GBV PREVENTION [Transition] Now, we are going to ask about your community values and the WELCOME program’s role in GBV prevention. Prevent_conflict. Are GBV prevention efforts in conflict with any values or traditions in your community? USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 45 1. Yes 2. No 3. Don’t Know 4. No response [If Yes]: Prevent_conflict_sp What community values or traditions are most in conflict with GBV prevention efforts? (open-ended) Prevent_gbv. To what extent has the WELCOME program helped prevent GBV in your community? 1. No effect 2. Minor effect 3. Moderate effect 4. Major effect 5. Don’t know 6. No response Groups_change. In your community, what are the top three groups that have the most power in influencing change to promote GBV protection and prevention? [select up to three] 1. Funders/donors 2. National authorities 3. Local authorities 4. Neighbor associations 5. Immigrant groups or associations 6. Survivor groups or associations 7. Non-profit organizations 8. Operational staff 9. Other, specify 10. Don’t know 11. No response Prevent_effect. Rate the effectiveness of WELCOME network services providers in preventing GBV. 1. Counseling and other psychosocial services 2. Health care 3. Legal services 4. Services for refugees and asylum seekers 5. Services for victims of human trafficking 6. Emergency shelter services 7. Youth services [For each component above, rate:] a. No effect b. Minor effect c. Moderate effect d. Major effect e. Don’t know f. No response USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 46 Service_impact. Overall, from the following list, please identify the component of the WELCOME program that led to the most positive impact on the migrant community? 1. Advocate training and matching 2. Establishing a trusted referral network 3. Counseling and other psychosocial services 4. Health care 5. Legal services 6. Services for refugees and asylum seekers 7. Services for victims of human trafficking 8. Emergency shelter services 9. Youth services 10. Sharing information and resources on social media 11. Don’t know 12. No response MONITORING SYSTEM [Transition] We are nearing the end of the survey. Now, we would like to ask you a few questions about your familiarity with the monitoring system implemented by the WELCOME program. Monitor_familiar. In your work with the WELCOME program, have you or your team members been asked by Democracy International to share data on the beneficiaries that use your organization(s)’s services? 1. Yes 2. No [Skip block] 3. Don’t know [Skip block] 4. No response [Skip block] [IF YES]: Monitordata_type. Please, indicate what kinds of data you or your team members have shared with Democracy International for the WELCOME program. Select all that apply. [select multiple] 1. Number of program participants 2. Demographics of project participants (gender, age, nationality, address, etc.) 3. Diagnosis of project user needs (immigration regularization, mental health counseling, housing support, food insecurity, etc.) 4. Monetary investment per project participant 5. Number of appointments/contacts with project participant 6. Changes in income outcomes/results over time 7. Changes in education outcomes/results over time 8. Changes in migration status over time 9. Changes in housing status over time 10. Participant self-reported self-efficacy 11. Participant self-reported feeling of support 12. Participant self-reported access to service 13. Other [Specify] 14. Don’t know [exclusive] 15. No response [exclusive] USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 47 Data_understand. To what extent do you consider the data requests from Democracy International clear? 1. To a Great Extent 2. Somewhat 3. Very Little 4. Not at All 5. Don’t know 6. No response Data_accessible. Did you or your team have access to the grantee monitoring system that uses the data your organization(s) provided? 1. Yes 2. No [skip to ‘Monitor_freq’] 3. Don’t know [skip to ‘Monitor_freq’] 4. No response [skip to ‘Monitor_freq’] [IF YES] Monitor_practical. To what extent do you consider the system practical in terms of entering the data? 1. To a Great Extent 2. Somewhat 3. Very Little 4. Not at All 5. Don’t know 6. No response Monitor_effective. To what extent do you consider the system useful to extract information to tailor your organization’s services to beneficiary needs? 1. To a Great Extent 2. Somewhat 3. Very Little 4. Not at All 5. Don’t know 6. No response Monitor_freq. Did the management of the WELCOME program use these data of your activity to adapt the activity? 1. Yes 2. No [Skip block] 3. Don’t know [Skip block] 4. No response [Skip block] [IF YES] Please, provide an example of such adaptations (open ended) USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 48 SUSTAINABILITY Thank you so much for the answers you have provided so far. To finish our questions about the WELCOME program, we are interested in your thoughts about the current and future implementation. [Loop for each service marked in ‘Service_provided”] Sustain_current. What is the current status of this service: [service]? 1. We continue providing [service] with WELCOME program 2. We suspended [service] with the WELCOME program 3. We refer the WELCOME program beneficiaries to another service provider for this service 4. Other (please, specify: ) 5. Don’t know 6. Refuse [If ‘Sustain_current’ = 1] Sustain_sources_open. Please, indicate the source of funding for this service: [open-ended] Sustain_likelihood. In your opinion, what is the likelihood that your organization(s) will continue to provide service for the next five years? 1. Very likely 2. Likely 3. Neutral (neither likely nor unlikely) 4. Unlikely 5. Very unlikely 6. Don’t know 7. No response Sustain_desire_comp. Which of the WELCOME components you would like to see continue in your organization/community after this activity has ended? [Select multiple] 1. Advocate training and matching 2. Establishing a trusted referral network 3. Counseling and other psychosocial services 4. Health care 5. Legal services 6. Services for refugees and asylum seekers 7. Services for victims of human trafficking 8. Emergency shelter services 9. Youth services 10. Sharing information and resources on social media 11. None 12. Don’t Know 13. No response [FOR EACH YES:] Sustain_resource. What do you think your organization/community needs to do to make sure this activity continues? (open-ended response) USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 49 Scalability. Which activities of the WELCOME program do you think could increase their coverage (scale up) in Trinidad and Tobago? [Select multiple] Advocate training and matching Establishing a trusted referral network Sharing information and resources on social media Health care Legal services Services for refugees and asylum seekers Services for victims of human trafficking Emergency shelter services Youth services Sharing information and resources on social media None [exclusive] Don’t Know [exclusive] 1. No response Replicability. Which activities of the WELCOME program do you think could be implemented in other communities in Trinidad and Tobago? [Select multiple] 1. Advocate training and matching 2. Establishing a trusted referral network 3. Sharing information and resources on social media 4. Health care 5. Legal services 6. Services for refugees and asylum seekers 7. Services for victims of human trafficking 8. Emergency shelter services 9. Youth services 10. Sharing information and resources on social media 11. None [exclusive] 12. Don’t Know [exclusive] 13. No response Replicability_where. Where in Trinidad and Tobago should activity be replicated? 1. Couva–Tabaquite–Talparo 2. Diego Martin 3. Mayaro–Rio Claro 4. Penal–Debe 5. Princes Town 6. San Juan–Laventille 7. Sangre Grande 8. Siparia 9. Tunapuna–Piarco 10. Don’t know USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 50 DEMOGRAPHICS We appreciate your invaluable insights. Before letting you go, we’d like to ask the following questions for statistical purposes. Remember that your answers are confidential and we will use the information in the following section to analyze trends and present aggregate results. Dem_gender. What is your gender? 1. Man 2. Woman 3. Other, specify [open-ended] 4. Don’t know 5. No response Dem_dob. About how old are you? 1. 18-24 2. 25-34 3. 35-44 4. 45-54 5. 55-64 6. 65-74 7. 75+ 8. Prefer not to say Dem_lang. Which languages are you capable of speaking fluently? (Check all that apply.) 1. English 2. Trinidad English 3. Spanish 4. French Creole 5. Hindi 6. Other [Specify] 7. Prefer not to say Dem_edu. What is the highest degree or level of education you have completed? 1. Never attended school 2. Some primary school 3. Complete primary school 4. Some secondary school 5. Complete secondary school 6. Some higher education 7. Complete higher education 8. Advanced degree 9. Technical school 10. Prefer not to say [For each organization the respondent is affiliated with] RespType1.a. What is your role (title) in that [organization]? [open-ended] RespType1.c. How many years have you worked with your [organization]? 1. Less than one year 2. One to three years 3. Four to six years USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 51 4. Seven or more years 5. Don’t know 6. No response Dem_region. Where does [organization] work in Trinidad and Tobago? 1. Couva–Tabaquite–Talparo 2. Diego Martin 3. Mayaro–Rio Claro 4. Penal–Debe 5. Princes Town 6. San Juan–Laventille 7. Sangre Grande 8. Siparia 9. Tunapuna–Piarco 10. Prefer not to say RespType1.b Overall, at what level is your current position? 1. Entry-level or early career 2. Mid-career 3. Senior 4. Don’t know 5. No response End of Survey Message: Close. You have now completed the survey. Thank you for your participation. USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 52 BRIDGING THE GAP FOR VENEZUELAN MIGRANTS (BTG4VM) (BETTER TOGETHER CHALLENGE) OPERATIONAL STAFF SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE NOTES This instrument be administered to the service providers for BTG4VM in Guyana. [Red text in brackets] are interviewer instructions. Blue text in highlight indicate when a survey question or set of response options will need to be adjusted for country-specific/activity-specific use. 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 activities funded by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). One of the activity clusters is the Better Together Challenge (BTC), a USAID-funded initiative to crowdsource, fund, and scale innovative solutions from anywhere in the world to improve the lives of Venezuelan migrants and communities hosting them in Latin America and the Caribbean. We are inviting you to participate in this evaluation because of your role in implementing the activities under “Bridging the Gap for Venezuelan Migrants (BTG4VM)”, a BTC activity. 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, service provision, implementation, uptake, and monitoring. The online survey will take approximately 30 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 confirm you want to continue without providing an answer; your responses are very valuable to this study and for improving future grant opportunities. USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 53 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. 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 name, 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 Carlos Echeverria-Estrada at echeverria-carlos@norc.org or by telephone at +1(612) 876 6339. If you have any other concerns about your rights as a research participant that have not been answered by the investigators, you may contact Dr. Reeta Gobin with the Guyana Ministry of Health’s Institutional Review Board (IRB) and Ethics Committee at 592-226-1224 or guyanamohirb@gmail.com. Consent. Do you agree to participate in this survey? 1. Yes 2. No SCREENER RespType. What institution(s) or organization(s) are you affiliated with? You may select up to three. 1. NCC 2. International Organisation for Migrants 3. Catholic Charities Organisation Guyana -Migrant Support Services 4. Food for the Poor 5. Guyana Responsible Parenthood Association 6. Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society 7. Help and Shelter 8. Hope Foundation 9. Ministry of Human Serivces & Social Security (Sexual Offences & Domestic Violence Policy Unit) 10. United Nations High Commission for Refugees USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 54 11. United Nations Population Fund 12. Voices Gy COMMUNITY SERVICES To start, we will ask you a few questions about the availability of services in the community. Service_avail. From the following list, please indicate what services are available in your community for Venezuelan migrants who are GBV survivors. These may include services that you or your organization(s) provides. [select all that apply] 1. Referral pathways 2. Legal assistance for protection orders 3. Legal assistance for police report 4. Legal assistance for custody and other family related matters 5. Hotline services 6. Psychosocial support services 7. Housing shelters and safe spaces 8. Economic empowerment services (including professional skills training and entrepreneurial opportunities) 9. Immigration documentation support services 10. Healthcare services (including sexual and reproductive health rights) 11. Document translation 12. Provide other information (migration, translation services, and local transportation assistance for school age children) 13. Other [Specify] 14. Don’t know 15. No response Service_use. [For each service selected in service_avail] To your knowledge, have Venezuelan migrants who are survivors of GBV used or received this service: [selected service]? 1. Yes 2. No 3. Don’t know 4. No response Thinking about Venezuelan migrants who have received GBV survivor support services… Service_access. To your knowledge, to what extent are they satisfied with their overall access to services in the community? 1. Very satisfied 2. Satisfied 3. Dissatisfied 4. Very dissatisfied 5. Don’t know 6. No response USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 55 Service_effect. To what extent are they satisfied with the overall effectiveness of these community services? 1. Very satisfied 2. Satisfied 3. Dissatisfied 4. Very dissatisfied 5. Don’t know 6. No response Learn_satisfaction. [If service_effect = 5 or 6] To what extent do you agree that learning about GBV survivors’ satisfaction with the services provided is important for improving these services? 1. Strongly agree 2. Agree 3. Neutral (neither agree nor disagree) 4. Disagree 5. Strongly disagree 6. Don’t know 7. No response BTG4VM NETWORK COMPONENTS Thank you. Now, we will ask you some questions specifically about the BTG4VM program and the network of services provided. Service_provided. From the following list, please select the services you or your organization(s) provided in partnership with the BTG4VM program. [select multiple] 1. Referral pathways 2. Legal assistance for protection orders 3. Legal assistance for police report 4. Legal assistance for custody and other family related matters 5. Hotline services 6. Psychosocial support services 7. Housing shelters and safe spaces 8. Economic empowerment services (including professional skills training and entrepreneurial opportunities) 9. Immigration documentation support services 10. Healthcare services (including sexual and reproductive health rights) 11. Document translation 12. Provide other information (migration, translation services, and local transportation assistance for school age children) 13. Financial support 14. Other [Specify] 15. Don’t know [Exclusive] 16. No response [Exclusive] USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 56 Resource_needed. What are the top three resources, services, or programs that the migrant community in your city or neighborhood need most to prevent or combat GBV? We are interested specifically in identifying gaps in community service provision, which include lack of a particular service or inadequate provision of a service. [Select up to three] 1. Referral pathways 2. Legal assistance for protection orders 3. Legal assistance for police report 4. Legal assistance for custody and other family related matters 5. Institutional accompaniment 6. Hotline services 7. Psychosocial support services 8. Housing shelters and safe spaces 9. Economic empowerment services (including professional skills training and entrepreneurial opportunities) 10. Immigration documentation support services 11. Healthcare services (including sexual and reproductive health rights) 12. Document translation 13. Provide other information (migration, translation services, and local transportation assistance for school age children) 14. Other [Specify] 15. Don’t know [Exclusive] 16. No response [Exclusive] [LOOP FOR EACH SELECTED SERVICE] Service_provision. To what extent did the BTG4VM program and its network of partnering organizations provide this service: [selected service]? 1. To a Great Extent 2. Somewhat 3. Very Little 4. Not at All 5. Don’t know 6. No response [If selected service was provided “To a Great Extent” or “Somewhat”] Service_use. To what extent did GBV survivors use this service: [selected service]? 1. To a Great Extent 2. Somewhat 3. Very Little 4. Not at All 5. Don’t know 6. No response [If selected service was used “To a Great Extent” or “Somewhat”] Service_satisfy. In your opinion, to what extent were GBV survivors satisfied with this service: [selected service]? USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 57 1. Very satisfied 2. Somewhat satisfied 3. Somewhat dissatisfied 4. Very dissatisfied 5. Don’t know 6. No response TARGET GROUPS Now, we are going to ask you some questions about the groups of people your organization(s) serves. Group. Please, select the groups with which your organization(s) works [select multiple] • Venezuelan migrants: girls and female teenagers (up to age 17) • Venezuelan migrants: boys and male teenagers (up to age 17) • Venezuelan migrants: women • Venezuelan migrants: men • Venezuelan migrants: female members of the LGBTQIA+ community • Venezuelan migrants: male members of the LGBTQIA+ community • Venezuelan migrants: non-binary or non-gender conforming individuals • Guyanese nationals: women • Guyanese nationals: men • Guyanese nationals: female members of the LGBTQIA+ community • Guyanese nationals: male members of the LGBTQIA+ community • Guyanese nationals: non-binary or non-gender conforming individuals • Other [Specify] • Don’t know [exclusive] • No response [exclusive] [LOOP FOR EACH GROUP SELECTED]: Group_needs. In what ways has the BTG4VM program addressed [Group’s] needs? [Select multiple] 1. Providing referral services 2. Providing psychosocial support 3. Providing legal support 4. Providing safe housing 5. Promoting awareness of Xenophobia 6. Promoting services to prevent or protect from GBV 7. Other [Specify] 8. Don’t know [exclusive] 9. No response [exclusive] Group_approach. To what extent has your organization(s) used a tailored approach in delivering its services to [Group]? 1. To a Great Extent 2. Somewhat 3. Very Little 4. Not at All USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 58 5. Don’t know 6. No response Group_resources. To what extent has your organization(s) had to invest additional resources since 2020 to satisfy [Group]’s needs as GBV survivors? 1. To a Great Extent 2. Somewhat 3. Very Little 4. Not at All 5. Don’t know 6. No response [If 1 or 2 selected]: Group_resources_sp. Please, indicate the additional resources that were invested [Select multiple] 1. Additional staffing 2. Additional funding 3. Additional activities 4. Additional planning 5. Longer implementation time 6. Additional community outreach 7. Other [Specify] 8. Don’t know [exclusive] 9. No response [exclusive] Thank you for your responses. We would like to ask you a few more questions about these groups’ access to and participation in GBV services. As a reminder, the groups mentioned are: [pipe in Groups response options]. Group_access. Did all groups have equal access to the services your organization(s) provided through BTG4VM program, or were there differences in the access across groups? 1. They were even 2. There were differences 3. Don’t know 4. No response [IF DIFFERENCES:] Group_access_dif. If there were differences in access, please name which groups did not participate as much. (open-ended) Group_outcomes. Did the services your organization(s) provided through BTG4VM program impact all target groups equally, or were there differences in the results across groups? 1. They were even 2. There were differences 3. Don’t know 4. No response USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 59 [IF DIFFERENCES:] Group_outcomes_dif. Please briefly describe the differences in results of your BTG4VM program related between the target groups (open-ended) Group_participation. Are there people in your community who you think should have received the BTG4VM services but did not? 1. Yes 2. No 3. Don’t know 4. No response [If Yes]: Please specify the group (open ended) Other_providers. Are there organizations in your community that you think should have provided services for the BTG4VM network but did not? 1. Yes 2. No 3. Don’t know 4. No response [If Yes]: Please specify who (open ended) CONTEXT APPROPRIATENESS [Transition] Thank you very much for your responses this far. We’re also interested in learning about your views on how the BTG4VM program fit the community and any challenges encountered during implementation. Activity_fit. To what extent did the services provided as part of the BTG4VM program fit well in your community? 1. To a Great Extent 2. Somewhat 3. Very Little 4. Not at All 5. Don’t know 6. No response Adaptation. To what extent do you agree with this statement: The BTG4VM program and its service network staff adapted to the context of my community. 1. Strongly agree 2. Agree 3. Neutral (neither agree nor disagree) 4. Disagree 5. Strongly disagree 6. Don’t know 7. No response Adaptation_explain_y. [If “Strongly Agree” or “Agree”]. Please, briefly elaborate on your answer above to describe how the staff adapted to the context of your community. (open-ended) USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 60 Adaptation_explain_n. [If “Disagree” or “Strongly Disagree”]. Please, briefly elaborate on your answer above to describe how the staff failed to adapt to the context of your community. (open-ended) Challenge_context. What were the three main challenges in implementing services in partnership with the BTG4VM program? [select up to three] 1. Knowledge gaps in on what resources/services the Ministry of Human Services and Social Security was willing to offer clients 2. Slow pace of information gathering 3. Referral organizations under-resourced 4. Difficulty in documenting if the beneficiary received referral service 5. Unexpected rise in transportation costs 6. Budgeting the level of effort for the lawyer and psychologist 7. Documentation barriers for migrants to receive COVID-19 vaccines and enter public spaces 8. Language barriers 9. Organizational barriers with the main grantee 10. Buy-in from stakeholders 11. No challenges [exclusive] 12. Other [Specify] 13. Don’t know [exclusive] 14. No response [exclusive] GBV PREVENTION AND RESULTS [Transition] Now, we are going to ask about your community values and the BTG4VM program’s role in GBV prevention. Prevent_conflict. Are GBV prevention efforts in conflict with any values or traditions in your community? 1. Yes 2. No 3. Don’t Know 4. No response [If Yes]: Prevent_conflict_sp What community values or traditions are most in conflict with GBV prevention efforts? (open-ended) Prevent_gbv. To what extent has the BTG4VM program helped prevent GBV in your community? 1. No effect 2. Minor effect 3. Moderate effect 4. Major effect 5. Don’t know 6. No response Group_change. In your community, what are the top three groups that have the most power in influencing change to promote GBV protection and prevention? [select up to three] USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 61 1. Funders/donors 2. National authorities 3. Local authorities 4. Neighbor associations 5. Immigrant groups or associations 6. Survivor groups or associations 7. Non-profit organizations 8. Operational staff 9. Other, [Specify] 10. Don’t know [exclusive] 11. No response [exclusive] Prevent_effect. Rate the effectiveness of BTG4VM program components in preventing GBV. 1. Create linkages to health and social services through a strengthened National GBV referral pathway, including updating the National GBV Referral Directory and designing National GBV Referral pathway 2. Development and implementation of a One-Stop-Shop model for GBV services, including legal support, psychosocial support, and safe housing 3. A radio serial drama to strengthen solidarity between migrant and host communities 4. Social Media campaign to increase awareness of Xenophobia, GBV Services and Alternative Masculinities 5. Radio and television Public Service Announcements to increase awareness of Xenophobia, GBV Services and Alternative Masculinities [For each component above, rate:] a. No effect b. Minor effect c. Moderate effect d. Major effect e. Don’t know f. No response Service_impact. Overall, from the following list, please identify the component of the BTG4VM program that led to the most positive impact on the migrant community? 1. Create linkages to health and social services through a strengthened National GBV referral pathway, including updating the National GBV Referral Directory and designing National GBV Referral pathway 2. Development and implementation of a One-Stop-Shop model for GBV services, including legal support, psychosocial support, and safe housing 3. A radio serial drama to strengthen solidarity between migrant and host communities 4. Social Media campaign to increase awareness of Xenophobia, GBV Services and Alternative Masculinities 5. Radio and television Public Service Announcements to increase awareness of Xenophobia, GBV Services and Alternative Masculinities 6. Don’t know 7. No response USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 62 MONITORING SYSTEM [Transition] We are nearing the end of the survey. Now, we would like to ask you a few questions about your familiarity with the monitoring system implemented by the BTG4VM program. Monitor_familiar. In your work with the BTG4VM program, have you or your team members been asked by NCC to share data on the beneficiaries that use your organization’s services? 1. Yes 2. No [Skip block] 3. Don’t know [Skip block] 4. No response [Skip block] [IF YES]: Monitordata_type. Please, indicate what kinds of data you or your team members have shared with NCC for the BTG4VM program. Select all that apply. [select multiple] 1. Number of project participants 2. Demographics of project participants (gender, age, nationality, address, etc.) 3. Diagnosis of project user needs (immigration regularization, mental health counseling, housing support, food insecurity, etc.) 4. Monetary investment per project participant 5. Number of appointments/contacts with project participant 6. Changes in income outcomes/results over time 7. Changes in education outcomes/results over time 8. Changes in migration status over time 9. Changes in housing status over time 10. Other [Specify] 11. Don’t know [exclusive] 12. No response [exclusive] Data_understand. To what extent do you consider the data requests from NCC clear? 1. To a Great Extent 2. Somewhat 3. Very Little 4. Not at All 5. Don’t know 6. No response Data_accessible. Did you or your team have access to the grantee monitoring system that uses the data your organization(s) provided? 1. Yes 2. No [skip to ‘Monitor_freq’] 3. Don’t know [skip to ‘Monitor_freq’] 4. No response [skip to ‘Monitor_freq’] USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 63 Monitor_practical. To what extent do you consider the system practical in terms of entering the data? 1. To a Great Extent 2. Somewhat 3. Very Little 4. Not at All 5. Don’t know 6. No response Monitor_effective. To what extent do you consider the system useful to extract information to tailor your organization’s services to beneficiary needs? 1. To a Great Extent 2. Somewhat 3. Very Little 4. Not at All 5. Don’t know 6. No response Monitor_adapt. Did the management of the BTG4VM program use these data from your organization adapt the program activity? 1. Yes 2. No [Skip block] 3. Don’t know [Skip block] 4. No response [Skip block] [IF YES] Please, provide an example of such adaptations (open ended) SUSTAINABILITY AND REPLICABILITY Thank you so much for the answers you have provided so far. To finish our questions about the BTG4VM program, we are interested in your thoughts about the current and future implementation. [Loop for each service marked in ‘Service_provided”] Sustain_current. What is the current status of this service: [service]? 1. We continue providing [service] with the BTG4VM program 2. We suspended [service]with the BTG4VM program 3. We refer the BTG4VM program beneficiaries to another service provider for this service 4. Other (please, specify: ) 5. Don’t know 6. Refuse [If ‘Sustain_current’ = 1] Sustain_sources_open. Please, indicate the source of funding for this service: [open￾ended] USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 64 Sustain_likelihood. In your opinion, what is the likelihood that your organization(s) will continue to provide [service] for the next five years? 1. Very likely 2. Likely 3. Unlikely 4. Very unlikely 5. Don’t know 6. No response Sustain_desire_comp. Which BTG4VM components would you like to see continue in your community after this activity has ended?. [Select multiple] 1. Create linkages to health and social services through a strengthened National GBV referral pathway, including updating the National GBV Referral Directory and designing National GBV Referral pathway 2. Development and implementation of a One-Stop-Shop model for GBV services, including legal support, psychosocial support, and safe housing 3. A radio serial drama to strengthen solidarity between migrant and host communities 4. Social Media campaign to increase awareness of Xenophobia, GBV Services and Alternative Masculinities 5. Radio and television Public Service Announcements to increase awareness of Xenophobia, GBV Services and Alternative Masculinities 6. None [exclusive] 7. Don’t Know [exclusive] 8. No response [exclusive] [FOR EACH OPTION MARKED IN Sustain_desire_comp:] Sustain_resource. What do you think your community needs to do to make sure this activity continues? (open-ended response) Scalability. Which activities of the BTG4VM program do you think could increase their coverage (“scale up”) in Guyana? [Select multiple] 1. Development and implementation of a One-Stop-Shop model for GBV services, including legal support, psychosocial support, and safe housing 2. A radio serial drama to strengthen solidarity between migrant and host communities 3. Social Media campaign to increase awareness of Xenophobia, GBV Services and Alternative Masculinities 4. Radio and television Public Service Announcements to increase awareness of Xenophobia, GBV Services and Alternative Masculinities 5. None [exclusive] 6. Don’t Know [exclusive] 7. No response [exclusive] USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 65 Replicability. Which activities of the BTG4VM program do you think could be implemented in other communities in Guyana? [Select multiple] 1. Create linkages to health and social services through a strengthened National GBV referral pathway, including updating the National GBV Referral Directory and designing National GBV Referral pathway 2. Development and implementation of a One-Stop-Shop model for GBV services, including legal support, psychosocial support, and safe housing 3. A radio serial drama to strengthen solidarity between migrant and host communities 4. Social Media campaign to increase awareness of Xenophobia, GBV Services and Alternative Masculinities 5. Radio and television Public Service Announcements to increase awareness of Xenophobia, GBV Services and Alternative Masculinities 6. None [exclusive] 7. Don’t Know [exclusive] 8. No response [exclusive] [FOR EACH OPTION MARKED IN REPLICABILITY] Replicability_where. Where in Guyana should this component be replicated? (open-ended response) DEMOGRAPHICS We appreciate your invaluable insights. Before letting you go, we’d like to ask the following questions for statistical purposes. Remember that your answers are confidential and we will use the information in the following section to analyze trends and present aggregate results. Dem_gender. What is your gender? 1. Man 2. Woman 3. Other, specify [open-ended] 4. Prefer not to say Dem_dob. About how old are you? 1. 18-24 2. 25-34 3. 35-44 4. 45-54 5. 55-64 6. 65-74 7. 75+ 8. Prefer not to say Dem_lang. Which languages are you capable of speaking fluently? (Check all that apply.) 1. English 2. Guyanese Creole 3. Spanish USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 66 4. Portuguese 5. Hindi 6. Chinese 7. Other [Specify] 8. Prefer not to say [exclusive] Dem_edu. What is the highest degree or level of education you have completed? 1. Never attended school 2. Some primary school 3. Complete primary school 4. Some secondary school 5. Complete secondary school 6. Some higher education 7. Complete higher education 8. Advanced degree 9. Technical school 10. Prefer not to say [For each organization the respondent is affiliated with] RespType1.a. What is your current role (title) in that [organization]? [open-ended] RespType1.c. How many years have you worked with [organization]? 1. Less than one year 2. One to three years 3. Four to six years 4. Seven or more years 5. Prefer not to say Dem_region. Where is [organization] located in Trinidad and Tobago? 1. Caroni. 2. Mayaro. 3. Nariva. 4. Saint Andrew. 5. Saint David. 6. Saint George. 7. Saint Patrick. 8. Victoria 9. Prefer not to say RespType1.b. Overall, at what level is your current position? 1. Entry-level or early career 2. Mid-career 3. Senior 4. Don’t know 5. No response USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 67 End of Survey Message: Close. You have now completed the survey. Thank you for your participation. WEB SURVEY INSTRUMENT ACTIVITY SELECTION Please select the organization that you are affiliated with or the implementing organization whose intervention you participated in from the list below: 1. Crisis Center Hope (CCH) 2. Sexual Offenses Awareness and Response Initiative (SOAR) 3. Sexual Violence Research Initiative (SVRI) 4. Women Against Rape (WAR) 5. Zene Sa Une (ZSU) CONSENT PURPOSE OF THE STUDY We are inviting you to participate in this evaluation because of your participation in the activities implemented by [INSERT NAME OF 1 OF THE 5 GRANTEES BASED ON THEIR SELECTION]. Your answers to this brief survey will help improve programs to support first responders for GBV, which will in turn, help survivors. NORC at the University of Chicago is a non-partisan research institution based in the United States and has been commissioned to carry out a performance evaluation of the portfolio of the gender-based violence (GBV) activities. This work is funded by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). One of the activity clusters is the Collective Action to Reduce Gender-Based Violence (CARE-GBV) small grants program, an initiative to fund interventions to build wellness, resilience and self-care among GBV responders. The purpose of this study is to understand how the activities worked, what might not have worked so well 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 questions about your views on the activity design, implementation, uptake, and sustainability. The online survey will take approximately 15 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 there are any questions you don’t want to answer, you are free 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 help improve future opportunities to address GBV. BENEFITS OF PARTICIPATING IN THE STUDY Your participation is important to help this research and USAID learn more about the implementation of the GBV activities funded, including lessons learned and areas for improvement. You will receive no economic or material incentive for participating. USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 68 CONFIDENTIALITY Your responses will be kept strictly confidential. We will report all results as aggregated data or 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 anonymized 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, employer, or IP 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 during the survey or afterwards. 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 Vaiddehi Bansal by email at bansal-vaiddehi@norc.org. Consent. Do you agree to participate in this survey? 1. Yes 2. No Questions for all Respondents 1. Age a. ___________years [Note if <18, terminate the survey] b. Don’t know c. No response 2. Gender Identity a. Man b. Woman c. Transgender Man d. Transgender Woman e. Non-binary/non-conforming f. Not listed: _________ g. Prefer not to answer 3. Name of organization where you currently work _____________ 4. No. of years you have worked with this [program above response] __________ 5. No. of years you have worked in the GBV sector ____________ USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 69 Questions for CCH 1. Are you a staff member of CCH? a. Yes b. No [IF NO TO THE PREVIOUS QUESTION] 2. If you are not a CCH staff member, how best would you describe your primary role as a GBV responder? Select all that apply. a. Researcher/academic b. Practitioner/service provider c. Activist d. Policy maker e. Other: _________ 3. CCH organized a two-workshop for GBV responders on self-care, wellness, and resilience. Did you participate in this training program? a. Yes b. No 4. The 2-day workshop organized by CCH comprised nine modules. Please select all the modules that you completed. a. Module 1 – Stress b. Module 2 – Cognitive (mental) relief strategies c. Module 3 – Physical relief strategies d. Module 4 – Sensory relief strategies e. Module 5 – Strategies for emotional relief f. Module 6 – Rainbow for health, well-being, and resistance to stress g. Module 7 – Mindfulness h. Module 8 – Wheel of wellness and well-being i. Module 9 – Establishing a balance between private and professional life j. Don’t remember 5. To what extent has the workshop helped you acquire important information and new knowledge about different types of stress triggers, their recognition and naming? (Likert scale) a. To a great extent b. Somewhat c. Neutral d. Very little e. Not at all f. Don’t know g. No response 6. To what extent has the workshop helped you develop abilities and habits for maintaining well-being, calmness, and self-esteem in stressful situations? (Likert scale) a. To a great extent USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 70 b. Somewhat c. Neutral d. Very little e. Not at all f. Don’t know g. No response 7. To what extent has the workshop helped you develop an understanding of and apply practices to preserve your health (physical, mental, emotional, and sensory)? (Likert scale) a. To a Great Extent b. Somewhat c. Neutral d. Very Little e. Not at All f. Don’t know g. No response 8. To what extent has the workshop helped you establish a balance between private and professional life? (Likert scale) a. To a great extent b. Somewhat c. Neutral d. Very little e. Not at all f. Don’t know g. No response 9. To what extent do you think the content covered in the workshop met the needs of GBV responders? a. To a great extent b. Somewhat c. Neutral d. Very little e. Not at all f. Don’t know g. No response 10. Which component(s) of the training did you find the most helpful? Please Explain: ___________ 11. Do you have any suggestions for other topics that should have been covered in the workshop? Please explain: ______________________ 12. To what extent do you think participants will continue to draw on or use the knowledge acquired form the workshop? a. To a great extent b. Somewhat USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 71 c. Neutral d. Very little e. Not at all f. Don’t know g. No response Please explain: ___________________ 13. For what reasons might it be difficult for participants to maintain the practices or lessons they learned at the workshop? Please explain: ___________________________ 14. Do you have any suggestions to improve the way the workshops were conducted? Please explain: ______________ 15. Are there any other comments on the project that you would like to make? Please explain: ________________ Questions for SOAR 16. Please indicate if you are a staff member of SOAR or member organization of the Sexual & Gender-Based Violence Response Team (SGBV-RT). a. SOAR b. SGBV-RT 17. Which of the following activities did you participate in? Select all that apply. a. Focus group discussion b. 5-day training on trauma counseling and psychosocial support for child survivors of sexual abuse c. 3-day on-site learning visit to the Domestic and Sexual Violence Response Agency of Lagos State d. 6-monthly self-care and wellness meetings for sexual and GBV responders e. Development of policies (one-day stakeholders consultative meeting to review policies developed) f. Development of training manuals (two–day validation meeting of training manuals) 18. To what extent have these activities improved your understanding of vicarious trauma among GBV responders who support child survivors of sexual assault? a. To a great extent b. Somewhat c. Neutral d. Very little e. Not at all f. Don’t know g. No response 19. Which of the above activities were most successful in communicating an understanding of vicarious trauma and best practices to strengthen self-care, wellness, and resilience? USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 72 a. Focus group discussion b. 5-day training on trauma counseling and psychosocial support for child survivors of sexual abuse c. 3-day on-site learning visit to the Domestic and Sexual Violence Response Agency of Lagos State d. 6-monthly self-care and wellness meetings for sexual and GBV responders e. Development of policies (one-day stakeholders consultative meeting to review policies developed) f. Development of training manuals (two–day validation meeting of training manuals) [FOR THOSE WHO PARTICIPATED IN THE FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION] 20. To what extent did the Focus Group Discussion help you gain a deeper understanding of the problems and difficulties experienced by GBV responders? a. To a great extent b. Somewhat c. Neutral d. Very little e. Not at all f. Don’t know g. No response 21. To what extent did the Focus Group Discussion help you understand self-care requirements and practices to prevent burnout and secondary trauma? a. To a great extent b. Somewhat c. Neutral d. Very little e. Not at all f. Don’t know g. No response [FOR THOSE WHO PARTICIPATED IN 5-DAY TRAINING ON TRAUMA COUNSELING AND PSYCHOSOCIAL SUPPORT FOR CHILD SURVIVORS OF SEXUAL ABUSE] 22. To what extent did the 5-day training on trauma counseling and psychosocial support help you build organizational capacity to improve on survivor-centered GBV response? a. To a great extent b. Somewhat c. Neutral d. Very little e. Not at all f. Don’t know g. No response [FOR THOSE WHO PARTICIPATED IN 3-DAY ON-SITE LEARNING VISIT TO THE DOMESTIC AND SEXUAL VIOLENCE RESPONSE AGENCY OF LAGOS STATE] USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 73 23. To what extent did the 3-day online learning visit enhance your learning about best practices in operations, processes, and procedures? a. To a great extent b. Somewhat c. Neutral d. Very little e. Not at all f. Don’t know g. No response 24. To what extent did the 3-day online learning visit help you identify good methods that may be emulated from existing GBV responsive structure with track record of excellent delivery? a. To a great extent b. Somewhat c. Neutral d. Very little e. Not at all f. Don’t know g. No response [FOR THOSE WHO PARTICIPATED IN 6-MONTHLY SELF-CARE AND WELLNESS MEETINGS] 25. At the end of the Self-Care and Wellness Meetings, to what extent did you observe an improvement in the self-care practices of staff who are on the frontline of addressing sexual and GBV in the Federal Capital Territory? a. To a great extent b. Somewhat c. Neutral d. Very little e. Not at all f. Don’t know g. No response [FOR THOSE WHO PARTICIPATED IN DEVELOPMENT OF POLICIES] 26. To what extent did this initiative identify major safeguarding issues faced by SGBV￾focused organizations, and facilitate the development and adoption of Safeguarding Policy by the FCT SGBV Response Team? a. To a great extent b. Somewhat c. Neutral d. Very little e. Not at all f. Don’t know g. No response 27. To what extent do you think the Safeguarding Policy will be implementation and maintained? USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 74 a. To a great extent b. Somewhat c. Neutral d. Very little e. Not at all f. Don’t know g. No response 28. Do you envision any challenges in the sustainable implementation the Safeguarding Policy? Please explain: ___________________________ 29. Are there any measures in place to revise these policies as needed? a. Yes b. No 30. Are there any measures in place to conduct orientation sessions on these policies for new staff? a. Yes b. No [FOR THOSE WHO PARTICIPATED IN DEVELOPMENT OF TRAINING MANUALS] 31. To what extent do you think the training manuals meet the needs of GBV responders? a. To a great extent b. Somewhat c. Neutral d. Very little e. Not at all f. Don’t know g. No response 32. Which component(s) of the training did you find the most helpful? Please Explain: ___________ 33. Do you have any suggestions for any other topics that should have been covered in the training manuals? Please explain: ______________________ 34. To what extent do you think participants will recall and use learnings from the training manuals? a. To a great extent b. Somewhat c. Neutral d. Very little e. Not at all f. Don’t know g. No response 35. Do you envision any challenges in the sustainable implementation of learnings from the training manual? Please explain: ___________________________ 36. Are there provisions in place to revise the training manuals as needed? USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 75 a. Yes b. No 37. Are there provisions in place to conduct refresher trainings for staff? a. Yes b. No [FOR SOAR STAFF ONLY] 38. Since the implementation of this activity by SOAR, to what extent has the culture of your organization changed to be understanding of and responsive to vicarious trauma? a. To a great extent b. Somewhat c. Neutral d. Very little e. Not at all f. Don’t know g. No response 39. To what extent do you think the new policies and practices on managing vicarious trauma will be implemented and maintained after the project period? a. To a great extent b. Somewhat c. Neutral d. Very little e. Not at all f. Don’t know g. No response [FOR EVERYONE] 40. Do you have any suggestions on how the project can improve? Please explain: ______________ 41. Are there any other comments on the project that you would like to make? Please explain: ________________ Questions for SVRI 1. Are you a staff member of SVRI? a. Yes b. No [IF NO TO THE PREVIOUS QUESTION] 2. If you are not a SVRI staff member, how best would you describe your primary role as a GBV responder? Select all that apply. a. Researcher/academic USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 76 b. Practitioner/service provider c. Activist d. Policy maker e. Other: ________ 3. The Dare to Care online course comprised four modules. Please check all the modules that you completed. a. Module 1 – Settling into the forest floor b. Module 2 – Exploring the understory c. Module 3 – Tending to the canopy d. Module 4 – Flourishing at the emergent layer e. Don’t remember 4. To what extent has the course helped you develop a shared understanding of stress, burn-out and vicarious trauma, and recognize the signs in yourself and your colleagues? (Likert scale) a. To a great extent b. Somewhat c. Neutral d. Very little e. Not at all f. Don’t know g. No response 5. To what extent has the course helped you develop your own definitions, practices, and systems of self and collective care, including understanding how they are interlinked and interdependent? (Likert scale) a. To a great extent b. Somewhat c. Neutral d. Very little e. Not at all f. Don’t know g. No response 6. To what extent has the course helped you identify the factors undermining and enabling collective care in your organization or team and know what works to institutionalize collective care? (Likert scale) a. To a great extent b. Somewhat c. Neutral d. Very little e. Not at all f. Don’t know g. No response 7. To what extent would you say that the online course was easy to access and user friendly? USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 77 a. To a great extent b. Somewhat c. Neutral d. Very little e. Not at all f. Don’t know g. No response 8. To what extent would you say that the course content was easy to understand? a. To a great extent b. Somewhat c. Neutral d. Very little e. Not at all f. Don’t know g. No response 9. The course includes a variety of learning aides – including videos and reflective activities for those completing the course individually, as well as adapted activities for those working through the course collectively with colleagues. How did these learning aides work for you and your group? Please explain: ________________________ 10. Did you experience any challenges with the course in terms of content, structure, online accessibility, time to complete, and so on? a. Yes [IF YES] Please explain: _________________________ b. No 11. Which component(s) of the training did you find the most helpful? Please Explain: ___________ 12. Do you have any suggestions for other topics that you would have liked covered in the course? Please explain: ______________________ [FOR SVRI STAFF ONLY] 13. Since the implementation of this activity, to what extent has the culture of your organization changed to be understanding of and responsive to vicarious trauma? a. To a great extent b. Somewhat c. Neutral d. Very little e. Not at all f. Don’t know g. No response 14. To what extent do you think the new policies and practices on managing vicarious trauma will be implemented and maintained after the project period? a. To a great extent USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 78 b. Somewhat c. Neutral d. Very little e. Not at all f. Don’t know g. No response [FOR EVERYONE] 15. Do you have any suggestions on how the project can improve? Please explain: _________ 16. Are there any other comments on the project that you would like to make? Please explain: _____________ Questions for WAR 1. Are you a staff member of WAR? a. Yes b. No 2. WAR developed and implemented a Vicarious Trauma and Self-Care curriculum. Did you participate in this training program? a. Yes b. No 3. The Vicarious Trauma and Self-Care curriculum comprised six modules. Please check all the modules that you completed. a. Module 1 – Vicarious trauma Part I b. Module 2 – Vicarious trauma Part 2 c. Module 3 – Crisis intervention and trauma d. Module 4 – Online and telephone counselling e. Module 5 – Trauma informed supervision f. Module 6 – Managing referrals g. Don’t remember 4. To what extent would you say that the curriculum content was easy to understand? a. To a great extent b. Somewhat c. Neutral d. Very little e. Not at all f. Don’t know g. No response 5. To what extent do you think the specific needs of WAR staff was considered while developing the curriculum? a. To a great extent b. Somewhat USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 79 c. Neutral d. Very little e. Not at all f. Don’t know g. No response 6. Which component(s) of the training did you find the most helpful? Please Explain: ___________ 7. Do you have any suggestions for other topics that you would have liked covered in the curriculum? Please explain: _____________ 8. As part of the intervention, WAR employed a new Human Resource and Wellness Officer. To what extent has this new role helped in monitoring and supporting the wellbeing of staff and promoting a culture of self and collective care? a. To a great extent b. Somewhat c. Neutral d. Very little e. Not at all f. Don’t know g. No response 9. As part of the intervention, WAR developed and implemented a weekly smartphone￾based staff Wellness Check-In Tool (WCT). To what extent is this tool effective in monitoring the emotional health and well-being of WAR staff? a. To a great extent b. Somewhat c. Neutral d. Very little e. Not at all f. Don’t know g. No response 10. Do you have any suggestions for additional questions that can be added to the WCT? Please explain: ___________________ 11. The WCT is available on Google Forms and can be completed via cellphones. To what extent does the technological aspect of this intervention pose a hindrance or challenge? a. To a great extent b. Somewhat c. Neutral d. Very little e. Not at all f. Don’t know g. No response USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 80 12. All WAR staff are asked to complete the WCT as part of their regular weekly activities. Have you experienced (or do you envision) any challenges with completing the form on a weekly basis? Please explain: ___________________ 13. The WCT is monitored by WAR’s Health and Wellness Officer, who is responsible for reaching out to staff (as needed) to offer assistance. To what extent do you think this is being implemented? a. To a great extent b. Somewhat c. Neutral d. Very little e. Not at all f. Don’t know g. No response 14. To what extent do you think the WCT will be maintained to help staff to share feelings, experiences, and challenges? a. To a great extent b. Somewhat c. Neutral d. Very little e. Not at all f. Don’t know g. No response 15. Do you envision any challenges with continued implementation and completion of the WCT? Please explain: _________________________ 16. As part of the intervention, WAR also developed a Staff Wellness Policy. To what extent do you think the implementation and adoption of these policies is sustainable? h. To a great extent i. Somewhat j. Neutral k. Very little l. Not at all m. Don’t know n. No response 17. Since the implementation of this activity, to what extent has the culture of your organization changed to be understanding of and responsive to vicarious trauma? a. To a great extent b. Somewhat c. Neutral d. Very little e. Not at all f. Don’t know g. No response USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 81 18. To what extent do you think the new policies and practices on managing vicarious trauma will be implemented and maintained after the project period? a. To a Great Extent b. Somewhat c. Neutral d. Very Little e. Not at All f. Don’t know g. Refused 19. Do you have any suggestions on how the project can improve? Please explain: ____________ 20. Are there any other comments on the project that you would like to make? Please explain: _____________ Questions for ZSU 1. Are you a staff member of ZSU? a. Yes b. No 2. ZSU developed and implemented a bespoke Staff Wellness and Resiliency Building program to frontline organization staff? Did you participate in this training program? a. Yes b. No 3. Did you complete all 6 training sessions? a. Yes b. No (If no then indicate the no. of sessions completed) 4. To what extent did the training strengthen your understanding of residual impact for GBV responders? a. To a great extent b. Somewhat c. Neutral d. Very little e. Not at all f. Don’t know g. No response 5. To what extent did the training strengthen your understanding of ways to minimize negative effects and maintain an empathic position? a. To a great extent b. Somewhat c. Neutral d. Very little e. Not at all USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 82 f. Don’t know g. No response 6. To what extent did the training strengthen your understanding of boundaries and how to manage and protect your boundaries when providing services to GBV survivors? a. To a great extent b. Somewhat c. Neutral d. Very little e. Not at all f. Don’t know g. No response 7. The final session of the training was geared towards developing a sustainable self-care plan. What are some intentional behaviors/actions that you will implement as part of your self-care plan? Please explain: ___________ 8. To what extent do you think these behaviors/actions that you described above are sustainable? a. To a great extent b. Somewhat c. Neutral d. Very little e. Not at all f. Don’t know g. No response 9. To what extent do you think the needs of ZSU staff was considered while developing the training program? a. To a great extent b. Somewhat c. Neutral d. Very little e. Not at all f. Don’t know g. No response 10. Which component(s) of the training did you find the most helpful? Please Explain: ___________ 11. Do you have any suggestions for other topics that you would have liked covered in the training? Please explain: _____________ 12. Since the implementation of this activity, to what extent has the culture of your organization changed to be understanding of and responsive to vicarious trauma? a. To a great extent b. Somewhat c. Neutral d. Very little USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 83 e. Not at all f. Don’t know g. No response 13. To what extent do you think the new policies and practices on managing vicarious trauma will be implemented and maintained after the project period? a. To a great extent b. Somewhat c. Neutral d. Very little e. Not at all f. Don’t know g. No response 14. Do you have any suggestions on how the project can improve? Please explain: ____________ 15. Are there any other comments on the project that you would like to make? Please explain: _________ USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 84 KII GUIDE – IP SENIOR STAFF (CCH) Respondent Name, Institution __________________________________________ Date: _________________________________________________________________ Start Time: ___________________________________________________________ CATEGORY 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 USAID’s CARE-GBV cluster. 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 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? [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 briefly introduction and your area of focus within CCH? PORTFOLIO QUESTIONS Section Introduction Today we are going to discuss your activity under the CARE-GBV portfolio. We will start with some portfolio-level questions. Coordination 1a. Have you or your organization participated in meetings with other IPs via USAID’s USAID/GenDev? If so, what was the purpose of these meetings? 1b. IF YES: What information was important or what ideas or other benefits did you obtain from this experience(s)? 1c. Would you recommend more exchanges between IPs and USAID? Why? Or why not? Foundation 2a. Have you been briefed on USAID strategies and priorities around GBV? Stakeholders 3a. CCH worked with other stakeholders including a partner organization – Pleiades Organization, National Conference USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 85 CATEGORY TOPIC QUESTION Stakeholders and a Curriculum Development Expert. Can you describe how you selected these partners? 3b. What were the contributions of these partners? In what ways was the collaboration valuable? 3c. What other stakeholders were you able to engage to accomplish activity goals and what were their contributions? 3d. Do you have any lessons that you could share? Intervention Planning and Design 4a. Thinking about the planning process of these GBV interventions, what were key pieces of information that guided the intervention design? 4b. What were important knowledge or practice gaps? 4c. The main goal of this activity was to introduce policies and practices of self-care, wellness, and resiliency among staff of GBV organizations in North Macedonia. Can you walk me through the conceptualization and design of this activity? Vicarious Trauma 5a. What are key areas of evidence or information that informed your work on vicarious trauma? 5b. What were important knowledge and practice gaps about programming to address vicarious trauma vicarious trauma? Section Introduction Thank you for your valuable insights on this set of questions. We will now transition to activity cluster questions. ACTIVITY CLUSTER QUESTIONS Needs Assessment and Intervention Evidence 6a. What evidence was available on the specific self-care and wellness needs of GBV responders? 6b. What pre-implementation assessments did you do for this project? Did you draw on other similar interventions or intervention evaluations? Were they useful? 6c. How did those help your team plan and implement the activity? 6d. Would you recommend any other kinds of research before implementing similar activities? Monitoring and Adaptations 7a. Did you have any measures in place to monitor the activities and effectiveness? If yes, how were these findings used? If not, why not? 7b. Could you share some examples of aspects you might have changed based on emerging evidence? 7c. Were the monitoring tools/templates accessible and user friendly? How was monitoring conducted? 7d. How did you integrate feedback from participants? What changes did you make to the policies and content? Outcomes 8a. What were the primary outcomes of the activity? 8b. Reflecting back on the activities, do you think the outcomes stated in activity design were realistic and achievable? Why or why not? USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 86 CATEGORY TOPIC QUESTION 8c. Was the length of the grant sufficient to achieve these outcomes? Please describe one or two of the main activity outcomes so far. 8d. Did the activities produce any outcomes that were unexpected? If yes, can you describe these, please? 8e. Are there outcomes that you would have liked to see but were not feasible to accomplish? Why? Intervention Implementation 9a. Do you think that your project was able to reach the beneficiaries that it was designed to reach? 9b. How would you describe the reach of the program across North Macedonia? 9c. Were there any challenges in reaching the target groups to influence change? 9d. Who else should be engaged and was not in the activity? Mechanisms 10a. What do you think are the most effective components of your project? Why? Sustainability 11a. What operational challenges did your organization have to implement the activity? 11b. How will CCH monitor the sustainability of self-care policies and practice wellness, and resiliency among staff of GBV organizations beyond the grant period? 11c. What components or approaches in the CARE-GBV activity have remained active even after the USAID funding ended? Can you describe how these were maintained? 11d. What strategies could have enhanced sustainability of activity components that have ended? 11e. What have been the primary facilitators and barriers to the sustainability of the activity? Replicability, Transferability and Adaptability 12a. What components or approaches do you think could be replicated in other communities or countries? 12b. Where else would you recommend implementing this activity? 12c. What approaches, components, or tools of the activity would need to be adapted for a different context? Scalability 13a. If you were to scale up your activity, which components of your intervention would you focus on? 13b. Are there any that you would drop? What changes would you make? 13c. What are the main challenges for scaling the activity up in your country/region? 13d. In thinking about the costs of these activities, how cost￾effective do you think they’d be at scale, and why? USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 87 KII GUIDE – IP SENIOR STAFF (SOAR) Respondent Name, Institution __________________________________________ Date: _________________________________________________________________ Start Time: ___________________________________________________________ CATEGORY 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 USAID’s CARE-GBV cluster. 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 and 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 briefly introduction and your area of focus within SOAR? PORTFOLIO QUESTIONS Section Introduction Today we are going to discuss your activity under the CARE-GBV portfolio. We will start with some portfolio-level questions. Coordination 1a. Have you or your organization participated in meetings with other IPs via USAID’s USAID/GenDev? If so, what was the purpose of these meetings? 1b. IF YES: What information was important or what ideas or other benefits did you obtain from this experience(s)? 1c. Would you recommend more exchanges between IPs and USAID? Why? Or why not? Foundation 2a. Have you been briefed on USAID strategies and priorities around GBV? USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 88 CATEGORY TOPIC QUESTION Stakeholders 3a. SOAR collaborated with Youth Net and Counseling (YONECO); Coalition of Women Living with HIV and AIDS (COWLHA) to implement the intervention. Can you describe how you selected these partners? 3b. What were the contributions of these partners? a. (probe) In what ways was the collaboration valuable? 3c. What other stakeholders were you able to engage to accomplish activity goals? What were their contributions? 3d. Do you have any lessons that you could share? Intervention Planning and Design 4a. Thinking about the planning process of these GBV interventions, what were key pieces of information that guided the intervention design? 4b. What were important knowledge or practice gaps? Vicarious Trauma 5a. What are key areas of evidence or information that informed your work on vicarious trauma? 5b. What were important knowledge and practice gaps about programming to address vicarious trauma? Section Introduction Thank you for your valuable insights on this set of questions. We will now transition to activity cluster questions. ACTIVITY CLUSTER QUESTIONS Needs Assessment and Intervention Evidence 6a. What evidence was available on the specific self-care and wellness needs of GBV responders? 6b. What pre-implementation assessments did you do for this project? Did you draw on other similar interventions or intervention evaluations? Were they useful? 6c. How did those help your team plan and implement the activity? 6d. Would you recommend any other kinds of research before implementing similar activities? Assumptions 7a. There is no common theory of change for the CARE-GBV cluster. What prompted you to develop your independent theory of change for SOAR’s activity? 7b. 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 participant s to access the services; • Of how the services would result in the desired outcomes 7c. How relevant were the assumptions? Monitoring and Adaptations 8a. Did you have any measures in place to monitor the activities and effectiveness? If yes, how were these findings used? If no, why not? 8b. Could you share some examples of aspects you might have changed based on emerging evidence? 8c. Were the monitoring tools/templates accessible and user friendly? How was monitoring conducted? USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 89 CATEGORY TOPIC QUESTION Outcomes 8a. What were the primary outcomes of the activity? 8b. Reflecting back on the activities, do you think the outcomes stated in activity design were realistic and achievable? Why or why not? 8c. Was the length of the grant sufficient to achieve these outcomes? Please describe one or two of the main activity outcomes so far. 8d. Did the activities produce any outcomes that were unexpected? If yes, can you describe these, please? 8e. Are there outcomes that you would have liked to see but were not feasible to accomplish? Why? Intervention Implementation 9a. Do you think that your project was able to reach the beneficiaries that it was designed to reach? 9b. How would you describe the reach of the program across Nigeria? 9c. Were there any challenges in reaching the target groups to influence change? 9d. Who else should be engaged and was not in the activity? Mechanisms 10a. What do you think are the most effective components of your project? Why? Sustainability 11a. What operational challenges did your organization have to implement the activity? 11b. What components or approaches of the activity have remained active even after the USAID funding ended? Can you describe how that was maintained? 11c. What strategies could have enhanced sustainability of activity components that have ended? 11d. What have been the primary facilitators and barriers to the sustainability of the activity? Are there any challenges of online learning? Replicability, Transferability and Adaptability 12a. What components or approaches do you think could be replicated in other communities or countries? 12b. Where else would you recommend implementing this activity? 12c. What approaches, components, or tools of the activity would need to be adapted for a different context? Scalability 13a. If you were to scale up your activity, which components of your intervention would you focus on? 13b. Are there any that you would drop? What changes would you make? 13c. What are the main challenges for scaling the activity up in your country/region? USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 90 CATEGORY TOPIC QUESTION Section Introduction Thank you for your valuable insights. For the last part of the interview, we will ask you some implementation evaluation related questions. IMPLEMENTATION EVALUATION QUESTIONS Design 14a. Could you speak to how this activity was designed? What factors influenced this design? 14b. Who was involved in these design decisions? 14c. SOAR provides counseling services to survivors of child sexual abuse. Can you tell me if and how this unique focus was incorporated into the study design? What factors were considered so they can better support this group of GBV survivors? 14d. What findings from the baseline study were considered when developing learning materials throughout the implementation period? 14e. Would you change anything about the design? Implementation 15a. In your opinion which approaches/tools were most effective in achieving the objective of this activity? 15b. Were there specific challenges or enabling factors in implementing this activity? 15c. If there were challenges, were the challenges overcome and how? Flexibility 16a. Is there sufficient staffing to respond to local priorities? 16b. Is there flexibility to change approaches to respond to lessons and changing challenges in the local environment? Monitoring of Results 17a. Is the activity collecting evidence on what is working, not working and what could be done differently to achieve results? Sustainability 18a. Do you think that this activity is sustainable moving forward? Do you have any evidence support this? USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 91 KII GUIDE – IP SENIOR STAFF (SVRI) Respondent Name, Institution __________________________________________ Date: _________________________________________________________________ Start Time ____________________________________________________________ CATEGORY 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 USAID’s CARE-GBV cluster. 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 and 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 briefly introduction and your area of focus within SVRI? PORTFOLIO QUESTIONS Section Introduction Today we are going to discuss your activity under the CARE-GBV portfolio. We will start with some portfolio level questions. Coordination 1a. Have you or your organization participated in meetings with other IPs via USAID’s USAID/GenDev? If so, what was the purpose of these meetings? 1b. IF YES: What information was important or what ideas or other benefits did you obtain from this experience(s)? 1c. Would you recommend more exchanges between IPs and USAID? Why? Or why not? Foundation 2a. Have you been briefed on USAID strategies and priorities around GBV? USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 92 Stakeholders 3a. SVRI collaborated with HaRT and Raising Voices to implement the intervention. Can you describe how you selected these partners? 3b. What were the contributions of these partners? In what ways was the collaboration valuable? 3c. What other stakeholders were you able to engage to accomplish activity goals and what were their contributions? 3d. Do you have any lessons that you could share? Intervention Planning and Design 4a. Thinking about the planning process of these GBV interventions, what were key pieces of information that guided the intervention design? 4b. What were important knowledge or practice gaps? 4c. SVRI developed an online Dare to Care Course to support other GBV stakeholders. What was the process for designing this course? Vicarious Trauma 5a. What are key areas of evidence or information that informed your work on vicarious trauma? 5b. What were important knowledge and practice gaps about programming to address vicarious trauma? Section Introduction Thank you for your valuable insights on this set of questions. We will now transition to activity cluster questions. ACTIVITY CLUSTER QUESTIONS Needs Assessment and Intervention Evidence 6a. What evidence was available on the specific self-care and wellness needs of GBV responders? 6b. What pre-implementation assessments did you do for this project? Did you draw on other similar interventions or intervention evaluations? Were they useful? 6c. How did those help your team plan and implement the activity? 6d. Would you recommend any other kinds of research before implementing similar activities? Assumptions 7a. There is no common theory of change for the CARE-GBV cluster. What prompted you to develop your independent theory of change for SVRI’s activity? 7b. 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 participant s to access the services; • Of how the services would result in the desired outcomes 7b. How relevant were the assumptions? Monitoring and Adaptations 8a. Did you have any measures in place to monitor the activities and effectiveness? If yes, how were these findings used? If not, why not? 8b. Could you share some examples of aspects you might have changed based on emerging evidence? 8c. Were the monitoring tools/templates accessible and user friendly? How was monitoring conducted? USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 93 8d. How did you integrate feedback from participants? What changes did you make to the policies and content? Outcomes 9a. What were the primary outcomes of the activity? 9b. Reflecting back on the activities, do you think the outcomes stated in activity design were realistic and achievable? Why or why not? 9c. Was the length of the grant sufficient to achieve these outcomes? Please describe one or two of the main activity outcomes so far. 9d. Did the activities produce any outcomes that were unexpected? If yes, can you describe these, please? 9e. Are there outcomes that you would have liked to see but were not feasible to accomplish? Why? Intervention Implementation 10a. Do you think that your project was able to reach the beneficiaries that it was designed to reach? 10b. How would you describe the reach of the program globally? 10c. Were there any challenges in reaching the target groups to influence change? 10d. Who else should be engaged and was not in the activity? Mechanisms 11a. What do you think are the most effective components of your project? Why? Sustainability 12a. What operational challenges did your organization have to implement the activity? 12b. What components or approaches of the activity have remained active even after the USAID funding ended? Can you describe how these were maintained? 12c. What strategies could have enhanced sustainability of activity components that have ended? 12d. What have been the primary facilitators and barriers to the sustainability of the activity? Are there any challenges of online learning? Replicability, Transferability and Adaptability 13a. What components or approaches do you think could be replicated in other communities or countries? 13b. Where else would you recommend implementing this activity? 13c. What approaches, components, or tools of the activity would need to be adapted for a different context? Scalability 14a. If you were to scale up your activity, which components of your intervention would you focus on? 14b. Are there any that you would drop? What changes would you make? 14c. What are the main challenges for scaling the activity up in your country/region? 14d. Thinking about the planning process of these GBV interventions, what were key pieces of information that guided the intervention design? USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 94 KII GUIDE – IP SENIOR STAFF (WAR) Respondent Name, Institution __________________________________________ Date: _________________________________________________________________ Start Time: ___________________________________________________________ CATEGORY 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 USAID’s CARE-GBV cluster. 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 and 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 briefly introduction and your area of focus within WAR? PORTFOLIO QUESTIONS Section Introduction Today we are going to discuss your activity under the CARE-GBV portfolio. We will start with some portfolio-level questions. Coordination 1a. Have you or your organization participated in meetings with other IPs via USAID’s USAID/GenDev? If so, what was the purpose of these meetings? 1b. IF YES: What information was important or what ideas or other benefits did you obtain from this experience(s)? 1c. Would you recommend more exchanges between IPs and USAID? Why? Or why not? Foundation 2a. Have you been briefed on USAID strategies and priorities around GBV? USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 95 CATEGORY TOPIC QUESTION Stakeholders 3a. WAR worked with a range of stakeholders including experts from University of Pennsylvania, Rutgers University and University of Botswana to implement the intervention. Can you describe the how you selected these partners? 3b. What were the contributions of these partners? In what ways was the collaboration valuable? 3c. What other stakeholders were you able to engage to accomplish activity goals and what were their contributions? 3d. Do you have any lessons that you could share? Intervention Planning and Design 4a. Thinking about the planning process of these GBV interventions, what were key pieces of information that guided the intervention design? 4b. What were important knowledge or practice gaps? Vicarious Trauma 5a. What are key areas of evidence or information that informed your work on vicarious trauma? 5b. What were important knowledge and practice gaps about programming to address vicarious trauma? Section Introduction Thank you for your valuable insights on this set of questions. We will now transition to activity cluster questions. ACTIVITY CLUSTER QUESTIONS Needs Assessment and Intervention Evidence 6a. What evidence was available on the specific self-care and wellness needs of GBV responders? 6b. What pre-implementation assessments did you do for this project? Did you draw on other similar interventions or intervention evaluations? Were they useful? 6c. How did those help your team plan and implement the activity? 6d. Would you recommend any other kinds of research before implementing similar activities? Monitoring and Adaptations 7a. What evidence was available on the specific self-care and wellness needs of GBV responders? 7b. What pre-implementation assessments did you do for this project? Did you draw on other similar interventions or intervention evaluations? Were they useful? 7c. How did those help your team plan and implement the activity? 7d. Would you recommend any other kinds of research before implementing similar activities? Outcomes 8a. What were the primary outcomes of the activity? 8b. Reflecting back on the activities, do you think the outcomes stated in activity design were realistic and achievable? Why or why not? 8c. Was the length of the grant sufficient to achieve these outcomes? Please describe one or two of the main activity outcomes so far. USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 96 CATEGORY TOPIC QUESTION 8d. Did the activities produce any outcomes that were unexpected? If yes, can you describe these, please? 8e. Are there outcomes that you would have liked to see but were not feasible to accomplish? Why? Planning and Activity Design 9a. WAR designed and implemented a weekly staff Wellness Check Tool (WCT) as part of the activity. How did you use the data collected from this tool? 9b. Did you (or do you plan to) make any changes based on the responses? 9c. How have the various scales utilized (Vicarious Trauma Scale and Burnout Scale) been used by WAR to improve resources given to staff? Intervention Implementation 10a. Do you think that your project was able to reach the beneficiaries that it was designed to reach? 10b. How would you describe the reach of the program across Bostwana? 10c. Were there any challenges in reaching the target groups to influence change? 10d. Who else should be engaged and was not in the activity? Mechanisms 11a. What do you think are the most effective components of your project? Why? Sustainability 12a. What operational challenges did your organization have to implement the activity? 12b. How will you ensure sustainability of WCT? Is there a mechanism in place to send reminders to WAR staff to complete the WCT? Do you envision that staff might lose interest over time? 12c. WAR has submitted the training curriculum modules to the Botswana Human Resources Development Council for accreditation. Can you share the decision-making process behind this and if it will contribute to the sustainability of the intervention? 12d. What components or approaches in the CARE-GBV activity have remained active even after the USAID funding ended? Can you describe how these were maintained? 12e. What strategies could have enhanced sustainability of activity components that have ended? 12f. What have been the primary facilitators and barriers to the sustainability of the activity? Replicability, Transferability and Adaptability 13a. What components or approaches do you think could be replicated in other communities or countries? 13b. Where else would you recommend implementing this activity? 13c. What approaches, components, or tools of the activity would need to be adapted for a different context? USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 97 CATEGORY TOPIC QUESTION Scalability 14a. If you were to scale up your activity, which components of your intervention would you focus on? 14b. Are there any that you would drop? What changes would you make? 14c. What are the main challenges for scaling the activity up in your country/region? 14d. In thinking about the costs of these activities, how cost-effective do you think they’d be at scale, and why? USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 98 KII GUIDE – IP SENIOR STAFF (ZSU) Respondent Name, Institution __________________________________________ Date: _________________________________________________________________ Start Time: ___________________________________________________________ CATEGORY 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 USAID’s CARE-GBV cluster. 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 and 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 briefly introduction and your area of focus within ZSU? PORTFOLIO QUESTIONS Section Introduction Today we are going to discuss your activity under the CARE-GBV portfolio. We will start with some portfolio-level questions. Coordination 1a. Have you or your organization participated in meetings with other IPs via USAID’s USAID/GenDev? If so, what was the purpose of these meetings? 1b. IF YES: What information was important or what ideas or other benefits did you obtain from this experience(s)? 1c. Would you recommend more exchanges between IPs and USAID? Why? Or why not? Foundation 2a. Have you been briefed on USAID strategies and priorities around GBV? USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 99 CATEGORY TOPIC QUESTION Stakeholders 3a. ZSU partnered with Common Threads Partnership to implement the intervention. Can you describe how you selected this partner? 3b. What were the contributions of this partner? In what ways was the collaboration valuable? 3c. What other stakeholders were you able to engage to accomplish activity goals? What were their contributions? 3d. Do you have any lessons that you could share? Intervention Planning and Design 4a. Thinking about the planning process of these GBV interventions, what were key pieces of information that guided the intervention design? 4b. What were important knowledge or practice gaps? 4c. ZSU provides counseling services to domestic violence survivors, trafficking victims, and refugee populations. Can you tell me if and how this unique focus was incorporated into the study design? Vicarious Trauma 5a. What are key areas of evidence or information that informed your work on vicarious trauma? 5b. What were important knowledge and practice gaps about programming to address vicarious trauma? Section Introduction Thank you for your valuable insights on this set of questions. We will now transition to activity cluster questions. ACTIVITY CLUSTER QUESTIONS Needs Assessment and Intervention Evidence 6a. What evidence was available on the specific self-care and wellness needs of GBV responders? 6b. What pre-implementation assessments did you do for this project? Did you draw on other similar interventions or intervention evaluations? Were they useful? 6c. How did those help your team plan and implement the activity? 6d. Would you recommend any other kinds of research before implementing similar activities? Monitoring and Adaptations 7a. Did you have any measures in place to monitor the activities and effectiveness? If yes, how were these findings used? If no, why not? 7b. Could you share some examples of aspects you might have changed based on emerging evidence? 7c. Were the monitoring tools/templates accessible and user friendly? How was monitoring conducted? 7d. ZSU developed and implemented a bespoke Staff Wellness and Resiliency Building program to frontline organization staff. How did you plan to integrate feedback from participants? What changes (if any) did you make to the course design and content? USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 100 CATEGORY TOPIC QUESTION Outcomes 8a. What were the primary outcomes of the activity? 8b. Reflecting back on the activities, do you think the outcomes stated in activity design were realistic and achievable? Why or why not? 8c. Was the length of the grant sufficient to achieve these outcomes? Please describe one or two of the main activity outcomes so far. 8d. Did the activities produce any outcomes that were unexpected? If yes, can you describe these, please? 8e. Are there outcomes that you would have liked to see but were not feasible to accomplish? Why? Intervention Implementation 10a. Do you think that your project was able to reach the beneficiaries that it was designed to reach? 10b. Were there any challenges reaching the target groups to influence change? 10c. Who else should be engaged and was not in the activity? Mechanisms 11a. What do you think are the most effective components of your project? Why? Sustainability 12a. What operational challenges did your organization have to implement the activity? 12b. ZSU’s training course included a module on sustainable self￾care plan. How will ZSU monitor the sustainability of this activity beyond the grant period? 12c. What components or approaches in the CARE-GBV activity have remained active even after the USAID funding ended? Can you describe how these were maintained? 12d. What strategies could have enhanced sustainability of activity components that have ended? 12e. What have been the primary facilitators and barriers to the sustainability of the activity? Replicability, Transferability and Adaptability 13a. What components or approaches do you think could be replicated in other communities or countries? 13b. Where else would you recommend implementing this activity? 13c. What approaches, components, or tools of the activity would need to be adapted for a different context? USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 101 CATEGORY TOPIC QUESTION Scalability 14a. If you were to scale up your activity, which components of your intervention would you focus on? 14b. Are there any that you would drop? What changes would you make? 14c. What are the main challenges for scaling the activity up in your country/region? 14d. In thinking about the costs of these activities, how cost￾effective do you think they’d be at scale, and why? USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 102 KII GUIDE – MAKING CENTS INTERNATIONAL Respondent Name, DRG Area(s) of Expertise, Institution _________________ Date: _________________________________________________________________ Start Time: ___________________________________________________________ CATEGORY 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 USAID’s CARE-GBV cluster. 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 and 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 briefly introduction and your area of focus within CARE-GBV? PORTFOLIO QUESTIONS Section Introduction Today we are going to discuss the CARE-GBV portfolio. Coordination 1a. Could you please tell me about the management structure for the CARE-GBV cluster? 1b. How does information flow from grantees up to GenDev? 1c. How is this information used for decision making? Foundation 2a. Were grantees briefed on USAID strategies and priorities around GBV? If yes, what was the procedure and intended learning outcomes? Protection 3a. What do you see as the most influential activities or strategies to improve access to effective services for survivors? Which grantee approaches were effective for this? 3b. Which grantee approaches were effective for this? USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 103 CATEGORY TOPIC QUESTION Stakeholders 4a. Was there a strategy for engaging a broad range of stakeholders for the CARE-GBV cluster? 4b. Could you please give some examples of activities that were able to effectively engage relevant stakeholders versus those who were less able to do so? Intervention Planning and Design 5a. What are key pieces of evidence to inform this type of programming? Which ones were most influential in your planning? 5b. Were there important knowledge and practice gaps when planning and designing GBV interventions? Did you draw on any intervention evaluations from similar programs? Vicarious Trauma 6a. What are key areas of evidence or information that informed this grant on vicarious trauma? 6b. What were important knowledge and practice gaps about programming to address vicarious trauma? Reach and Effectiveness 7a. Does the CARE-GBV cluster produce knowledge that can influence the reach and effectiveness of other GBV interventions, even those not funded by USAID? How so? ACTIVITY CLUSTER QUESTIONS Needs Assessment and Intervention Evidence 8a. Were there requirements for all grantees in the activity cluster to conduct pre-implementation assessments? Why or why not? Assumptions 9a. Were there any key assumptions made when designing and implementing the activity clusters? Can you describe the most important assumptions related to, for example: • organizational capacity • needs of beneficiaries • effective ways to reach the beneficiaries • causal pathways from the activity to the desired outcome • theory of change 9b. Reflecting back, how accurate were any assumptions? Monitoring and Adaptations 10a. How well do you think projects were able to monitor implementation and adapt their implementation using emerging findings? Could you please share some examples of this? Outcomes 11a. Upon reflection, how realistic do you think that the outcomes stated in project designs for this activity cluster were realistic? 11b. Do you think that the length of the grants were sufficient to achieve these outcomes? Why or why not? 11c. Which activities were most successful in achieving the outcomes in their project design, and which were less successful? Why? Planning and Activity Design 12a. What do you think about the project designs across the cluster? Could you please share examples of project designs that you think were particularly effective? USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 104 CATEGORY TOPIC QUESTION Intervention Implementation 13a. How well do you think the activities in this cluster were able to reach the intended beneficiaries? 13b. What were the most effective ways participants were reached? What were the main challenges in reaching the right people? Mechanisms 14a. What do you think are the most effective interventions or approaches used by the grantees? Why were these effective? 14b. Were there any approaches that were particularly ineffective or unsuccessful? Why? Sustainability 15a. Could you please tell me which activities or approaches in the CARE-GBV cluster are more sustainable and which are less sustainable? Why? 15b. What would be needed to enhance sustainability for those that are less sustainable? Replicability, Transferability and Adaptability 16a. Are there any interventions or approaches in the CARE-GBV cluster that you think could be replicated in or adapted to other contexts? Are there any that you think could not be replicated or adapted? Scalability 17a. Which interventions in the CARE-GBV cluster do you see as having potential for scale up? Are there any that you think would be very difficult to scale up? Why? IMPLEMENTATION EVALUATION QUESTIONS Design 18a. How was the activity designed? What factors influenced the design? Who led the design? Implementation 19a. What intervention methods were used for the activity? Flexibility 20a. 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? Monitoring of Results 21a. Is the activity collecting evidence on what is working, not working and what could be done differently to achieve results? Sustainability 22a. Are there any plans to maintain the sustainability of this activity? 22b. Has any evidence been gathered to support the potential sustainability of this activity? USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 105 KII GUIDE – USAID Respondent Name, DRG Area(s) of Expertise, Institution _________________ Date: _________________________________________________________________ Start Time: ___________________________________________________________ CATEGORY 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 USAID’s CARE-GBV cluster. 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 and 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 briefly introduction and your area of focus within CARE-GBV? PORTFOLIO QUESTIONS Section Introduction Today we are going to discuss the CARE-GBV portfolio. Expansion 1a. How is GenDev’s GBV portfolio helping to expand and improve GBV programming? Protection 2a. What do you see as the most influential activities or strategies to improve access to effective services for survivors? Which grantee approaches were effective for this? 2b. Which grantee approaches were effective for this? Coordination 3a. Could you please tell me about the management structure for the CARE-GBV cluster? 3b. How does information flow from grantees up to GenDev? 3c. How is this information used for decision making? USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 106 CATEGORY TOPIC QUESTION Integration 4a. Have you facilitated or seen coordination between this cluster and any other GBV efforts from USAID? How does this cluster fit into the full range of USAID's GBV programs? Data 5a. Could you please tell me about how GenDev uses data from the CARE-GBV cluster? 5b. Are learnings from the CARE-GBV cluster ever used to inform higher level decision making across GenDev programs? Foundation 6a. Were grantees briefed on USAID strategies and priorities around GBV? If yes, what was the procedure and intended learning outcomes? Stakeholders 7a. Was there a strategy for engaging a broad range of stakeholders for the CARE-GBV cluster? 7b. Could you please give some examples of activities that were able to effectively engage relevant stakeholders versus those who were less able to do so? Intervention Planning and Design 8a. What are key pieces of evidence to inform this type of programming? Which ones were most influential in your planning? 8b. Were there important knowledge and practice gaps when planning and designing GBV interventions? Did you draw on any intervention evaluations from similar programs? Vicarious Trauma 9a. What are key areas of evidence or information that informed this grant on vicarious trauma? 9b. What were important knowledge and practice gaps about programming to address vicarious trauma? Reach and Effectiveness 10a. Does the CARE-GBV cluster produce knowledge that can influence the reach and effectiveness of other GBV interventions, even those not funded by USAID? How so? ACTIVITY CLUSTER QUESTIONS Outcomes 11a. Upon reflection, how realistic do you think that the outcomes stated in project designs for this activity cluster were? 11b. Do you think that the length of the grants were sufficient to achieve these outcomes? Why or why not? 11c. Which activities were most successful in achieving the outcomes in their project design, and which were less successful? Why? Intervention Implementation 12a. How well do you think the activities in this cluster were able to reach the intended beneficiaries? 12b. What were the most effective ways participants were reached? 12c. What were the main challenges in reaching the right people? Mechanisms 13a. What do you think are the most effective interventions or approaches used by the grantees? Why were these effective? 13b. Were there any approaches that were particularly ineffective or unsuccessful? Why? USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 107 CATEGORY TOPIC QUESTION Sustainability 14a. Could you please tell me which activities or approaches in the CARE￾GBV cluster are more sustainable and which are less sustainable? Why?14b. What would be needed to enhance sustainability for those that are less sustainable? Replicability, Transferability and Adaptability 15a. Are there any interventions or approaches in the CARE-GBV cluster that you think could be replicated in or adapted to other contexts? Are there any that you think could not be replicated or adapted? Scalability 16a. Which interventions in the CARE-GBV cluster do you see as having potential for scale up? Are there any that you think would be very difficult to scale up? Why? USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 108 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? USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 109 TOPIC QUESTION PORTFOLIO QUESTIONS 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? USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 110 TOPIC QUESTION 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. USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 111 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. 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. 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] 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. USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 112 TOPIC QUESTION 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? 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. USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 113 TOPIC QUESTION [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? 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? USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 114 TOPIC QUESTION 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? USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 115 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? USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 116 TOPIC QUESTION PORTFOLIO QUESTIONS 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? USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 117 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. USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 118 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 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] USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 119 TOPIC QUESTION 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. USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 120 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. USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 121 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 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. USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 122 TOPIC QUESTION 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 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? USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 123 TOPIC QUESTION 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? 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? USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 124 TOPIC QUESTION 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 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. USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 125 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, 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] 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 USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 126 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 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 USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 127 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 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_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 USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 128 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] [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 USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 129 [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 [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] USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 130 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? 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. USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 131 [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 [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 USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 132 [feed_response] If you were to share feedback with WildAct Vietnem 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 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 USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 133 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] Workshops and training with employees 1. Meetings with managers to exchange knowledge, experience, and ideas to create a safer environment for employees 2. Creation of safeguarding and supporting materials for women in conservation 3. Use of existing Safeguarding policies and procedures to prevent and address GBV 4. Other, please explain: [open ended] 5. Don’t know [No other options can be also chosen] 6. 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 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 USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 134 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 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 USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 135 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. USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 136 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? USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 137 TOPIC QUESTION 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? 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 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 USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 138 TOPIC QUESTION ‘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. USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 139 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? USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 140 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? USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 141 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? 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. USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 142 TOPIC QUESTION 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? 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? USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 143 TOPIC QUESTION • 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? 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? USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 144 TOPIC QUESTION 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. USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 145 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? 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? USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 146 TOPIC QUESTION 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. USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 147 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. USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 148 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? USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 149 TOPIC QUESTION 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? 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? USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 150 TOPIC QUESTION 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? 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. USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 151 E4W BURUNDI SURVEY PROTOCOL NOTES [Blue text in brackets] are survey instructions. Purple text in highlight indicate when a survey question or set of response options will need to be adjusted for country-specific/activity-specific use. CONSENT PURPOSE OF STUDY The purpose of this study is to ask for your opinions about Enabling Environment for Economic Empowerment of Women (E4W) within the Tuyage activity in Burundi. The people carrying out this study are from NORC at the University of Chicago, which is a research institution based in the United States. We are doing this work to help the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) learn how well their programs are working to address gender-based violence. One set of activities they fund is Women’s Economic Empowerment (WEE), which aims to improve women’s economic participation. We are inviting you to participate in this evaluation because you participated in programs and/or training funded by E4W Burundi Activity within Tuyage, implemented by Search for Common Ground (SFCG), Kahawatu Foundation and Catholic Relief Services (CRS). We’d like to ask you questions about the program, what you liked, what you thought was good, what was not so good and what can be improved in the USAID’s gender-based violence (GBV) portfolio. DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY PROCEDURES If you agree to be a part of this study, you will be asked to answer survey questions about your experiences and opinions related to E4W Burundi. The online survey will take approximately 30 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 day. 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 programs. BENEFITS OF PARTICIPATING IN THE STUDY Your participation is important to help us and USAID learn more about the implementation of the activities funded, including lessons learned and areas for improvement. You will receive no economic or material incentive for participating. CONFIDENTIALITY Your responses to this survey will be kept strictly confidential. We will not use any names and report all results as averages of everyone who answered the survey. 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, employer, or IP used to answer the survey. As such, no one will know whether you participated in the survey or USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 152 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 a 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, please contact Katrina Kamara at karmar-katrina@norc.org or [CONSULTANT NAME] at [CONSULTANT PHONE NUMBER]. 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 INSTRUCTIONS For each statement or question, select the response or responses that best represent your experience/opinion. PROGRAM ACTIVITIES & SERVICES 1. From the following list, please indicate which activities and services are available for E4W program participants. [select all that apply] 1. Gender sensitivity trainings for media professionals 2. Media broadcasts and radio shows (Tuyage Ubutunzi, Inkerebutsi, Tuyage Tunoganze, Ndakwibarize, Urunani Mu Butunzi, N’dumu DG) to raise awareness on GBV and promote positive masculinities 3. Directory of women professionals with expertise in different sectors and industries for media outlets 4. Town hall forums to encourage discussion among the larger community on issues that particularly affect Burundian women 5. “Women in Action” exchange forums for women-serving CSOs, entrepreneurs and media professionals 6. Awareness-raising sessions for key male stakeholders 7. Empowered Entrepreneur Training Program for women 8. Economic support to women-led coffee farms, including coaching and business support 9. Learning tours and exchange visits for women-led and mixed-gender coffee farmer cooperatives USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 153 10. Gender awareness program for men and women within coffee farmer cooperatives, including workshop sessions on social norms transformation and gendered dynamics 11. Other [Specify] 12. Don’t know 13. No response 2. Which activities and services have you participated in, used, or received? [select all that apply] 1. Gender sensitivity trainings for media professionals 2. Media broadcasts and radio shows (Tuyage Ubutunzi, Inkerebutsi, Tuyage Tunoganze, Ndakwibarize, Urunani Mu Butunzi, N’dumu DG) to raise awareness on GBV and promote positive masculinities 3. Directory of women professionals with expertise in different sectors and industries for media outlets 4. Town hall forums to encourage discussion among the larger community on issues that particularly affect Burundian women 5. “Women in Action” exchange forums for women-serving CSOs, entrepreneurs and media professionals 6. Awareness-raising sessions for key male stakeholders 7. Empowered Entrepreneur Training Program for women 8. Economic support to women-led coffee farms, including coaching and business support 9. Learning tours and exchange visits for women-led and mixed-gender coffee farmer cooperatives 10. Gender awareness program for men and women within coffee farmer cooperatives, including workshop sessions on social norms transformation and gendered dynamics 11. Other [Specify] 12. None 13. Don’t know 14. No response 3. [for each service or activity selected under Q2] To what extent are you satisfied with the following services or activities? 1. Very satisfied 2. Satisfied 3. Neutral (neither satisfied nor unsatisfied) 4. Unsatisfied 5. Very unsatisfied 6. Don’t know 7. No response CONTEXTUAL RELEVANCE 4. What resources or programs does E4W need most to empower women and prevent gender-based violence and harassment in your community? [select all that apply] 1. Referral pathways for victims of GBV USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 154 2. Legal assistance services for victims of GBV 3. Emergency hotline services for victims of GBV 4. Psychosocial and counseling support services for victims of GBV 5. Housing shelters and safe spaces 6. Economic empowerment services (including professional skills training and entrepreneurial opportunities) 7. Healthcare services (including sexual and reproductive health rights) 8. Other [Specify] 9. Don’t know 10. No response 5. [for each selected service under Q2] T6 what extent do you agree with the following statement: The [ACTIVITY NAME] respond to the needs of women in Burundi very well. 1. Strongly agree 2. Agree 3. Neutral (neither agree nor disagree) 4. Disagree 5. Strongly disagree 6. Don’t know 7. No response 6. [for each selected service under Q2] To what extent do you agree with this statement: The [ACTIVITY NAME] conflicted with the culture of Burundi. 1. Strongly agree 2. Agree 3. Neutral (neither agree nor disagree) 4. Disagree 5. Strongly disagree 6. Don’t know 7. No response PROGRAM EFFECTIVENESS 7. [for each selected service under Q2] How useful have activities and services under [ACTIVITY NAME] been in helping to prevent gender-based violence and harassment in your communities? 1. Very useful 2. Useful 3. Neutral (neither useful nor useless) 4. Useless 5. Very useless 6. Don’t know 7. No response 8. [for each selected service under Q2] Rate which program components have been the most effective in preventing gender-based violence. USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 155 For each component above, rate:] 1. Very effective 2. Effective 3. Neutral (neither effective nor ineffective) 4. Ineffective 5. Very ineffective 6. Don’t know 7. No response 9. Have there been any cases in which E4W Burundi has stopped abuse, instances of gender-based violence and harassment in your communities? 1. Yes 2. No 3. Don’t know 4. No response 10. [IF YES]: In how many instances can you recall? 1. 1-5 cases 2. 6-10 cases 3. 11-15 cases 4. 16-20 cases 5. More than 20 cases 11. [for each selected service under Q1] Did you experience any difficulties in participating in the following activities? [for each service or activity above, answer:] 1. Yes 2. No 3. Don’t know 4. No response 12. [for Q2= 1 or 7] You mentioned earlier that you have participated in some trainings under the E4W Burundi project. Overall, how well do you think the project provided realistic, quality trainings? [Select only one] 1. The training was of very low quality or very unrealistic 2. The training was of low quality or was unrealistic 3. The training was of good quality and was realistic 4. The training was of very good quality and was very realistic 5. Don’t know 6. No response 13. [for Q2= 1 or 7] Did you receive adequate post-training support from the E4W Burundi project teams? 1. Yes USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 156 2. No 3. Don’t know 4. No response 14. [If Q13 = Yes or No] Please explain and provide examples if possible. [open-ended response] GBV PREVENTION 15. In your community, which groups of people are important for influencing change in empowering women and preventing gender-based violence? [select all that apply] 1. Religious leaders 2. Community heads 3. Spouses and partners of women entrepreneurs 4. Media professionals and journalists 5. Government officials and representatives 6. Non-governmental organizations 7. Other [Specify] 8. Don’t know 9. No response 16. Are there people in your community who you think should have been involved in E4W/Tuyage activity but were not? 1. Yes 2. No 3. Don’t know 4. No response 17. [IF YES]: Who are these people? [open-ended response] 18. Is the ability to empower women and prevent gender-based violence difficult because of traditions or the local culture in your community? 1. Yes 2. No 3. Don’t know 4. No response 19. [IF YES]: What aspects are difficult? [open-ended response] SUSTAINABILITY 20. Identify which activities you would like to see continue in your community after this period of activity has ended. 1. Gender sensitivity trainings for media professionals 2. “Women in Action” exchange forums for women-serving CSOs, entrepreneurs and media professionals 3. Awareness-raising sessions for key male stakeholders USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 157 4. Empowered Entrepreneur Training Program for women 5. Economic support to women-led coffee farms, including coaching and business support 6. Learning tours and exchange visits for women-led and mixed-gender coffee farmer cooperatives 7. Gender awareness program for men and women within coffee farmer cooperatives, including workshop sessions on social norms transformation and gendered dynamics 8. Other [Specify] 9. Don’t know 10. No response 21. Do you think the women’s inclusion activities implemented by E4W/Tuyage will continue? 1. Yes 2. No 3. Don’t know 4. No response 22. What do you think your community needs to do to make sure these activities continue? [open-ended response] 23. To what extent do you agree with the following statements: If I wanted to give feedback on E4W/Tuyage, I know who to talk to. 1. Strongly agree 2. Agree 3. Neutral (Neither agree nor disagree) 4. Disagree 5. Strongly disagree I believe the staff will consider my feedback seriously. 1. Strongly agree 2. Agree 3. Neutral (Neither agree nor disagree) 4. Disagree 5. Strongly disagree PARTICIPANT BACKGROUND 24. How old are you? 1. 18-24 2. 25-34 3. 35-44 4. 45-54 5. 55-64 6. 65-74 USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 158 7. 75+ 8. Don’t know 9. No response 25. What is your gender? 1. Woman 2. Man 3. Other [Specify] 4. Don’t know 5. No response 26. Which languages do you speak fluently? [select all that apply] 1. Kirundi 2. French 3. English 27. Other [Specify] What is the highest level of education you have completed? 1. Never attended school 2. Primary school 3. Secondary school 4. Higher education (Bachelor’s degree) 5. Advanced degree (Master’s degree or Ph.D.) 6. Technical or vocational training 7. Don’t know 8. No response 28. Which municipality do you reside in? 1. Ngozi 2. Kayanza 3. Karusi 4. Gitega 5. Muyinga 6. Other [Specify] 7. Don’t know 8. No response 29. Which commune in [Q29 Answer] do you reside in? 1. Bugenyuzi 2. Buhiga 3. Busiga 4. Gahombo 5. Gashikanwa 6. Gashikanwa 7. Gashoho 8. Gasorwe USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 159 9. Gitaramuka 10. Gitega 11. Makebuko 12. Matongo 13. Muhanga 14. Muyinga 15. Mwumba 16. Ngozi 17. Ngozi /Kinyana 18. Ngozi /Mubuga 19. Nyamurenza 20. Ruhororo 21. Tangara 22. Other [Specify] 23. Don’t know 24. No response USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 160 MICRO-JOURNEY BENIN SURVEY PROTOCOL NOTES [Blue text in brackets] are survey instructions. Purple text in highlight indicate when a survey question or set of response options will need to be adjusted for country-specific/activity-specific use. CONSENT PURPOSE OF STUDY The purpose of this study is to ask for your opinions about A Micro-Journey to Self-Reliance—Economic Reintegration for Victims of Gender-Based Violence (GBV) (henceforth referred to as Micro Journey Benin). The people carrying out this study are from NORC at the University of Chicago, which is a research institution based in the United States. We are doing this work to help the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) learn how well their programs are working to address gender-based violence. One set of activities they fund is Women’s Economic Empowerment (WEE), which aims to improve women’s economic participation. We are inviting you to participate in this evaluation because you participated in programs and/or training funded by the Micro Journey Benin activity within the larger Integrated Health Services Activity (IHSA) program, implemented by Management Sciences for Health (MSH). We’d like to ask you questions about the program, what you liked, what you thought was good, what was not so good and what can be improved in the USAID’s GBV portfolio. DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY PROCEDURES If you agree to be a part of this study, you will be asked to answer survey questions about your experiences and opinions related to the Micro Journey Benin activity. The survey will take approximately 30 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 day in your community. 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 programs. BENEFITS OF PARTICIPATING IN THE STUDY Your participation is important to help us and USAID learn more about the implementation of the activities funded, including lessons learned and areas for improvement. You will receive no economic or material incentive for participating. CONFIDENTIALITY Your responses to this survey will be kept strictly confidential. We will not use any names and report all results as averages of everyone who answered the survey. 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, employer, USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 161 or IP 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 a 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, please contact Katrina Kamara at kamara-katrina@norc.org or [DATA COLLECTION SUPERVISOR NAME] at [DATA COLLECTION SUPERVISOR PHONE NUMBER]. 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 INSTRUCTIONS For each statement or question, select the response or responses that best represent your experience/opinion. PROGRAM ACTIVITIES & SERVICES 1. From the following list, please indicate which activities and services are available for people who participate in the Micro-Journey Benin program. [select all that apply] 1. Referral services for victims of GBV 2. Judicial and legal services for victims of GBV 3. Assistance with reporting cases of GBV to relevant local authorities 4. Counseling and psychosocial services for victims of GBV and their spouses 5. Physical centers for treatment of GBV victims (Centres Intégrés départementaux de coordination pour la prise en charge des victimes et survivants(es) pour VBG (CIPeC/VBG)) 6. Virtual centers for treatment of GBV victims (CIPeC/VBG) 7. Access to networks of organizations/businesses for GBV survivors 8. Access to income-generating activity (IGA) women’s groups (e.g., for processing of corn into snacks, production of liquid soap etc.) 9. Professional job-related or workforce development skills trainings for victims of GBV 10. Business and entrepreneurship training for victims of GBV and their spouses 11. In-kind start-up capital for victims of GBV and their spouses 12. Mentoring and coaching on income-generating activities for victims of GBV and their spouses USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 162 13. Access to other health-related services for victims of GBV outside of CIPeC/VBG (e.g. maternal and antenatal health support, sexual and reproductive health campaigns etc.) 14. Advocacy and awareness raising sessions on women’s issues for all members of community 15. Other [Specify] 16. Don’t know 17. No response 2. Which activities and services have you participated in, used, or received? [select all that apply] 1. Referral services for victims of GBV 2. Judicial and legal services for victims of GBV 3. Assistance with reporting cases of GBV to relevant local authorities 4. Counseling and psychosocial services for victims of GBV and their spouses 5. Physical centers for treatment of GBV victims (Centres Intégrés départementaux de coordination pour la prise en charge des victimes et survivants(es) pour VBG (CIPeC/VBG)) 6. Virtual centers for treatment of GBV victims (CIPeC/VBG) 7. Access to networks of organizations/businesses for GBV survivors 8. Access to income-generating activity (IGA) women’s groups (e.g., for processing of corn into snacks, production of liquid soap etc.) 9. Professional job-related or workforce development skills trainings for victims of GBV 10. Business and entrepreneurship training for victims of GBV and their spouses 11. In-kind start-up capital for victims of GBV and their spouses 12. Mentoring and coaching on income-generating activities for victims of GBV and their spouses 13. Access to other health-related services for victims of GBV outside of CIPeC/VBG (e.g. maternal and antenatal health support, sexual and reproductive health campaigns etc.) 14. Advocacy and awareness raising sessions on women’s issues for all members of community 15. Other [Specify] 16. Don’t know 17. No response 3. [for each service or activity selected under Q2] To what extent are you satisfied with the following services or activities? 1. Very satisfied 2. Satisfied 3. Neutral (neither satisfied nor unsatisfied) 4. Unsatisfied 5. Very unsatisfied 6. Don’t know 7. No response USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 163 CONTEXTUAL RELEVANCE 4. What resources or programs does Micro Journey Benin need most to prevent gender-based violence and harassment in your community? 1. Referral pathways for victims of GBV 2. Judicial and legal assistance services for victims of GBV 3. Emergency hotline services for victims of GBV 4. Psychosocial and counseling support services for victims of GBV and their spouses 5. Housing shelters and safe spaces 6. Economic empowerment services (including professional skills training and entrepreneurial opportunities) 7. Community advocacy and awareness-raising on women’s issues 8. Healthcare services (including sexual and reproductive health rights) 9. Other [Specify] 10. Don’t know 11. No response 5. [for each selected service under Q2] To what extent do you agree with the following statement: The [ACTIVITY NAME] respond to the needs of women in my community very well . 1. Strongly agree 2. Agree 3. Neutral (neither agree nor disagree) 4. Disagree 5. Strongly disagree 6. Don’t know 7. No response 6. [for each selected service under Q2] To what extent do you agree with this statement: The [ACTIVITY NAME] conflicted with the culture of my community. 1. Strongly agree 2. Agree 3. Neutral (neither agree nor disagree) 4. Disagree 5. Strongly disagree 6. Don’t know 7. No response PROGRAM EFFECTIVENESS 7. [for each selected service under Q2] How useful have activities and services under [ACTIVITY NAME] been in helping to prevent gender-based violence and harassment in your community? 1. Very useful 2. Useful 3. Neutral (neither useful nor useless) USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 164 4. Useless 5. Very useless 6. Don’t know 7. No response 8. [for each selected service under Q2] Rate which program components have been the most effective in preventing gender-based violence. [For each component above, rate:] 1. Very effective 2. Effective 3. Neutral (neither effective nor ineffective) 4. Ineffective 5. Very ineffective 6. Don’t know 7. No response 9. Have there been any cases in which the Micro Journey Benin program has stopped incidents of gender-based violence in your community? 1. Yes 2. No 3. Don’t know 4. No response 10. [IF YES]: In how many instances can you recall? 1. 1-5 cases 2. 6-10 cases 3. 11-15 cases 4. 16-20 cases 5. More than 20 cases 11. [for each selected service under Q1] Did you experience any difficulties in participating in the following activities? [for each service or activity above, answer:] 1. Yes 2. No 3. Don’t know 4. No response 12. [for Q2= 9 or 10] You mentioned earlier that you have participated in some trainings under the Micro-Journey Benin project. Overall, how well do you think the project provided realistic, quality trainings? [Select only one] 10. The training was of very low quality or was very unrealistic 11. The training was of low quality or was unrealistic 12. The training was of good quality and was realistic USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 165 13. The training was of very good quality and was very realistic 14. Don’t know 15. No response 13. [for Q2= 9 or 10] Did you receive adequate post-training support from the Micro￾Journey Benin project teams? 5. Yes 6. No 7. Don’t know 8. No response 14. [If Q13 = Yes or No] Please explain and provide examples if possible. [open-ended response] GBV PREVENTION 15. In your community, which groups of people are important for influencing change? [select all that apply] 1. Religious leaders 2. Community heads 3. Leaders of women’s groups 4. Spouses and partners of women 5. Government officials and representatives 6. Non-governmental organizations 7. Other [Specify] 8. Don’t know 9. No response 16. Are there people in your organization/community who you think should have been involved in the Micro-Journey Benin program but were not? 1. Yes 2. No 3. Don’t know 4. No response 17. [IF YES]: Who are these people? [open-ended response] 18. Is the ability to prevent gender-based violence difficult because of traditions or the local culture in your community? 1. Yes 2. No 3. Don’t know 4. No response 19. [IF YES]: What aspects are difficult? [open-ended response] USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 166 SUSTAINABILITY 20. Identify which activities you would like to see continue in your community after this period of activity has ended. [select all that apply] 1. Referral services for victims of GBV 2. Judicial and legal services for victims of GBV 3. Assistance with reporting cases of GBV to relevant local authorities 4. Counseling and psychosocial services for victims of GBV and their spouses 5. Physical centers for treatment of GBV victims (Centres Intégrés départementaux de coordination pour la prise en charge des victimes et survivants(es) pour VBG (CIPeC/VBG)) 6. Virtual centers for treatment of GBV victims (CIPeC/VBG) 7. Access to networks of organizations/businesses for GBV survivors 8. Access to income-generating activity (IGA) women’s groups (e.g., for processing of corn into snacks, production of liquid soap etc.) 9. Professional job-related or workforce development skills trainings for victims of GBV 10. Business and entrepreneurship training for victims of GBV and their spouses 11. In-kind start-up capital for victims of GBV and their spouses 12. Mentoring and coaching on income-generating activities for victims of GBV and their spouses 13. Access to other health-related services for victims of GBV outside of CIPeC/VBG (e.g. maternal and antenatal health support, sexual and reproductive health campaigns etc.) 14. Advocacy and awareness raising sessions on women’s issues for all members of community 15. Other [Specify] 16. Don’t know 17. No response 21. Do you think the GBV-prevention and women’s empowerment activities implemented by the Micro-Journey Benin program will continue? 1. Yes 2. No 3. Don’t know 4. No response 22. What do you think your organization/community needs to do to make sure these activities continue? [open-ended response] 23. To what extent do you agree with the following statements: If I wanted to give feedback on the Micro-Journey Benin program, I know who to talk to. 1. Strongly agree 2. Agree 3. Neutral (Neither agree nor disagree) 4. Disagree 5. Strongly disagree USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 167 I believe the staff will consider my feedback seriously. 1. Strongly agree 2. Agree 3. Neutral (Neither agree nor disagree) 4. Disagree 5. Strongly disagree PARTICIPANT BACKGROUND 24. How old are you? 1. 18-24 2. 25-34 3. 35-44 4. 45-54 5. 55-64 6. 65-74 7. 75+ 8. Don’t know 9. No response 25. What is your gender? 1. Woman 2. Man 3. Other [Specify] 4. Don’t know 5. No response 26. What is your ethnicity? 1. Fon 2. Yoruba 3. Adja 4. Bariba 5. Fula 6. Ottamari 7. Other [Specify] 27. Which languages do you speak fluently? [select all that apply] 1. Fon 2. Yom 3. Yoruba 4. French 5. English 6. Other [Specify] 28. What is the highest level of education you have completed? 1. Never attended school USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 168 2. Primary school 3. Secondary school 4. Higher education (Bachelor’s degree) 5. Advanced degree (Master’s degree or Ph.D.) 6. Technical or vocational training 7. Don’t know 8. No response 29. Which municipality do you reside in? 1. Alibori 2. Atacora 3. Plateau 4. Ouémé 5. Other [Specify] 6. Don’t know 7. No response 30. Which community in [Q29 Answer] do you reside in? 1. Get list from IP based on participant lists 2. Other [Specify] 3. Don’t know 4. No response USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 169 WEEM GUATELEMA SURVEY PROTOCOL NOTES [Blue text in brackets] are survey instructions. Purple text in highlight indicate when a survey question or set of response options will need to be adjusted for country-specific/activity-specific use. CONSENT PURPOSE OF STUDY The purpose of this study is to ask for your opinions about Women’s Economic Empowerment in Mesoamerica (WEEM) activity (formerly New Partnerships Initiative (NPI)) in Guatemala. The people carrying out this study are from NORC at the University of Chicago, which is a research institution based in the United States. We are doing this work to help the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) learn how well their programs are working to address gender-based violence. One set of activities they fund is Women’s Economic Empowerment (WEE), which aims to improve women’s economic participation. We are inviting you to participate in this evaluation because you participated in programs and/or training funded by WEEM Guatemala, implemented by the Rainforest Alliance and their partners – ASOCUCH, ACOFUP, FEDECOVERA and Labetnográfico. We’d like to ask you questions about the program, what you liked, what you thought was good, what was not so good and what can be improved in the USAID’s gender-based violence (GBV) portfolio. DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY PROCEDURES If you agree to be a part of this study, you will be asked to answer survey questions about your experiences and opinions related to WEEM Guatemala. The online survey will take approximately 30 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 day. 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 programs. BENEFITS OF PARTICIPATING IN THE STUDY Your participation is important to help us and USAID learn more about the implementation of the activities funded, including lessons learned and areas for improvement. You will receive no economic or material incentive for participating. CONFIDENTIALITY Your responses to this survey will be kept strictly confidential. We will not use any names and report all results as averages of everyone who answered the survey. 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, employer, or IP used to answer the survey. As such, no one will know whether you participated in the survey or USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 170 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 a 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, please contact Katrina Kamara at kamara-katrina@norc.org or [CONSULTANT NAME] at [CONSULTANT PHONE NUMBER]. 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? Yes No INSTRUCTIONS For each statement or question, select the response or responses that best represent your experience/opinion. PROGRAM ACTIVITIES & SERVICES From the following list, to the best of your knowledge, please indicate which activities and services are available for WEEM Guatemala program participants. [select all that apply] Leadership, basic entrepreneurship, and value chain development trainings for women’s groups Training on irregular migration issues and risks for women's groups Training on skills to report possible violence at the family level for women's groups Trainings on gender sensitivity and recognition of violence against women and girls for male and female groups Sensitization campaigns to promote an enabling environment that increases women's economic empowerment Income-generating productive activities linked to the poultry, sheep, coffee and vegetable chains for women entrepreneurs Assistance with accessing microcredit through village banks and other institutions for women entrepreneurs Access to the Women’s Entrepreneurship Fund to grant resources to groups of women for use in new livelihood activities Access to Women’s Leadership Alliance and other networks of municipal women for women entrepreneurs Community forums and other meetings to promote the development and well-being of women Awareness sessions and other material on sexual and reproductive health USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 171 Other [Specify] Don’t know No response Which activities and services have you participated in, used, or received? [select all that apply] Leadership, basic entrepreneurship, and value chain development trainings for women’s groups Training on irregular migration issues and risks for women's groups Training on skills to report possible violence at the family level for women's groups Trainings on gender sensitivity and recognition of violence against women and girls for male and female groups Sensitization campaigns to promote an enabling environment that increases women's economic empowerment Income-generating productive activities linked to the poultry, sheep, coffee and vegetable chains for women entrepreneurs Assistance with accessing microcredit through village banks and other institutions for women entrepreneurs Access to the Women’s Entrepreneurship Fund to grant resources to groups of women for use in new livelihood activities Access to Women’s Leadership Alliance and other networks of municipal women for women entrepreneurs Community forums and other meetings to promote the development and well-being of women Awareness sessions and other material on sexual and reproductive health Other [Specify] None Don’t know No response [for each service or activity selected under Q2] To what extent are you satisfied with the following services or activities? Very satisfied Satisfied Neutral (neither satisfied nor unsatisfied) Unsatisfied Very unsatisfied Don’t know No response CONTEXTUAL RELEVANCE What resources or programs does WEEM Guatemala need most to empower women and prevent gender-based violence (GBV) and harassment in your community? [Think about the most important resources and select all that apply] Referral pathways for victims of GBV Legal assistance services for victims of GBV Emergency hotline services for victims of GBV Psychosocial and counseling support services for victims of GBV USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 172 Housing shelters and safe spaces for victims of GBV Professional skills, leadership and business skills training for women entrepreneurs Employment opportunities in established companies and organizations Entrepreneurial opportunities and support for women entrepreneurs Healthcare services (including sexual and reproductive health rights awareness) Community advocacy and awareness-raising on women’s issues Other [Specify] Don’t know No response [for each selected service under Q2] To what extent do you agree with the following statement: The [ACTIVITY NAME] respond to the needs of women in my community very well. Strongly agree Agree Neutral (neither agree nor disagree) Disagree Strongly disagree Don’t know No response [for each selected service under Q2] To what extent do you agree with this statement: The [ACTIVITY NAME] conflicted with the culture of my community. Strongly agree Agree Neutral (neither agree nor disagree) Disagree Strongly disagree Don’t know No response PROGRAM EFFECTIVENESS [for each selected service under Q2] How useful have activities and services under [ACTIVITY NAME] been in helping to prevent gender-based violence and harassment in your community? Very useful Useful Neutral (neither useful nor useless) Useless Very useless Don’t know No response [for each selected service under Q2] Rate which program components have been the most effective in preventing gender-based violence. [For each component above, rate:] Very effective Effective USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 173 Neutral (neither effective nor ineffective) Ineffective Very ineffective Don’t know No response Have there been any cases in which WEEM Guatemala has stopped abuse, instances of gender-based violence and harassment in your communities? Yes No Don’t know No response [IF YES]: In how many instances can you recall? 1-5 cases 6-10 cases 11-15 cases 16-20 cases More than 20 cases [for each selected service under Q1] Did you experience any difficulties in participating in the following activities? [for each service or activity above, answer:] Yes No Don’t know No response [for Q2= 1 or 2 or 3 or 4] You mentioned earlier that you have participated in some trainings under the WEEM Guatemala project. Overall, how well do you think the project provided realistic, quality trainings? [Select only one] The training was of very low quality or was very unrealistic The training was of low quality or was unrealistic The training was of good quality and was realistic The training was of very good quality and was very realistic Don’t know No response [for Q2= 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 or 6 or 8 or 9 or 10 or 11] Did you receive adequate post￾training support from the WEEM project teams? Yes No Don’t know No response [If Q13 = Yes or No] Please explain and provide examples if possible. [open-ended response] USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 174 Did the COVID-19 pandemic affect the effectiveness of the trainings and other support services you received under the WEEM project? Yes No Don’t know No response [If Q15 = Yes] Please explain and provide examples if possible. [open-ended response] GBV PREVENTION In your community, which groups of people are important for influencing change in empowering women and preventing gender-based violence? [select all that apply] Religious leaders Community heads Leaders of women’s groups Spouses and partners of women entrepreneurs Government representatives Other [Specify] Don’t know No response Are there people in your community who you think should have been involved in WEEM Guatemala activity but were not? Yes No Don’t know No response [IF YES]: Who are these people? [open-ended response] Is the ability to empower women and prevent gender-based violence difficult because of traditions or the local culture in your community? Yes No Don’t know No response [IF YES]: What aspects are difficult? [open-ended response] SUSTAINABILITY Identify which activities you would like to see more of in your community during the rest of the WEEM Guatemala implementation period. Leadership, basic entrepreneurship, and value chain development trainings for women’s groups Training on irregular migration issues and risks for women's groups Training on skills to report possible violence at the family level for women's groups USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 175 Trainings on gender sensitivity and recognition of violence against women and girls for male and female groups Sensitization campaigns to promote an enabling environment that increases women's economic empowerment Income-generating productive activities linked to the poultry, sheep, coffee and vegetable chains for women entrepreneurs Assistance with accessing microcredit through village banks and other institutions for women entrepreneurs Access to the Women’s Entrepreneurship Fund to grant resources to groups of women for use in new livelihood activities Access to Women’s Leadership Alliance and other networks of municipal women for women entrepreneurs Community forums and other meetings to promote the development and well-being of women Awareness sessions and other material on sexual and reproductive health Other [Specify] Don’t know No response Do you think the women’s inclusion activities implemented by WEEM Guatemala will continue beyond the end of the project? Yes No Don’t know No response What do you think your community needs to do to make sure these activities continue? [open-ended response] To what extent do you agree with the following statements: If I wanted to give feedback on WEEM Guatemala, I know who to talk to. Strongly agree Agree Neutral (Neither agree nor disagree) Disagree Strongly disagree I believe the staff will consider my feedback seriously. Strongly agree Agree Neutral (Neither agree nor disagree) Disagree Strongly disagree The WEEM Guatemala activity had enough staff to effectively implement activities and support the needs of my community. Strongly agree Agree USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 176 Neutral (Neither agree nor disagree) Disagree Strongly disagree I would recommend the WEEM Guatemala activity to other women in my community. Strongly agree Agree Neutral (Neither agree nor disagree) Disagree Strongly disagree PARTICIPANT BACKGROUND How old are you? 16-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+ Don’t know No response What is your gender? Woman Man Other [Specify] Don’t know No response What is your ethnicity? Mam Mestizo Poqomchi' Maya Q'eqchi ' Maya K'iche ' Other [Specify] Which languages do you speak fluently? [select all that apply] Spanish Poqomchi' Q'eqchí ' K'iche ' English Other [Specify] What is the highest level of education you have completed? USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 177 Never attended school Primary school Secondary school Higher education (Bachelor’s degree) Advanced degree (Master’s degree or Ph.D.) Technical or vocational training Don’t know No response Which municipality do you reside in? Santa Eulalia Todos Santos Cuchumatan Petatán Concepcion Huista Other [Specify] Don’t know No response Which community in [Q31 Answer] do you reside in? Candelaria Amedipk [If Q31 = 1] Sede Amedipk [If Q31 = 1] Villa Nueva [If Q31 = 1] Yultaq [If Q31 = 1] Chanjon [If Q31 = 2] Cheninhuitz [If Q31 = 2] Chicoy [If Q31 = 2] Mash [If Q31 = 2] San Martin Cuchumatan [If Q31 = 2] Teogal [If Q31 = 2] Tuipat [If Q31 = 2] Tuipocamal [If Q31 = 2] Tzunul [If Q31 = 2] La Playa [If Q31 = 2] Rio Ocho Chiquito [If Q31 = 2] Tuipocamal [If Q31 = 2] Valenton I [If Q31 = 2] Cabic [If Q31 = 3] Canton Limarez [If Q31 = 3] Petatán [If Q31 = 3] Com [If Q31 = 4] Concepcion Huista [If Q31 = 4] Other [Specify] Don’t know No response USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 178 GLOBAL LABOR PROGRAM LESOTHO SURVEY PROTOCOL NOTES [Blue text in brackets] are survey instructions. Purple text in highlight indicate when a survey question or set of response options will need to be adjusted for country-specific/activity-specific use. CONSENT PURPOSE OF STUDY We are inviting you to participate in this evaluation because of your participation in the anti-GBVH program activities implemented by Solidarity Center. The purpose of this study is to ask for your opinions about the Global Labor Program: Levi-Strauss Partnership, also known as the anti-GBVH program, including the information line and Watch investigations. The people carrying out this study are from NORC at the University of Chicago, which is a research institution based in the United States. We are doing this work to help the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) learn how well their programs are working to address gender-based violence. One set of activities they fund is Women’s Economic Empowerment (WEE), which aims to improve women’s economic participation, and the anti-GBVH program is one of these activities. We’d like to ask you questions about the program, what you liked, what you thought was good, what was not so good and what can be improved in the USAID’s GBV portfolio. DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY PROCEDURES If you agree to be a part of this study, you will be asked to answer survey questions about your experiences and opinions related to the anti-GBVH program, including the education and awareness trainings, the information line, and the Watch investigations, as well as how these programs have influenced your experience working at Nien Hsing. The survey will take approximately 30 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 programs. BENEFITS OF PARTICIPATING IN THE STUDY Your participation is important to help us and USAID learn more about the implementation of the activities funded, including lessons learned and areas for improvement. You will receive no economic or material incentive for participating. CONFIDENTIALITY Your responses to this survey will be kept strictly confidential. We will not use any names and report all results as averages of everyone who answered the survey. We will never share any information that could be used to identify you outside of the research team. USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 179 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, employer, or IP 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 a 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, please contact Katrina Kamara at kamara-katrina@norc.org. 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? Yes No INSTRUCTIONS For each statement or question, select the response or responses that best represent your experience/opinion. PROGRAM ACTIVITIES & SERVICES From the following list, please indicate which activities and services are available for employees at Nien Hsing. [select all that apply] Anti-GBVH workshops Information line (0800) Investigations of GBVH by Workers’ Rights Watch Other [Specify] Don’t know No response Which activities and services have you participated in, used, or received? [select all that apply] Anti-GBVH workshops Information line (0800) Investigation of GBVH complaints by Workers’ Rights Watch Other [Specify] None Don’t know No response USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 180 [for each service or activity selected under Q2] To what extent are you satisfied with this service or activity? Very satisfied Satisfied Neutral (neither satisfied nor unsatisfied) Unsatisfied Very unsatisfied Don’t know No response CONTEXTUAL RELEVANCE What resources or programs does Nien Hsing need most to prevent gender-based violence and harassment? Referral pathways Legal assistance services Institutional accompaniment Hotline services Psychosocial support services Housing shelters and safe spaces Economic empowerment services (including professional skills training and entrepreneurial opportunities) Immigration documentation support services Healthcare services (including sexual and reproductive health rights) Other [Specify] Don’t know No response [for each selected activity or service under Q2] To what extent do you agree with the following statement: The [activity or service] responds to the needs of employees at Nien Hsing very well. Strongly agree Agree Neutral (neither agree nor disagree) Disagree Strongly disagree Don’t know No response [for each service or activity selected under Q2] To what extent do you agree with this statement: The [activity or service] conflicted with the culture of Nien Hsing. Strongly agree Agree Neutral (neither agree nor disagree) Disagree Strongly disagree Don’t know No response USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 181 PROGRAM EFFECTIVENESS [for each service or activity selected under Q2] How useful have activities and services under the anti-GBVH program been in helping to prevent gender-based violence and harassment at Nien Hsing? Very useful Useful Neutral (neither useful nor useless) Useless Very useless Don’t know No response [for each service or activity selected under Q2] Rate which program components have been the most effective in preventing gender-based violence. [For each component above, rate:] Very effective Effective Neutral (neither effective nor ineffective) Ineffective Very ineffective Don’t know No response Have there been any cases in which the anti-GBVH program has provided services for sexual harassment victims at Nien Hsing? Yes No Don’t know No response [IF YES to Q9]: In how many instances can you recall? 1-5 cases 6-10 cases 11-15 cases 16-20 cases More than 20 cases Have there been any cases in which the anti-GBVH program has held perpetrators accountable for gender-based violence and harassment at Nien Hsing? Yes No Don’t know No response [IF YES to Q11]: In how many instances can you recall? 1-5 cases USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 182 6-10 cases 11-15 cases 16-20 cases More than 20 cases [for each service or activity selected under Q1] Did you experience any difficulties in participating in the following activities? Anti-GBVH workshops Reporting a GBVH incident to the information line (0800) Investigation of GBVH complaints by Workers’ Rights Watch [for each service or activity above, answer:] Yes No Don’t know No response [for Q2 = 1] You said earlier that you have participated in anti-GBVH workshops under the anti-GBVH program. Overall, how well do you think the program provided realistic or quality workshops? [Select only one] The training was of very low quality or was very unrealistic The training was of low quality or was unrealistic The training was of good quality or was realistic The training was of very good quality or was very realistic Don’t know No response [for Q2 = 2] You said earlier that you have used the information line under the anti-GBVH program. What was the quality of support you received? [Select only one] I received very low-quality support I received low-quality support I received high-quality support I received very high-quality support Don’t know No response [for Q2 = 3] You said earlier that you have participated in a Workers’ Rights Watch investigation of a GBVH complaint or complaints under the anti-GBVH program. What was the quality of the investigation? [Select only one] Workers’ Rights Watch conducted a very low-quality investigation Workers’ Rights Watch conducted a low-quality investigation Workers’ Rights Watch conducted a high-quality investigation Workers’ Rights Watch conducted a very high-quality investigation Don’t know No response GBV PREVENTION USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 183 At Nien Hsing, which groups of people are important for influencing change? Human resources Senior leadership Factory managers Textile workers Are there people at Nien Hsing who you think should have been involved in the anti-GBVH program but were not? Yes No Don’t know No response [IF YES to Q18]: Who are these people? [open-ended response] Is the ability to prevent gender-based violence and harassment difficult because of traditions or the local culture in your community? Yes No Don’t know No response [IF YES to Q20]: What aspects are difficult? [open-ended response] SUSTAINABILITY Identify which activities you would like to see continue at Nien Hsing after the anti-GBVH program has ended. Anti-GBVH workshops Information line (0800) Investigation of GBVH complaints by Workers’ Rights Watch Other [Specify] Don’t know No response Do you think any of the following activities implemented by the anti-GBVH program will continue? Anti-GBVH workshops Information line (0800) Investigation of GBVH complaints by Workers’ Rights Watch [for each service or activity above, answer:] Yes No Don’t know No response USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 184 What do you think Nien Hsing needs to do to make sure these activities continue? [open￾ended response] To what extent do you agree with the following statements: If I wanted to give feedback on the anti-GBVH program, I know who to talk to. Strongly agree Agree Neutral (Neither agree nor disagree) Disagree Strongly disagree I believe the staff of the anti-GBVH program will consider my feedback seriously. Strongly agree Agree Neutral (Neither agree nor disagree) Disagree Strongly disagree PARTICIPANT BACKGROUND How old are you? 18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+ Don’t know No response What is your gender? Woman Man Other [Specify] Don’t know No response What is your ethnicity? Basotho Zulu Other [Specify] Which languages do you speak fluently? [select all that apply] Sesotho English Afrikaans USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 185 Zulu Xhosa Other [Specify] What is the highest level of education you have completed? Never attended school Primary school Secondary school Higher education (Bachelor’s degree) Advanced degree (Master’s degree or Ph.D.) Technical or vocational training Don’t know No response USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 186 FGD PROTOCOL – PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS Respondent Name, DRG Area(s) of Expertise, Institution _________________ Date: _________________________________________________________________ Start Time: ___________________________________________________________ TOPIC QUESTION INTRO / ACKNOWLEDGE: Hello. My name is [INTERVIEWER NAME] and I’ll be leading today’s discussion. I will let my colleagues introduce themselves. We work for NORC at the University of Chicago. I want to thank you for coming, I really appreciate you all being here and sharing your thoughts with me. Today you’ll be participating in a group discussion as part of an evaluation of the [Micro Journey to Self-Reliance in Benin / Enabling Environment for Economic Empowerment of Women (E4W) in Burundi / Engendering Industries in Nigeria / Global Labor Program: Levi-Strauss Partnership in Lesotho] activity for USAID’s Office of Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment. I have some information I need to read you about this study and your rights as a research participant. You have been selected because of your participation in the [Micro Journey to Self-Reliance in Benin / Enabling Environment for Economic Empowerment of Women (E4W) in Burundi / Engendering Industries in Nigeria / Global Labor Program: Levi-Strauss Partnership in Lesotho] project. The evaluation will provide USAID, the implementer, and other project stakeholders working to combat gender-based violence through women’s economic empowerment interventions more broadly, an assessment of the project’s performance, its effects on project participants, and an understanding of the factors driving the project results. NORC has been contracted as an external, independent organization to collect data that will inform current and future USAID-funded programming focused on GBV prevention and response. While we do 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 experiences. That means you don’t need to worry about making us happy or hurting our feelings. We are just the moderators—here to listen to you and keep the conversation moving. Our session is planned for 90 minutes. Your participation in this study is entirely voluntary. If you are unable to answer a question, you may skip it or even leave the discussion at any time; there will be no repercussions for this. There are no direct benefits or risks associated with participating in this discussion, however, your feedback will be very useful 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. We have [food, drink, restrooms, etc.] for you to make your participation more comfortable. If you have questions, please e-mail Ritu Nayyar-Stone, the project director for this research at nayyarstone￾ritu@norc.org. CONSENT TO RECORD: Thank you very much for your participation. We would like to record this interview with your permission. This will enable us to go back and substantiate our notes. The recording and notes will never be shared with USAID or anyone outside of this research team. Once we’ve compared the recording and notes, we will destroy the recording. Do you agree to participate and have this session recorded? [START RECORDER] Now I need to ask you one last time on the tape. Do you agree to participate in this discussion and have it recorded? [Check with each respondent] Before we begin, I would like to go through some basic ground rules for today’s discussion: If you need to get up for any reason, you may feel free to do so and don’t need to ask for permission. When you return, please wait until the next question to jump back in. USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 187 TOPIC QUESTION Since our meeting is only 90 minutes, and we have a lot of ground to cover, we kindly ask that you cover 1-2 points in your responses to give others time to respond as well. This is meant to be a free-flowing discussion, but for ease of facilitation, please raise your hand if you would like to join the discussion. Say what you believe, even if it’s not what everyone thinks. There are no bad answers, just different opinions, and we want to hear them all. If you agree with what has been said, please say that. Otherwise, please share your points. From time to time, I may have to interrupt you to finish on time. I’m not trying to be rude, but there’s a lot to cover in a limited amount of time, so I apologize in advance if that happens. Now, let’s get started. ENUMERATOR/MODERATOR NOTE: Enumerator, please note that we should first ask participants the priority questions in each section and only if time permits after asking all the priority questions should you ask the lower priority questions that are non￾numbered and marked in Italics in each section. Introduction Today we are going to discuss the [Micro Journey to Self-Reliance in Benin / Enabling Environment for Economic Empowerment of Women (E4W) in Burundi / Engendering Industries in Nigeria / Global Labor Program: Levi￾Strauss Partnership in Lesotho] activity. We will focus on your experience participating in the various interventions, your perceptions of what it did for you and the community, and any thoughts you have about lessons for future activities. During this discussion will refer to it as the [Micro Journey / E4W / Engendering Industries / Global Labor Program] activity. Awareness 1. First, I would like to know how you learned about the [Micro Journey / E4W / Engendering Industries / Global Labor Program] activity? Participation 2. What made you decide to participate in the [Micro Journey / E4W / Engendering Industries / Global Labor Program] activity? Did you have any concerns about participating? Please explain? Optional: What kinds of activities did you participate in as part of the [Micro Journey / E4W / Engendering Industries / Global Labor Program] activity in your community? Activity Services and Impact 3. Do you think that the [Micro Journey / E4W / Engendering Industries / Global Labor Program] activity has helped prevent GBV in your community/organization? If yes: a. What have been the most important contributions of the [Micro Journey / E4W / Engendering Industries / Global Labor Program] activity to prevent GBV in your community? [Probe: specifically ask how the activity has helped the community] 4. Do you think that the [Micro Journey / E4W / Engendering Industries / Global Labor Program] activity has helped to improve access to and quality of services for women and GBV survivors in your community? If yes: b. Could you share an example of how? USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 188 TOPIC QUESTION 5. What other services could the [Micro Journey / E4W / Engendering Industries / Global Labor Program] activity provide to your community to prevent instances of GBV? Activity Relevance and Engagement with Implementer Thank you for your responses so far. Next, we would like to know what you thought about the quality, suitability and effectiveness of the [Micro Journey / E4W / Engendering Industries / Global Labor Program] activity. Activity Suitability and Effectiveness 6. Do you think the [Micro Journey / E4W / Engendering Industries / Global Labor Program] activity responded to the needs and priorities of your community? Why or why not? [Probe: responsiveness to community cultural context; prioritization of key GBV problems] 7. What parts of the activity do you remember most? Which were most useful to you? How were they useful? 8. Do you have any recommendations how the activity might have done better to reach people in your community? a. What were the least helpful parts of the activity? b. Are there any things that you wish had been included in the activity? IP Engagement 9. When you were involved in the [Micro Journey / E4W / Engendering Industries / Global Labor Program] activity, did staff ask for your ideas about how they could improve the activity? c. Do you believe your opinions about the [Micro Journey / E4W / Engendering Industries / Global Labor Program] activity resonated with activity staff? Why or why not? Activity Monitoring and Adaptation 10. When you were involved with the [Micro Journey / E4W / Engendering Industries / Global Labor Program] activity, were there any changes in the activity (such as, changes in services offered or training agenda)? a. [IF YES:] Please, give me an example. b. [IF YES:] Why do you think these changes were implemented? Were there changes in the context of your community that led to these adjustments (e.g. political events etc.)? c. [IF NOT:] Do you think there were adjustments that were necessary to the activity but were not implemented? Please, explain. Activity Performance and Results 11. What’s your understanding of the goals of the [Micro Journey / E4W / Engendering Industries / Global Labor Program] activity? 12. To what extent do you think the activity accomplished intended results? [PROBE on reducing and preventing instances of GBV] a. [FOR Micro Journey] Have the financial and business trainings helped helped improve the ways women earn money or participate in livelihood activities in your community? How so? i. Have the activities helped prevent and reduce GBV? If yes, could you provide an example of how? USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 189 TOPIC QUESTION ii. Do you think the activities have helped improve how women are treated in your community? In your household? Why or why not? b. [FOR E4W] Have the livelihood trainings on coffee agricultural practices helped improve the ways women earn money or participate in livelihood activities in your community? If yes, could you provide an example of how? i. Have the activities helped prevent and reduce instances of GBV? If yes, could you provide an example of how? c. [FOR E4W] Have the gender awareness raising and social dialogue activities helped women’s position or their ability to speak out in your community? If yes, could you provide an example of how? i. Have these activities helped prevent and reduce GBV? If yes, could you provide an example of how? ii. Do you think the activities have helped improve how women are treated in your community? In your household? Why or why not? d. [FOR Engendering Industries] Have the GBVH trainings and male engagement activities helped prevent and reduce GBV and harassment at the workplace? If yes, could you provide an example of how? e. [FOR Global Labor Program] Have the GBVH education and training activities helped prevent and reduce GBV and harassment at the workplace? If yes, could you provide an example of how? f. [FOR Global Labor Program] Have you used the GBVH information helpline? i. If yes, do you think the information helpline has helped you? How? Could you provide an example? 13. Who benefited from the [Micro Journey / E4W / Engendering Industries / Global Labor Program] activity? Did certain groups benefit more than others? Are there any groups of people that you think should have been included, but were not? [PROBE on age groups, indigenous women] Optional: What were the best and most helpful parts of this activity? Which components had the most positive results or impact? Which components could be improved? Sustainability and Way Forward We are close to the end of the interview. Thank you so much for the comments made so far. Finally, we would like to get your perspectives on community needs and the future of activities like the [Micro Journey / E4W / Engendering Industries / Global Labor Program] activity. Sustainability 14. Do you think that or any of the good changes from the [Micro Journey / E4W / Engendering Industries / Global Labor Program] activity will continue in the future? Please, identify one or two results that are likely to continue, if possible. a. Which activities are more likely to continue? Why? Is this desirable for your community/org? USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 190 TOPIC QUESTION b. Which activities will be less likely to continue? Why? Would the community have received benefits if these activities continued? 15. What do you think your community needs to do to make sure these activities continue? Closing 16. Are there any other comments or suggestions that you would like to make about the [Micro Journey / E4W / Engendering Industries / Global Labor Program] activity? 17. Do you have questions for us? USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 191 IMPLEMENTATION EVALUATION QUESTIONS The questions below will be asked only for the WEE in Mesoamerica (WEEM) activity. TOPIC QUESTION Introduction Today we are going to discuss the progress and performance of the WEE in Mesoamerica (WEEM) activity in Guatemala (formerly New Partnerships Initiative (NPI)). We will focus on your experience participating in the various interventions so far, intervention impacts on your life and within the community, and lessons for continued programming. We will refer to it as the WEEM activity henceforth. Awareness 1. First, I would like to know how you learned about the WEEM activity? Participation 2. What made you decide to participate in the WEEM activity? Did you have any concerns about it? If yes, would you like to help me understand these concerns more closely, please? 3. Did you have any difficulty participating in the WEEM activity? If yes, what conditions would make participating in the WEEM activity easier? 4. Do you know of anyone that wanted to participate but couldn’t? If so, why not? Design 5. In your opinion, what problems related to GBV should be prioritized in your community? 6. Do you think the WEEM activity has responded to the needs and priorities of your community? Why or why not? [Probe: responsiveness to community cultural context; prioritization of key GBV problems] Implementation 7. How did the WEEM activity address GBV issues? What changes resulted in your community? 8. What type of interventions do you feel the activity did very well? 9. What aspects of the WEEM interventions could be improved? 10. Do you think that the WEEM activity had enough staff to support the needs of your community? 11. Do you think the activity was able to adapt when programming didn’t work or wasn’t in line with what the community needed? Could you give some examples? Feedback Mechanisms 12. Do you know how to give feedback to the implementers of the WEEM activity? If yes, could you elaborate? 13. If you had feedback to share about the activity, do you think staff would listen? 14. Do you know if anything about WEEM activity has changed because of you or someone else giving feedback? If so, could you give an example. 15. During your participation in the WEEM activity, did staff request your input about aspects of the activity that could improve? 16. Do you believe program participant opinions about the WEEM activity resonated with activity staff? Why or why not? Closing 17. Would you recommend this activity to someone else? Why, why not? 18. Are there any other comments or suggestions that you would like to make about the WEEM activity? USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 192 KII & FGD PROTOCOL – IMPLEMENTING PARTNERS Respondent Name, DRG Area(s) of Expertise, Institution _________________ Date: _________________________________________________________________ Start Time: ___________________________________________________________ CATEGORY 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/focus group discussion]. I will let my colleague(s) introduce themselves. I want to thank you for coming and participating in this [interview/focus group discussion], which is part of a performance evaluation of USAID’s Women’s Economic Empowerment (WEE) cluster. 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/focus group discussion] is planned for [60 / 90 minutes]. Your participation is voluntary. If you are unable to answer a question, you may skip it or even [stop the interview / leave the discussion whenever you want]. It is no problem if you want to leave. However, your feedback will be very useful in helping to inform 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 and 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 briefly introduce yourself/yourselves and your area of focus within [Micro-Journey / E4W / Engendering Industries / Global Labor Program / WEEM]? ENUMERATOR NOTE: Enumerator, please note that we should first ask participants the priority questions in each section and only if time permits after asking all the priority questions should you ask the lower priority questions that are non￾numbered and marked in italics in each section. PORTFOLIO QUESTIONS Introduction Today we are going to discuss the overall design, progress, and performance of [Micro-Journey / E4W / Engendering Industries / Global Labor Program / WEEM] within USAID/GenDev’s GBV portfolio. Prevention 1. What has been the most important contribution of [Micro-Journey / E4W / Engendering Industries / Global Labor Program / WEEM] to preventing gender-based violence (GBV)? Please, explain how. USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 193 CATEGORY TOPIC QUESTION Protection 2. What are the main lessons learned about preventing violence that you can share? Accountability ASK FOR RELEVANT ACTIVITIES THAT TARGET IMPUNITY: 3. How has [Micro-Journey / E4W / Engendering Industries / Global Labor Program / WEEM], directly or indirectly, contributed to increasing perpetrator accountability? Coordination 4. Have you or your organization participated in meetings with other IPs via USAID/GenDev? 5. What information, ideas or other benefits did you obtain from this experience(s)? Would you recommend more exchanges between IPs and USAID? Why? Or why not? Foundations 6. Have you been briefed on USAID strategies and priorities around GBV? Populations 7. Are there any underserved or especially vulnerable groups that your activity has reached? 8. Which vulnerable groups susceptible to GBV has [Micro-Journey / E4W / Engendering Industries / Global Labor Program / WEEM]? not been able to reach? Why? Stakeholders 9. What other stakeholders were you able to engage to accomplish the goals of [Micro-Journey / E4W / Engendering Industries / Global Labor Program / WEEM]? What were the contributions of these additional stakeholders? Was their participation valuable? Intervention Planning and Design 10. What evidence or information informed the [Micro￾Journey / E4W / Engendering Industries / Global Labor Program / WEEM]? 11. Upon reflection what were some of the important knowledge and practice gaps in planning and designing the interventions? Forms of Violence Optional: What are important knowledge and practice gaps in addressing specific forms of GBV? Reach and Effectiveness Optional: Are there any USAID learning or dissemination of lessons that are relevant for other areas? ACTIVITY CLUSTER QUESTIONS Monitoring and Adaptations 12. Could you share some examples of any aspects of the [Micro-Journey / E4W / Engendering Industries / Global Labor Program / WEEM] that you might have changed, particularly based on any emerging evidence? USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 194 CATEGORY TOPIC QUESTION Outcomes 13. What were the primary outcomes of [Micro-Journey / E4W / Engendering Industries / Global Labor Program / WEEM]? 14. What outcomes or other influence has [Micro-Journey / E4W / Engendering Industries / Global Labor Program / WEEM] achieved? How? 15. What intended outcomes were not achieved? Why? Planning and Activity Designs 16. If you were designing the activity again, is there anything that you would do differently? Intervention Implementation 17. How did you identify changemakers in the org/community for [Micro-Journey / E4W / Engendering Industries / Global Labor Program / WEEM]? 18. What was their role in the project? 19. How well did program activities reach their target groups? What did they do? Mechanisms 20. What do you think were the most effective components of your activity? Please identify one or two. Why were they effective? 21. For whom did they work best? Were there any risk groups that were left out? Sustainability 22. What have been the primary facilitators and barriers to the sustainability of [Micro-Journey / E4W / Engendering Industries / Global Labor Program / WEEM]? Replicability, Transferability, and Adaptability 23. Where else would you recommend implementing [Micro-Journey / E4W / Engendering Industries / Global Labor Program / WEEM]? Scalability 24. If you were to scale up your activity, which components of your intervention would you focus on? Optional: How would you describe the cost-effectiveness of this program for scale-up? IMPLEMENTATION EVALUATION QUESTIONS The questions in this section will only be asked to the IP of the WEEM activity (Rainforest Alliance). Design 25. Could you speak to how WEEM was designed? What evidence or community input influenced this design? Would you change anything about the design? 26. What GBV issues were identified and prioritized while designing WEEM? ToC 27. Is there a theory of change that specifies the intervention approaches to the changes that will lead to the intended outcomes? USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 195 CATEGORY TOPIC QUESTION 28. In your opinion, which approaches/tools were most effective in achieving the objective of this activity? How did they work? 29. Can you describe any important assumptions that were made about the intervention’s ability to achieve the outcomes. Target Participants 30. Who were the target participants for this activity? How were target participants for WEEM identified? 31. What, if any, challenges were there in reaching targeted participants? What could mitigate these challenges in the future? Implementation 32. Were there specific challenges or enabling factors in implementing this activity? Please explain. Were the challenges overcome? And how? Flexibility 33. Is there sufficient staffing and staff skills to respond to local priorities? Is there flexibility to change approaches to respond to lessons and changing challenges in the local environment? Monitoring of Results 34. Is WEEM collecting evidence on what is working, not working and what could be done differently to achieve results? How? Is there a monitoring process? 35. Do you have a process in place to use performance data for adaptive management? Please describe. Sustainability 36. What efforts have been made to support the sustainability of WEEM? 37. Has work been done to support the potential sustainability of this activity? 38. What are the cost implications of sustaining these activities? USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 196 Activity Specific Questions CATEGORY TOPIC The questions in this section will only be asked to the respective IP for each activity. ACTIVITY SPECIFIC QUESTIONS Micro-Journey to Self￾Reliance 39. Why and how were GBV-focused activities integrated into the larger IHSA program? 40. What plans are in place to continue supporting participants after the livelihood and financial trainings? 41. Could you tell us more about how partners/spouses of women were engaged in the different activities? How was the intervention perceived by partners/spouses? E4W 42. What plans are in place to continue supporting participants after the livelihood trainings on coffee agricultural practices? 43. How were partners/spouses of women engaged in the gender awareness-raising and social dialogue activities? Engendering Industries 44. Could you please discuss the theory of change for Engendering Industries? Can you describe the thinking about how the activities would influence change? What were the hypotheses about the causal pathway and any assumptions that were made? Was there a consultation on this? 45. Were the courses, trainings, and activity components suited for the organizational structure and culture of IBEDC? Global Labor Program 46. What were the obstacles to influencing GBVH at Nien Hsing and how do you think the Global Labor Program activity is addressing these? WEEM 47. We understand that COVID-19 had a significant impact on the activity. Could you describe some of these challenges for WEEM in Guatemala? 48. How did the program adapt to these challenges? What additional support was provided to participants during this period? 49. What kind of feedback mechanisms are in place for participants to provide input on the activity? USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 197 KII PROTOCOL - USAID Respondent Name, Designation, Institution: _____________________________ Date: _________________________________________________________________ Start Time: ___________________________________________________________ CATEGORY 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 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 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 if you don’t want to continue, you can leave the discussion any time. There will not be any problems if you decide to leave. 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 WHERE NEEDED] 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? [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. ENUMERATOR NOTE: Enumerator, please note that we should first ask participants the priority questions in each section and only if time permits after asking all the priority questions should you ask the lower priority questions that are non￾numbered and marked in Italics in each section. Introduction Today we are going to discuss the progress and performance of GBV￾focused projects within the Women’s Economic Empowerment (WEE) cluster in the last 4-5 years. We will focus on the lessons learned from the implementation of the wide range of WEE activities with GBV components. Specifically, our evaluation covers the following WEE activities: A Micro-Journey to Self-Reliance (Benin), Enabling Environment for Economic Empowerment of Women (E4W)(Burundi), Engendering Industries (Nigeria), Global Labor Program: Levi-Strauss Partnership (Lesotho) and Women’s Economic Empowerment in Mesoamerica (WEEM) (Guatemala). We will refer to them as the [Micro Journey / E4W / Engendering Industries / Global Labor Program / WEEM] activity henceforth. USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 198 CATEGORY TOPIC QUESTION In the first section, we will ask questions around achievement of objectives, lessons learned and gaps. 1. To begin, could you please tell me about your involvement with the WEE cluster? a. Could you elaborate on your involvement with the [Micro Journey / E4W / Engendering Industries / Global Labor Program / WEEM] activity(ies)? PORTFOLIO QUESTIONS USG Principles 2. What USG principles and policy measures have driven the choice of included interventions in the WEE cluster? Prevention and Access to Services 3. What have been the most important contributions of the WEE cluster in preventing GBV? a. What approaches or aspects of the activities were most effective in preventing GBV? b. Which were least effective? c. Why? 4. Thinking about the WEE cluster, how have its grants affected access to effective services for GBV survivors? Why? a. What approaches were most effective in increasing access to services? Which were least effective? Why? Coordination 5. Could you please tell me about the management structure for the WEE cluster? a. How does information flow from grantees up to USAID/GenDev? 6. How does this information influence decision-making? Please, provide an example (probe past re-design, future programming, etc.). 7. What is your assessment of the co-creation processes undertaken between USAID and IPs? Are there any lessons learned from these experiences? Cluster Integration 8. What are the primary features of the WEE cluster that might differ or complement the other GBV activity clusters? Please identify two or three. 9. What gendered aspects or diverse gender populations are being taken into account in GBV programing? What aspects are being prioritized? Are other intersections being considered? 10. How have lessons from the WEE activity cluster affected other GBV programming? Optional: How does this activity cluster fit into the full range of USAID's GBV programs? Have you coordinated initiatives from this cluster with any other GBV efforts from USAID? If so, 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? USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 199 CATEGORY TOPIC QUESTION Are lessons and information from the WEE cluster ever used to inform higher level decision making across USAID/GenDev programs? Could you provide some examples of this? ACTIVITY CLUSTER QUESTIONS Lessons Learnt and Best Practices 11. How does USAID/GenDev use data collected from the WEE cluster? 12. To what extent have grantees been briefed on USAID strategies and priorities around GBV? Or the lessons learned from the cluster? 13. Could you tell me about the most vulnerable or underserved populations who have participated in WEE cluster programming? a. Who do you think these activities might have missed? Why? b. Are there certain populations that you would recommend be considered for future programming? 14. Was there a strategy for engaging a broad range of stakeholders for the WEE cluster? a. What activities were able to effectively engage relevant stakeholders? Please, provide one or two examples. b. In contrast, what activities were less successful? Also, please provide one or two examples. Gaps 15. What are important knowledge and practice gaps in planning and designing GBV interventions? a. Were there particular gaps related to gender diversity? If yes, please describe. 16. What are important knowledge and practice gaps in addressing specific forms of GBV? (PROBE: specifically for intimate-partner violence) Optional: How do the 4 ACs together influence the reach and effectiveness of other GBV interventions, even those not funded by USAID? How will you take advantage of the lessons learned or knowledge gained from the 4 ACs for future work? Now we have some questions for you about your thoughts on the formation, planning and design, implementation, and performance of the WEE cluster. Formation of WEE cluster 17. Were grantees in the activity cluster required to conduct pre￾implementation assessments? a. What assessments were conducted, and could you comment on their usefulness and robustness? 18. What were the main assumptions among USAID/GenDev and its stakeholders to design, commission, and implement the WEE activity cluster? a. How accurate were these assumptions? USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 200 CATEGORY TOPIC QUESTION WEE AC Design 19. What did the design process of the activity cluster look like? a. Who came up with the idea? Who contributed to it? b. What evidence or local consultation guided the design of the program? c. Who made the decisions and how were these decisions adopted? 20. Which activities were most successful in achieving the outcomes in their activity design, and which were less successful? a. Can you identify facilitating factors and challenges either way? b. Were there any unanticipated positive or negative effects from this activity? Optional: Were the outcomes stated in activity designs for the WEE activity cluster realistic? Was the length of the grants sufficient to achieve these outcomes? Why? Please, share elements of the activity design that you think were effective. What activity designs faced challenges? Why? Please think of any stage between the process of co-creation, adoption, and implementation. WEE Intervention Implementation 21. Do you think that the activities in this cluster were able to reach the participants that they were designed to reach? 22. What were the most effective intervention components or approaches used by the grantees? Please, identify two or three. a. What were the concrete outcomes from these components or approaches? Optional: Did reaching the target groups help influence change around GBV in each context? Were there any challenges in reaching the right people to influence change? Monitoring and adaptation 23. How have WEE cluster activities monitored their implementation? 24. Have WEE cluster activities been able to adapt their implementation based on monitoring findings? Please, provide an example. 25. What could be improved about activity monitoring? WEE AC Sustainability What components or approaches in the WEE cluster are likely to remain active even after funding ends? Please, identify two or three. Why did that happen? What components or approaches in the WEE cluster ended? Why? (PROBE: funding, political willingness, cultural competency, etc.) USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 201 CATEGORY TOPIC QUESTION a. What strategies were absent or could have been improved to increase sustainability for those activities or approaches that ended? Are there any lessons learned for the WEE activity cluster about sustainability in the current context and existing stakeholders? If so, please elaborate. Scalability 29. Which interventions in the WEE cluster do you see as having potential for scaling up? Are there any that you think would be very costly or difficult to scale up? Why? a. Conversely, are there interventions that you would cut? If yes, why? Optional Has the experience with the WEE cluster informed the potential for scale up or replicability elsewhere? Please explain. Are there any interventions or approaches in the WEE cluster that you think could be replicated in or adapted to other contexts? Are there any that you think could not be replicated or adapted? Why? That brings us to the end of our interview, thank you for your time. Do you have any questions for us? USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 202 ANNEX C. SOURCES OF INFORMATION BTC DOCUMENTS REVIEWED Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Sage publications. Better Together Challenge (2022). The Better Together Challenge/Juntos es Mejor Cluster Final Report Democracy International (2021). Email: WELCOME Revised Design Democracy International (2021). Fixed Amount Award (FAA) Agreement Democracy International (2021). PMP Table Democracy International (2021). WELCOME Revised Design for Resonance Review Democracy International (2020). Women Exercising Leadership For Cohesion & Meaningful Empowerment (Welcome) Project: Democracy International Final Report Democracy International (2020). Women Exercising Leadership For Cohesion & Meaningful Empowerment (Welcome) Project: Democracy International Work Plan Democracy International (2021). Women Exercising Leadership For Cohesion & Meaningful Empowerment (Welcome) Project: Democracy International Work Plan (Revised) Democracy International (2020). Women Exercising Leadership For Cohesion & Meaningful Empowerment (Welcome) Project: Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning Plan National Coordinating Coalition (2021). Activity Plan National Coordinating Coalition (2021). Bridging The Gap For Venezuelan Migrants (BTG4VM) Monitoring, Evaluation, And Learning Plan And Work Plan National Coordinating Coalition (2021). NCC Final Report National Coordinating Coalition (2021). Grant Agreement National Coordinating Coalition (2021). KPI Tracker National Coordinating Coalition (2021). Rapid Gender Based Violence Assessment The Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society (2020). Environmental Assessment The Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society (2022). Equilibrando La Balanza: Involucrar A Los Hombres En La Reducción De La Violencia De Género: HIAS Informe Final USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 203 The Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society (2021). Fixed Amount Award (FAA) Agreement The Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society (2021). Mesa De Diálogo Sobre Masculinidades Positivas En El Contexto De Panamá The Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society (2021). BlogMasculinidades The Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society (2021). Concept Paper: HIAS Panama - Engaging Men In Panama To Reduce Risk And Mitigate Consequences Of Violence Against Women And Girls, With A Specific Focus On Venezuelan Refugees And Migrants The Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society (2021). Shifting Power Dynamics: Engaging Men In Gender-based Violence Reduction: HIAS Periodic Report The Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society (2021). Shifting Power Dynamics: Engaging Men in Gender-Based Violence Reduction: Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning Plan and Work Plan The Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society (2020). USAID Global Development Lab Gender Analysis Template The Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society (2022). United States Strategy to Prevent and Respond to Gender￾Based Violence Globally SITES VISITED Apple Store. https://apps.apple.com/us/app/el-man-de-hoy/id1604608067 Democracy International. https://democracyinternational.com/ Doodnat, A. (2021). Building back better: NGO founder heals from shooting, rebuilds centre. Available at: https://tt.loopnews.com/content/building-back-better-ngo-founder-heals-shooting-rebuilds￾centre?fbclid=IwAR1eCRZ1fauKZzHwW5kEMEEuJmcbj6kJxQ9GQ8WMr5kr5Oi-LHY6mzv7q9g National Coordinating Coalition. https://nccgy.org/ R4V Inter-Agency Coordination Platform for Refugees and Migrants from Venezuela. https://www.r4v.info/en USAID BTC. https://www.usaid.gov/BetterTogetherVE US Dept. of State 2016 Update to United States Strategy To Prevent and Respond to Gender-based Violence Globally. https://2009- 2017.state.gov/s/gwi/priorities/gbv/258536.htm#:~:text=The%20goal%20of%20U.S.%20Government,devel opment%2C%20security%2C%20and%20prosperity. KEY INFORMANTS NORC obtained qualitative information through key informant interviews, focus group discussions, and semi-structured interviews from the following organizations: USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 204 Table C.1. Key Informants ORGANIZATIONAL AFFILIATION NAME TITLE USAID Jamie Small Activity Cluster Manager HIAS Roberto Mera Montenegro Country Head HIAS Leandro Cardozo Technical Expert HIAS Yazcari Murillo Technical Expert DI Molly Knapp Monitoring and Evaluation DI Naomi Rasmussen Director La Casita Andreina Briceño Brown Director NCC Simone Sills Director NCC Caressa Henry Project Manager NCC Arielle Gordon M&E Resonance Chelsea Kay BTC Director Resonance Shanna O’Reilly BTC Project Manager Resonance Ana Acosta BTC M&E Specialist IDB Juan Pablo López Gross Senior Specialist IDB Vashtie K. Dookiesingh Project Team Leader IDB Kaimlall Chattergoon Project Manager-Guyana Additionally, NORC collected data on service providers’ perceptions and knowledge about the BTG4VM and WELCOME program using a web survey. The organizations to which respondents mentioned being affiliated are displayed in the following table. Table C.2. Affiliated Organizations GUYANA TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO NCC Families in Action International Organisation for Migrants International Organization for Migration Catholic Charities Organisation Guyana -Migrant Support Services Rape Crisis Society of T&T Food for the Poor United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society - Hope Foundation - Voices Gy United Nations High Commission for Refugees USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 205 CARE GBV CARE GBV DOCUMENTS REVIEWED NO. DOCUMENT TYPE TITLE YEAR PUBLISHED AUTHORING ENTITY/ INDIVIDUAL 1 CARE-GBV Program Document CARE-GBV Small Grants Program MEL Plan for Grantees—Final 2021 MCI 2 CARE-GBV Program Document Crisis Center Hope & Pleiades Organization Social media Policy and Guidelines 2021 CCH 3 CARE-GBV Program Document Progress Report—September 2021 2021 CCH 4 CARE-GBV Program Document Progress Report—October 2021 2021 CCH 5 CARE-GBV Program Document Progress Report—November 2021 2021 CCH 6 CARE-GBV Program Document Progress Report—December 2021 2021 CCH 7 CARE-GBV Program Document Five Day Training Workshop Report 2021 SOAR 8 CARE-GBV Program Document FGD Wellness Report—December 2021 2021 SOAR 9 CARE-GBV Program Document Three Day Learning Visit Final Report 2021 SOAR 10 CARE-GBV Program Document Project Implementation Updates Report 2021 SOAR 11 CARE-GBV Program Document Theory of Change and Workplan 2021 SOAR 12 CARE-GBV Program Document SVRI We Care Blog Post: “From Me to We: Reclaiming the Need for Collective Care” 2021 SVRI 13 CARE-GBV Program Document Theory of Change Narrative 2021 SVRI 14 CARE-GBV Program Document We Care Evidence Review 2021 SVRI 15 CARE-GBV Program Document Staff Wellness Program Curriculum, Handbook, and Appendices 2021 ZSU 16 CARE-GBV Program Document Progress Report—January 2022 2022 CCH 17 CARE-GBV Program Document Report from National Conference 2022 CCH 18 CARE-GBV Program Document February CARE-GBV Check-in Meeting Progress Report 2022 SOAR 19 CARE-GBV Program Document February 2022 CARE-GBV Progress Report 2022 ZSU 20 CARE-GBV Program Document Progress Report—April 2022 2022 CCH 21 CARE-GBV Program Document Progress Report—May 2022 2022 CCH 22 CARE-GBV Program Document Progress Report—June 2022 2022 CCH 23 CARE-GBV Program Document Short Summary Report of 2-Day Workshops (Objectives and Modules) 2022 CCH 24 CARE-GBV Program Document Participant Evaluation Forms from Fourth Wellness Meeting 2022 SOAR 25 CARE-GBV Program Document FCT SGBV Response Team Strategic Plan 2022-2026 2022 SOAR USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 206 NO. DOCUMENT TYPE TITLE YEAR PUBLISHED AUTHORING ENTITY/ INDIVIDUAL 26 CARE-GBV Program Document Stress Management and Wellness Policy 2022 SOAR 27 CARE-GBV Program Document SOAR Staff Code of Conduct 2022 SOAR 28 CARE-GBV Program Document SOAR Safeguarding Policy 2022 SOAR 29 CARE-GBV Program Document 3-Day Strategic Workshop of the FCT SGBVRT 2022 SOAR 30 CARE-GBV Program Document Training Manual on Psychosocial Support and Promoting Resilience of Child Survivors 2022 SOAR 31 CARE-GBV Program Document Wellness and Self-care Training Manual for Sexual and Gender-Based Violence Responders 2022 SOAR 32 CARE-GBV Program Document SVRI Final Report 2022 SVRI 33 CARE-GBV Program Document CARE-GBV Mission Presentation and Progress Report 2022 WAR 34 CARE-GBV Program Document Wellness App Evaluation Report 2022 WAR 35 CARE-GBV Program Document Pre- and Post-Evaluation Data: Vicarious Trauma Training Program Summary Report 2022 WAR 36 CARE-GBV Program Document CARE-GBV Progress Report—April 2022 2022 ZSU 37 CARE-GBV Program Document CARE-GBV Progress Report—July 2022 2022 ZSU 38 CARE-GBV Program Document ZSU Essential Principles of Staff Care 2022 ZSU 39 CARE-GBV Program Document SOAR CARE-GBV Final Project Report 2022 SOAR 40 CARE-GBV Program Document SVRI Final Report—July 2022 2022 SVRI 41 CARE-GBV Program Document Commitment to Collective Care at SVRI—Policy Document 2022 SVRI 42 CARE-GBV Program Document Raising Voices Case Study 2022 SVRI 43 CARE-GBV Program Document Research with HaRT Case Study 2022 SVRI 44 CARE-GBV Program Document CARE-GBV Final Report 2022 WAR 45 CARE-GBV Program Document Summary Evaluation of the Wellness Check Tool 2022 WAR 46 CARE-GBV Program Document Final Baseline—Post Training Evaluation Summary 2022 WAR 47 CARE-GBV Program Document Thuso Ya Bathusi Virtual Training Manual 2022 WAR 48 CARE-GBV Program Document Final CARE-GBV Progress Report 2022 ZSU USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 207 CARE GBV KEY INFORMANTS ORGANIZATION NAME TITLE CCH Maja Acevska President CCH Hristina Doneva Licensed Psychologist CCH Mitana Stevkovska Head Lawyer SOAR Annette Pwajok Operations and Project Manager SOAR Chinyere Eyoh Executive Director and Founder SOAR Ndidiamaka Ani Licensed Therapist SVRI Anik Gevers Technical Specialist WAR Helen Apps Research Director WAR Peggie Ramaphane Executive Director ZSU Aida Behrem Executive Director ZSU Alma Omeragic Professional Translator ZSU Cynthia Uccello Counselor and Clinical Supervisor at Common Threads Project ZSU Catherine Butterly Senior Advisor for Trauma Theory and Training at Common Threads Project MCI Chelsea Pallatino Senior Research and M&E Advisory for CARE￾GBV MCI Jennifer Davis Senior GBV Advisor for CARE-GBV USAID Chai Shenoy Former COR of CARE-GBV USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 208 RISE RISE 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. Conservation International. (2021b). Conservation of the Alto Mayo without Gender Violence: Conservation International Quarterly Report (January-August 2021). USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 209 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). 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). USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 210 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. 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. USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 211 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). 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. USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 212 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. RISE 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 Marstel-Day Land Tenure and Law Expert WI-HER Gender and Impact Expert WI-HER GBV Researcher REDD+ Communications Director REDD+ Forestry Officer USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 213 ORGANIZATIONAL AFFILIATION NAME TITLE 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 USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 214 WEE DOCUMENTS REVIEWED Barriers to Women’s Empowerment in Burundi. (n.d.). Search for Common Ground. Engendering Industries. (n.d.). Engendering Industries Theory of Change. USAID. Engendering Industries. (2022). Engendering Industries—Overview. USAID. Ferrari, F. (2020). Mid-term Monitoring Report—Tuyage: Information Access and Economic Discourse Strengthening to Foster Social Cohesion in Burundi. Search for Common Ground & USAID. Freedom House & Search for Common Ground. (n.d.). Year 4 Annual Implementation Plan—July 1, 2021— June 30, 2020—Tuyage: Information Access and Economic Discourse Strengthening in Burundi. Indicator Tracking Table. (2021). Kahawatu Foundation. (2020). W-GDP Quarterly Survey—FY 2021 Q1. Lesotho Anti-GBVH WhiteBoard Video English Version. (n.d.). Management Sciences for Health. (n.d.). A Micro-Journey to Self-Reliance: Economic Reintegration for Victims of Gender Based Violence (GBV). USAID. Management Services for Health. (2020). Concept Note: Support to Survivors of Gender-Based Violence (GBV). USAID. Management Services for Health. (2021). Benin Integrated Health Services Activity—Workplan Narrative. USAID. Management Services for Health (MSH). (n.d.-a). Benin IHSA Project Results Framework. Management Services for Health (MSH). (n.d.-b). IHSA Detailed Workplan PY4—PY5. USAID. Management Services for Health (MSH). (n.d.-c). Links to GBV Communication Products Developed by the Integrated Health Services Activity (IHSA) Benin. USAID. Management Services for Health (MSH). (2020a). Guidance for W-GDP Funded Activities: How to Report FY20 Standard Foreign Assistance Data. Management Services for Health (MSH). (2020b). MEL Plan Template for W-GDP Activities. USAID. Management Services for Health (MSH). (2020c). Update on Benin Integrated Health Services Activity/USAID Gender-Based Violence (GBV) activities; October 2019-September 2020. Management Services for Health (MSH). (2020d). W-GDP Monthly Survey—August 2020. Management Services for Health (MSH). (2020e). W-GDP Monthly Survey—July 2020. Management Services for Health (MSH). (2020f). W-GDP Monthly Survey—June 2020. Management Services for Health (MSH). (2020g). W-GDP Monthly Survey—May 2020. Management Services for Health (MSH). (2020h). W-GDP Quarterly Survey—FY2020 Q3. Management Services for Health (MSH). (2020i). W-GDP Quarterly Survey—FY2020 Q4. USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 215 Management Services for Health (MSH). (2021a). W-GDP Bi-Annual Activity Survey: April—Sep 2021. Management Services for Health (MSH). (2021b). W-GDP Quarterly Survey—FY2021 Q1. Management Services for Health (MSH). (2021c). W-GDP Quarterly Survey—FY2021 Q2. Management Services for Health (MSH). (2022). Update on Benin Integrated Health Services Activity/USAID Gender-Based Violence (GBV) Activities; October 2020-September 2021. Rainforest Alliance. (n.d.-a). Annex G. Logical Framework. Rainforest Alliance. (n.d.-b). ¿Cómo interactuamos en la Iniciativa Mujeres en Mesoamérica (WEE)? USAID. Rainforest Alliance. (n.d.-c). Iniciativa Empoderamiento Económico de las Mujeres en Mesoamérica -Mujeres en Mesoamérica—Glosario WEE. USAID. Rainforest Alliance. (2020a). Iniciativa de Desarrollo Global y Prosperidad de las Mujeres (W-GDP) Nuevas Alianzas (NPI): America Latina—Manual de Uso de Plataofrma de Manejo de Proyectos (PMP). USAID. Rainforest Alliance. (2020b). Women’s Economic Empowerment in MesoAmerica (WEE in MesoAmerica): Draft Activity Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning Plan. USAID. Rainforest Alliance. (2020c). Women’s Global Development and Prosperity (W-GDP) New Partnership Initiative (NPI): Latin America Quarterly and Annual Report—July—September 2020. USAID. Rainforest Alliance. (2021a). Informe: Análisis de Género—Empoderamiento Económico de las Mujeres en Mesoamérica (WEE en Mesoamérica). USAID. Rainforest Alliance. (2021b). Iniciativa Empoderamiento Económico de las Mujeres en Mesoamérica (WEE in Mesoamerica): Pausa & Reflexión Julio 2021. Rainforest Alliance. (2021c). Iniciativa Empoderamiento Económico de las Mujeres en Mesoamérica (WEE in Mesoamerica): Consejos Consultivos Sectoriales. Rainforest Alliance. (2021d). Iniciativa Empoderamiento Económico de las Mujeres en Mesoamérica (WEE in Mesoamerica): Pausa & Reflexión 2 de diciembre 2021. Rainforest Alliance. (2021e). Plan de Acción de Género: Empoderamiento Económico de las Mujeres en Mesoamérica (WEE en Mesoamérica). USAID. Rainforest Alliance. (2021f). Women’s Economic Empowerment in Mesoamerica Activity Branding Strategy and Marking Plan. USAID. Rainforest Alliance. (2021g). Women’s Economic Empowerment in Mesoamerica (WEE in Mesoamerica) Quarterly and Annual Report—October 1, 2020 to September 30, 2021. USAID. Rainforest Alliance. (2021h). Women’s Economic Empowerment in Mesoamerica (WEE in Mesoamerica) Quarterly Report—April 1st—July 31st, 2021. USAID. Rainforest Alliance. (2021i). Women’s Economic Empowerment Initiative Quarterly Report—January 1st— March 31st 2021. USAID. Rainforest Alliance. (2021j). Women’s Economic Empowerment (WEE) Initiative (Mexico—Guatemala— Honduras): Senior Advisory Committee Notes. USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 216 Rainforest Alliance. (2021k). Women’s Economic Empowerment (WEE) Initiative (Mexico—Guatemala— Honduras): Senior Advisory Committee Notes. Rainforest Alliance. (2021l). Women’s Global Development and Prosperity (W-GDP) New Partnership Initiative (NPI): Latin America—1st Quarterly Report FY 2021. USAID. Rainforest Alliance. (2021m). Women’s Global Development and Prosperity (W-GDP) New Partnership Initiative (NPI): Latin America—Work Plan FY 2021. USAID. Rainforest Alliance. (2021n). Women’s Global Development and Prosperity (W-GDP) New Partnership Initiative (NPI): Latin America—Work Plan FY 20201. USAID. Rainforest Alliance. (2022a). Empoderamiento Económico de las Mujeres en Mesoamérica (WEE in Mesoamerica)—Estudio de Línea Base. USAID. Rainforest Alliance. (2022b). Women’s Economic Empowerment in Mesoamerica (WEE in Mesoamerica) Quarterly Report—April 1 to June 30, 2022. USAID. Rainforest Alliance. (2022c). Women’s Economic Empowerment in Mesoamerica (WEE in Mesoamerica) Quarterly Report—October 1 to December 31, 2021. USAID. Rainforest Alliance. (2021o, February 11). Iniciativa de Desarrollo Global y Prosperidad de las Mujeres (W￾GDP) Nuevas Alianzas: America Latina. Ramanan, N., Kambu, P., Tuyisenge, A., Koninckx, M., Moriceau, J., & C-Lever.org. (2021). Analysis of cultural barriers to women’s economic empowerment in Burundi. Search for Common Ground. Redes Sociales WEE. (n.d.). Search for Common Ground. (n.d.-a). Burundi [Organization Website]. Search for Common Ground. https://www.sfcg.org/burundi/ Search for Common Ground. (n.d.-b). Gender Barrier Analysis—Tuyage—February 2021 [Organization Website]. Search for Common Ground. Search for Common Ground. (n.d.-c). SFCG Tuyage Factsheet Component III: Enabling Environment on Economic Empowerment for Women E4W. USAID. https://www.sfcg.org/wp￾content/uploads/2021/05/SFCG_Tuyage_Factsheet_Component_III.pdf Search for Common Ground. (n.d.-d). Strategic Communications: Analysis of Cultural Barriers to Women’s Economic Empowerment in Burundi. USAID. Search for Common Ground. (2020a). Global Labor Program Report—Semi-Annual Performance Report: February 1, 2020 to July 31, 2020—Project: Lesotho. Search for Common Ground. (2020b). Human Rights Support Mechanism—Quarterly Narrative Report: Quarter 1 Year 3. PROGRESS Consortium. Search for Common Ground. (2021a). Anti-GBVH Awareness Raising Activity Plan 2021. Search for Common Ground. (2021b). Bi-Annual Activity Survey: Apr—Sep 2021. Search for Common Ground. (2021c). HRSM Quarterly Report—April to June 2021. Search for Common Ground. (2021d). HRSM Quarterly Report—January to March 2021. USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 217 Search for Common Ground. (2021e). Human Rights Support Mechanism—Annual Narrative Report: Year 3. Search for Common Ground. (2021f). Human Rights Support Mechanism—Quarterly Narrative Report: Quarter 1 Year 4. PROGRESS Consortium. Search for Common Ground. (2021g). Human Rights Support Mechanism—Quarterly Narrative Report: Quarter 2 Year 3. PROGRESS Consortium. Search for Common Ground. (2021h). Human Rights Support Mechanism—Quarterly Narrative Report: Quarter 2 Year 3. PROGRESS Consortium. Search for Common Ground. (2021i). Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning Plan—Tuyage—Information Access and Economic Discourse Strengthening in Burundi. Search for Common Ground & Pact. (2021). Md-term Applied Political Anaylsis (APEA)—Tuyage— Information Access and Economic Discourse Strengthening in Burundi. USAID. Solidarity Center. (n.d.). Global Labor Program: Lesotho Monitoring and Evaluation Plan. Solidarity Center. (2019). Global Labor Program: Narrative Workplan for Lesotho Country Project—September 2019 – January 2021. Solidarity Center. (2020a). Country Program: Lesotho—PMP Baseline and Targets Table—Feb—July 2020. Solidarity Center. (2020b). Global Labor Program Report—Project: Lesotho—Semi-Annual Performance Report: September 4, 2019 to January 31, 2020. Solidarity Center. (2021a). Country Program: Lesotho—PMP Baseline and Targets Table—Year 5 Aug 2020— Jan 2021. Solidarity Center. (2021b). Global Labor Program Report—Project: Lesotho—Semi-Annual Performance Report: August 1, 2020 to January 31, 2021. Solidarity Center. (2021c). Global Labor Program Report—Semi-Annual Performance Report: February 1, 2021, to July 31, 2021—Project: Lesotho. Solidarity Center. (2021d). Global Labor Program—Lesotho—Narrative Work Plan for Year 6 (April 2021 – January 2022). Solidarity Center. (2021e). GLP Lesotho Yr 6 Timeline. Solidarity Center. (2022a). Anti- GBVH Awareness Raising Activity Plan 2022. Solidarity Center. (2022b). Anti-GBVH Partners’ Check-In Meeting 12.01.2022—1st meeting of 2022. Solidarity Center. (2022c). GBVH PARTERS WEDNESDAY MEETING. Solidarity Center. (2022d). GBVH PROGRAM PARTNERS WEDNESDAY MEETING ON THE 9TH FEBRUARY 2022. Solidarity Center. (2022e). Partners’ Wednesday Meeting—23rd February 2022. Solidarity Center & Worker’s Rights Watch. (n.d.-a). Anti-Gender Based Violence & Harassment Brochure. Worker’s Rights Watch. USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 218 Solidarity Center & Worker’s Rights Watch. (n.d.-b). Workers Rights Watch Posters. Solidarity Centery. (2021). Country Program: Lesotho—PMP Baseline and Targets Table—Feb—July 2021. Tetra Tech. (n.d.-a). Engendering Industries FY 2022 Q1 Quarterly Report: October 2021—December 2021. USAID. Tetra Tech. (n.d.-b). Engendering Industries Year 3 Communications Strategy. USAID. Tetra Tech. (n.d.-c). Engendering Utilities Quarterly Report: October—December 2019 (Q1 FY2020). USAID. Tetra Tech. (n.d.-d). USAID Engendering Industries Program Outreach and Communication. Tetra Tech. (2019). Workplace Advancement for Gender Equality (WAGE): Year 1 Work Plan. USAID. Tetra Tech. (2020a). Engendering Utilities and Workplace Advancement for Gender Equality (WAGE) FY 2020 Annual Report: September 2019—September 2020. USAID. Tetra Tech. (2020b). Engendering Utilities Quarterly Report: April—June 2020 (Q3 FY2020). USAID. Tetra Tech. (2020c). Engendering Utilities Quarterly Report: January—March 2020 (Q2 FY 2020). USAID. Tetra Tech. (2020d). Workplace for Advancement for Gender Equality (WAGE): Year 2 Work Plan. USAID. Tetra Tech. (2021a). Engendering Industries FY 2021 Annual Report (October 2020—September 2021). USAID. Tetra Tech. (2021b). Engendering Industries: Year 3 Work Plan (October 2021—September 2022). USAID. Tetra Tech. (2021c). Engendering Utilities and Workplace Advancement for Gender Equality (WAGE) FY 2021 Q1 Quarterly Report (October 2020—December 2020). USAID. Tetra Tech. (2021d). Engendering Utilities and Workplace Advancement for Gender Equality (WAGE) FY 2021 Q2 Quarterly Report (January 2021—March 2021). USAID. Tetra Tech. (2021e). Engendering Utilities FY 2021 Q3 Quarterly Report (April 2021—June 2021). USAID. Tetra Tech. (2021f). Workplace Advancement for Gender Equality (WAGE) & Engendering Utilities 2.0: Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning (MEL) Plan. USAID. Tetra Tech, SURE, & WAGE Prime Contractor. (2019). Engendering Utilities Quarterly Report: July— September 2019 (Q4 FY 2019). USAID. USAID Engendering Industries Fact Sheet. (n.d.). USAID Grant Logic Model—Global Labor Program: Lesotho. (n.d.). USAID Integrated Health Service Activity. (2020). USAID Integrated Health Service Activity Benin—Program Year 2, Annual Report (October 1, 2019-September 30, 2020). USAID. USAID Integrated Health Service Activity. (2021a). USAID Integrated Health Service Activity Benin—Program Year 3, Annual Report (October 1, 2020—September 30, 2021). USAID. USAID Integrated Health Service Activity. (2021b). USAID Integrated Health Service Activity Benin—Program Year 3, Quarter 2 Progress Report (January 1 – March 31, 2021). USAID. USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 219 USAID Integrated Health Service Activity. (2021c). USAID Integrated Health Service Activity Benin—Program Year 3, Quarter 3 Progress Report (April 1 – June 30, 2021). USAID. USAID Integrated Health Service Activity. (2021d). USAID Integrated Health Services Activity Benin— Program Year 3, Quarter 1 Progress Report (October 1 – December 31, 2020). USAID. USAID Integrated Health Services Activity. (2018). USAID Integrated Health Services Activity—Benin— Program Year 1, Quarter 1 Progress Report (July 1 – September 30, 2018). USAID. USAID Integrated Health Services Activity. (2019a). USAID Integrated Health Services Activity—Benin— Program Year 1, Annual Report (July 1, 2018-September 30, 2019). USAID. USAID Integrated Health Services Activity. (2019b). USAID Integrated Health Services Activity—Benin— Program Year 1, Quarter 2 Progress Report (October 1 – December 31, 2018). USAID. USAID Integrated Health Services Activity. (2019c). USAID Integrated Health Services Activity—Benin— Program Year 1, Quarter 3 Progress Report (January 1 – March 31, 2019). USAID. USAID Integrated Health Services Activity. (2019d). USAID Integrated Health Services Activity—Benin— Program Year 1, Quarter 4 Progress Report (April 1-June 30, 2019). USAID. USAID Integrated Health Services Activity. (2020a). USAID Integrated Health Service Activity—Benin— Program Year 2, Quarter 3 Progress Report (April 1-June 30, 2020). USAID. USAID Integrated Health Services Activity. (2020b). USAID Integrated Health Services Activity—Benin— Program Year 2, Quarter 1 Progress Report (October 1-December 31, 2019). USAID. USAID Integrated Health Services Activity. (2020c). USAID Integrated Health Services Activity—Benin— Program Year 2, Quarter 2 Progress Report (January 1-March 30, 2020). USAID. USAID’s Engendering Industries Results Factsheet. (n.d.). Worker’s Rights Watch & Solidarity Center. (n.d.). Anti Gender-Based Violence and Harassment at Work Program. FIELDWORK SITES VISITED As part of the implementation evaluation of the WEEM Guatemala activity, the team conducted field observations over a 7-day period in the Todos Santos Cuchumatan, Concepcion Huista and Petatan municipalities where key interventions are being implemented. Nine communities were visited, including Tuipat, Mash, Tzunul, Chicoy, San Martin, Chanjon, Valenton I in Todos Santos Cuchumatan; Com in Concepcion Huista; and Petatan. USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 220 WEE KEY INFORMANTS ACTIVITY IP LOCAL PARTNER PROGRAM PARTICIPANT Micro-Journey 2 2 4 E4W 2 2 - GLP 2 4 - Engendering Industries 6 2 7 WEEM 2 2 - GenDev 3 USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 221 ANNEX E. DISCLOSURE CONFLICTS OF INTEREST Name Ritu Nayyar-Stone Title Principal Research Scientist 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 Project(s) Evaluated (Include project name(s), implementer name(s) and award number(s), if applicable) Better Together Challenge Collective Action to Reduce Gender-Based Violence Resilient, Inclusive & Sustainable Environments Women’s Economic Empowerment 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 project(s) being evaluated or the implementing organization(s) whose project(s) are being evaluated. 2. Financial interest that is direct, or is significant though indirect, in the implementing organization(s) whose projects are being evaluated or in the outcome of the evaluation. 3.Current or previous direct or significant though indirect experience with the project(s) being evaluated, including involvement in the project design or previous iterations of the project. 4.Current or previous work experience or seeking employment with the USAID operating unit managing the evaluation or the implementing USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 222 organization(s) whose project(s) are being evaluated. 5.Current or previous work experience with an organization that may be seen as an industry competitor with the implementing organization(s) whose project(s) are being evaluated. 6.Preconceived ideas toward individuals, groups, organizations, or objectives of the particular projects and organizations being evaluated that could bias the evaluation. I certify (1) that I have completed this disclosure form fully and to the best of my ability and (2) that I will update this disclosure form promptly if relevant circumstances change. If I gain access to proprietary information of other companies, then I agree to protect their information from unauthorized use or disclosure for as long as it remains proprietary and refrain from using the information for any purpose other than that for which it was furnished. Signature Date 06/02/2023 USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 223 Name Cathy Zimmerman Title Senior Research Scientist 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 Project(s) Evaluated (Include project name(s), implementer name(s) and award number(s), if applicable) Better Together Challenge Collective Action to Reduce Gender-Based Violence Resilient, Inclusive & Sustainable Environments Women’s Economic Empowerment 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 project(s) being evaluated or the implementing organization(s) whose project(s) are being evaluated. 2. Financial interest that is direct, or is significant though indirect, in the implementing organization(s) whose projects are being evaluated or in the outcome of the evaluation. 3.Current or previous direct or significant though indirect experience with the project(s) being evaluated, including involvement in the project design or previous iterations of the project. 4.Current or previous work experience or seeking employment with the USAID operating unit managing the evaluation or the implementing organization(s) whose project(s) are being evaluated. USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 224 5.Current or previous work experience with an organization that may be seen as an industry competitor with the implementing organization(s) whose project(s) are being evaluated. 6. Preconceived ideas toward individuals, groups, organizations, or objectives of the particular projects and organizations being evaluated that could bias the evaluation. I certify (1) that I have completed this disclosure form fully and to the best of my ability and (2) that I will update this disclosure form promptly if relevant circumstances change. If I gain access to proprietary information of other companies, then I agree to protect their information from unauthorized use or disclosure for as long as it remains proprietary and refrain from using the information for any purpose other than that for which it was furnished. Signature Date 06/02/2023 USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 225 Name Ingrid Rojas Arellano Title Research Scientist 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 Project(s) Evaluated (Include project name(s), implementer name(s) and award number(s), if applicable) Better Together Challenge Collective Action to Reduce Gender-Based Violence Resilient, Inclusive & Sustainable Environments Women’s Economic Empowerment 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 project(s) being evaluated or the implementing organization(s) whose project(s) are being evaluated. 2.Financial interest that is direct, or is significant though indirect, in the implementing organization(s) whose projects are being evaluated or in the outcome of the evaluation. 3.Current or previous direct or significant though indirect experience with the project(s) being evaluated, including involvement in the project design or previous iterations of the project. 4.Current or previous work experience or seeking employment with the USAID operating unit managing the evaluation or the implementing USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 226 organization(s) whose project(s) are being evaluated. 5.Current or previous work experience with an organization that may be seen as an industry competitor with the implementing organization(s) whose project(s) are being evaluated. 6.Preconceived ideas toward individuals, groups, organizations, or objectives of the particular projects and organizations being evaluated that could bias the evaluation. I certify (1) that I have completed this disclosure form fully and to the best of my ability and (2) that I will update this disclosure form promptly if relevant circumstances change. If I gain access to proprietary information of other companies, then I agree to protect their information from unauthorized use or disclosure for as long as it remains proprietary and refrain from using the information for any purpose other than that for which it was furnished. Signature Ingrid Rojas Date 06/02/2023 USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 227 Name Ridhi Sahai Title Senior Research Associate II 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 Project(s) Evaluated (Include project name(s), implementer name(s) and award number(s), if applicable) Better Together Challenge Collective Action to Reduce Gender-Based Violence Resilient, Inclusive & Sustainable Environments Women’s Economic Empowerment 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 project(s) being evaluated or the implementing organization(s) whose project(s) are being evaluated. 2. Financial interest that is direct, or is significant though indirect, in the implementing organization(s) whose projects are being evaluated or in the outcome of the evaluation. 3.Current or previous direct or significant though indirect experience with the project(s) being evaluated, including involvement in the project design or previous iterations of the project. 4.Current or previous work experience or seeking employment with the USAID operating unit managing the evaluation or the implementing organization(s) whose project(s) are being evaluated. USAID.GOV GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: PORTFOLIO REPORT | 228 5.Current or previous work experience with an organization that may be seen as an industry competitor with the implementing organization(s) whose project(s) are being evaluated. 6. Preconceived ideas toward individuals, groups, organizations, or objectives of the particular projects and organizations being evaluated that could bias the evaluation. I certify (1) that I have completed this disclosure form fully and to the best of my ability and (2) that I will update this disclosure form promptly if relevant circumstances change. If I gain access to proprietary information of other companies, then I agree to protect their information from unauthorized use or disclosure for as long as it remains proprietary and refrain from using the information for any purpose other than that for which it was furnished. Signature Ridhi Sahai Date 06/02/2023