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: WEE EVALUATION Final Report August 2, 2023 Prepared under Contract No.: GS-10F-0033M / 7200AA18M00016, Tasking N054 CREDIT: LAURA GARCIA; WEE IN MESOAMERICA PROGRAM PARTICIPANT IN GUATEMALA DRG LEARNING, EVALUATION, AND RESEARCH ACTIVITY II GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: WEE EVALUATION Final Report (AUGUST 2, 2023) Prepared under Contract No.: GS-10F-0033M /7200AA18M00016, Tasking N054 Submitted to: Matthew Baker, USAID COR Submitted by: Katrina Kamara, WEE Evaluation Co-Lead Ridhi Sahai, WEE Evaluation Co-Lead Mayumi Rezwan, Mixed-Methods Specialist Mithila Iyer, Quantitative Specialist McKinzie Davis, Qualitative Specialist Kennely Wongla, Benin Technical Specialist Laura Garcia, Guatemala Technical Specialist Nthabiseng Senekane, Lesotho Technical Specialist Abdulrasheed Abdulraheem, Nigeria Technical Specialist 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 | GBV PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: WEE AC EVALUATION USAID.GOV ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The evaluation team would like to thank the following colleagues at NORC: Ritu Nayyar-Stone (Team Lead for the overall Gender-based Violence Portfolio Performance Evaluation), Cathy Zimmerman (Gender/Gender-based Violence Expert), and Ingrid Rojas Arellano (Evaluation Specialist) for their valuable direction and contributions; and Samantha Austin (Research Associate) for leading the NORC and local IRB processes. ii | GBV PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: WEE AC EVALUATION USAID.GOV TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I ABSTRACT IV ACRONYMS VII EXECUTIVE SUMMARY X EVALUATION DESIGN X MAIN FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS X 1. EVALUATION PURPOSE AND EVALUATION QUESTIONS 1 1.1 EVALUATION QUESTIONS..................................................................................................................1 2. WOMEN’S ECONOMIC EMPOWERMENT BACKGROUND 3 3. METHODS AND LIMITATIONS 9 3.1 DESK REVIEW .........................................................................................................................................10 3.2 KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWS.......................................................................................................10 3.3 SURVEY......................................................................................................................................................10 3.4 LIMITATIONS...........................................................................................................................................12 4 FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS 13 4.1 FINDINGS FOR THE ACTIVITY CLUSTER QUESTIONS ...........................................................13 EVALUATION QUESTION 1: ARE THE ACTIVITY CLUSTERS BASED ON CONTEXT￾SPECIFIC AND INTERNATIONAL EVIDENCE? 14 EVALUATION QUESTION 2: TO WHAT EXTENT ARE EACH OF THE ACS ACHIEVING THE TARGETED GBV RESULTS? 21 EVALUATION QUESTION 3: TO WHAT EXTENT ARE THE ACS SUSTAINABLE? 36 4.2 CONCLUSIONS FOR THE WEE GBV ACTIVITY CLUSTER.....................................................39 EVALUATION QUESTION 1: ARE THE ACS BASED ON CONTEXT-SPECIFIC AND INTERNATIONAL EVIDENCE? 39 EVALUATION QUESTION 2: TO WHAT EXTENT ARE EACH OF THE ACTIVITY CLUSTERS ACHIEVING THE TARGETED GBV RESULTS? 39 EVALUATION QUESTION 3: TO WHAT EXTENT ARE THE ACTIVITY CLUSTERS SUSTAINABLE? 40 4.3 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE WEE ACTIVITY CLUSTER..................................................40 EVALUATION QUESTION 1: ARE THE ACS BASED ON CONTEXT-SPECIFIC AND INTERNATIONAL EVIDENCE? 40 EVALUATION QUESTION 2: TO WHAT EXTENT ARE EACH OF THE ACTIVITY CLUSTERS ACHIEVING THE TARGETED GBV RESULTS? 41 EVALUATION QUESTION 3: TO WHAT EXTENT ARE THE ACTIVITY CLUSTERS SUSTAINABLE? 42 5. IMPLEMENTATION EVALUATION FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 42 5.1 FINDINGS FOR THE IE .........................................................................................................................42 IE QUESTION 1: IS THE ACTIVITY DESIGN BASED ON THE LOCAL CONTEXT AND FLEXIBLE TO ACHIEVE RESULTS ON THE GROUND? 42 5.2 CONCLUSIONS FOR THE IE..............................................................................................................56 5.3 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE IE.................................................................................................57 ANNEX A. EVALUATION STATEMENT OF WORK 59 iii | GBV PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: WEE AC EVALUATION USAID.GOV ANNEX B: EVALUATION METHODS AND LIMITATIONS 64 ANNEX C. DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENTS 66 QUANTITATIVE INSTRUMENTS..............................................................................................................66 E4W BURUNDI SURVEY PROTOCOL 66 MICRO-JOURNEY BENIN SURVEY PROTOCOL 77 WEE IN MESOAMERICA GUATELEMA SURVEY PROTOCOL 88 GLOBAL LABOR PROGRAM LESOTHO SURVEY PROTOCOL 100 QUALITATIVE INSTRUMENTS............................................................................................................... 110 FGD PROTOCOL – PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS 110 KII & FGD PROTOCOL – IMPLEMENTING PARTNERS 116 KII PROTOCOL - USAID 120 ANNEX D. SOURCES OF INFORMATION 125 DOCUMENTS REVIEWED 125 FIELDWORK SITES VISITED 128 KEY INFORMANTS 129 ANNEX E. DISCLOSURE CONFLICTS OF INTEREST 130 iv | GBV PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: WEE AC EVALUATION USAID.GOV ABSTRACT NORC at the University of Chicago (NORC) was contracted by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) to complete a Portfolio Performance Evaluation of gender￾based violence (GBV) activities, which comprises four activity clusters. This evaluation report focuses on the Women’s Economic Empowerment (WEE) Cluster and evaluates five activities in Benin, Burundi, Nigeria, Lesotho, and Guatemala. The WEE activities funded by GenDev encompass a broad range of interventions to overcome barriers and foster women’s economic participation. WEE activity theories of change (ToCs) hypothesize that if women’s engagement in the workforce increases, then economic growth increases, and all of society benefits. The evaluation addressed the following three key questions: (1) Are the activity clusters based on context-specific and international evidence? (2) To what extent are each of the activity clusters achieving the targeted GBV results? and (3) To what extent are the activity clusters sustainable? NORC applied a mixed￾methods approach to answer the research questions, using a combination of desk review, key informant interviews (KIIs), focus group discussions (FGDs) and face-to-face surveys. The evaluation found that the WEE cluster was successful in targeting gender-based violence and workplace sexual harassment through integration with economic participation and empowerment interventions in diverse contexts. A majority of implementing partners (IPs) conducted some form of needs assessment to integrate insights on program participant needs and relevant contextual factors. Where needed, activities adapted design assumptions to align with emerging needs. Despite challenges tied to the COVID-19 pandemic, community resistance to change, and exclusions of LGBTQIA+ groups across the five activities, progress was made toward achieving target outcomes in different ways. Importantly, some of the more effective activity approaches appeared to include the engagement of men. Active joint engagement of local grassroots organizations and community members, and partnerships with local organizations and government agencies played a crucial role in the implementation processes and setting up activities for longer-term sustainability. However, lack of long-term funding and technical support could inhibit activity sustainability and progress. v | GBV PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: WEE AC EVALUATION USAID.GOV TABLES Table 1. Evaluation Findings and Conclusions......................................................................................................x Table 2. Evaluation Recommendations................................................................................................................xv Table 3. Activity Cluster and Implementation Evaluation Questions ............................................................2 Table 4. Activities Included in WEE-GBV Evaluation.........................................................................................4 Table 5. Data Collection Methods by Activity ..................................................................................................10 Table 6. CAPI Survey Response Rates................................................................................................................11 Table 7. Activity Findings........................................................................................................................................13 Table 8. Activity Theories of Change ..................................................................................................................18 Table 9. Number of Cases Where E4W Activities Stopped Instances of GBVH, Burundi (N=133; N=40 (Males); N=93 (Females)) ...........................................................................................................................23 Table 10. Usefulness of E4W Services in Preventing GBVH, Burundi (N=133) .......................................24 Table 11. Usefulness of WEE in Mesoamerica Services in Preventing GBVH, Guatemala (N=109)....26 Table 12. Most-needed GBVH Prevention Resources for E4W, Burundi (N=133).................................28 Table 13. Most-needed GBVH Prevention Resources for GLP, Lesotho (N=139)..................................29 Table 14. GLP Stakeholders Who Should Have Been Involved in the Anti-GBVH Program But Were Not, Lesotho (N=54) ..............................................................................................................................................30 Table 15. Effectiveness of E4W Activities, Burundi (N=133) ........................................................................34 Table 16. Effectiveness of GLP Activities, Lesotho (N=139) .........................................................................35 Table 17. Mean Effectiveness of WEE in Mesoamerica Activities, Guatemala (N=109)..........................36 Table 18. Respondents Who Believed GLP Would Continue, Lesotho (N=139)....................................37 Table 19. Sustainability of E4W/Tuyage, Burundi (N=133)............................................................................37 Table 20. WEE in Mesoamerica Design Assumptions.....................................................................................43 Table 21. Participation in and Satisfaction of WEE in Mesoamerica Activities (Select all that apply), Guatemala (N=109) .................................................................................................................................................46 Table 22. Activities under each Activity Cluster...............................................................................................60 Table 23. Evaluation Questions.............................................................................................................................60 Table 24. Evaluation Gantt Chart.........................................................................................................................62 FIGURES Figure 1. Evaluation Research Design ....................................................................................................................9 Figure 2. Survey Respondent Demographics, Burundi ....................................................................................12 Figure 3. Survey Respondent Demographics, Lesotho....................................................................................12 Figure 4. Survey Respondent Demographics, Guatemala ...............................................................................12 Figure 5. Participant Feedback for GLP, Lesotho (N=139)............................................................................19 Figure 6. Participant Feedback for E4W, Burundi (N=133) ...........................................................................20 Figure 7. Participant Feedback for WEE in Mesoamerica, Guatemala (N=109)........................................21 Figure 8. Activity Influence on GBV Prevention, Burundi (N=133) .............................................................22 Figure 9. Perceptions of Global Labor Program Usefulness, Lesotho (N=139)........................................25 Figure 10. Were there stakeholders identified as important but not included? Burundi (N=133) ......30 Figure 11. Were there stakeholders identified as important but not included? Lesotho, (N=139).....30 Figure 12. Is the ability to prevent gender-based violence and harassment difficult because of traditions or the local culture in your community? Lesotho (N=139)........................................................32 Figure 13. Barriers to GBV Prevention for E4W, Burundi (N=133)............................................................33 Figure 14. How well do you think the project provided realistic, quality trainings? Guatemala (N=109) ......................................................................................................................................................................47 vi | GBV PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: WEE AC EVALUATION USAID.GOV Figure 15. WEE in Mesoamerica Survey Results: Did the COVID-19 pandemic affect the effectiveness support services you received? (N=109)............................................................................................................48 Figure 16. Experienced Difficulty Participating in WEE in Mesoamerica Activities, Guatemala (N=109) .......................................................................................................................................................................................52 Figure 17. WEE in Mesoamerica Indicator Progress........................................................................................54 Figure 18. Do you think activities will continue beyond the end of the project? Guatemala (N=109) .......................................................................................................................................................................................55 vii | GBV PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: WEE AC EVALUATION USAID.GOV ACRONYMS AC Activity cluster ACOFOP Association of Forest Communities of Petén ADS Automated Directives System APESSA Association Pour l’Education, la Sexualité et la Santé en Afrique ASOCUCH Association of Organizations of the Cuchamatanes BTC Better Together Challenge CAPI Computer-assisted personal interview CARD Conseils, Applications Statistiques et Recherche pour le Développement CCH Crisis Center Hope CIEN Centro de Investigaciones Económicas Nacionales CPS Centres de Promotion Sociale CRS Catholic Relief Services CSO Civil society organizations 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 E4W Enabling Environment for Economic Empowerment of Women EMMP Environmental Mitigation and Monitoring Plans ET Evaluation team FGD Focus group discussion FP Family planning GBV Gender-based violence GBVH Gender-based violence and harassment GEWE Gender equality and women’s empowerment GLP Global Labor Program HIAS Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society viii | GBV PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: WEE AC EVALUATION USAID.GOV IBEDC Ibadan Electricity Distribution Company IGA Income-generating activity IP Implementation partners IPSOS Institut Public de Sondage d'Opinion Secteur IRB Institutional Review Board IDM Women’s Justice Initiative IT Information technology IHSA Integrated Health Services Activity IMAGE Intervention with Microfinance for AIDS and Gender Equity IPV Intimate partner violence KII Key informant interview LGBTQIA Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, and asexual M&E Monitoring and evaluation MCH Maternal and child health MEL Monitoring, evaluation, and learning MSC Most significant change MSH Management Sciences for Health NCC National Coordinating Coalition NORC NORC at the University of Chicago NPI New Partnerships Initiative OU Operating units PMT Project Management Tool PPE Portfolio performance evaluation RA Rainforest Alliance RAMA Ramadufatanemunda Association SFCG Search for Common Ground SFTP Secure File Transfer Protocol SMART Strengthening Marriages and Relationships Through Communication and Planning ix | GBV PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: WEE AC EVALUATION USAID.GOV SOAR Sexual Offences Awareness and Response SVRI Sexual Violence Research Initiative ToC Theory of Change ToT Training of trainers USAID United States Agency for International Development USG United States 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 WRC Worker Rights Consortium WRW Workers Rights Watch ZSU Žene sa Une x | GBV PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: WEE AC EVALUATION 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 five activities under the Women’s Economic Empowerment (WEE) Cluster: A Micro-Journey to Self-Reliance: Economic Reintegration for Victims of Gender-Based Violence (Micro Journey) in Benin, Enabling Environment for Economic Empowerment of Women (E4W) in Burundi, Women’s Economic Empowerment in Mesoamerica (WEE in Mesoamerica) in Guatemala, Global Labor Program: Levi-Strauss Partnership (GLP) in Lesotho, and Engendering Industries with Ibadan Electricity Distribution Company (IBEDC) in Nigeria. NORC answered the following key evaluation questions: 1. Are the activity clusters based on context-specific and international evidence? 2. To what extent are each of the activity clusters achieving the targeted GBV results? 3. To what extent are the activity clusters sustainable? For the WEE in Mesoamerica activity in Guatemala, NORC conducted an implementation evaluation to answer these questions: 4. Is the activity design based on the local context and flexible to achieve results on the ground? 5. Is the activity reaching participants they are meant to target? 6. Is the activity achieving sustainability? EVALUATION DESIGN The NORC team applied a mixed-methods approach, using both quantitative and qualitative methods and secondary and primary data. Qualitative methods included a desk review of 100 key program documents; 38 key informant interviews (KIIs) with USAID/GenDev staff, IP staff and local partner organizations; 11 focus group discussion (FGDs) with IP staff, program participants, and local partner organizations. On the quantitative side, NORC conducted three face-to-face surveys with program participants from the Burundi, Guatemala and Lesotho activities, which was completed by 381 program participant respondents. NORC also conducted field observations of the Women’s Economic Empowerment in Mesoamerica activity in Guatemala, as part of the implementation evaluation. Fieldwork for the performance and implementation evaluations was carried out from January to April 2023. MAIN FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS We present a summary of evaluation main findings, conclusions, and recommendations in Table 1. Table 1. Evaluation Findings and Conclusions Findings Conclusions ACTIVITY CLUSTER EQ1. Are the activity clusters based on context-specific and international evidence? xi | GBV PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: WEE AC EVALUATION USAID.GOV Findings Conclusions ● Three of the 5 IPs conducted some form of needs assessment to inform their intervention design. Micro-Journey and Engendering Industries activities did not have formal needs assessments but relied on existing M&E data which included some baseline data and discussions with partners to inform interventions. ● IPs made several assumptions in addressing gender-based issues across the diverse socio￾economic contexts of the WEE cluster, but in the case of activities such as E4W, GLP and Engendering Industries, initial assumptions were proven incorrect, and activities thus required some adaptation. For Engendering Industries, programming focused on men’s participation was later introduced to promote shared responsibility for improving gender equality in the workplace. WEE’s Theory of Change (ToC) hypothesizes that if women’s engagement in the workforce increases, then economic growth increases, and all of society benefits. For all the activities evaluated in the WEE cluster, reducing GBV and workplace sexual harassment was seen as a key pathway to improving women’s engagement thus contributing to the economic well-being of women and society. The ToCs for all activities were generally followed during implementation. ● Data indicate that all activities in the WEE cluster were well monitored. The activities had appropriate monitoring and evaluation systems in place that were efficient in generating data for decision-making. ● Program staff considered feedback across all activities in various ways, which was used to make improvements and meet the needs and expectations of the participants. ● A majority of IPs conducted needs assessments, however, the extent and rigor of these studies differed across the five activities. ● In cases where activity design assumptions were proven incorrect during implementation, either due to limited data or unforeseen circumstances, IPs had to adapt interventions quickly. These findings underscore the benefits of thorough needs assessments to develop relevant, locally informed strategies for activity design, planning, and implementation. ● Grantees integrated various mechanisms for collecting feedback on program activities. However, for some activities, such as WEE in Mesoamerica, it was unclear to which extent many participants were aware of the available feedback mechanisms that could have offered useful input for activity implementers. EQ2. To what extent are each of the activity clusters achieving the targeted GBV results? ● All five IPs reported their proposed outcomes were realistic and achievable, and across the five activities, progress has been made toward achieving those outcomes in different ways. The WEE in Mesoamerica activity surpassed some five-year target goals at the end of year two of ● Many of the WEE activities appeared to make progress toward their proposed outcomes, which prioritized gender equity, reduced abuse and harassment at work, and promoted economic and career empowerment. xii | GBV PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: WEE AC EVALUATION USAID.GOV Findings Conclusions implementation itself. ● Common challenges to effectiveness were cultural and structural practices—e.g., resistance in areas of Nigeria to changing beliefs about women’s roles, diversity of languages which increased costs and logistical challenges in Benin and Guatemala—and activities not considering men’s roles in addressing GBV. Involvement of the community and local actors and targeted strategies to address specific needs were important facilitators for achieving activity outcomes. ● Across the WEE cluster, interventions were implemented to reach their target groups and influence change with varying degrees of success. Every IP indicated they were able to reach their target audience. ● A significant obstacle to minimizing GBV in both the community and the workplace was the culture of ignoring women's rights and lack of awareness of the issue. Specifically for E4W, husbands did not believe that their wives should leave home and get involved in women empowerment activities. ● Some of the more effective approaches included the engagement of men, such as through the strengthening couples’ communication strategy and positive masculinity campaigns in E4W, and engaging men in leadership and decision￾making positions, such as buy-in from top executives in Engendering Industries at IBEDC. Key challenges in activity effectiveness were related to cultural and social norms that created resistance to change, recognition and inclusion of LGBTQIA+ groups in gender-equity and GBV programming, and COVID-19 pandemic and administrative delays. EQ3. To what extent are the activity clusters sustainable? ● Key elements promoting sustainability included capacity-building, successful reintegration, strong leadership, cultural sensitivity, grassroots engagement, and the engagement of men and individuals in leadership or decision￾making positions. ● The WEE cluster also encountered obstacles to longer-term sustainability, such as limited resources, changes in leadership, resistance to change, and inadequate reporting mechanisms. ● Active joint engagement of local grassroots organizations and community members played a crucial role in the implementation processes and setting up activities for sustainability. This ensured that activities were tailored to address the specific needs and contextual considerations of the community, which improved their acceptance and fostered engagement. ● Partnerships with local organizations and government agencies seemed to help integrate the WEE activities into relevant systems, which may foster long-term sustainability. ● One of the main challenges to sustainability across the activities of the WEE cluster was the lack of long-term xiii | GBV PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: WEE AC EVALUATION USAID.GOV Findings Conclusions funding and support, to continue many initiatives. IMPLEMENTATION EVALUATION EQ1. Is the activity design based on the local context and flexible to achieve results on the ground? ● WEE in Mesoamerica’s design is based on the Women’s Empowerment Business Development Approach (WEBDA), a holistic methodology to “[guide] the selection of specialized recovery services and capacity strengthening for the most at-risk and marginalized women, identifying appropriate male engagement, and other strategies to promote shared responsibility for equality, respect towards women’s participation, and more balanced gender relations.…” ● KIIs highlighted that despite the useful design phase activities, there are ultimately limitations to the level of detail and depth reflected in a project design document, and a strong adaptive management approach has been crucial from conception. ● Despite a flexible adaptive management approach, both the IP and local partners expressed frustration in the barriers to redistributing resources when performance is not as expected, such as from regional sub￾agreements to local implementation. ● Regional level engagements, as currently implemented in WEE in Mesoamerica, may not meet local organizations’ needs to carry out activities effectively. ● Data from reporting and interviews suggest that COVID-19 pandemic-related challenges and poor responsiveness and inefficient communication within the team, particularly between implementers and USAID, have been key hindrances to timely and effective implementation. ● WEE in Mesoamerica activities appeared to expand the network of strategic contacts, including local organization, authorities, and potential producer groups, and importantly, their leaders and community members across project locations. ● Most effective components appeared to be the activities the local groups conducted with the women, particularly in poultry value chains. ● Implementers coordinated workshops with and provided direct support for small local producers through a variety of activities, from trainings, mentoring, and coaching to networking opportunities and market access. The most notable adverse outcome of poor administrative processes of this activity was individual women farmers’ loss of product sales due to flaws or failures in budget approval processes. Findings from interviews with implementers and local partners suggested that budget approvals for purchases were so delayed that numerous women said their crops died before they could get support to market them. EQ2. Is the activity reaching participants they are meant to target? ● Participants were identified through field scoping activities and by leveraging existing partner relationships with community organizations. Due to the well-established ● Despite concerted efforts to reach a wider audience, the size and distance of communities and funding constraints limited the reach of the activities. xiv | GBV PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: WEE AC EVALUATION USAID.GOV Findings Conclusions presence of local partners in the implementation areas, many target participants were already engaged with them prior to WEE in Mesoamerica. ● To reach wider audiences, field teams introduced WEE in Mesoamerica to several local organizations and authorities as well as potential producer groups, including their leaders and community members, across all three landscapes in Guatemala. Teams also attended local Entrepreneurs Bazaars and introduced WEE in Mesoamerica through radio spots. The team pursued strategic alliances to facilitate both reaching target participants and promoting dialogue at institutional levels. ● Both quantitative and qualitative data are collected to monitor activity-specific indicators and progress and presented through success stories and written narratives. Further, local partners maintain socio￾economic data of participants to monitor trends, making sure to adhere to security protocol to protect sensitive data. In response to evolving needs and expression of interest from local partners, there has also been an effort to digitize the monitoring process through use of electronic systems such as the Project Management Tool (PMT) and KoboToolbox. Further, it appears that certain groups may continue to be under- or unattended, notedly those who are under 16 years of age, those who do not have access to land, and/or those who have not been able to be included in the working groups with other women who have access to land. These working groups are informal and formal women's business and networking groups that were set up as part of the project. While the target participants did not explicitly include girls under 16, during implementation it appeared that girls under 16 in target areas were also particularly vulnerable and should have been included. EQ3. Is the activity achieving sustainability? ● Limited time, funding, and resources are challenges to WEE in Mesoamerica sustainability. Achieving lasting impact within five years is difficult to begin with and is further compounded by the fact that local organizations have a shorter period of engagement of only three years. ● The activity design seemed to place greater emphasis on the role of local partners without taking their capacity and skills to implement GBV activities into account. Therefore, inhibiting the effectiveness of key activity components. Data collected suggests that although the activity intended regional GBV organizations to support local partners, this ● It was difficult to understand how the GBV aspects of the activity were integrated within WEE in Mesoamerica's economic empowerment work. It is possible that this programmatic segregation and the relatively “light touch” of the GBV work resulted from the partnership structure. Additionally, this work was led primarily by the regional coordinating organizations rather than the groups that work every day with the communities. Due to their limited capacity and insufficient training and capacity-building, local organizations did not appear to have been given a strong xv | GBV PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: WEE AC EVALUATION USAID.GOV Findings Conclusions support was not always tailored to the needs of multiple local organizations with varying GBV programming capacities. Furthermore, the IP and local partners expressed need for additional support to improve the administrative capacities of local partners. ● For the GBV-focused activity components in particular, local partners believed that capacity-building for this work was somewhat limited, and there was insufficient time and limited resources to follow-up with the women and men. GBV leadership role. It was also highlighted that an insufficient number of workshops were conducted. The evaluation team formulated a series of recommendations based on our analysis and understanding of the WEE cluster. Recommendations are presented in Table 2. Table 2. Evaluation Recommendations ACTIVITY CLUSTER EQ1. Are the activity clusters based on context-specific and international evidence? ● Needs assessments should be mandated as a first step in activity design. Needs assessments at the start of donor-funded activities appear to be a useful exercise to inform and update the design of proposed activities and ensure social and cultural appropriateness. These exercises should also include representatives from relevant stakeholders and anticipated participants, to foster buy-in from important stakeholders, not least the intended target groups. ● International evidence should be consulted for other similar interventions, especially intervention evaluations. There are growing numbers of GBV interventions around the world, with increasingly robust evaluations (literature reviews) embedded from the very beginning. Both USAID and IPs should consider these to determine which intervention approaches might be relevant to achieve their projected outcomes. EQ2. To what extent are each of the activity clusters achieving the targeted GBV results? ● Increase engagement of male who are gate-keepers in decision-making and power positions, in activities to improve gender equity and reduce violence against women and sexual harassment. To improve the uptake and effectiveness of certain activities to reduce GBV, donors can help groups consider the role and safe engagement of different gendered groups, including men and LGBTQIA+ groups, to promote gender-equitable beliefs and practices. To implement sufficient safeguarding and ensure outreach, learning tools and messages should be carefully designed to reach women, men, or LGBTQIA+ groups. xvi | GBV PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: WEE AC EVALUATION USAID.GOV ACTIVITY CLUSTER ● Support activities to include individuals in decision-making roles or positions of power, especially in employment settings. For example, respondents in GLP said foreign supervisors should have had anti-GBVH trainings that were specific to them, so they could understand the value of the trainings and apply lessons learned. Donors may have the leverage or contacts to help activities include persons in positions of authority or power in gender equity activities and policymaking. Grantees suggested that if people in positions of power (e.g., business managers, employers, government, traditional leaders) take the activities seriously and show up to events, it is more likely others will participate and trust the intervention, and more likely certain practices will be institutionalized following the intervention. However, prioritizing people in positions of power, may also maintain undesirable power hierarchies. ● Promote and pay for collaboration with participants. Findings indicate that greater effectiveness can be achieved when activities invite and pay fairly for the time and engagement of GBV survivors and local community stakeholders, especially when trying to adapt the activity design and implementation. Donors should provide technical and financial support to groups to help them use participatory methods to gain regular feedback from affected groups or activity participants, which can be used to iterate and adapt survivor￾informed activity designs toward greater effectiveness. ● Promote sufficient time, financial, and technical support for local implementers to advance beyond awareness-raising and sensitization techniques to standardize gender equity and anti-harassment policies and accountability mechanisms for violations. The activities reportedly made progress shifting perceptions and understanding about gender equity and violence. However, the activities were not implemented for a sufficiently long period or were not far-reaching enough to build the structures needed to set company, state, or community standards against GBV and to institutionalize women's economic participation. Nor were the activities able to establish accountability mechanisms for violations. EQ3. To what extent are the activity clusters sustainable? ● Encourage IPs to collaborate with a diverse selection of local partners, especially by working with organizations or individuals with wider reach and decision￾makers with substantial influence. For example, Engendering Industries engaged leadership in making gender equality a priority for the company. While several intervention models appeared to have an influence on their direct target group (e.g., within their organization or company), sustainability will be fostered by greater horizontal reach that goes beyond simply the single business or sector. ● Adopt a systems approach that aims to institutionalize gender-equitable policies and practices. Activities funded by USAID may have greater sustainability if they are designed with a systems approach that is designed to include state mechanisms from, for example, the business and trade commissions, labor rights sector, judiciary and civil litigation, occupational health and safety, and women’s rights groups. Projects would benefit from additional funding to build partnerships across government, private sector and worker coalitions to co-develop and align cross-systems structures to create coordinated strategies for protection (support for reported violations); prevention (policies), and prosecution (accountability). Implementing partners should also be required to demonstrate gender equal policies and practices include GBV policies and prevention in their internal operations. xvii | GBV PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: WEE AC EVALUATION USAID.GOV ACTIVITY CLUSTER IMPLEMENTATION EVALUATION EQ1. Is the activity based on local context and flexible to achieve results on the ground? ● Review and revise administrative processes that hinder adaptive implementation of activities. It is evident that administrative delays not only affect implementers but also activity participants directly. USAID should consider how to improve the efficiency of review and approval processes and respond to implementers in a timely manner to ensure that activity progress does not stall, and critical resources are not wasted. ● Consider carefully collaboration and funding structures to promote 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 sufficiently funded, trained to build capacity, and respected for their equal if not greater value to activities. EQ2. Is the activity reaching participants they are meant to target? ● Encourage better integration of GBV-focused components and economic participation activities. As a GBV-focused donor, USAID is in a good position to foster stronger integration of GBV protection mechanisms into other types of programming, particularly economic empowerment and women’s entrepreneurship activities. There has been a growing number of proven interventions that combine economic empowerment with GBV programming that can serve as models for future investments in multi-sector designs. EQ3. Is the activity achieving sustainability? ● Promote and fund a start-up phase for local partners to develop intervention￾focused evidence from their community and build their capacity to integrate GBV programming into their current activities. For future GBV funding, it will be important to grant local partners adequate time, resources and technical support to research the GBV-related needs of their community and identify and work with other local or international groups working on GBV. 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. 1 | GBV PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: WEE AC EVALUATION USAID.GOV 1. EVALUATION PURPOSE AND EVALUATION QUESTIONS Under the Democracy, Human Rights, and Governance Learning, Evaluation, and Research II Activity (DRG-LER II), the United States Agency for International Development’s (USAID) Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment Hub (USAID/GenDev) in the Bureau for Development, Democracy, and Innovation (DDI) contracted NORC at the University of Chicago (NORC) to carry out a portfolio performance evaluation (PPE) of its gender-based violence (GBV) activities. The purpose of the evaluation is to identify facilitators and barriers to activity effectiveness, where knowledge still needs to be developed, and what can be improved upon in USAID/GenDev’s GBV portfolio. The four activity clusters (ACs) in the portfolio performance evaluation include: 1. Better Together Challenge (BTC) with GBV prevention and response interventions; 2. Collective Action to Reduce Gender-Based Violence (CARE-GBV) small grants activities; 3. The Resilient, Inclusive & Sustainable Environments (RISE): A Challenge to Address Gender-Based Violence in the Environment; and 4. The Women’s Economic Empowerment (WEE) activities directly funded by USAID/GenDev integrating GBV prevention and response activities. This report focuses on the fourth activity cluster, Women’s Economic Empowerment (WEE). The WEE cluster includes several activities that focus on GBV: 16 of which were originally suggested to NORC for the PPE. After discussions with GenDev, NORC dropped 11 activities from the evaluation on completion of the Evaluability Assessment,1 focusing on the following five activities in five countries: A Micro-Journey to Self-Reliance: Economic Reintegration for Victims of Gender￾Based Violence in Benin, Enabling Environment for Economic Empowerment of Women in Burundi, Women’s Economic Empowerment in Mesoamerica in Guatemala, Global Labor Program: Levi￾Strauss Partnership in Lesotho, and Engendering Industries in Nigeria. The field data collection for this evaluation was conducted from November 2022 to May 2023. NORC engaged with a variety of respondents, including USAID/GenDev staff, implementation partners, and activity participants. The evaluation team (ET) included NORC staff based in the United States and consultants residing in the countries where we conducted data collection. Katrina Kamara and Ridhi Sahai led this team, with the support of Samantha Austin, McKinzie Davis, Mayumi Rezwan, and Mithila Iyer. The team also included the following consultants—Kennely Wongla (Benin), Laura Garcia (Guatemala), Nthabiseng Senekane (Lesotho), and Abdulrasheed Abdulraheem (Nigeria)—and local data collection partners—CARD Engineering (Burundi), CIEN (Guatemala), and IPSOS (Lesotho). The key audiences for this report are the governments of Benin, Burundi, Guatemala, Lesotho, and Nigeria, USAID and GenDev, civil society organizations (CSOs), implementation partners (IPs), funders, and local and international experts engaged in work related to GBV prevention and response. 1.1 EVALUATION QUESTIONS NORC proposed the following questions in Table 3 to guide the performance evaluation of the activities within each AC, as well as the questions for each AC’s implementation evaluation for one activity. Table 3 also lists the additional, WEE AC-specific questions in italics. 1 The GBV PPE evaluability assessment report can be found here. 2 | GBV PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: WEE AC EVALUATION USAID.GOV Table 3. Activity Cluster and Implementation Evaluation Questions Activity Cluster Questions 1. Are the activity clusters based on context-specific and international evidence? Needs assessment and intervention evidence: How well were needs assessments conducted and intervention evidence collected to inform the cluster activities? Assumptions: What assumptions were made to design and implement the activity clusters? How accurate were any assumptions? Causal pathways: What causal pathways or theories of change were articulated for the activity clusters? Monitoring and adaptations: How well are interventions monitored and are emerging findings contributing to intervention adaptations or improvements? Why and how were GBV-focused activities integrated into the larger IHSA activity? What additional support is provided to participants after the business trainings to foster sustainability of their ventures? What was the community reaction to these activities? Could you please discuss the theory of change for Engendering Industries? Can you describe how the causal pathway was conceived and any assumptions that were made? 2. To what extent are each of the activity clusters achieving the targeted GBV results? Outcomes: Are the stated outcomes realistic and achievable within the timeframe of the AC? What progress is being made toward achieving the outcomes? Planning and activity designs: How and how well were activity plans and designs developed to achieve different GBV outcomes? Intervention implementation: How well are interventions implemented to reach their target groups and influence change? Mechanisms: What are the most effective aspects of the intervention? How do these “active ingredients” operate in each AC? This activity is focused on preventing instances of GBV in communities. Which interventions have had an effect? Which interventions have not performed as anticipated? Why? Are women belonging to ethnic minorities and other disadvantaged groups engaged in community dialogue? What strategies does the organization employ to engage these groups? Were the courses, trainings, and activity components suited for the organizational structure and culture of IBEDC? What were the obstacles to influencing GBVH at Nien Hsing, and how do you think the Global Labor Program activity is addressing these? Have you used the anti-GBVH information line? If so, why did you call? What was your experience with the information line staff? Did WRW follow up on your case? 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? 3 | GBV PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: WEE AC EVALUATION USAID.GOV 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? We understand that COVID-19 had a significant impact on the activity. Could you describe some of these challenges for WEE in Mesoamerica in Guatemala? How did the activity adapt to these challenges? What additional support was provided to participants during this period? What are the key enabling factors that improved the implementation of the activity? 2. Is the activity reaching participants they are meant to target? Target participants: What are the barriers to reaching participants? Monitoring of results: Is the activity collecting evidence on what is working, not working and what could be done differently to achieve results? 3. Is the activity achieving sustainability? Sustainability: What plans are in place for sustainability? What is the evidence of potential sustainability? 2. WOMEN’S ECONOMIC EMPOWERMENT BACKGROUND Women’s economic empowerment (WEE) activities funded by GenDev encompass a broad range of interventions to overcome barriers and foster women’s economic participation. WEE activity theories of change (ToCs) hypothesize that if women’s engagement in the workforce increases, then economic growth increases, and all of society benefits. WEE focuses on three pillars of programming as key pathways for improving women’s workforce engagement: 1. Advancing workforce development and vocational education to ensure women have the skills and training necessary to secure jobs; 2. Promoting women’s entrepreneurship and providing women with access to capital, markets, technical assistance, and networks; and 3. Striving to remove the legal, regulatory, and cultural barriers that constrain women from being able to participate fully and freely in the economy. Under the third pillar, some activities integrated GBV prevention and response into economic empowerment programming. In addition, many WEE activities focus on shifting workplace and employer social norms by partnering with the private sector. The Women’s Global Development and Prosperity (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. For most WEE activities, explicit GBV-focused interventions were then embedded in programming with the change in administration in 2020, at which point many activities were past the halfway mark in their implementation timeline. The promotion of systems-level and environmental change related to gender equality more broadly for a majority of the implementation period means that GBV is not always an explicit focus of WEE activities. Table 4 presents a summary of the five activities included in this evaluation. These activities encompass a broad range of interventions to overcome barriers and foster women’s economic participation by working directly with grassroot participants or enabling systems-level and environmental change related to gender equality. The WEE in Mesoamerica activity (Activity 5) in Guatemala was selected for an implementation evaluation because, relative to other activities, it is still in early to mid stages of implementation and could benefit from implementation-related lessons to guide further programming. 4 | GBV PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: WEE AC EVALUATION USAID.GOV Table 4. Activities Included in WEE-GBV Evaluation No. Activity Organization Country Target Population GBV Activity Focus & Activity Components 1. A Micro￾Journey to Self-Reliance (Micro￾Journey)2 Management Sciences for Health, Inc. (MSH) Benin Women entrepreneurs and survivors of GBV Intimate partner violence (IPV) and other forms of GBV through entrepreneur trainings, mentoring, and support ●Physical and virtual centers for treatment of GBV victims ●Access to income-generating activity (IGA) women’s groups, mentoring, and coaching ●Access to networks of organizations/businesses for GBV survivors ●Business and entrepreneurship training for victims of GBV and their spouses 2. Enabling Environment for Economic Empowerment of Women (E4W) Search For Common Ground (SFCG) (under agreement with Freedom House) Burundi Women and men entrepreneurs and media professionals IPV and other forms of GBV through entrepreneur trainings, community awareness-raising, and media professionals’ capacity-building ●Economic support for women-led coffee farms, including coaching and business support ●Entrepreneur training activities and learning tours ●Awareness-raising sessions for men and women in coffee cooperatives and other key male community stakeholders ●Gender sensitivity trainings for media professionals ●Media broadcasts, radio shows, and town hall forums for awareness raising and promoting positive masculinities 2 Findings for the Micro-Journey (Benin) activity only reflect analysis of interviews with implementing partner representatives and document review. Data collection with program participants did not take place due to roadblocks and delays encountered during local IRB processing. 5 | GBV PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: WEE AC EVALUATION USAID.GOV No. Activity Organization Country Target Population GBV Activity Focus & Activity Components 3. Global Labor Program (GLP): Levi-Strauss Partnership Solidarity Center Lesotho Female apparel workers in two garment factories Employment-related gender-based violence and harassment (GBVH) and domestic violence for female apparel workers in two Nien Hsing-owned garment factories: ●Anti-GBVH workshops ●Information line ●Investigations of GBVH by Workers’ Rights Watch 4. Engendering Industries Tetra Tech, Inc. Nigeria Female and male employees in electricity company Strengthening company policies and practices around GBV and training staff and engaging men in GBV topics: ● Review and improve company GBV policies, training and grievance handling ● Increase awareness on survivor￾centered approaches to handling reported cases of GBV ● Women mentorship activities ● DISCO 4 Women conference and platform ● Anti-GBVH training and sensitization ● Men’s engagement training including a focus on survivor￾centered GBV prevention and response 6 | GBV PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: WEE AC EVALUATION USAID.GOV No. Activity Organization Country Target Population GBV Activity Focus & Activity Components 5. WEE in Mesoamerica (WEE in Mesoamerica) Rainforest Alliance (RA) Guatemala Women entrepreneurs in poultry and coffee value chain IPV and other forms of GBV through entrepreneur trainings, mentoring, and support: ● Value-chain, leadership, and entrepreneurship training for poultry and café business owners ● Gender sensitization campaigns, community forums, and awareness sessions on sexual and reproductive health ● Income-generating activity (IGA) livelihood activities ● Access to women’s groups and other networks Micro-Journey to Self-Reliance Activity in Benin. The Micro-Journey activity in Benin was embedded into an existing USAID-funded activity—Integrated Health Services Activity (IHSA)—in October 2020. The IHSA is a five-year activity implemented by Management Sciences for Health (MSH) to strengthen the delivery of high-impact malaria, family planning (FP), maternal and child health (MCH), and GBV services in the public sector in four departments in Benin to ultimately reduce maternal, newborn, child, and adolescent girls’ mortality and morbidity, with strong government and citizen engagement in the health sector. The Micro-Journey component was added to the IHSA after the first two years of its implementation to specifically assist GBV victims identified in the system through quality health services and economic reintegration support. Under this activity, GBV victims in Alibori, Atacora, Ouémé, and Plateau departments have access to materials and goods needed to support income-generating activities; professional groups and associations that integrate GBV survivors as members; and assistance in identifying employment opportunities. MSH implemented these activities to promote the economic autonomy of GBV survivors in close collaboration with local partner Association Pour l’Education, la Sexualité et la Santé en Afrique (APESSA). In addition, there has been involvement and 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. Through an established process working with government actors and community leaders, GBV survivors are invited to submit proposals for income-generating activities with business plans and budgets, which are then reviewed for relevance and viability (technical feasibility, adaptation to market needs, working conditions, competitive analysis, etc.). The activity provides projects selected for funding (up to 150,000 FCFA/US$250 per GBV survivor) with raw materials and supplies that GBV survivors need to start the income-generating activities (IGAs). It also provides participants with trainings on account management. After an initiative has been funded, activity staff follow up with participants to provide any additional mentoring and coaching. In addition, MSH identifies IGA groups in municipalities that have accepted GBV survivors as members and refers program participants. These groups are then provided with the necessary raw materials and supplies needed to improve the productivity and profit of their IGAs. 7 | GBV PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: WEE AC EVALUATION USAID.GOV Enabling Environment for Economic Empowerment of Women (E4W) in Burundi. The E4W intervention was added as part of the Tuyage (“Let’s Talk”): Information Access and Economic Discourse Strengthening activity implemented by Search for Common Ground (SFCG) in Burundi in July 2020. The aim of the E4W activity is to reduce the social norms and cultural barriers limiting ownership of property and productive assets for women in Burundi in the short term and build the foundation for support to change the inheritance law that limits women’s access to land and property in the long term. The activity includes two key components. First, working with Burundian civil society organizations to develop and roll out a tailored, community-level, norms-changing campaign designed to involve men and women in breaking the cultural barriers limiting women’s ownership and inheritance of property and productive assets, as well as the social norms regarding how Burundians view the role of women. Second, the activity partners with private operators from the coffee sector to expand women’s participation in their supply chains in selected provinces. Activities support women’s inclusion through media co-productions, creative media programs and town hall forums, a women professionals directory, gender sensitivity trainings, and economic support for women-led initiatives in five provinces: Kayanza, Karusi, Gitega, Muyinga, and Ngozi. These activities systematically engage males to create sustained behavior change and minimize any possible negative backlash within communities and families, such as intimate partner violence (IPV) or other forms of GBV. A key aspect of activities was promoting “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 positive masculinity campaign aimed at sensitizing men to always stand by their wives and support their economic participation. SFCG worked with local partners, the Kahawatu Foundation and Catholic Relief Services (CRS), to provide economic support for empowering women coffee farmers in target provinces. Activities supported women coffee farmers associations with Common Ground Approach trainings on conflict resolution, business skills, and funding opportunities through Kahawatu Foundation to develop other economic activities that are contributing to help women coffee farmers to make positive change in their households and mitigate economic risks. In addition, program participants have access to exchange visits, peer-to-peer learning, gender awareness sessions, and finance (through savings and loans groups). CRS also implemented its signature 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. Finally, journalists and other media professionals were provided gender sensitivity trainings, access to exchange forums, and a professional women directory to increase their capacity to produce content that supports the transformation of discriminatory social norms and cultural barriers for women in Burundi. Global Labor Program (GLP): Levi-Strauss Partnership in Lesotho. The Solidarity Center in partnership with the Worker Rights Consortium (WRC) implemented the GLP, an anti-GBVH monitoring and enforcement mechanism for two Nien Hsing-owned garment factories (Global and Formosa) in Lesotho. The activity aims to build the capacity of unions, gender-equality non￾governmental organizations (NGOs), and a newly created independent entity, Workers Rights Watch (WRW). Activities were focused on raising the awareness of all garment factory workers about GBVH and how to report and remedy instances of GBVH through a complaint hotline and complaint assessor. In addition, the Solidary Center also assisted unions, participating NGOs, and the WRW in the development of an effective mechanism for communicating and processing complaints. Finally, the activity included measures to remediate the dangerous workplace environment by developing stronger policies and protocols to handle safety complaints. In the short 8 | GBV PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: WEE AC EVALUATION USAID.GOV term, the activity goal was to create a safer working environment for female garment workers and, in the long term, to empower female employees in their workplaces to create change in the fashion industry in Lesotho. Engendering Industries Activity in Nigeria. Engendering Industries is a global activity, centrally funded and managed by USAID’s Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment Hub. Partial funding in the past has been provided by USAID’s Energy Division, Power Africa, and through Mission buy￾ins. The goals of Engendering Industries are to advance gender equality and women’s empowerment in male-dominated industries and strengthen the business performance of partners. This includes providing support for companies to adopt gender-equity policies, practices, and strategies across the employee life cycle, and to enhance the capacity of male and female leaders to develop and implement these measures. Within this context, Engendering Industries provides trainings and change management coaching on survivor-centered policies and practices related to GBV prevention, mitigation, and response. The activity currently engages 41 partners across 27 countries from Africa, Eastern Europe, Latin America and the Caribbean, Asia, and the Middle East. For this evaluation, the team selected one of the Nigeria activities in Engendering Industries. The work with the Ibadan Electricity Distribution Company (IBEDC) which is an energy provider in Nigerias. The activity aims to increase gender equality and women’s economic empowerment opportunities within traditionally male-dominated sectors. Tetra Tech, Inc. implemented this Nigeria Engendering Industries activity, in close collaboration with their senior leadership. The company realized that to provide optimal customer service and market reach, a gender-diverse and inclusive workforce that reflected their customer base was a critical business success factor. Through the activity, IBEDC aims to attract top female talent, increase the professional participation of women, improve its brand, and increase its bottom line. Tetra Tech provided technical assistance to achieve a range of activities, including attracting and identifying potential women employees; recruiting women in technical roles through career fairs and other avenues; upskilling of women in general; providing trainings on gender sensitization and sexual harassment and paternity leave policy, management and leadership, gender-sensitive performance appraisals, gender equality, and GBVH; offering women mentorship programs; advocating for a company-wide sexual harassment policy; and providing other gender equality-focused company communications and branding initiatives. TetraTech and IBEDC also initiated the DISCO 4 Women (DISCO 4) in Energy Conference and platform, an in-house conference (DISCO for Women) that serves as a platform for sensitization on gender equality topics and professional development, and a hub of knowledge-sharing and networking for women employees. Finally, implementers piloted a five-day male engagement course, developed by Equimundo (formerly Promundo) , targeting male and female mid- to senior-level managers at IBEDC. The course had a focus on changing workplace culture in male-dominated industries, transforming sexist norms, inspiring men to become vocal supporters of gender equality at their workplace, establishing the business case for male engagement and ally ship in male-dominated industries, and increasing the ability of individual employees to positively change work culture and create a GBV-free environment that is supportive of women. It should be noted that Engendering Industries is a global activity implementing interventions with nearly 100 partners around the world. This evaluation examined only one of these partnerships. WEE in Mesoamerica (WEE in Mesoamerica) in Guatemala. The WEE in Mesoamerica activity is currently being implemented in Guatemala, Honduras, and Mexico and has the goal of providing economic opportunities to the most at-risk and marginalized women, including Indigenous women, migrants and survivors of trafficking. The focus of this evaluation is on the activities conducted in Guatemala—specifically the Huehuetenango region, where a majority of at-risk women 9 | GBV PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: WEE AC EVALUATION USAID.GOV are located. In addition, the WEE in Mesoamerica Guatemala activity was also selected for an implementation evaluation, findings of which are reported in Section 5. The activity in Guatemala is implemented by the Rainforest Alliance (RA) in collaboration with local partners Federation of Cooperatives of the Verapaces (FEDECOVERA), Association of Forest Communities of Petén (ACOFOP), and Association of Organizations of the Cuchumatanes (ASOCUCH) in Guatemala. The vision is to have at-risk women enter the workforce and thrive economically through their participation and leadership in local natural resource-based value chains. Implementers worked on the design and implementation of the Women’s Empowerment Business Development Approach (WEBDA), an innovative and evolving methodology for the economic development of at-risk women that integrates market-based training and technical assistance, a women-centered approach to integration, audiovisual storytelling models, and legal literacy on women's and Indigenous Peoples' rights. Therefore, the WEE in Mesoamerica activity addresses the social and economic challenges women face, including the potential risk of increased GBV as women enter the workforce and the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic and natural disasters. Activities focus on the economic and personal development of women through training, technical assistance, and direct support of the Entrepreneurship Fund, as well as by establishing networks and support systems. They include leadership, entrepreneurship and value chain development trainings for women's groups involved in coffee and poultry value chains; support for income generating activities linked to coffee and poultry value chains; assistance for women entrepreneurs in accessing microcredit through village banks and other institutions; access to Women’s Entrepreneurship Fund to grant resources to groups of women for use in new livelihood activities; access to women’s groups and other entrepreneur networks; trainings on GBV reporting and irregular migration; and community forums and awareness sessions to promote gender equality and increase knowledge on sexual and reproductive health. 3. METHODS AND LIMITATIONS As the first step of the performance evaluation process, the Evaluation Team (ET) conducted a preliminary review of activity documents which guided conversations with IPs and informed instrument development. The ET employed a mixed-methods approach, including a desk review, as well as qualitative and quantitative data collection to gather evidence to answer each evaluation question (see Figure 1). The methods included key informant interviews (KIIs) and focus group discussions (FGDs) with various stakeholders (USAID, IPs and local partner organizations, and program participants), and three computer-assisted personal interview (CAPI) surveys administered to program participants. The implementation evaluation was also conducted in parallel. As part of the implementation evaluation, the research team collected qualitative data on implementation from WEE in Mesoamerica staff. For a detailed breakdown of data collection methods used for each activity, please see Table 5 below. Figure 1. Evaluation Research Design 10 | GBV PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: WEE AC EVALUATION USAID.GOV Table 5. Data Collection Methods by Activity Activity Document Review FGDs KIIs CAPI Survey Micro-Journey 32 - 8 - E4W 20 3 4 1 GLP 22 2 6 1 WEE in Mesoamerica 25 2 5 1 Engendering Industries 20 4 12 - 3.1 DESK REVIEW NORC conducted a thorough desk review of activity documentation for all five activities. IPs shared a total of 119 documents, and the ET reviewed them for information across all evaluation questions. Documents included progress, quarterly and annual reports, theories of change, policy documents, monitoring data, public outreach and communication documents, workplans, MEL plans, and other activity documents. Activity documents were reviewed and analyzed using a detailed Excel matrix that was organized by research questions and sub-questions. 3.2 KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWS Following the desk review, the ET conducted KIIs with USAID/GenDev staff, IP staff, and local partners via Zoom and in person. Interviews ranged between 60 and 90 minutes and were audio￾recorded (with respondents’ consent) to enable transcription and in-depth analysis. After administering the informed consent protocol, the ET used a semi-structured interview guide that was organized by portfolio and activity cluster-level topics. The interview guide included questions on needs assessments, causal pathways, monitoring and adaptations, planning and design, intervention implementation, and sustainability among other evaluation themes. See Annex C. Data Collection Instruments for all KII guides and Annex D. Sources of Information for a breakdown of KII participants per activity. Transcripts were uploaded to MAXQDA (version 2022), a qualitative analysis software for coding and analysis. A detailed codebook was iteratively developed and tested to include portfolio level, activity cluster level and implementation evaluation codes across activity clusters in this PPE, including codes that were specific to WEE. KIIs were analyzed using the codebook, and coded segments were exported to conduct in-depth analysis and prepare code summaries. 3.3 SURVEY In addition to the KIIs and FGDs, NORC contracted with data collection firms in Burundi, Guatemala, and Lesotho3 to administer three CAPI surveys via SurveyCTO. The surveys were administered to a total of 381 program participants (see Table 6). The surveys were translated into Spanish for WEE in Mesoamerica program participants in Guatemala and French for E4W program participants in Burundi. Enumerators additionally asked survey items in local languages as needed, and responses were translated back into English.4 The surveys covered respondent demographics and participation in activities, effectiveness of the activities, most helpful/useful components, and sustainability. Each survey included a mix of multiple￾choice questions, Likert scales, and open-ended questions. The surveys included a detailed consent script describing the purpose of the survey, and participants were requested to provide their consent before beginning. The surveys were open between five days (for Lesotho) and three weeks 3 CARD Engineering in Burundi; Centro de Investigaciones Económicas Nacionales (CIEN) in Guatemala; and Ipsos in Lesotho. 4 Enumerators for the WEE in Mesoamerica survey included Mam and Qʼanjobʼal speakers. 11 | GBV PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: WEE AC EVALUATION USAID.GOV (for Guatemala), and survey responses were regularly monitored by the research team. See Annex C for paper versions of all the surveys. Table 6. CAPI Survey Response Rates5 No. Activity Target Sample Size Actual Sample Size Women Men Other Age Range Response Rate 1. E4W 100 133 93 40 - 18–75+ 133% 2. GLP 100 139 95 44 - 18–74 139% 3. WEE in Mesoamerica 100 109 109 - - 16–24 109% Total 300 381 For E4W, the respondents are men and women located mainly in Ngozi who participated in grassroots and media programming. We used a proportional stratified random sample of men and women for each area of programming. The sample was drawn from a full list of 459 participants in Ngozi because most program participants are in this province even though the activity is countrywide. For GLP, the respondents are men and women who participated in anti-GBVH workshops at two Nien Hsing garment factories (Global and Formosa). We used a proportional stratified random sample of men and women drawn from a full list of 4,647 participants at both factories. For WEE in Mesoamerica, the respondents are from selected communities in Huehuetenango who participated in Café and Aves Postura, activities under WEE in Mesoamerica that primarily target women. We used a simple random sample of 125 women drawn from a full list of 335 participants in Santa Eulalia, Todos Santos, Petatan, and Concepcion (these communities had the highest numbers of participants in Huehuetenango). In total, 359 respondents completed the surveys across all three activities. Survey data were cleaned to exclude unfinished responses, after which each survey was analyzed separately and then compared by activity. The evaluation team generated frequency tables for each question using Stata (version 16.1), then created charts and figures. The survey reached a greater percentage of women compared to men. Results were disaggregated by gender where the surveys had multiple genders. This was applicable to surveys administered for E4W and GLP in Lesotho, but not for the WEE in Mesoamerica survey, which included only women respondents. The ET has reported survey results based on gender where there are variations in how different genders perceive the effectiveness of approaches. For the WEE in Mesoamerica survey, results are disaggregated by the type of activity in which respondents participated. In cases where no distinguishable differences were found, the team has included aggregated results. 5 The IP for Engendering Industries advised against doing a survey at IBEDC. Findings are thus based on the analysis of primary qualitative data and existing secondary data. For Micro-Journey, the evaluation team faced challenges with getting IP-recommended local IRB approvals within the evaluation time frame. 12 | GBV PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: WEE AC EVALUATION USAID.GOV Figure 2. Survey Respondent Demographics, Burundi Figure 3. Survey Respondent Demographics, Lesotho Figure 4. Survey Respondent Demographics, Guatemala 3.4 LIMITATIONS Evaluation data were limited in scope for three reasons. First, findings for the Micro-Journey (Benin) activity do not reflect feedback from program participants. The research team faced challenges getting timely responses and access based on the constraints of Benin’s institutional review policies.. Second, while findings may state that activities contributed to particular outcomes across the WEE cluster, we cannot pinpoint causality, as other factors may have also contributed to results, and this evaluation does not use a randomized control trial methodology for attribution. 13 | GBV PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: WEE AC EVALUATION USAID.GOV Third, our sample sizes for the surveys conducted for E4W, WEE in Mesoamerica, and GLP were limited to 100 respondents regardless of the total population and focused on areas with the highest numbers of program participants. Given our sampling methodology, it is difficult to generalize about activity performance and effectiveness solely based off survey responses. To complement our survey data, we included qualitative data collection and a desk review to triangulate findings across the three data sources. 4 FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS 4.1 FINDINGS FOR THE ACTIVITY CLUSTER QUESTIONS Table 7. Activity Findings Micro-Journey (Benin) E4W (Burundi) GLP (Lesotho) Engendering Industries (Nigeria) WEE in Mesoamerica (Guatemala) EQ1: Are the ACs based on context-specific and international evidence? ● No formal needs assessment; relied on existing M&E data and discussions with partners. ● Correct assumption that uncoordinated efforts across providers undermined assistance to survivors, enhanced capabilities amongst all actors in care chain increased benefits to survivors. ● Conducted a gender barrier analysis to better inform programming. ● Assumed cultural barriers would pose a major obstacle to women’s economic empowerment; Kahawatu Foundation played a significant and successful role in empowering women. ● Worker rights consortium GBVH investigation indicated need for independent complaint mechanism. ● Assumptions of workshops and training courses’ utility fell short; tailored trainings needed. ● No formal needs assessment; relied on existing M&E data, some baseline data, and discussions with partners. ● A majority of activities focused on improving gender parity; sexual harassment also recognized as a prevalent issue. Assumptions did not anticipate difficulties in acquiring input despite co￾creation process. ● Gender diagnostic identified key barriers to women’s economic participation. ● Utilized emerging evidence during implementation. ● Some participants may not be aware of available feedback mechanisms to implementers. ● Various assumptions that proved to be more complex and challenging during implementation. EQ2: To what extent are each of the activity clusters achieving the targeted GBV results? ● Studying victims’ files was critical to orienting counseling for the victims. ● Effectiveness was undermined by officials involved in the activity committing acts of GBV. ● Key factors of success included male engagement and participation and support of the Department of Planning and Development of Social and Family Affairs. ● Key factors of success included an independent reporting process for garment factory workers through the information line. ● Male engagement and buy-in from company leadership were key factors to Engendering Industries’ success at IBEDC. ● WEE in Mesoamerica was particularly impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as administrative delays between key stakeholders. 14 | GBV PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: WEE AC EVALUATION USAID.GOV Micro-Journey (Benin) E4W (Burundi) GLP (Lesotho) Engendering Industries (Nigeria) WEE in Mesoamerica (Guatemala) ● Inclusion of LGBTQIA+ groups in programming proved difficult within E4W’s cultural context. ● Translation of materials in Sesotho posed a minor obstacle to the GLP. ● Some male program participants initially believed that the program would promote women’s dominance and they feared they would be marginalized. ● Inclusion of LGBTQIA+ groups in programming proved difficult within IBEDC/Nigeria’s cultural context and regulatory framework. EQ3: To what extent are the activity clusters sustainable? ● Strengthening care chain actors’ capacities enhanced sustainability. ● Adaptation of program strategy facilitated cross￾country implementation. ● Limited resources, lack of reporting mechanisms, and resistance to change are barriers to sustainability. ● Participant￾driven activity choices are key to future success. ● Overwhelming majority of male and female survey respondents believe women’s inclusion activities will continue. ● Public activities, networking sessions, and gatherings like town halls may be replicable in other contexts. ● Engagement with local organizations, empowerment of individuals improved sustainability. ● Most program participants believe workshops, the information line, and investigations by WRW will continue after GLP. ● Partnering with local organizations and trade unions for implementation could be replicated in other contexts. ● Sector instability and leadership changes threatened program sustainability. ● Addressing cultural differences across regions in Nigeria is critical to continued sustainability. ● The participant￾lauded change￾management coaching may be replicable in other contexts. ● Local partners believe that their three-year sub￾agreements within a five-year project poses sustainability problems for WEE in Mesoamerica. ● While the coffee value chain is profitable, rural localities can differ vastly, and future activities must be adapted to the local context. EVALUATION QUESTION 1: ARE THE ACTIVITY CLUSTERS BASED ON CONTEXT-SPECIFIC AND INTERNATIONAL EVIDENCE? NEEDS ASSESSMENTS AND INTERVENTION EVIDENCE: How well were needs assessments conducted and intervention evidence collected to inform the cluster activities. 15 | GBV PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: WEE AC EVALUATION USAID.GOV As part of the WEE GBV intervention funding requirements, IPs were required to provide evidence￾backed rationale for implementing activities, either through gender analyses or needs assessment to inform their activity design. However, the extent and rigor of these studies differed across the five activities. For the Micro-Journey Benin activity, there is limited information from the document review and from interviews with program staff on the extent to which rigorous gender analyses or pre￾assessments were carried out prior to the integration of the GBV survivor-focused economic empowerment activities. However, since this activity was embedded in the existing Integrated Health Services Activity (IHSA), which included GBV victim case management and health services provision activities, KII and document review indicate that it is likely that the IP was able to leverage project M&E data from the first three years of IHSA’s implementation. For example, the data from the M&E suggested that the activity should provide GBV survivors economic support for successful reintegration into communities. Following an amendment of the E4W activity in Burundi, a baseline study and gender barrier analysis were conducted in 2020 to produce basic evidence for the new women inclusion component of the project, specifically targeting women and economic concerns, gender and social barriers, media coverage relating to their economic concerns, and women’s access to land, credit, and house-hold decision-making. Findings about the lack of financial resources and husbands’ reluctance as major barriers preventing women from engaging in paid economic activities suggested that economic empowerment could be an effective way to address poverty and financial dependence, which could in turn reduce the risk of violence against women. The study also found that patriarchal norms limit both men and women’s development, and women’s agency and aspirations are still constrained by their social environment, which highlighted the need for a long-term approach to address cultural barriers. The study’s findings helped design components that were tailored to meet the particular needs of the local context, such as negative societal perceptions of women engaging in economic activities, which can limit their opportunities and autonomy. Radio shows and town forums were structured to involve spouses and other community members in the discourse around women’s economic participation. “This [baseline study] allowed us to see how, where to go through, which door to enter in order to be able to face these difficulties, hence the intervention which is more based on economic empowerment as a safe and sustainable indirect means of combating th[is] violence.” – IP KII In 2019, the Worker Rights Consortium published a report investigating GBVH at Nien Hsing Textile Co., Ltd for GLP in Lesotho. The report found that women workers were regularly coerced into sexual activity with supervisors and were also sexually harassed on a persistent basis. The report recommended the establishment of an independent complaint mechanism that workers could trust, implemented by an independent complaint-handling and fact-finding body that would receive and investigate complaints, determine the necessary remedial measures, and have the power to direct Nien Hsing to promptly implement these remedies, up to and including the dismissal of managers who harassed or coerced employees. The findings of this report were integral intervention evidence for the design of the GLP, which included an independent information line for filing and investigating GBVH complaints by workers. The activity components, such as the anti-GBVH workshops, were tailored to meet the specific needs of program participants and the local context by collaborating with relevant local organizations to address curriculum topics related to gender identity and the LGBTQIA+ community. For example, facilitators discussed the reduction of the use of offensive language to label and harass members of the LGBTQIA+ community. This component of the anti-GBVH training not only had an impact on garment workers, but also changed mindsets of facilitators from local partner organizations. “Their mindsets have really changed since now they know to respect everyone for whom they are and what they believe in. It has indeed helped a lot of people, myself included since I can now share the same table as someone from the LGBTQ community and actually share a meal with them.” – Local Partner KII 16 | GBV PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: WEE AC EVALUATION USAID.GOV For Engendering Industries in Nigeria, Tetra Tech collected data on the company’s best practices to inform the implementation of the activity at IBEDC. Tetra Tech described the intervention design as a co-creation process with IBEDC, particularly the capstone project. IBEDC program participants worked with their change management coach using baseline assessment results to define goals and a capstone project addressing gender equality and sexual harassment. Tetra Tech’s training curriculum to improve IBEDC’s policies and grievance handling, especially on sexual harassment, was revised after engaging with IBEDC to address the company’s challenges and getting feedback on cultural appropriateness. For example, IBEDC expressed that the training curriculum materials regarding LGBTQIA+ topics would make employees uncomfortable, and as a result, this material was not included in the trainings. In 2021 Engendering Industries under Tetra Tech conducted a rapid organizational assessment and the previous implementer RTI conducted some baseline data collection; however, there was no formal needs assessment mentioned by participants. This kind of needs assessment could be enhanced by incorporating an extensive investigation of company practices, including in-depth, offsite interviews with employees, similar to the one conducted for GLP in Lesotho. For WEE in Mesoamerica in Guatemala, a gender diagnostic was conducted at the beginning of WEE in Mesoamerica, along with an in-depth regional analysis of variables and the intersectionality of these variables, such as being a woman, being indigenous, and being poor. The diagnosis gathered information on gender roles at the family, business, and community levels and identified the phases of productive value chains, facilitating market linkages and providing valuable information on points of access to the workforce. However, in a KII, the IP expressed that there was a very short period for the design, negotiation, and start-up of the activity itself. The activity has thus responded and adjusted during initial stages of implementation to meet local needs, such as carrying out on-the￾ground surveys of interest to select value chains, as detailed further in the Implementation Evaluation section of the report. ASSUMPTIONS: What assumptions were made to design and implement the activity clusters? How accurate were any assumptions? IPs made several assumptions in addressing gender-based issues across the diverse socio-economic contexts of the WEE cluster. Some initial assumptions were proven incorrect, and activities thus required some adaptation. These findings further emphasize the importance of thorough needs assessments and culturally responsive strategies in project planning and implementation. For the Micro-Journey activity in Benin, several assumptions were made. First, the IP assumed that the uncoordinated efforts across various departments, such as health, police, and social services, negatively impacted the support for victims of sexual harassment. As a solution, the activity proposed that the medium-term strategy should involve incorporating comprehensive care and coordination mechanisms in the training programs for health workers, social workers, and police officers. Second, the IP believed that it was crucial to enhance the capabilities of all involved actors in the care chain, particularly the CPS, to effectively implement income-generating activities for all victims. For E4W, the assumption was made that empowering women in the coffee industry would be a challenge due to cultural barriers. However, according to both program participants and local partners, the Kahawatu Foundation, founded by women coffee farmers, played a significant role in empowering women in Burundi by providing training sessions and resources such as pigs, cattle, and seeds to improve their economic status and increase their agency. The provision of pigs by Kahawatu empowered women in Burundi in several ways. First, the pigs provided manure, which increased agricultural production and improved the quality of crops. This led to an increase in food availability and reduced poverty among the women. Second, the pigs were distributed among the women in the community through a solidarity chain, which encouraged mutual aid and strengthened social cohesion. Third, the women were able to sell the pigs and generate income, which contributed to their economic empowerment. This economic empowerment allowed the women to 17 | GBV PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: WEE AC EVALUATION USAID.GOV become more independent and make decisions about their own lives. Additionally, the success of the women in the association inspired other women in the community to come out of their homes and start their own pig farming businesses. The women of the Kahawatu Foundation also started the RAMA association, and the first quality coffee produced by women came from RAMA, which inspired the creation of eight other associations. These women were able to empower themselves by creating associations and working towards their common goals. For GLP, an overarching assumption driving the activity was that holding courses and workshops alone would help workers learn about how they should be treated and how they should treat one another in the workplace, and this knowledge would decrease incidences of sexual harassment and exploitation. However, this assumption did not consider that impact would also be determined by how the trainings were impacted, namely, the extent to which the trainings were tailored to the factory’s different audiences. For example, in local partner FGDs, respondents said foreign supervisors should have trainings that are specific to them, so they understand the value of the trainings and apply lessons learned. Additionally, both local partners and program participants explained there wasn’t enough time devoted to the trainings, with one program participant suggesting that four days of training would be more suitable for workers to grasp the material. Finally, the activity did not account for the tensions that might arise from involving trade unions in the activity that included other textile workers outside of Nien Hsing. Local partners reported textile workers in the trade unions from other factories felt “sidelined” from participating in the activity even though activity staff explained they hoped the pilot at Nien Hsing would be expanded to include other factories. For Engendering Industries, advancing gender equality across the employee life cycle was a key focus of the program’s collaboration with IBEDC.. Regular change management coaching supported IBEDC to develop approaches to addressing sexual harassment and was one of the key gender equality issues for IBEDC. .Despite Tetra Tech’s co-creation process with IBEDC, there were challenges in getting input on implementing various initiatives from participants during implementation due to factors such as email overload, a change in management, and low internet bandwidth. Uncertainty around how new management would prioritize the goals of Engendering Industries contributed to participants' hesitancy to allocate time to the Engendering Industries activity. Participants also mentioned time constraints because many of the responsibilities of Engendering Industries were not formally part of their job descriptions and required additional effort. For WEE in Mesoamerica, some design assumptions were made which proved to be more complex and challenging during implementation. First, it was assumed that all regional advisors in Guatemala would be able to effectively support local organizations, and the activity would progress faster than it actually did. Additionally, WEE in Mesoamerica aimed to have an impact on women’s participation in natural resource-based value chains and sustainable land management under the assumption that women in the WEE in Mesoamerica countries have access to land. However, access to plots and land to start enterprises was significantly complex and challenging, and the initiative had to be managed adaptively. Access to land was relevant for many development activities, including those related to agriculture, and the concentration of land ownership in Guatemala has contributed to inequality, particularly among Indigenous communities. The challenge was to find agricultural spaces and plots in communal lands as women did not have their own enterprises and productive systems. Overall, these initial assumptions created significant challenges for WEE in Mesoamerica’s implementation. CAUSAL PATHWAYS: What causal pathways or theories of change were articulated for the activity clusters? The ToC articulated by the WEE cluster broadly hypothesizes that if women’s engagement in the workforce increases, then economic growth increases, and all of society benefits. lists the ToC and intended outcomes for each of the five activities. For all the activities evaluated in the WEE cluster, reducing GBV and workplace sexual harassment was seen as a key pathway to improving women’s 18 | GBV PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: WEE AC EVALUATION USAID.GOV engagement and thus contributing to the economic well-being of women and society. The ToCs were generally followed during implementation. For example, for GLP in Lesotho, garment workers gained awareness and deeper understanding of GBVH, and program participants reported improved working conditions. However, more time is needed to determine whether the ToC held true for activities with longer-term outcomes, such as increased economic growth and production. Table 8. Activity Theories of Change Activity Theory of Change Intended Outcomes Micro-Journey If the quality of high-impact services for malaria, MCH, FP, and GBV is increased and uptake of high￾impact health services is increased, and local and central leadership, management, governance, and stewardship of health services are strengthened, then a greater number of individuals will receive high-quality health services. This, in turn, will lead to a reduction in maternal, newborn, child, and adolescent girls’ mortality and morbidity. ● More women, children & adolescents receive high-quality, high-impact health services in target departments. ● Mortality and morbidity reduced with strong government and citizen engagement. E4W If social norms and cultural barriers that limit women’s access to economic opportunities are reduced, then discussion about the economy will infuse politics and political culture, with greater calls by citizens for accountability on and gender inclusion in the economy; and lead to a more substantive and technical political discussion that better recognizes and responds to women’s rights and needs. ● Media professionals have increased capacity to produce content that supports the transformation of discriminatory social norms and cultural barriers for women. ● Attitudes toward Burundian women’s rights and participation in the economy and GBV are positively transformed. ● Women’s entrepreneurship skills, leadership and other related skills are improved. ● Women’s access to markets, funding and mentorship is improved. GLP If workers are informed about issues related to GBV and sexual harassment, workers will be able to identify those issues and report them. This improved environment will create opportunities for women and men to have more equitable working conditions. ● Workers’ Rights Watch has operational capacity as an independent investigation and decision-making authority. ● Unions and NGOs have capacity to develop and jointly implement awareness-raising and educational programs regarding the anti￾GBVH program. ● Unions and NGOs have the capacity and resources to effectively manage the information line for the workers. Engendering Industries By creating a more equal workplace, women will be able to participate more fully in the economy, which will lead to increased economic growth and development. This more diverse and inclusive workforce will lead to increased productivity and profitability. ● Women economically empowered in workplaces. ● Business performance strengthened. ● Improved gender equality in male￾dominated sectors. ● Strengthened, resilient sectors. 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. ● At-risk women are earning more and/or are in new or better jobs through improved participation in sustainable natural resource management and production. ● Women entrepreneurs and owners have access to proven business solutions and sources of financing with equitable treatment. ● Women achieve a greater level of self￾organization and through a unified voice and greater capacities are empowered to act to improve social, political, and financial enabling conditions. 19 | GBV PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: WEE AC EVALUATION USAID.GOV MONITORING AND ADAPTATIONS: How well are interventions monitored and are emerging findings contributing to intervention adaptations or improvements? Both qualitative and quantitative data indicate all activities in the WEE cluster were well monitored. The activities had appropriate monitoring and evaluation systems in place that were efficient in generating data for decision-making. The monitoring systems included both quantitative and qualitative indicators, and regional monitoring tours verified that reported activities were being executed in the field. In addition, there were processes in place to use performance data for adaptive management, and emerging findings were used to improve interventions. For example, for GLP, reports from facilitators were analyzed to identify gaps and improve the curriculum, and for Engendering Industries, data collected at baseline, on a quarterly basis, and at endline through the monitoring and evaluation system were used to determine whether the project was having the desired impact and to adapt interventions accordingly. Financial constraints and a change of leadership at IBEDC somewhat impacted Tetra Tech’s ability to carry out planned activities. The project slowed down and adapted to consider mobility restrictions, limited access to technology and the internet, and the cost of per diems for personnel to stay longer in the area. Across all five activities in the WEE cluster, program staff considered feedback in various ways. In some cases, facilitators asked for regular feedback from participants during the activity period, which was used to make improvements and meet the needs and expectations of the participants. In other cases, program staff used data collected through monitoring and evaluation to get feedback on activities and improve their work. A majority of program participants in GLP (92 percent) said they knew who to approach to give feedback on the program (see Figure 5). A majority of program participants in GLP (92 percent) either agreed or strongly agreed that their feedback would be seriously considered by program staff (see Figure 5). As reflected in Figure 6, most respondents had a good understanding of who to speak with to provide feedback on the E4W activity, with 64 percent selecting the “strongly agree” option. Additionally, a majority of respondents either agreed (27 percent) or strongly agreed (61 percent) with the statement that the staff would “consider their feedback seriously.” However, 19 percent of male respondents in E4W said they disagreed (see Figure 6). Figure 5. Participant Feedback for GLP, Lesotho (N=139) Source: CAPI conducted for this evaluation. N=44 (male) and N=95 (female) 20 | GBV PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: WEE AC EVALUATION USAID.GOV Figure 6. Participant Feedback for E4W, Burundi (N=133) Source: CAPI conducted for this evaluation. N=40 (male) and N=93 (female) It was unclear from WEE in Mesoamerica survey results to which extent many participants knew who to give feedback to or how their feedback contributed to intervention improvements, as there was a high “don’t know” response rate to these questions (22 percent and 16 percent, respectively), as seen in Figure 7. Among the rest of the participants, most strongly agreed or agreed that they know who to talk to, and that their feedback would be taken seriously. Further, a local partner explained they work closely with promoters, or promotoras, who are leaders in women’s groups and who carry information to and from the groups. This set-up is described as useful because women can pass on information to promoters in their own language. In the same interview, the local partner mentioned that due to possible language and literacy barriers, sometimes participants may mix up which organization various staff belong to, which may in turn provide insight into the high “don’t know” responses to the question related to giving feedback on different activities. 21 | GBV PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: WEE AC EVALUATION USAID.GOV Figure 7. Participant Feedback for WEE in Mesoamerica, Guatemala (N=109) Source: CAPI conducted for this evaluation. N=109 (female) For Engendering Industries, program participants said staff asked for feedback and they believed some of their suggestions were used to improve the program. “They do make a request that if we should give them some feedback.…What did we think? Did it meet our needs? Is it up to our expectation?” – Program Participant KII “The program was organized perfectly, even materials was okay. Our discussion sometimes brings changes in [the] material[s] though we use the materials brought, but if we are discussing and [an] issue come[s] up, they come up with another materials, either online or using testimony, for instance, to solve the problem of our discussions.” – Program Participant FGD One FGD respondent mentioned that program facilitators asked for feedback on how to engage other parts of the country, particularly in the north where women face significant barriers to social and economic equity. Respondents suggested involving cultural leaders and adapting parts of the activity to the culture of the region. Respondents also asked for support to integrate lessons learned around gender equality and GBVH into company policies. Tetra Tech provided this support through training and curriculum development to improve IBEDC’s policies and grievance handling, especially on sexual harassment. Engendering Industries also provided a training of trainers (ToT) to develop more strategies to tackle difficult topics. EVALUATION QUESTION 2: TO WHAT EXTENT ARE EACH OF THE ACS ACHIEVING THE TARGETED GBV RESULTS? OUTCOMES: Are the stated outcomes realistic and achievable within the timeframe of the AC? What progress is being made towards achieving the outcomes? All five IPs reported their proposed outcomes were realistic and achievable, and across the five activities, progress has been made toward achieving those outcomes in different ways. For example, a KII respondent for GLP mentioned that the primary outcome was to gain the confidence of garment factory workers so they could discuss their experiences and report cases of GBVH, ultimately creating a safe and respectful workplace free from GBVH. The respondent also mentioned 17% 20% 22 | GBV PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: WEE AC EVALUATION USAID.GOV they were beginning to see an increase in the number of cases reported, although the COVID-19 pandemic had slowed progress. Another KII respondent for the Micro-Journey activity said the primary outcome was to reduce incidences of GBVH, but that it takes time to achieve behavioral change and cultural transformation. For the E4W activity, an FGD respondent explained that the activity had achieved results in terms of women generating income, positive transformation of the perception of the role of women in their homes and communities, and increased self-confidence. The goal of Engendering Industries at IBEDC was to improve gender-balance in terms of employment opportunities, reduce the rate of sexual harassment, and support women in accomplishing their career aspirations. The activity also aimed to change mindsets around gender equality, and FGD and KII respondents indicate it has been successful in informing dialogue around these issues at the company and within the power sector in Nigeria. In Burundi, almost all respondents (98 percent) noted the E4W activity had stopped or reduced GBVH in their communities, as reflected in Figure 8. Figure 8. Activity Influence on GBV Prevention, Burundi (N=133) Source: CAPI conducted for this evaluation. N=40 (male) and N=93 (female) Table 9 lists the number of cases or instances of GBVH that respondents believe E4W activities stopped in their communities. Overall, gender sensitivity trainings for media professionals, learning tours for women-led and mixed-gender farmer cooperatives, and gender awareness programs for men and women in coffee cooperatives were highlighted by most respondents for stopping at least one instance of GBVH (82 percent, 76 percent, and 75 percent, respectively). However, respondents reported that media broadcasts to raise awareness on GBV (23 percent) and Women in Action exchange forums (27 percent) stopped more instances of GBVH (more than 20 cases) than any other services. Yes, 98% No, 2% Yes, 100% Have there been any cases in which E4W Burundi has stopped abuse, instances of gender-based violence and harassment in your communities? Female N=93 Male N=40 23 | GBV PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: WEE AC EVALUATION USAID.GOV Table 9. Number of Cases Where E4W Activities Stopped Instances of GBVH, Burundi (N=133; N=40 (Males); N=93 (Females)) Activities Where E4W Burundi Stopped Instances of GBVH 1–5 cases 6–10 cases 11–15 cases 16–20 cases 20+ cases Gender sensitivity trainings for media professionals Total 82% 8% 2% 1% 7% Female 81% 12% 0% 1% 7% Male 84% 0% 8% 0% 8% Media broadcasts and radio shows to raise awareness on GBV Total 64% 9% 2% 2% 23% Female 64% 8% 3% 3% 22% Male 66% 10% 0% 0% 24% Directory of women professionals with expertise in different sectors for media Total 50% 38% 5% 6% 1% Female 42% 48% 1% 8% 1% Male 80% 0% 20% 0% 0% Town hall forums to encourage discussion among the larger community Total 66% 5% 8% 5% 16% Female 67% 3% 10% 4% 16% Male 60% 15% 0% 10% 15% Women in Action exchange forums for women-serving CSOs, entrepreneurs, and media professionals Total 60% 13% 0% - 27% Female 60% 7% 0% - 33% Male 59% 41% 0% - 0% Awareness-raising sessions for key male stakeholders Total 68% 18% 4% - 11% Female 70% 17% 0% - 13% Male 65% 18% 7% - 9% Empowered Entrepreneur Training Program for women Total 66% 16% 7% 2% 9% Female 70% 14% 5% 2% 9% Male 55% 24% 12% 0% 10% Economic support to women-led coffee farms, including coaching and business support Total 70% 4% 3% - 23% Female 65% 2% 5% - 29% Male 79% 8% 0% - 13% Learning tours and exchange visits for women-led and mixed-gender coffee farmer cooperatives Total 76% 14% 9% - 2% Female 70% 17% 9% - 3% Male 95% 0% 5% - 0% Gender awareness program for men and women within coffee farmer cooperatives Total 75% 10% 6% 2% 6% Female 71% 14% 7% 2% 7% Male 86% 4% 4% 4% 4% Source: CAPI conducted for this evaluation. 24 | GBV PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: WEE AC EVALUATION USAID.GOV As seen in Table 10, respondents in Burundi found town hall forums and Women in Action exchange forums for women serving CSOs in particular very useful (91 percent and 88 percent, respectively) amongst the services provided to counteract GBVH. No respondents in Burundi selected the “useless” or “very useless” options in the survey. One respondent who identified as female selected the neutral option about media broadcasts and radio shows (see Table 10). Table 10. Usefulness of E4W Services in Preventing GBVH, Burundi (N=133) Services Very Useful Useful Neutral Gender sensitivity trainings for media professionals Total 87% 13% - Female 88% 12% - Male 84% 16% - Media broadcasts and radio shows to raise awareness on GBV Total 73% 26% 0%* Female 77% 23% 0%* Male 66% 34% 0%* Directory of women professionals with expertise in different sectors for media Total 86% 14% - Female 92% 8% - Male 61% 39% - Town hall forums to encourage discussion among the larger community Total 91% 9% - Female 89% 11% - Male 100% 0% - Women in Action exchange forums for women-serving CSOs, entrepreneurs, and media professionals Total 88% 12% - Female 92% 8% - Male 69% 31% - Awareness-raising sessions for key male stakeholders Total 75% 25% - Female 75% 25% - Male 76% 24% - Empowered Entrepreneur Training Program for women Total 84% 16% - Female 85% 15% - Male 81% 19% - Economic support to women-led coffee farms, including coaching and business support Total 86% 14% - Female 89% 11% - Male 81% 19% - Learning tours and exchange visits for women-led and mixed-gender coffee farmer cooperatives Total 77% 23% - Female 76% 24% - Male 80% 20% - Total 81% 19% - 25 | GBV PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: WEE AC EVALUATION USAID.GOV Services Very Useful Useful Neutral Gender awareness program for men and women within coffee farmer cooperatives Female 77% 23% - Male 89% 11% - Source: CAPI conducted for this evaluation. N=40 (male) and N=93 (female) *Note: The number of respondents who selected “neutral” is very small, which is why percentages are listed as zero. For GLP, a slightly higher percentage of men than women (94 percent versus 87 percent, unclear statistical significance) found the activities and services useful (Figure 9). One factor that may help explain this difference is that the information line system is biased toward those who speak Sesotho, and workers who do not speak the language may have difficulty conveying their message, according to a local partner discussing the issue in an FGD. Another local partner said there is a need to expand the focus of the activity to include all forms of abuse, not just GBVH. Figure 9. Perceptions of Global Labor Program Usefulness, Lesotho (N=139) Source: CAPI conducted for this evaluation. N=44 (male) and N=95 (female) According to the first quarterly report of FY2023, there is progress being made toward WEE in Mesoamerica indicators across all three countries, with some indicators even surpassing the five￾year target goals by year two of the activity. For example, 105 percent of the target number of people are reported to be in better employment after participation in the Workforce Development sub-activity, and 390 percent of the target number of CSOs, organizations, and IPs have been trained in human rights. Further, the MEL data indicates that 66 percent of the targeted 3,750 people in agricultural systems have applied best management practices or technologies, and 53 percent have gained improved economic benefits from sustainable management of natural resources and biodiversity conservation. Some indicators have made slower progress, however. For example, only 22 percent of the targeted 455 microenterprises have been supported by the activity fund thus far, and one out of a targeted six legal instruments have been drafted, proposed, or adopted through activity funds to promote gender equality. Survey results indicate overall that most participants 26 | GBV PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: WEE AC EVALUATION USAID.GOV found WEE in Mesoamerica activities very useful or useful in preventing GBV and harassment. However, as seen in Table 11, participants ranked access to women’s entrepreneurship networks and gender sensitive trainings among the most useful, while assistance accessing microcredit was rated the lowest in terms of usefulness. Table 11. Usefulness of WEE in Mesoamerica Services in Preventing GBVH, Guatemala (N=109) Activity Type Very Useful Useful Useless Very Useless Leadership, basic entrepreneurship, and value chain development trainings for women’s groups (n=62) 20% 73% 5% 0% Training on irregular migration issues and risks for women’s groups (n=27) 22% 74% 4% 0% Training on skills to report possible violence at the family level for women’s groups (n=65) 23% 71% 7% 0% Trainings on gender sensitivity and recognition of violence against women and girls for male and female groups (n=37) 37% 61% 2% 0% Sensitization campaigns to promote an enabling environment that increases women’s economic empowerment (n=16) 47% 43% 10% 0% Income-generating productive activities linked to the poultry, sheep, coffee, and vegetable chains for women entrepreneurs (n=107) 21% 66% 8% 2% Assistance with accessing microcredit through village banks and other institutions for women entrepreneurs (n=8) 32% 43% 0% 25% Access to the Women’s Entrepreneurship Fund to grant resources to groups of women for use in new livelihood activities (n=11) 22% 71% 6% 0% Access to Women’s Leadership Alliance and other networks of municipal women for women entrepreneurs (n=15) 38% 62% 0% 0% Community forums and other meetings to promote the development and well-being of women (n=35) 27% 65% 3% 6% Awareness sessions and other material on sexual and reproductive health (n=37) 18% 71% 6% 6% Source: CAPI conducted for this evaluation. N=109 (female) There were also unexpected positive and negative outcomes arising from activity implementation. The Micro-Journey activity initially aimed to reach 103 people, but to date, 229 victims have already been supported through entrepreneur trainings as well as coaching and mentoring support for income-generation, thus extending the reach of the activity and increasing the degree of economic integration among GBV survivors. For E4W, FGD participants reported changes in their economic well-being as well as a reduction in certain practices, such as polygamy, GBV, and adultery. For GLP, the COVID-19 pandemic and its resulting layoff of many workers reduced the scope of the activity and the number of calls to the information line, as well as the cases for WRW to investigate. According to an IP KII, GLP was initially meant to target approximately 10,000 workers across 5 Nien Hsing factories. However, due to the economic slowdown as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, the activity focused on just 2 factories. However, GLP participants reported that information from their trainings had spread to other factories. “However, my favorite [thing to witness] has come to be of those whose partners work for another firm that is not part of the Nien Hsing group where you will find that when these two people get home, one teaches their partner about the trainings they have been getting at work.… There are people who are not employed 27 | GBV PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: WEE AC EVALUATION USAID.GOV in the Nien Hsing group who call the information line to report or find out whether they can be assisted with their cases.” – Program Participant FGD Across the WEE cluster, each activity had its own challenges and facilitating factors that influenced effectiveness. Common challenges to effectiveness were cultural and structural practices, and activities that did not consider men’s roles in addressing GBV. Involvement of the community and local actors and targeted strategies to address specific needs were important facilitators for achieving activity outcomes. For Micro-Journey, achieving activity outcomes involved several challenges. One major challenge was the dispersion of actors responsible for coordinating care due to assignments in health, police, and social agencies in other departments, which disrupted the coordination and collaboration to address GBVH that had been established through the project. As a result, the project had to propose a medium-term solution to integrate comprehensive care and coordination mechanisms into the training of health workers, social workers, and judicial police officers. This proposal was aimed at ensuring that all actors involved in addressing GBVH had the necessary skills and knowledge to provide comprehensive care and coordinate effectively, even if they were assigned to different departments. Another challenge was the mobility of participants. Since some activity participants relocated within the same area or migrated, the process of finding and supporting them was time￾consuming. Despite these challenges, there were facilitating factors that improved the activity’s influence, such as the selection of activities by the victims themselves based on what they believed would be most effective for their economic empowerment. E4W encountered challenges training participants at vocational or professional centers, as they struggled to formalize these trainings with existing centers. Additionally, reaching certain vulnerable groups, such as members of the LGBTQIA+ community who experience GBV, remained a challenge. On the other hand, there were some facilitating factors that improved the delivery of services, such as the effective inclusion of the Department of Planning and Development of Social and Family Affairs (DPDFS) in the project, who will continue to regularly monitor activities. By involving the DPDFS, the activity ensures consistent oversight and a strong foundation for ongoing influence. “To my knowledge, there are groups of homosexuals who have not been reached by our interventions.... But why? It is in relation … with our ways of perceiving things on a cultural level. This kind of group is marginalized/not considered in the community.” – IP KII GLP encountered several challenges in implementation. One significant challenge was the absence of materials in Sesotho, as some workers found it difficult to understand the English materials provided. Additionally, the limited time allotted for training sessions left some workers wanting more, which may have hindered their ability to fully grasp the content. However, involving trade union members as facilitators helped workers feel safe to participate. Furthermore, providing manuals to workers assisted them in better understanding the content. By addressing language barriers and incorporating trusted facilitators, the activity was able to ensure participants’ needs were met. For Engendering Industries, challenges to achieving outcomes included deeply ingrained biases and the difficulty of changing the culture around gender equality, engaging male participants in the activity, and providing access to information for participants who were unable to attend training sessions. Specifically, some program participants were skeptical of the activity, expecting the materials to encourage women’s power over men rather than equality. However, the IP helped IBEDC overcome these challenges by introducing additional components and adapting trainings based on feedback. The male engagement component was designed to address the issue of a culture shift as it was observed that women were doing all the work to create change. Access to information was facilitated through course materials, internal communication, and training on behavior change. By strategically involving key stakeholders in the company and addressing biases, Engendering Industries was able to work towards creating a more inclusive environment for all participants. 28 | GBV PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: WEE AC EVALUATION USAID.GOV “When it first started, most people think that, ‘Ahh women they want to overtake, oh, they want to grab everything. So, it’s not about grabbing, it’s not about competition. It’s about complementing.” – Program Participant KII For WEE in Mesoamerica, interviews with local partners indicated that factors that benefited the speed and quality of implementation were the local partners’ established presence in the rural areas in which they worked, which allowed the activity to reach distant communities who are often overlooked, as well as prioritizing strategic alliances and communication in local languages, which was particularly crucial to achieve positive outcomes among Indigenous participants. Challenges included lack of buy-in from men in communities to participate; the COVID-19 pandemic affecting in-person working tours and exchanges; insufficient number of agricultural technical staff to effectively attend to all communities; inconsistent capacities across partner organizations to deliver GBV-related media products and workshops as originally designed; and administrative delays between the IP, local partners, and the donor. WEE in Mesoamerica implementation successes and challenges are discussed in more detail in the Implementation Evaluation section. PLANNING AND ACTIVITY DESIGN: How and how well were activity plans and designs developed to achieve different GBV outcomes? The WEE cluster has developed activity plans and designs to achieve GBV outcomes using different approaches. For Micro-Journey, the IP allowed victims to choose their own activities, emphasizing integration of diverse activities with partnerships with professional training centers and good procurement management. These activity plans aimed to empower women economically, reducing their vulnerability to GBV. For E4W, the IP involved local authorities and social welfare actors in awareness-raising activities, promoting gender equality and reducing the rate of sexual violence and harassment within the community. The activity also collaborated with the DPDFS for support and regular monitoring. For GLP, the IP encountered difficulties because they did not provide materials in Sesotho. However, they benefited from the involvement of trade union members as facilitators and the manuals provided to workers to improve their understanding of topics covered in the anti￾GBVH trainings. According to interviews and project documentation, WEE in Mesoamerica activity plans were designed and discussed collaboratively among the IP, local, and regional partners to address the socio-economic factors impacting women’s economic participation, which included GBV as identified in the gender analysis. Further, baseline surveys with target participants informed certain activity components, such as the selection of businesses and value chains to receive direct support. For Engendering Industries, the IP adapted its programming to include male engagement, addressing ways men can help reduce gender biases and support women to accomplish their career goals without undermining men. Table 12 lists the resources that E4W respondents indicated were the most necessary to prevent GBVH in their communities. Economic empowerment services were viewed as the most important tool in aiding women and preventing GBVH (98 percent), followed closely by referral pathways for GBV victims (97 percent) and housing shelters and safe spaces (96 percent). Table 12. Most-needed GBVH Prevention Resources for E4W, Burundi (N=133) What are the top resources E4W needs the most to empower women and prevent GBVH in the community? Female Male Total Referral pathways for victims of GBV 96% 100% 97% Legal assistance services for victims of GBV 87% 91% 88% Emergency hotline services for victims of GBV 94% 95% 94% Psychosocial and counseling support services for victims of GBV 94% 97% 95% Housing shelters and safe spaces 96% 96% 96% Economic empowerment services 98% 97% 98% 29 | GBV PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: WEE AC EVALUATION USAID.GOV What are the top resources E4W needs the most to empower women and prevent GBVH in the community? Female Male Total Health care services (including sexual and reproductive health rights) 95% 97% 95% Other [Specify] 19% 14% 17% Source: CAPI conducted for this evaluation. N=40 (male) and N=93 (female) Table 13 lists the resources that GLP respondents indicated were the most necessary to prevent GBVH. Legal assistance services were viewed as the most important tool in preventing GBVH (64 percent), followed by health care services (54 percent) and psychosocial support services (34 percent). Table 13. Most-needed GBVH Prevention Resources for GLP, Lesotho (N=139) What are the top resources that workers at Nien Hsing need most to prevent gender-based violence and harassment? Female Male Total Legal assistance services 64% 66% 64% Health care services 57% 50% 54% Psychosocial support services 38% 29% 34% Hotline services 29% 34% 31% Other 26% 28% 27% Economic empowerment services 15% 33% 22% Referral pathways 13% 13% 13% Housing shelters and safe spaces 13% 4% 9% Don’t Know 4% 8% 6% Refused 7% 4% 5% Immigration documentation support services 3% 0% 2% Institutional accompaniment 0% 0% 0% Source: CAPI conducted for this evaluation. N=44 (male) and N=95 (female) Most E4W respondents (70 percent) noted there were stakeholders they identified as important but were not involved in the programming and implementation of the activity (see Figure 10). Security guards and state officials were identified as examples of important but excluded stakeholders. 30 | GBV PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: WEE AC EVALUATION USAID.GOV Figure 10. Were there stakeholders identified as important but not included? Burundi (N=133) Source: CAPI conducted for this evaluation. N=40 (male) and N=93 (female) Figure 11. Were there stakeholders identified as important but not included? Lesotho, (N=139) Source: CAPI conducted for this evaluation. N=44 (male) and N=95 (female) Forty percent of GLP respondents also noted there were stakeholders they identified as important but were not involved in the programming and implementation of the activity (see Figure 11). As seen in Table 14, of these identified excluded stakeholders, management and managers were mentioned the most by respondents (11 percent). Table 14. GLP Stakeholders Who Should Have Been Involved in the Anti-GBVH Program But Were Not, Lesotho (N=54) Stakeholders Female Male Total Total 43% 36% 40% Management / managers 13% 8% 11% New workers / new laborers 5% 6% 5% New staff 3% 6% 4% Chinese managers 3% 6% 4% Human Resources 3% 3% 3% 70% 28% 2% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Yes No Don't know 40% 47% 13% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% Yes No Don't know 31 | GBV PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: WEE AC EVALUATION USAID.GOV Stakeholders Female Male Total Colleagues 3% 2% 3% Senior management 0% 6% 2% Current workers 4% 0% 2% New managers / new departmental bosses 1% 2% 2% Female colleagues 2% 0% 1% The owners / factory owners 2% 0% 1% Absent supervisors 2% 0% 1% Supervisors 2% 0% 1% Union representing workers 2% 0% 1% Source: CAPI conducted for this evaluation. N=16 (male) and N=45 (female) INTERVENTION AND IMPLEMENTATION: How well are interventions implemented to reach their target groups and influence change? Across the WEE cluster, interventions were implemented to reach their target groups and influence change with varying degrees of success. Every IP indicated they were able to reach their target audience. The Micro-Journey activity targeted GBV survivors identified through the Ministry of Social Affairs. For Micro-Journey, community actors were involved in strategies to limit GBV violence by participating in workshops and discussions on GBV prevention. For example, the activity relied on strong facilitators in communities to disseminate information about the program. The Ministry of Social Affairs, particularly the Directorate of Social Affairs, reviewed the standard operating procedure for the care of victims of GBV. Additionally, the activity provided training sessions to empower women economically, and offering coordinated care and coordination mechanisms to health workers, social workers, and judicial police officers. Of the 209 people assisted, this approach resulted in between 70 and 77 percent of victims successfully reintegrating and being able to meet their needs and those of their families, according to a local partner KII. The E4W activity targeted young boys and girls, men and women, and journalists from both rural and urban areas across Burundi. For E4W, interventions were implemented by involving community members in strategies to limit GBV violence, organizing public activities such as networking and gatherings to speak out publicly against GBV, and providing training sessions to empower women economically. One of the major activities was a women's forum where journalists met with women who have suffered and lived in situations of violence. Additionally, model couples6 identified through implementation of the SMART approach received capacity building sessions to educate other couples in order to achieve community-wide behavior change. Achieving the outcomes in E4W appeared to depend substantially on the involvement and support of men in the fight against GBV. The GLP activity targeted both men and women working at Nien Hsing garment factories in Maseru, Lesotho. For GLP, interventions included workshops on GBVH to workers’ unions, providing a hotline for reporting harassment cases, and changing the hiring system at Global to prevent discrimination based on physical appearance. According to one local partner, garment factory workers reported a significant positive change in the workplace after the workshops on GBVH, stating that workers have been able to talk about issues in the workplace, and the rate of inappropriate touching has since declined. To further improve implementation, two local partners suggested trainings be interpreted into languages other than English and Mandarin for managers who are not Lesotho or Chinese nationals (note that Nien Hsing is based in Taiwan and some managers are from Taiwan and therefore speak Mandarin). They said lack of adequate interpretation made 6 E4W used a model couple approach to promote behavior change. The model couples received capacity building sessions to educate other couples in the community. 32 | GBV PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: WEE AC EVALUATION USAID.GOV training for international managers ineffective since only a few of these people were able to communicate in English, and training booklets were only written in Sesotho and Mandarin. “We didn’t cater for these other nationals, yet you will be surprised that we have more Egyptians on the management positions, but they are not catered for.” – Local Partner FGD Engendering Industries at IBEDC targeted company employees. For Engendering Industries, several IP and program participant respondents indicated that different components of the activity worked together to influence change at IBEDC. First, the activity reportedly raised awareness about gender equality, social inclusion, and the prevention of sexual harassment and exploitation in the workplace. There were cases of sexual harassment reported at IBEDC, and IBEDC realized there was a need for education and awareness-raising around what constitutes sexual harassment. One program participant said that many people were ignorant about what sexual harassment entailed and that there was a need for education to address this. Another program participant suggested that the process of reporting sexual harassment was not clear and that management or the company needed to be objective in dealing with such cases. Participants reported increased understanding of their rights and methods to prevent harassment and exploitation, highlighting the activity’s effectiveness in creating awareness. The activity also helped formulate policies on gender equality and social inclusion. Participants reported that the activity supported them in developing human resources policies aligned with the activity’s main objectives. Finally, the activity also secured buy-in from top executives in the company. Participants explained that presenting the partnership and formulating policies on gender equality was more manageable because two members of the executive team were part of the activity. Seventeen percent of GLP respondents believed that traditions and local culture in the community made it difficult to prevent GBVH. As seen in Figure 12, open responses given for the ways in which local culture makes GBV prevention difficult range from difficulties adjusting to new regulations to attire exposing parts of the body. Figure 12. Is the ability to prevent gender-based violence and harassment difficult because of traditions or the local culture in your community? Lesotho (N=139) Source: CAPI conducted for this evaluation. N=44 (male) and N=95 (female). 3% 3% 2% 0% 2% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 2% 3% 4% Culture attire can lead to abuse from… It will be difficult to prevent it because… Language barriers Don’t understand how women who … Cultural practices Difficulties adjusting to new regulations /… We are not open to talking about… Taking “no” from women People are afraid to report Responded 'Yes': Male Female 33 | GBV PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: WEE AC EVALUATION USAID.GOV In Burundi, roughly a third of respondents (32 percent) believed that despite the efforts of the E4W activity and its components dedicated to preventing and mitigating GBVH, the sustained ability to empower women and prevent GBV was challenging due to traditions and local culture in the community. This is reflected in Figure 13. Figure 13. Barriers to GBV Prevention for E4W, Burundi (N=133) Source: CAPI conducted for this evaluation. N=40 (male) and N=93(female) WEE in Mesoamerica targeted women facing marginalization and barriers to economic participation, including young women and single mothers, members of Indigenous groups, and those living in communities with high rates of migration. For WEE in Mesoamerica, survey results indicate that over half of participants (55 percent) believed that the ability to prevent GBV was difficult because of traditions or local culture. Respondents specifically identified elements such as a culture of machismo, or masculine pride, low self-efficacy among women, and the need for permission from husbands to participate as barriers. As expanded upon in the Implementation Evaluation section, local partners and the IP recognized the importance of carrying out sensitization campaigns and displaying examples of positive masculinities to garner buy-in from men in the community to address these barriers. MECHANISMS: What are the most effective aspects of the interventions? How do these ‘active ingredients’ operate in each AC? Activities implemented in the WEE cluster have successfully provided access to information on women’s rights, fostered economic independence, and engaged communities in efforts to combat violence against women. Through various initiatives, activities such as GLP and Engendering Industries have improved the culture of gender equality in the workplace. However, cultural beliefs and lack of education and awareness are some of the most common barriers to combatting GBV and sexual harassment across the clusters. For the Micro-Journey activity, one local partner said the most effective component was the study phase of the files of program participants. A good understanding of the victims' files, which included information about victims' backgrounds, experiences of GBV, and their business ideas and needs, helped orientate the counseling, and this phase was considered very important for the delivery of services to GBV victims. However, as one local partner explained in a KII, an important barrier to effectiveness is that many authorities were themselves committing acts of GBV. For example, an elected official who participated in a workshop and committed to fighting against GBV was complicit in organizing a forced marriage of a 15-year-old child. This example demonstrates the importance of thoroughly vetting officials involved in the Micro-Journey activity. Yes , 32% No, 68% 34 | GBV PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: WEE AC EVALUATION USAID.GOV According to KII and FGD respondents in E4W, the most effective aspects of the activities implemented included providing women with access to information on their rights and measures to combat violence against women, economically empowering them, and involving the community in the acquisition of strategies to limit GBV. Economic initiatives that have positively impacted women's economic empowerment involve pig breeding, savings and loans activities, and coffee farming. These activities have contributed to women's economic independence and their ability to provide for their families' needs. A significant obstacle to minimizing GBV in both the community and the workplace was the culture of ignoring women's rights and lack of awareness of the issue. Specifically for E4W, men did not believe that women should leave home and get involved in women empowerment activities. Additionally, women were concerned that they would not have permission or freedom to follow or participate in association activities and that their husbands would not agree to give them money for activities that require funding. E4W tackled this issue by organizing public activities, such as networking sessions and gatherings where people could speak out publicly on GBV, thus reducing the fear of discussing the issue, which is often considered taboo. For instance, women who participated in politico-administrative activities initially faced opposition from their husbands; however, program participants reported this has changed, leading to increased confidence and dignity for these women. As seen in Table 15, a majority of program participants rated all E4W activities as “very effective,” with town hall forums receiving the most ratings (88 percent) for being “very effective.” Table 15. Effectiveness of E4W Activities, Burundi (N=133) Very Effective Effective Neutral Don’t Know Gender sensitivity trainings for media professionals Total 80% 20% - - Female 81% 19% - - Male 77% 23% - - Media broadcasts and radio shows to raise awareness on GBV Total 69% 31% 0%* - Female 66% 33% 0%* - Male 76% 24% 0%* - Directory of women professionals with expertise in different sectors for media Total 77% 23% - - Female 76% 24% - - Male 80% 20% - - Town hall forums to encourage discussion among the larger community Total 88% 12% - - Female 86% 14% - - Male 100% 0% - - Women in Action exchange forums for women-serving CSOs, entrepreneurs, and media professionals Total 77% 23% - - Female 76% 24% - - Male 77% 23% - - Awareness-raising sessions for key male stakeholders Total 73% 27% - - Female 70% 30% - - Male 76% 24% - - Empowered Entrepreneur Training Program for women Total 80% 19% - 1% Female 79% 20% - 2% Male 84% 16% - 0%* Economic support to women-led coffee farms, including coaching and business support Total 84% 16% - - Female 82% 18% - - Male 87% 13% - - 35 | GBV PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: WEE AC EVALUATION USAID.GOV Very Effective Effective Neutral Don’t Know Learning tours and exchange visits for women-led and mixed-gender coffee farmer cooperatives Total 72% 28% - - Female 73% 27% - - Male 71% 29% - - Gender awareness program for men and women within coffee farmer cooperatives Total 77% 23% - - Female 74% 26% - - Male 82% 18% - - Source: CAPI conducted for this evaluation. N=40 (male) and N=93 (female) *Note: Where “0%” is listed, the number of respondents is very small. For GLP, the provision of access to information through pamphlets, flyers, and posters and involvement of trade union members as facilitators were both highlighted as effective for fostering a safe environment for worker participation in workshops and the information line. As shown in Table 16, over 89 percent of program participants rated the anti-GBVH workshops, information line, and WRW investigations as “very effective” or “effective.” No program participants rated the information line as “ineffective.” Several obstacles to minimizing GBV and sexual exploitation at the factories were noted by local partners and program participants. Cultural beliefs and a lack of awareness and education about what constitutes sexual harassment heightened behaviors such as commenting on women’s appearances. Furthermore, limited resources, including funding and staff, also posed barriers to effective implementation of the activity. Table 16. Effectiveness of GLP Activities, Lesotho (N=139) Rate Effectiveness: Very Effective Effective Neutral Ineffective Anti-GBVH workshops N=124 Total 66% 26% 3% 4% Female 57% 33% 3% 5% Male 81% 15% 2% 2% Information line (0800) N=30 Total 62% 37% 1% - Female 65% 34% 2% - Male 58% 42% 0% - Investigation of GBVH complaints by Workers’ Rights Watch N=23 Total 59% 30% 8% 1% Female 56% 38% 2% 2% Male 64% 21% 16% 0% Source: CAPI conducted for this evaluation. N=44 (male) and N=95 (female) For Engendering Industries, program participants and IP staff agreed that the various components of Engendering Industries created a system of support for the improvement of gender equality at IBEDC. Respondents found it difficult to pinpoint the most effective aspect of the intervention. However, some Tetra Tech staff and program participants felt that the coaching component was the “secret sauce” that made the activity impactful. The coaching component involved providing individualized support and guidance to participants and was described as supportive and useful. It helped participants to realize the impact of their past behaviors and learn new ways of approaching their work. The coach also helped to guide participants through change management and to identify opportunities for growth and development. Program participants cited cultural beliefs, lack of awareness and education, resistance to change, and limited resources as barriers to improving gender equality in the workplace. For example, in addition to beliefs around the traditional roles of men and women, many respondents noted there was a lack of knowledge around what constitutes sexual harassment or gender discrimination in the workplace. In more conservative regions of Nigeria, people also noted resistance to changing beliefs about women’s roles outside of the home. 36 | GBV PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: WEE AC EVALUATION USAID.GOV Finally, budget cuts at IBEDC and employees’ limited time to spend on the activity also posed some challenges. For WEE in Mesoamerica, it is unclear from survey results which activity components have been the most effective and useful for participants. When asked about the effectiveness of each program, accessing women’s leadership networks was rated lowest among participants in comparison to the other activities (77 percent responding “effective” or “very effective”), although it was ranked among the highest when asked about usefulness in preventing GBV (100 percent responding “very useful” or “useful”). Conversely, assistance accessing microcredit was rated high in effectiveness (100 percent responding “effective” or “very effective”) but among the lowest when asked about usefulness (75 percent responding “useless” or “very useless”). Across all activities for WEE in Mesoamerica, survey data suggest that, on average, coffee participants found activities less effective than poultry participants, as seen in Table 17. These contrasting data suggest that further follow-up and reflection on this topic could be beneficial, such as exploring to what extent WEE in Mesoamerica is able to facilitate access to activities that women find highly desirable. Table 17. Mean Effectiveness of WEE in Mesoamerica Activities, Guatemala (N=109) Effective or Very Effective Neutral Ineffective or Very Ineffective Total Mean 90% 8% 7% Poultry Participants Mean 96% 3% 2% Coffee Participants Mean 84% 13% 11% Source: CAPI conducted for this evaluation. N=109 (female) EVALUATION QUESTION 3: TO WHAT EXTENT ARE THE ACS SUSTAINABLE? SUSTAINABILITY: What aspects of the ACs contributed to their sustainability? What components are needed for greater sustainability? Key elements promoting sustainability included capacity-building, successful reintegration, strong leadership, cultural sensitivity, grassroots engagement, and the engagement of men and individuals in leadership or decision-making positions. However, the WEE cluster also encountered obstacles to longer-term sustainability, such as limited resources, changes in leadership, resistance to change, and inadequate reporting mechanisms. Several factors contributed to the sustainability of the Micro-Journey activity. First, strengthening the capacities of various actors in the care chain, especially the community centers under the Ministry of Social Affairs, facilitated the implementation of income-generating activities for violence survivors. Of the 209 survivors, the reintegration of between 70 and 77 percent of survivors is an important indication of effectiveness. To achieve greater sustainability, KII respondents suggested expanding access to support. Also important was the adaptation of the activity strategy to facilitate the implementation throughout the country. Some barriers to the continued implementation of these activities were also highlighted, including limited resources, resistance to change, and a lack of reporting mechanisms for certain forms of violence. For GLP, contributing factors to sustainability include the establishment of a helpline and independent investigative body, as well as engagement with local grassroots organizations. Activity participants and local partner representatives generally believed the activities implemented in Lesotho would continue once the activity ended. Survey findings also corroborate qualitative findings. Most survey respondents believed anti-GBVH workshops (81 percent), the information line (83 percent), and investigations by WRW (75 percent) would continue after the activity ended (see Table 18). One activity participant believed that the changes would continue because no one will accept being harassed or abused after receiving the trainings. 37 | GBV PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: WEE AC EVALUATION USAID.GOV Table 18. Respondents Who Believed GLP Would Continue, Lesotho (N=139) Responded “Yes” Female Male Total Anti-GBVH workshops will continue 81% 80% 81% Information line (0800) will continue 86% 78% 83% Investigation of GBVH complaints by Workers’ Rights Watch will continue 79% 71% 75% Source: CAPI conducted for this evaluation. N=44 (male) and N=95 (female) Respondents for E4W were confident in the sustainability of the services of the activity beyond its planned implantation period. Both men and women (96 percent for each gender, see Table 19) agreed that women’s inclusion activities would continue. Because the activity was designed to empower women economically, and participants were trained to start their own businesses, program participants said the skills and resources they gained would continue to benefit them even after the program ended. Table 19. Sustainability of E4W/Tuyage, Burundi (N=133) Responded “Yes” to: Female Male Total Women’s inclusion activities implemented by E4W/Tuyage will continue 96% 96% 96% Source: CAPI conducted for this evaluation. N=40 (male) and N=93 (female) The Engendering Industries activity experienced instability in the power sector in Nigeria for approximately one and a half years, which negatively affected activity implementation, according to IP KIIs. This highlights the significance of stability and external support in promoting sustainability. Additionally, program participants discussed that IBEDC’s change in its leadership and executive team created uncertainty around the new leadership’s buy-in, underlining the importance of leadership continuity and commitment for sustainability. Finally, program participants also mentioned the importance of addressing cultural differences between regions in Nigeria as crucial for continued successful implementation. WEE in Mesoamerica interview and survey data suggest that elements of the activity are designed to promote sustainability such as community ownership of achievements and knowledge sharing; however, the activity team and participants also had concerns about the sustainability of activities, as elaborated on further in the Implementation Evaluation section. Local partners expressed that because their sub-agreements end at year three of the five-year project, they have concerns about continuity of staffing and funding to continue activities. REPLICABILITY, TRANSFERABILITY, ADAPTABILITY AND SCALABILITY: In what ways are the ACs replicable in the same contexts? Adaptable for other contexts? What aspects of the ACs are most amendable to be scaled up? Within the WEE cluster, each activity contains components that could potentially be replicable in other contexts with similar challenges. For replicable components, three key factors emerged as consistently effective across various contexts: First, the transformative power of community engagement and awareness for E4W in Burundi should be highlighted. The E4W activity empowered women through economic activities like coffee farming, leading to increased self-sufficiency, while education and training in entrepreneurship and agriculture enhanced their planning and execution capabilities. As a result, 38 | GBV PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: WEE AC EVALUATION USAID.GOV women have achieved tangible outcomes such as owning cattle, renovating their homes, and engaging in small livestock raising. Coordinators identified CRS’ SMART couples approach for improved communication as the most effective method, recommending the targeting of at least two provinces per region. Components such as public activities, networking sessions, and gatherings such as town halls may also be replicable in other contexts. Methods such as participatory theatre and public gatherings were instrumental in raising awareness about GBV and eliciting community action against it. Incorporating similar activities in various contexts could significantly elevate the levels of community awareness and involvement in GBV prevention. Second, the Micro-Journey activity in Benin underscores the critical role of capacity enhancement. The Micro-Journey activity promoted economic empowerment for women and increased their access to information. Activity coordinators recognized the importance of participant-driven activity choices for future success. The activity relies on a decentralized system and benefits from integrating diverse services, partnering with professional training centers, and efficient procurement management to expedite support and access to quality equipment. Strengthening the skills and abilities of all parties involved in the care chain facilitated the implementation of income-generating activities for GBV victims. Adopting this capacity-building approach in diverse contexts will ensure all individuals providing support to GBV victims are adequately equipped with the necessary skills and knowledge. Engendering Industries in Nigeria and GLP in Lesotho demonstrate the importance of collaboration and partnership. Partnering with companies increased the visibility of the projects’ activities and impact. This collaborative approach could be replicated in different environments to increase the reach and impact of GBV prevention efforts within a company or sector. The Engendering Industries activity has made progress in fostering a culture of gender equality at IBEDC, according to both IP KIIs and program participant FGDs. The activity provided access to information through course materials, internal communication, and behavior change communication training. These components, particularly the approach of change management coaching to integrate better policies in the company, could be replicable in other contexts. The GLP raised awareness and deepened garment factory workers’ understanding of GBVH through education and awareness trainings. Furthermore, it fostered an improved treatment of workers within the workplace, and through the WRW information line, showed that perpetrators would be given a chance to respond to allegations and, once found guilty, would be punished. The model of partnering with local grassroots organizations and trade unions to implement programming could be replicated in other contexts. There were also non-replicable components of the WEE activities, uniquely bound to specific local contexts. For E4W in Burundi, interventions required customization to address the distinct needs of certain demographics, such as members of the LGBTQIA+ community who faced unique vulnerabilities to GBV. While this intervention was crucial in Burundi, it may not be universally relevant or appropriate. Additionally, implementation of Micro-Journey in Benin also highlighted the challenges posed by context-specific security concerns. The persistent threat of terrorism in the north of the country posed significant obstacles in reaching GBV victims. While not universally applicable, this example serves as a reminder that various contexts may present unique security challenges that could affect the implementation of GBV prevention initiatives. In Guatemala, a WEE in Mesoamerica local partner indicated during an interview that the coffee value chain is among the strongest in generating income, thus related activities should continue to introduce coffee products to more local and, eventually, international markets. However, across all interviews WEE in Mesoamerica staff emphasized that each rural locality, even within the same country, can differ vastly, and all activities must be adapted to each local context. 39 | GBV PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: WEE AC EVALUATION USAID.GOV 4.2 CONCLUSIONS FOR THE WEE GBV ACTIVITY CLUSTER EVALUATION QUESTION 1: ARE THE ACS BASED ON CONTEXT-SPECIFIC AND INTERNATIONAL EVIDENCE? What worked: A variety of needs assessment approaches were used for three of the five activities, including baseline studies, independent commission reports, gender diagnostics, and in one case, utilizing existing project M&E data. These needs assessment findings informed intervention components. For example, information from the report by Worker Rights Consortium investigating GBVH indicated the need for an independent complaint mechanism and the gender barrier analysis for E4W and gender diagnostic for WEE in Mesoamerica identified barriers for women's economic participation. In contrast, the Micro-Journey and Engendering Industries’ partner IBEDC did not have formal needs assessments but relied on existing M&E data, a rapid organizational assessment and discussions with partners to inform interventions. IPs made several assumptions about addressing gender-based issues, many of which had to be reassessed during implementation because of emerging evidence and the COVID-19 pandemic. The activities appeared to be well monitored, using appropriate monitoring and evaluation systems, which included qualitative and quantitative indicators to generate data for decision-making. Challenges: Because needs assessment requirements were not specific, groups could opt to do what they believed was needed, which meant that there were varying degrees of rigor and focus on specific elements of intervention design. For example, some approaches were weaker because they only drew on existing sources of information and did not involve gathering primary data from potential participants and stakeholders. In Guatemala, the WEE in Mesoamerica gender diagnosis appeared to be relatively light touch at the start of the project, but respondents indicated that they drew on emerging evidence during the implementation phase. In cases where activity design assumptions were proven incorrect during implementation, either due to limited data or unforeseen circumstances, IPs had to adapt interventions quickly. These findings underscore the benefits of thorough needs assessments to develop relevant, locally informed strategies for activity design, planning, and implementation. While M&E systems seemed to work sufficiently well, for some activities, such as WEE in Mesoamerica, participants were not aware of the available feedback mechanisms that could have offered useful input for activity implementers. EVALUATION QUESTION 2: TO WHAT EXTENT ARE EACH OF THE ACTIVITY CLUSTERS ACHIEVING THE TARGETED GBV RESULTS? What worked: Many of the WEE activities appeared to make progress toward their proposed outcomes, which prioritized gender equity, reduced abuse and harassment at work, and promoted economic and career empowerment. Important intervention mechanisms in the GLP activity appeared to include, for example, building female workers’ confidence to report GBV violations via a trusted independent reporting process. Similarly, changing women’s perceptions of women’s roles in the home and participation in the formal economy was influential in the E4W activity’s efforts to improve equity and reduce GBV. Importantly, some of the more effective approaches appeared to include the engagement of men, such as through the strengthening couples’ communication strategy and positive masculinity campaigns in E4W, and especially engaging men in leadership and decision￾making positions, such as buy-in from top executives in Engendering Industries. In E4W in Burundi, the activity’s influence appeared to depend substantially on men’s involvement. Likewise, an influential component of the E4W activity was the participation and support of a formal agency, Department of Planning and Development of Social and Family Affairs (DPDFS), which is similar to Micro-Journey’s inclusion of health workers, social workers, and police in their programs. Results suggest that including men in programming, training, awareness activities, etc., seems to increase the likelihood that interventions would having meaningful effects among women and in the community, and achieve targeted GBV results. 40 | GBV PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: WEE AC EVALUATION USAID.GOV Challenges: It was not uncommon for grantees and participants to highlight challenges related to cultural and social norms that created resistance to change, particularly to more gender-equitable practices. For example, in Engendering Industries, reports indicated that men believed the activity would promote women’s dominance over men versus goals of social and professional equity and equitable opportunities for women’s career advancement. Other challenges included recognizing and inclusion of LGBTQIA+ groups in gender-equity and GBV programming, such as in E4W. WEE in Mesoamerica was particularly impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic and administrative delays between the IP, local partners, and the donor. Among the smallest, most manageable challenge was participant preference for training materials in Sesotho rather than English for the GLP activities. EVALUATION QUESTION 3: TO WHAT EXTENT ARE THE ACTIVITY CLUSTERS SUSTAINABLE? What worked: The sustainability of the activities was influenced by several key factors that were consistently observed across the five activities of the WEE cluster. The active joint engagement of local grassroots organizations and community members played a crucial role in the planning and implementation processes. This collaborative approach 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. The emphasis on economic empowerment and encouragement for women to be self-sufficient versus reliant on external assistance was welcomed by participants and therefore likely to have greater sustainability. By raising awareness and promoting an understanding of GBV, groups believed they had contributed to the reduction of GBV incidents and promoted changes in attitudes and corresponding behavior. The training and education initiatives in entrepreneurship and agriculture complemented these equity-targeted activities because they helped equip women with skills to plan their income-generating activities. Additionally, partnerships with local organizations and government agencies seemed to help integrate the WEE activities into relevant systems, which may foster long-term sustainability. Challenges: One of the main challenges to sustainability across the activities of the WEE cluster was the lack of long-term funding and support. Local partners and participants expressed the need for continued funding and technical support to continue many initiatives once funding ended. Another challenge was the lack of involvement of government and policy stakeholders in the planning and implementation of the activities. Changes made at the interpersonal level through education. and the institutional level through policies within a company or services provided in the community, need legal and policy support for systemic change. A systems approach could address these challenges by focusing on fostering long-term partnerships and collaborations with government officials and policymakers. Similar to the approach of the Micro-Journey activity, other activities in the WEE cluster could build the capacity of government-funded social services to continue the work even after external support ends. Implementing a systems approach that prioritizes coordination among diverse stakeholders at the community, institutional, and state levels would foster a comprehensive and cooperative strategy to tackle GBV. 4.3 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE WEE ACTIVITY CLUSTER EVALUATION QUESTION 1: ARE THE ACS BASED ON CONTEXT-SPECIFIC AND INTERNATIONAL EVIDENCE? ● Needs assessments should be mandated as a first step in activity design. Needs assessments at the start of donor-funded activities appear to be a useful exercise to inform and update the design of proposed activities and ensure social and cultural appropriateness. These exercises should also include representatives from relevant stakeholders and anticipated participants, because this can foster buy-in from important stakeholders, not least the intended target groups. Integrating the voices of GBV survivors from the design stage would ensure that 41 | GBV PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: WEE AC EVALUATION USAID.GOV activity components accurately represent their needs, interests, and perceptions. To maximize the value of these initial research components, donors should also provide some professional research guidance and support to help groups generate and use intervention-focused evidence and integrate equitable versus tokenistic participatory methods with local stakeholders whenever feasible. Donors should provide technical guidance on generating intervention￾focused evidence. This would ideally be factored in from a budgetary perspective as well at the design and planning stage. ● International evidence should be consulted for other similar interventions, especially intervention evaluations. There are growing numbers of GBV interventions around the world, with increasingly robust evaluations embedded from the very beginning. Groups should be assisted to collect and consider similar practices in different settings to determine which intervention approaches might be relevant to achieve their projected outcomes. Literature searches to identify systematic reviews might provide a good starting point. EVALUATION QUESTION 2: TO WHAT EXTENT ARE EACH OF THE ACTIVITY CLUSTERS ACHIEVING THE TARGETED GBV RESULTS? ● Increase engagement of male who are gate-keepers in decision-making and power positions, in activities to improve gender equity and reduce violence against women and sexual harassment. To improve the uptake and effectiveness of certain activities to reduce GBV, donors can help groups consider the role and safe engagement of different gendered groups, including men and LGBTQIA+ groups, to promote gender-equitable beliefs and practices. Male engagement might look different and involve different stakeholders (family members, co-workers, supervisors, etc.) depending on the type and objective of the activity. This does not mean that some activity aspects may not be better targeted to one gender, specifically. To implement sufficient safeguarding and ensure outreach, learning tools and messages should be carefully designed to reach women, men, or LGBTQIA+ groups. Given the suggested importance of including men in gender-equity activities, donors might wish to raise this issue with prospective grant recipients to help advocates and service providers consider when more inclusive, joint programming approaches might be safe, feasible, and useful. ● Support activities to include individuals in decision-making roles or positions of power, especially in employment settings. Donors may have the leverage or contacts to help activities include persons in positions of authority or power in gender equity activities and policymaking. Local groups may not have the same status or linkages that donors can arrange, such as collaborations with high-level decision-makers, including corporate executives and government representatives. However, collaborations must not be forced, as local groups will likely know best who may be good allies in their work toward gender equitable norms and practices. Grantees suggested that if people in positions of power take the activities seriously and show up to events, it is more likely others will participate and trust the intervention, and more likely certain practices will be institutionalized following the intervention. For instance, Engendering Industries participants noted the importance of buy-in from top executives in the company. ● Promote and pay for collaboration with participants. Findings indicate that greater effectiveness can be achieved when activities invite and pay fairly for the time and engagement of GBV survivors and local community stakeholders, especially when trying to adapt the activity design and implementation. Donors should provide technical and financial support to groups to help them use participatory methods to gain regular feedback from affected groups or activity participants, which can be used to iterate and adapt survivor-informed activity designs toward greater effectiveness. ● Promote sufficient time, financial, and technical support for local implementers to advance beyond awareness-raising and sensitization techniques to standardize gender equity and anti-harassment policies and accountability mechanisms for 42 | GBV PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: WEE AC EVALUATION USAID.GOV violations. The activities reportedly made progress shifting perceptions and understanding about gender equity and violence. Activities seemed to encourage women’s economic participation and bring to the forefront concepts such as women’s rights to be free from sexual harassment in the workplace. However, the activities were not implemented for a sufficiently long period or were not far-reaching enough to build the structures needed to set company, state, or community standards against GBV and to institutionalize women's economic participation. Nor were the activities able to establish effective accountability mechanisms for violations. For instance, while the GLP activity advanced awareness and sensitization of GBVH, and added a chapter on GBVH harassment to Nien Hsing’s HR manual, perpetrators were able to evade internal accountability mechanisms due to a lack of streamlining of Nien Hsing’s grievance process with the Labor Court of Lesotho. IP staff indicated one of the challenges posed to accountability was that perpetrators accessed external dispute resolution mechanisms instead of complying with Nien Hsings grievance and disciplinary process. EVALUATION QUESTION 3: TO WHAT EXTENT ARE THE ACTIVITY CLUSTERS SUSTAINABLE? ● Encourage IPs to collaborate with a diverse selection of local partners, especially by working with organizations or individuals with wider reach and decision-makers with substantial influence. While several intervention models appeared to have an influence on their direct target group (e.g., within their organization or company), sustainability will be fostered by greater horizontal reach that goes beyond simply the single business or sector. For instance, Engendering Industries was able to institutionalize human resources policies aimed at addressing sexual harassment and engage leadership in making gender equality a priority of the company. Greater sustainability might have been gained by ensuring executives had ownership of the activity, and its outcomes were a formalized part of their job responsibilities, so management changes did not result in disruption. Due to the success of USAID’s long-term support and funding of Engendering Industries, USAID should explore similar models of support for other GBV programs that require long-term investment and close institutional partnerships to produce results. ● Adopt a systems approach that aims to institutionalize gender-equitable policies and practices. Activities funded by USAID may have greater sustainability if they are designed with a systems approach that is designed to include state mechanisms from, for example, the business and trade commissions, labor rights sector, judiciary and civil litigation, occupational health and safety, and women’s rights groups. Projects would benefit from additional funding to build partnerships across government, private sector and worker coalitions to co-develop and align cross-systems structures to create coordinated strategies for protection (support for reported violations); prevention (policies), and prosecution (accountability). 5. IMPLEMENTATION EVALUATION FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5.1 FINDINGS FOR THE IE IE QUESTION 1: IS THE ACTIVITY DESIGN BASED ON THE LOCAL CONTEXT AND FLEXIBLE TO ACHIEVE RESULTS ON THE GROUND? 1a. DESIGN: What factors contributed to the design of the activity? How were priority GBV problems identified? WEE in Mesoamerica (formerly named W-GDP NPI: Latin America) was designed to advance the three pillars of the Women’s Global Development and Prosperity (W-GDP) Fund: 43 | GBV PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: WEE AC EVALUATION USAID.GOV 1) Women prospering in the workforce; 2) Women succeeding as entrepreneurs; and 3) Women enabled in the economy.7 Guided by these pillars, the purpose of this activity is to “improve the enabling conditions for the most at-risk and marginalized women in Guatemala, Honduras, and Mexico to prosper economically by integrating proven pathways for economic development and social empowerment.” For GBV prevention, one underlying assumption is that gaining greater economic independence and capacity will reduce women’s vulnerability to and likelihood of falling into high-risk situations. 8 Some other assumptions under which activity programs were designed are presented in Table 20, below. In line with USAID’s New Partnerships Initiative,9 the activities are co-created and implemented within a network of partner organizations: the implementing partner, Rainforest Alliance (RA); three national organizations (also referred to as local partners)—the Federation of Cooperatives of the Verapaces (FEDECOVERA), Association of Forest Communities of Petén (ACOFOP), and Association of Organizations of the Cuchumatanes (ASOCUCH)—to operationalize community activities in Guatemala; and three regional partners based in Guatemala who generate common materials and strengthen local partners— Labetnográfico, Fundación Ixcanul, and the Women’s Justice Initiative (IDM). The IP, national, and regional sub-awardees work together to coordinate work tours across rural landscapes in Mesoamerica and collaborate to support participants and exchange knowledge.10 A key element of the design of this activity is implementing Women’s Empowerment Business Development Approach (WEBDA), a holistic methodology to “[guide] the selection of specialized recovery services and capacity strengthening for the most at-risk and marginalized women, identifying appropriate male engagement, and other strategies to promote shared responsibility for equality, respect towards women’s participation, and more balanced gender relations…” 11 The activity was also designed to employ the most significant change (MSC) technique of audio-visual storytelling to prevent, assess, and address GBV and implicit bias. MSC is a form of participatory monitoring and evaluation that involves the collection of significant change stories from the field level and the systematic selection of the most significant of these stories by designated stakeholders.12 Table 20. WEE in Mesoamerica Design Assumptions Pillar Assumptions13 1. Women Prospering in the Workforce Tailored technical assistance and trainings will enable at-risk women to progressively enter the workforce and increase their income by obtaining, retaining, and being promoted in higher-paying jobs at later stages of sustainable productive supply chains. These mechanisms will empower women with information and skills to help them act on their legal rights. 7 W-GDP was a whole-of-government effort launched in 2019 to advance global women’s economic empowerment. https://2017- 2020.usaid.gov/branding/w-gdp 8 “Women’s Global Development and Prosperity (W-GDP) New Partnership Initiative (NPI): Latin America Work Plan FY2021,” February 4 2021 9 NPI was relaunched in 2019 as part of an effort to diversify USAID’s partnerships by improving collaboration with new, nontraditional, and local actors. https://www.usaid.gov/npi 10 “Women’s Economic Empowerment in Mesoamerica (WEE in Mesoamerica) Quarterly and Annual Report: Fourth Quarterly Report and Fiscal Year 2022 Annual Report,” October 28 2022 11 “W-GDP NPI: Latin America Work Plan” 12 Davies, Rick, and Jess Dart. “The ‘most significant change’ (MSC) technique.” A guide to its use (2005). 13 “W-GDP NPI: Latin America Work Plan” 44 | GBV PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: WEE AC EVALUATION USAID.GOV Pillar Assumptions13 2. Women Succeeding as Entrepreneurs Access to finance through tailored financial mechanisms, coupled with enterprise development and business skills training, will strengthen women’s natural resource-based micro and small enterprises. Growing market linkages with private sector partners will drive investment to target landscapes and help secure markets for the women’s products. 3. Women Enabled in the Economy Creating and supporting Women’s Leadership Alliances will enable women to gather and organize in their landscape; share and promote a common vision of establishing their power; and assert their new capacities to improve social, political, and financial enabling conditions. Capacity-strengthening and sensitization activities with men, community leaders, Indigenous authorities, and local governmental institutions will increase support of and investments in women’s businesses and address policies to support Indigenous Peoples’ rights, women’s rights, well-being, and voice. To develop and adapt the WEBDA methodology, which is meant to be continuously validated throughout the activity, an external consulting group conducted a gender analysis and gender action plan of the three program localities. The gender analysis found there was a need to carry out an additional Climate Vulnerability Analysis to “[provide] clarity about where the most vulnerable women and families are located … especially in the case of natural disasters that are recurrent in the region.”14 Key informant interviews suggest that these tools were useful to inform activity design: “The diagnostic analysis work that was done for Guatemala and Central America … there are some quite impressive characterizations of the problems of gender and violence.” – IP KII “What all these diagnostic tools help us do is to make decisions based on better-informed science about the situation of women and how we can better serve them with WEE tools; and what we do not have within WEE, how we can get it through strategic alliances.” – IP KII Informants also acknowledged that while desk-based studies are key tools, they need to be considered in conjunction with on-the-ground baseline data from target participants to understand the realities of each locality. For example, a survey of initial interest was conducted in Guatemala's Verapaces region to define “locally appropriate criteria for the selection of businesses to receive direct support from the Fund...” 15 An IP representative describes this integration of evidence sources as critical for designing effective ways to serve communities: “[The selection of value chains] were not only those that are commercially important, such as a private company, nor [only] those that women like and that were easier, such as handicrafts or jewelry.… The middle ground was to decide between those that women wanted because they were interested in them, but also those that had a potential for growth so that there would be a significant change in their income … so the expertise and the technical advice, but also listening to what they want, when they can, and how they want to do it.” – IP KII Start-up activities also included various participatory engagement approaches with partner organizations to discuss proposed activities and strategies, such as virtual Pause and Reflect sessions that were described in project documentation as “an excellent opportunity for the partners in each country to express their concerns [and] ask questions.”16 One local partner representative expressed particular appreciation that implementation regions were not pre-determined but were identified based on local knowledge of priority areas: “I think the communication was quite close, in the sense that they did not impose what area they were going to reach, but they took into account the knowledge and experience that [local organization] has, and I think 14 “WEE in Mesoamerica Quarterly and Annual Report FY2022” 15 “Women’s Economic Empowerment in Mesoamerica (WEE in Mesoamerica) Quarterly and Annual Report IV Quarterly Report - Fiscal Year 2021,” October 28 2021 16 “W-GDP NPI: Latin America Work Plan” 45 | GBV PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: WEE AC EVALUATION USAID.GOV that is part of the success that we have had… I believe that we have been able to benefit the population quite well with the initiative, because since the design there was enough coordination, there was enough communication.” – Local partner KII Through KIIs, representatives also gave insights on areas of improvement for designing the activity. The IP emphasized that despite the useful design phase activities, there are ultimately limitations to the level of detail and depth reflected in a project design document, and a strong adaptive management approach is crucial from conception to account for the fact that “the reality is dynamic.” For example, an IP representative explained that the initial design was based on the assumption that women would have their own enterprises and productive systems but this proved to be complicated as “women do not have access to land in our countries,” which prompted a change in approach. The importance of adaptive management and flexibility is acknowledged in the project workplan, particularly in anticipation of evolving operating environments due to the COVID-19 pandemic. While partners described examples of successful adaptations to activity content, some also indicate that implementing adaptations were challenging (discussed in more depth in the Flexibility section): “The design of the initiative was not intended for adaptive change-sensitive management. Every time we have had to do one it is literally a struggle … and sometimes it doesn’t work. So we have to find a way around it and work with what we have.” – IP KII Additionally, a common theme was that the activity’s partnership structure was not designed to enable local organizations to carry out activities effectively and potentially overestimates the role and relevance of regional-level engagements. According to an IP representative, local partner sub￾agreements only go up to year three of the five-year project cycle while regional partner agreements span all five, even though the local partners are, in their view, “the most important actors in this initiative.” Further, they expressed that if they were to design the activity again, they would put more resources into institutional strengthening of local organizations, particularly as some may have less experience managing administrative processes of this scale. Another IP echoed similar sentiments: “I would reevaluate the role of regional organizations, and I would also look for other paths.… I would think a little bit more down to earth, more about the transfer of capacities, which is an adjustment that we are making, but I would have started on day one with that.” – IP KII A local partner expressed that despite their involvement in activity design, they wished to be more involved in other aspects of design, such as indicator development, and also called into question the level of resources allocated to regional mechanisms: “The links between the countries are not observed yet, although a lot of resources have been invested in that through the regional sub-agreements, while not so much in the territories of implementation, where they are needed the most.” – Local partner KII 1b. KEY IMPLEMENTATION METHODS: What are the key intervention methods to achieve objectives? WEE in Mesoamerica intervention methods in Guatemala include market-based trainings, technical assistance, audio-visual story telling models, and legal literacy on women’s rights for Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities. Technical assistance and training for income-generating natural resource-based value chains is a particularly active mechanism of the intervention. For example, local partners are providing resources for women’s poultry farming activities by organizing women’s producer groups and delivering supplies such as vaccinations to hens (participants are referred to as the “Aves Postura” group in survey results). Other activities focus on the coffee value chain, including developing commercialization tools and identifying buyers for coffee products produced by women (participants are referred to as the “Café” group in survey results). 46 | GBV PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: WEE AC EVALUATION USAID.GOV Table 21 below outlines the types of activities implemented and presents the levels of participation among the combination of Aves Postura and Café participants (noting that respondents can participate in more than one type of activity). Survey results indicate that across every activity type, satisfaction is high among participants (94 percent or more responding satisfied or very satisfied). Additionally, as seen in Figure 14, most respondents who participated in training activities expressed that they were of good or very good quality and were realistic or very realistic, both among the Aves Postura group (98 percent) and Café group (96 percent). Further, 100 percent of all training participants reported that they received adequate post-training support from the WEE in Mesoamerica project teams. According to an IP representative, an important influence is the presence of national partners and their knowledge of the local context, language, and markets: “In the case of Fedecovera, the technicians speak Q'eqchi'.... Amucafé, Redmuch, and Fedecovera have a very clear focus on business, and so this is also an element that has led to a faster response.... Asocuch, in the context in which the project started, had very clear proposals to boost the local economy, and under much more difficult conditions, such as the egg chain, which is quite complex.” – IP KII A local partner representative similarly attributes strong implementation to their organization’s extensive experience working with Indigenous populations. They explain below that prioritizing strategic alliances and communicating in Indigenous languages contributed to positive participant experience and uptake: “We have coordinated with the Office for the Defense of Indigenous Women, for example, and this has allowed us to give the women greater confidence but also to make them aware of their rights. The fact that they must be spoken to in their own language is a right that we have told them they have to demand, that they are not obliged to speak in Spanish. That is why we at [local organization] also promote that if I do not speak their language, I should bring a translator, a good translator, so that they are happy with the work that is being done.” – Local partner KII Table 21. Participation in and Satisfaction of WEE in Mesoamerica Activities (Select all that apply), Guatemala (N=109) Activity Type Participated, Used, or Received Activity Very Satisfied or Satisfied With Activity Leadership, basic entrepreneurship, and value chain development trainings for women’s groups 56% 100% Training on irregular migration issues and risks for women's groups 23% 97% Training on skills to report possible violence at the family level for women's groups 59% 98% Trainings on gender sensitivity and recognition of violence against women and girls for male and female groups 34% 100% Sensitization campaigns to promote an enabling environment that increases women’s economic empowerment 16% 100% Income-generating productive activities linked to the poultry, sheep, coffee, and vegetable chains for women entrepreneurs 98% 97% Assistance with accessing microcredit through village banks and other institutions for women entrepreneurs 7% 100% Access to the Women’s Entrepreneurship Fund to grant resources to groups of women for use in new livelihood activities 11% 94% 47 | GBV PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: WEE AC EVALUATION USAID.GOV Activity Type Participated, Used, or Received Activity Very Satisfied or Satisfied With Activity Access to Women’s Leadership Alliance and other networks of municipal women for women entrepreneurs 16% 95% Community forums and other meetings to promote the development and well-being of women 33% 98% Awareness sessions and other material on sexual and reproductive health 32% 95% Source: CAPI conducted for this evaluation. Figure 14. How well do you think the project provided realistic, quality trainings? Guatemala (N=109) Source: CAPI conducted for this evaluation. N=79 for Aves Postura; N=30 for Cafe While WEE in Mesoamerica has made progress implementing activities, it has also met both internal and external challenges. Predictably, the COVID-19 pandemic introduced limitations, particularly at the beginning of the project period. According to survey results, nearly 75 percent of all participants indicated that the COVID-19 pandemic impacted the effectiveness of the services they received. However, Error! Reference source not found., below, suggests that the impacts of COVID-19 were potentially perceived more strongly by Café participants (85 percent) than Aves Postura participants (66 percent). In interviews, IP representatives explained that the pandemic initially had a large impact on coffee exchange activities between national organizations, as participants could not be physically present, and although exchanges were adapted to be remote, it was limiting due to poor access to technology and internet. One local partner also described adopting a protocol to continue operating in the face of COVID-19 restrictions, where “meetings could only be held in open fields with a maximum of eight farmers in a totally open space…” Once mobilization restrictions between Honduras and Guatemala became more flexible and participants could attend exchange visits in person, this mechanism became, as described by the IP, “one of the most enriching processes” because participants were able to gain hands-on experience at other existing businesses sites outside of trainings and courses. 2% 43% 55% The training was of low quality or was not realistic The training was of good quality and was realistic The training was of very good quality and was very realistic 4% 53% 42% AVES POSTURA CAFÉ 48 | GBV PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: WEE AC EVALUATION USAID.GOV Figure 15. WEE in Mesoamerica Survey Results: Did the COVID-19 pandemic affect the effectiveness support services you received? (N=109) Source: CAPI conducted for this evaluation. N=79 for Aves Postura; N=30 for Cafe Challenges to implementation were also evident because some activities required modification and others were reduced in scope, particularly for regional organizations, and as a result reaching fewer participants. For example, the regional organization Labetnográfico was not able to implement the development, training, and socialization process of an empowerment toolkit as was originally designed, thus this element was “reduced to a virtual diploma….” Similarly, the regional foundation Ixcancul led the creation of mini-documentaries, initially offering to produce 120 mini-documentaries for each year of WEE. However, by FY2022 they were able to produce 57 videos over two years— which, according to the annual report, did not represent the MSC methodology as initially designed or meet expected quality standards. 17 Further, a local organization representative described poor continuity or follow-up when regional organizations engaged directly with activity participants: “When they were here in Todos Santos, and they talked to the women, we thought there was going to be some feedback or a follow-up to this process, but we never saw anything, it was just a visit. ‘We are going to give you a small workshop, we are going to take some shots, and film some videos,’ and that is what the work of IDM and Ixcanul, specifically, was limited to.” – Local Partner KII Interviews suggest that the regional organizations were also limited in their capacity to effectively support local partners in way that met their particular capacities and contexts. One informant explained that they tend to employ a “one size fits all” approach, which can really fall short when supporting organizations who have substantial experience in gender programming: “It has been quite difficult because the regional organizations, I think, are not very clear about how to work in a local territory, and they think that all organizations can be treated under the same scheme. And there are many differences between our organization[s] … we are totally different. Also, some of the regional partners assume that we have no experience in gender and that we are just starting out. This is incorrect. We have a strategic plan; we have a well-established gender policy … we are talking about more than 20 years of work to get there.” – Local Partner KII Finally, data from reporting and interviews suggest that timely and effective implementation has at times been hindered by poor responsiveness and inefficient communication within the team, particularly between implementers and USAID. For example, an important meeting session was reported to have been halted in FY2022 due to USAID teams’ cancellations. At the same time, the high number of planned mandatory meetings was described to have decreased the IP’s and sub awardees’ capacity to implement the activities with the target participants. The annual report also indicated that by the end of FY2022, positioning of the activity in USAID’s social networks had declined, as USAID did not cross-post WEE in Mesoamerica success stories or visual resources on any of its channels, which was important for amplifying campaigns and communications aimed toward awareness-raising and behavioral change outcomes. However, it appears that some actions have 17 “WEE in Mesoamerica Quarterly and Annual Report FY2022” No, 34% No, 15% Yes, 66% Yes, 85% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% AVES POSTURA CAFE 49 | GBV PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: WEE AC EVALUATION USAID.GOV started to mitigate these issues. For example, USAID has approved the cancellation of some meetings and instead prioritized biannual pause-and-reflect sessions because they have been described as extremely fruitful to discuss emerging data and lessons from the field, as indicated by the IP. Additionally, the 2023 first quarterly report indicated that the USAID Guatemala mission positioned some of WEE in Mesoamerica’s campaign content on its social media to increase the visibility of the activity’s achievements, though responses to requests to the Mexico and Honduras missions to post content were still pending.18 19 One area that seemingly continues to be a major barrier to implementation is long approval processes from USAID, which, as the below IP interview illustrates, has resulted in multiple instances of lost work, time, and products: “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. With the communication campaigns, a big part of WEE is to raise awareness and communicate for behavioral change. However, this does not move forward, and we have lost dates for launching campaigns, which later are no longer valid because they are commemorations of specific days.” – IP KII The IP further explained that the local partners had limited capacity to carry out all of USAID’s required administrative procedures, and this also contributed to delays, which is difficult because “… the producer groups have deadlines, there is a time for planting, a time for everything.” The IP reported that interaction mechanisms between the three countries of implementation and USAID Washington have been complicated, and if approvals of purchases, communication actions, and other items continue to be delayed, it will be extremely difficult to achieve the commitments and measure the progress indicators.20 1c. 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? The IP team was composed of staff dedicated to each location in Guatemala: for example, one Landscape Manager in Petén and one in Alta Verapaz to coordinate field implementation, as well as Agribusiness Technicians in Petén, Huehuetenango, and Alta Verapaz to conduct activities directly with rural and Indigenous women. According to project documentation, the IP’s recruitment process considered cultural, linguistic, and gender representation, resulting in several new staff members who “belong to Indigenous communities and speak local languages, as well as nearly 50 percent of new hires who are women, and five young people under the age of 30.”21 In interviews, IP informants noted that at all levels, but particularly regional, a key gap in staffing was the presence of gender specialists. They explained that although there are many gender activists, staffing a specialist with academic and experiential expertise on the subject was difficult. Due to these challenges, the Regional Gender Specialist position was not filled until late into the design phase. Local organizations also expressed that although they had knowledgeable local staff, many were from other activities and not hired specifically to WEE in Mesoamerica. They would have preferred if more WEE in Mesoamerica funds were allocated to hire local technicians to support the very large and disparate implementation areas, as explained below: 18 “WEE in Mesoamerica Quarterly and Annual Report FY2022” 19 “Women’s Economic Empowerment in Mesoamerica (WEE in Mesoamerica) Ist Quarterly Report for FY2023,” January 31, 2023 20 “WEE in Mesoamerica Quarterly and Annual Report FY2022” 21 “W-GDP NPI: Latin America Work Plan” 50 | GBV PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: WEE AC EVALUATION USAID.GOV “The funds allocated are not enough to hire technical personnel who are really local, who are fluent in the language, who know the context, and who know the dynamics of each place.… If we talk about the poultry and sheep business networks, which are quite large, we only have two professional technicians who move around within the area, which is quite distant … so it is quite difficult. I would say that two more technicians, two for each area would be ideal.” – Local Partner KII When asked about the flexibility of activity approaches, one IP representative summarized: “… there has been some flexibility. Not as much as one would like, but there has been flexibility....” They described one instance in which the activity adapted its approach once it was evident that it would be beneficial to move to digital platforms to increase sales. At the same time, adaptations were made for locations that are not able to accept online payments and which had reached an agreement with companies to accept other forms of payments. In another example, the exchange tours between Honduras and Guatemala spurred proposals to adapt the Guatemala approach, and the IP described how they were able to submit a detailed action plan and budget and are now implementing it in year three of the project. While these changes to the intervention approach might indicate the use of adaptive management, both the IP and local partners expressed frustration in the barriers to redistributing resources when performance is not as expected, such as from regional sub-agreements to local implementation. In interviews, the IP describes that the procedure to change budget distributions is complicated, bureaucratic, and not easy to do. In the 2022 annual report, the IP noted: 22 “This reflection leads us to ask to what extent, as stated in New Partnership Initiative, we should continue to support subawards that are notably not responding rather than redirect these funds to better serve women, as well as strengthen subawards that have performed well and even exceeded expectations.” – Annual Report 2022 IE QUESTION 2: IS THE ACTIVITY REACHING PARTICIPANTS THEY ARE MEANT TO TARGET? 2a. TARGET PARTICIPANTS: What are the barriers to reaching participants? According to project documentation, the activity team identified a target population representing those who face marginalization and barriers to economic participation, including: “those who cannot participate unless authorized by their partners, do not receive income for their work, young women and single mothers, members of Indigenous groups, those living in communities with high rates of migration, and survivors of violence in all its forms.” Participants were identified through field scoping activities and by leveraging existing partner relationships with community organizations. Due to the well-established presence of the local partners in the implementation areas, many target participants were already engaged with them prior to WEE in Mesoamerica. For example, there were key target cooperatives led by women and youth who already belonged to the local partner FEDECOVERA, while several community forestry organizations targeted for workshops were members of the local partner ACOFOP. To reach wider audiences, field teams introduced WEE in Mesoamerica to several local organizations and authorities as well as potential producer groups, including their leaders and community members, across all three landscapes in Guatemala. Teams also attended local Entrepreneurs Bazaars and introduced WEE in Mesoamerica through radio spots. The team pursued strategic alliances to facilitate both reaching target participants and promoting dialogue at institutional levels. For example, the Todos Santos Cuchumatán municipality signed a key agreement to support WEE in Mesoamerica, and alliances were established with several government and non-governmental organizations in the Peten region. Target participants also included men “who have achieved an 22 “WEE in Mesoamerica Quarterly and Annual Report FY2022” 51 | GBV PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: WEE AC EVALUATION USAID.GOV understanding of equality between men and women” to facilitate dialogues and sensitization of positive masculinities. 23 24 The activity team made efforts to tailor outreach methods to the target populations’ context to foster their participation. For example, in the Verapaces region, a survey was carried out during training development to inquire about participants’ use of time. In Todos Santos Cuchumatán, 90 percent of the Business Networks’ members were reported to be of the Mam ethnic group, so bilingual Mam-Spanish agricultural promoters were selected to facilitate communication. Whenever possible, meetings with communities and groups were held in-person and according to the partners’ safeguarding protocols.25 During FGDs, one participant expressed appreciation that meeting locations are usually local to their community: “ [They] organize by place so that it is not so difficult for us. Let’s say those of us from San Martin, here in San Martin, let’s say Buenos Aires, they have their own group, also to avoid what you say that sometimes there are delays, they can’t come or whatever, so that’s why they do it that way. I mean, there is a nice organization, right now all of us who are here are from here.” – Activity Participant FGD In the first quarter of the activity, additional dates were added to leadership trainings in the Verapaces region due to high demand and interest, suggesting that outreach efforts were successful. Local partners and the IP indicated that they believe they are successfully reaching vulnerable and hard-to-reach populations, particularly in the Huehuetenango region, as demonstrated below: “One of the things that I was able to observe is that we are serving many young women in Huehuetenango: both young women, single mothers, indigenous and non-indigenous, it seems to me that they are a particularly vulnerable group.” – IP KII “You can see that there are many other organizations that are working in Huehuetenango and that are limited to the closest places, while we as [local organization] have reached the most distant places, the most distant communities, because we are aware that that is precisely where support is needed the most, that is where these vulnerable groups are.” – Local partner KII At the same time, the activity team recognized that there continue to be barriers to reaching participants. This seems to be corroborated by survey results. In Figure 16, across all activities, between 21 to 56 percent of program participants are estimated to have faced some difficulty participating, with higher proportions facing challenges accessing microcredit, the Women’s Entrepreneurship Fund, and Women’s Leadership Alliances. 23 “WEE in Mesoamerica Quarterly and Annual Report FY2022” 24“Women’s Global Development and Prosperity (W-GDP) New Partnership Initiative (NPI): Latin America 1st Quarterly Report FY2021,” January 29, 2021 25 “W-GDP NPI: Latin America 1st Quarterly Report FY2021” 52 | GBV PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: WEE AC EVALUATION USAID.GOV Figure 16. Experienced Difficulty Participating in WEE in Mesoamerica Activities, Guatemala (N=109) Source: CAPI conducted for this evaluation. N=109 (female) One barrier indicated during the interviews is the size and distance between communities, particularly in Huehuetenango. Therefore, while a limited number of priority municipalities have been identified and reached, activity funding is not sufficient to cover all of these areas, leaving some populations out of reach. The IP also indicated that certain groups may continue to be under- or unattended, notedly those who are under 16 years of age, those who do not have access to land, and/or those who have not been able to be included in the working groups with other women who have access to land. According to the IP, some localities have had challenges receiving response from the government’s assistance systems to accompany the coordination of women’s networks and working groups. Women without access to land particularly face barriers to participation, as the IP describes that they sometimes work as day laborers or do all-day work. As a result, both men and women in these circumstances would have to forgo a day’s wages to attend trainings, potentially limiting those who are especially reliant on this income. A local partner also describes that, because of the way the productive activities are managed, participants must make a certain economic contribution, which may similarly limit participation of more economically vulnerable populations. Further, one activity participant describes, below, that it is challenging to obtain all the covered information if one has to miss a workshop due to reasons such as illness or inclement weather: “In the workshop I had before … I even missed one … so we would discuss it with the person in charge, … but there were difficulties because I missed that day’s topic. They did give me the brochure, but they could not give me all the information at the time, so that is a difficulty. And there were some others that experienced the same.” – Activity Participant FGD Finally, a commonly mentioned obstacle across the interviews and survey is gaining support from men in the community, especially as some women rely on permission or approval from their husbands to attend training and meetings. The IP expresses that the issue of retaliation from men is also complicated to handle: “We use tools such as prior, free, and informed consent; we include men in groups to sensitize them and prepare them to help them open spaces for women. Even so, there is always that huge risk, and I think we 34% 31% 49% 44% 56% 24% 41% 21% 29% 39% 34% 11. Awareness sessions and other material on sexual and… 10. Community forums and other meetings to promote… 9. Access to Women’s Leadership Alliance and other … 8. Access to the Women’s Entrepreneurship Fund to … 7. Assistance with accessing microcredit through village… 6.  Income-generating productive activities linked to the… 5. Sensitization campaigns to promote an enabling… 4. Trainings on gender sensitivity and recognition of… 3. Training on skills to report possible violence at the… 2. Training on irregular migration issues and risks for… 1. Leadership, basic entrepreneurship, and value chain … 53 | GBV PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: WEE AC EVALUATION USAID.GOV can work more on the issue of retaliation when we leave the field, when we are no longer there near the women, and they return home at night.” – IP KII To this point, the activity team is reported to be actively addressing this matter both within communities of work and internally, recognizing that “this requires a man leading the reflections and discussions on what it means to be a man so that he can deepen the transformation of macho patterns, risk behaviors, and violent attitudes.”26 2b. MONITORING OF RESULTS: Is the activity collecting evidence on what is working, not working and what could be done differently to achieve results? The IP describes that there is a dedicated effort to collect evidence and discuss lessons learned throughout implementation. The WEBDA, for instance, is a living document to synthesize lessons learned on issues of violence prevention, rights, and social justice, as well as productive systems as a mechanism for economic empowerment, adapted to each country context. The goal is for the tool to both inform WEE in Mesoamerica during the project period and future initiatives after it ends. In interviews, the IP expresses that they find this tool useful, and it contributes to strong implementation: “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. I think this has been excellent, the thought of generating this package or toolbox is key, and it is also a continuous learning process for the whole group, so it also strengthens our work internally and externally.” – IP KII In addition to the WEBDA, Environmental Mitigation and Monitoring Plans (EMMP) were generated for each value chain in the three WEE in Mesoamerica countries, documenting environmental mitigation and monitoring measures according to USAID guidelines. Interviews indicate that both quantitative and qualitative data are collected to monitor activity￾specific indicators and progress and presented through success stories and written narratives. Further, local partners maintain databases of socio-economic data of participants to monitor trends, making sure to adhere to security protocol to protect sensitive data. In response to evolving needs and expression of interest from local partners, there has also been an effort to digitize the monitoring process through use of electronic systems such as the Project Management Tool (PMT) and KoboToolbox. It should be noted, however, that the use of technology in the field has been reported to be a challenge, and the IP recognizes a need to continue capacity-building efforts to ensure that quality data and indicator information is being collected. However, as a whole, the WEE in Mesoamerica M&E system “is taken as an example to support other RA activities in Latin America, and lessons from its construction and use continue to be shared to help develop platforms and indicators sensitive to dynamic social settings, but concrete enough to respond to donors and their strict requirements.”27 To reflect on emerging data and lessons, the IP reports that there are regularly held pause-and￾reflection sessions, one-on-one sessions with each sub-agreement, and annual team integration sessions. While these sessions have been reported to be useful and productive, the activity team reflects on areas of improvement on how to best use the data, with particular emphasis on deepening analysis as expressed below: “There is a pretty clear idea of how the partners are performing, and how the goals are being achieved, so adjustments have been made to maintain those possibilities.… I think the system is robust; probably what is 26 “WEE in Mesoamerica Quarterly and Annual Report FY2022” 27 “WEE in Mesoamerica Quarterly and Annual Report FY2022” 54 | GBV PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: WEE AC EVALUATION USAID.GOV needed is to deepen it a little more, in the sense of pushing analytics a little more. We have the data, we make decisions based on what we have, but perhaps we need to deepen the analysis of potential impact. – IP KII In addition to monitoring activity progress and indicators, the IP has expressed the importance of understanding the reality in the communities, “are we really helping women, are we doing what they need.” The need to have continued communication and support is emphasized by participants themselves as well, as demonstrated by a coffee value-chain participant during a focus group discussion: “And maybe one can have all the good intentions, but the problem is who to turn to when this happens.… I, at least in terms of coffee, I am very demanding, and I ask them (the technicians) to go and see my plantation, so I bother them, ‘go, even if it is a Saturday, it is in your busy schedule, go and see it’; ‘this is missing this and this,’ so then you already know.” – Program Participant FGD WEE in Mesoamerica staff have reported indicator progress through implementation, as seen by results as of FY2023 in Figure 17. As mentioned above in the Activity Cluster section, the activity has already surpassed target goals for several indicators while continuing to make steady progress in others. Figure 17. WEE in Mesoamerica Indicator Progress Source: “Women’s Economic Empowerment in Mesoamerica (WEE in Mesoamerica) Ist Quarterly Report for FY2023” The 2023 quarterly report further suggest that activities are resulting in desired outcomes. In Guatemala technical assistance was provided to women who bred 300 Isa Brown breed hens, which produced 13,394 eggs, including assistance in the marketing of eggs for commercial in the municipalities of San Miguel Acatán and Santa Eulalia. It is also reported that vegetable production plots have been monitored to ensure proper land management. Further, WEE contributed to the inauguration of a handicrafts store in the Chicoj coffee tour facilities, in Verapaces, Guatemala, which benefits 183 associates of a women’s cooperative. Women from this cooperative also participated in an entrepreneurs’ trade fair with the support of local partner FEDECOVERA, which gave them the opportunity to display their products and exchange experiences with other entrepreneurs. In the report, a success story is shared of a participant who was able to triple her number of poultry through participation in WEE in Mesoamerica and who expressed that she is happy with the support of WEE in Mesoamerica because it allows her family to increase their income. 55 | GBV PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: WEE AC EVALUATION USAID.GOV IE QUESTION 3: IS THE ACTIVITY ACHIEVING SUSTAINABILITY? 3a. SUSTAINABILITY: What plans are in place for sustainability? What is the evidence of potential sustainability? Both the activity team and participants expressed concerns about the sustainability of WEE in Mesoamerica activities. As seen by Figure 18, more than half of participants either do not think or do not know if activities will continue beyond the end of the project, with a higher proportion observed among Aves Postura participants (68 percent). Figure 18. Do you think activities will continue beyond the end of the project? Guatemala (N=109) Source: CAPI conducted for this evaluation. N=109 (female) During FGDs, program participants indicated that local organizations support poultry activities for an initial period of time, after which they themselves are responsible: “In the chicken project, they give it to you for a period of time, they see what is missing, or what to vaccinate…. They are with you for a year, then they leave the responsibility to you. The time and the year that they deliver; for example, today they deliver the hens to us, we have them for a year, and they are watching. ‘Look, we are going to vaccinate the hens or we are going to give them this.’ Getting through the year is one’s responsibility. “ – Program participant FGD Other participants expressed concern over the rising cost of concentrate and supplies over the past year, and those who live in more distant locations expressed it is difficult to buy these supplies. It was not clear from documentation or interviews if there is currently a plan of action to address these concerns to ensure that participants can continue farming activities. The activity team said that limited time, funding, and resources are challenges to sustainability. Achieving lasting impact within five years is difficult to begin with and is further compounded by the fact that local organizations have a shorter period of only three years. As mentioned previously, the IP emphasized that to plan for sustainability, local organizations must be prioritized and supported, as they are the ones who stay in these locations in the longer term to influence behavior change and awareness. Working within the activity constraints, the IP is currently providing support to local organizations to access other resources and coordinate with partners to complement training efforts and access funding. Further, the activity team promotes ownership and self-identification of achievements among participants, as they believe this is key for communities to continue efforts: “When we go to a trade fair, RA and sub-agreements, that is a very strict guideline that we have. We accompany and validate their negotiation processes, the sale of products … but the signing of the 49% 49% 19% 5% 32% 46% AVES POSTURA CAFE No Don't Know Yes 56 | GBV PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: WEE AC EVALUATION USAID.GOV agreements is with the women. With the women’s groups. The delivery of funds and payments is directly to the accounts of the women’s groups. That is to say, we are totally external to that.” – IP KII Additionally, the IP emphasized that sharing all tools, knowledge products, and results with communities is key to achieving sustainability. However, they report that this has been a challenge on the part of sub-agreements, as not all have made this commitment. 5.2 CONCLUSIONS FOR THE IE What Worked: WEE in Mesoamerica was driven by the value of partnerships and gains via local and regional coordination. The WEE in Mesoamerica activities appeared to expand the network of strategic contacts, including local organization, authorities, and potential producer groups, and importantly, their leaders and community members across project locations. WEE in Mesoamerica’s design was based on the Women’s Empowerment Business Development Approach (WEBDA) and the most effective components of the larger intervention appeared to be the activities the local groups conducted with the women, particularly in poultry value chains. Implementers coordinated workshops with and provided direct support for small local producers through a variety of activities, from trainings, mentoring, and coaching to networking opportunities and market access. It was suggested that this was because RA and its local partners had substantial existing experience and knowledge of these markets and had previously worked with some of the women’s groups and organizations who were targeted by the activity. Reported indicator progress and participant interviews indicate that these activities helped them increase their income and obtain better employment. Moreover, the surveys with participants generally suggested that among those who participated in the activities, most believed they were generally relevant to their needs. Implementers also pursued strategic alliances with government and non-governmental agencies, which could contribute to making activities more sustainable. The activity seems to have also encouraged communication, collaboration, knowledge sharing and networking among women working in coffee and poultry value chains. The project also used radio spots to promote project activities to a wider audience, although the effects on participation of these announcements remains unclear. The activities on GBV did not seem to be clearly integrated with the economic activities. Reports suggested they were led primarily by the regional partners. As part of the GBV activities, WEE in Mesoamerica also aimed to raise greater awareness of the problem of violence against women and promote local counselling services, though the effects on use of services and survivor support are unclear. Like the other cluster activities, a new and important addition to their programming was the inclusion of men. A further effective component of the WEE in Mesoamerica work was WEE in Mesoamerica’s coordination with the Office for the Defense of Indigenous Women, which promoted greater participation of Indigenous populations because activities were in their language (versus only in Spanish). Challenges: The WEE in Mesoamerica activities were negatively affected by: a) poor administrative processes; b) the initial conceptualization of the role of regional-local partnerships; and c) implementation problems. When considering some of these challenges, it is worth noting that at the time of this evaluation, the full project had not been completed. The findings of this evaluation must be considered in light of the timeline structure: 1) This program is currently in year three of a five-year project; and 2) The local groups are only funded for the first three of the five years. The reasoning for this split timeline remains somewhat unclear to the evaluation team. What was clear, however, was that the local partners believed that this shorter timeline for their direct services, plus serious bureaucratic hurdles, hindered the effectiveness of their support for the women and affected the financial outcomes for the women. The timeline was reported as 57 | GBV PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: WEE AC EVALUATION USAID.GOV particularly problematic because the local partners reported that it took about a year to organize the activities, and then, due to various approval delays, there was not much time remaining to actually undertake the work with the women and diligently provide much-needed follow-up support. However, the most notable and wholly objectionable adverse outcome of the poor administrative processes of this activity was individual women farmers’ loss of product sales due to flaws or failures in budget approval processes. Findings from interviews with implementers and local partners suggested that budget approvals for purchases were so delayed that numerous women said their crops died before they could get support to market them. It remains unclear where in the process these delays occurred or who is to blame, and it also remains unclear if women were/will be compensated in any way for these revenue losses or who will be responsible for any compensation. The burdensome administrative structure also seemed to hinder the partners’ ability to implement quick changes or adaptations, which are critical given their experience dealing with natural disasters and the COVID-19 pandemic. On the management side, staffing was challenging at various levels, and it was time-intensive to identify and recruit key staff, such as a Regional Gender Specialist and other local staff with the requisite language proficiency and technical trade knowledge. 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. As noted above, the 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 taking their capacities into account. In Guatemala, there were many local partners that the implementer was obliged to work with to align with contractual requirements, but these local partners often lacked necessary capacity and skills to implement the GBV activities thus inhibiting the effectiveness of key activity components. Data collected suggests that some activities led by regional organizations faced challenges in implementation. Furthermore, local organizations indicated there could have been more follow-up and feedback from regional organizations in regards to GBV workshops. It is unclear if the activity structure, budgeting, and implementation thus far has effectively met the training and capacity-building needs of local organizations to equip them to implement these GBV activities. As noted, local partner sub-agreements lasted only the first three years while regional partner agreements were five years. This regional focus neglected to recognize the importance of local partners and the need to use resources to strengthen the institutional capacity of local organizations, not least to manage administrative and implementation processes of this scale. For the GBV-focused activity components in particular, local partners believed that capacity-building for this work was somewhat limited, and their activities were relatively brief, and perhaps potentially harmful, because there was insufficient time and limited resources to follow-up with the women and men. Local partners suggested that this GBV strand of work was likely weak because it was led primarily by the regional coordinating organizations rather than the groups that work every day with the communities. Due to their limited capacity and insufficient training and capacity-building, local organizations did not appear to have been given a strong GBV leadership role. It was also highlighted that an insufficient number of workshops were conducted. As noted earlier, it was difficult for the ET to understand how the GBV aspects of the activity were integrated with the economic empowerment work. It is possible that this programmatic segregation and the relatively “light touch” of the GBV work resulted from the partnership structure. 5.3 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE IE ● Encourage better integration of GBV-focused components and economic participation activities. As a GBV-focused donor, USAID is in a good position to foster stronger integration of GBV protection mechanisms into other types of programming, 58 | GBV PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: WEE AC EVALUATION USAID.GOV particularly economic empowerment and women’s entrepreneurship activities. There has been growing number of proven interventions that combine economic empowerment with GBV programming that can serve as models for future investments in multi-sector designs. For example, the Intervention with Microfinance for AIDS and Gender Equity (IMAGE) study describes a successful intervention design that demonstrated the combined impact of women’s empowerment activities with micro-credit programs—within a program funding period. ● Consider carefully collaboration and funding structures to promote 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 sufficiently funded, trained to build capacity, and respected for their equal if not greater value to activities. ● Promote and fund a start-up phase for local partners to develop intervention￾focused evidence from their community and build their capacity to integrate GBV programming into their current activities. For future GBV funding, it will be important to grant local partners adequate time, resources and technical support to research the GBV-related needs of their community and identify and work 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. ● Review and revise administrative processes that hinder adaptive implementation of activities. It is evident that administrative delays not only affect implementers but also activity participants directly. USAID should consider how to improve the efficiency of review and approval processes and respond to implementers in a timely manner to ensure that activity progress doesn’t stall, and critical resources are not wasted. 59 | GBV PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: WEE AC EVALUATION USAID.GOV 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 3b28 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 participants and partners. Findings will inform recommendations for USAID’s future programming and guide future monitoring and evaluation approaches to strengthen USAID’s evidence for decision-making. 28 The Portfolio Performance Evaluation includes several Phases: (1). Scope of Work 1, (2). Evaluability Assessment, (3a). Scope of Work 2, (3b). Evaluation Design Report, (4). Portfolio and Activity Cluster Evaluation and Reporting, (5). Implementation Evaluation and Reporting, (6) Overall PPE Report, Evaluation Debriefing and Dissemination. 60 | GBV PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: WEE AC EVALUATION USAID.GOV 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 22. 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 4. Evaluation questions Table 23 includes the evaluation questions and sub-questions at the portfolio, activity cluster and individual activity level. Table 23. 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? 61 | GBV PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: WEE AC EVALUATION USAID.GOV Evaluation Question EQ-Sub-questions 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? 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? 62 | GBV PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: WEE AC EVALUATION USAID.GOV Evaluation Question EQ-Sub-questions 2. Is the activity reaching participants they are meant to target? Target participants: What are the barriers to reaching participants? Monitoring of results: Is the activity collecting evidence on what is working, not working and what could be done differently to achieve results? 3. Is the activity achieving sustainability? Sustainability: What plans are in place for sustainability? What is the evidence of potential sustainability? 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.) as indicated in Table 3 below, that will generate the highest quality and most credible evidence on each evaluation question, subject to budget constraints across the full portfolio evaluation. Other data collection methods such as outcome harvesting, and most significant change may also be considered and will be explored by NORC. Note: Considering the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic situation worldwide, the evaluation team must consider an alternative plan for fieldwork, including employment of local consultants and usage of IT tools and approaches to remote evaluation. 6. Evaluation Timeline Table 24. Evaluation Gantt Chart Task July - Sept Oct-Dec Jan-March April-June July￾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 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. 63 | GBV PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: WEE AC EVALUATION USAID.GOV 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. 64 | GBV PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: WEE AC EVALUATION USAID.GOV ANNEX B: EVALUATION METHODS AND LIMITATIONS QUALITATIVE DATA COLLECTION NORC designed both key informant interview (KII) guides and focus group discussion (FGD) guides for audiences of USAID, IP staff, local partner staff, and GBV survivors and program participants for each of the five activities. The design of the guides was mapped to reflect the evaluation questions. The KII guides were used to examine IP and partner needs assessment activities and assumptions in activity design, activity flexibility and adaptation, and user outcomes. NORC worked with local consultants in each country to interview IP staff, local partner staff, and program participants. Each organization provided contact information for relevant staff and participant lists through NORC’s secure file transfer protocol (SFTP) system. NORC reviewed provided information, selected key informants to interview, and prepared the sample of respondents for the FGDs for the respective activities and shared this data with local consultants via the SFTP. Local consultants made all efforts to schedule in-person interviews with IP and partner staff, but in some cases had to conduct these interviews virtually using Zoom. All program participants FGDs were carried out in person and applying a trauma-informed data collection approach. To recruit participants and coordinate FGDs, consultants contacted selected participants by telephone to schedule their interviews and identified interview times and locations per the convenience of participants. All FGDs were conducted in the relevant local language by local consultants who had required language proficiency. Overall, the NORC team followed a set of procedures for transcribing and cleaning all interview and FGDs audio files. Local consultants uploaded audio files to SFTP and first transcribed them in the interview/FGD language and then developed the English translations for these transcripts. While preparing the transcripts, consultants scrubbed any personally identifying information to prepare the files for analysis. For USAID interviews, which were conducted in English, the evaluation team obtained auto-generated transcripts from MS Teams or Zoom and then an analyst cleaned the transcriptions to make sure all contents were comprehensible and well transcribed. At the analysis stage, NORC used a team of three coders for all qualitative data, including open￾ended responses from the face-to-face surveys in Burundi, Guatemala, and Lesotho At the first stage, coders analyzed 35 transcripts using the codes related to the AC evaluation questions (Table 1). At the second stage, coders analyzed only the WEE in Mesoamerica-related transcripts categorizing excerpts according to the implementation evaluation questions (Table 1). Key challenges during fieldwork were tied to managing no shows, remote locations of respondents, holidays, child care, and busy work schedules. Consultants adapted to these situations and accommodated participant-preferences to the extent possible and helped provide strategies to overcome these barriers by reimbursing respondents for transportation costs, providing meals, and confirming interviews multiple times. In cases where selected interviewees could not participate, new potential interviewees were contacted from a list of replacements. SURVEY FIELDING NORC designed three CAPI survey instruments to collect information about E4W, GLP, and WEE in Mesoamerica activities from program participants. During the instrument design phase, NORC clearly mapped in Excel each survey item to evaluation questions and sub-questions to ensure that the tool elicited sufficient and relevant information from program participants. Questions related to topics such as the availability of GBV-related services and programs in the community or company, context appropriateness, usefulness and effectiveness of 65 | GBV PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: WEE AC EVALUATION USAID.GOV services and programs, as well as activity sustainability. NORC used this map to produce versions of the survey on SurveyCTO that grouped questions by theme and indicated display instructions and skip logic for programming. Most survey items were close-ended. NORC incorporated feedback from USAID and the IPs to refine the survey items and response options. NORC programmed the surveys in SurveyCTO and tested the tools internally and piloted the surveys with data collection firms before data collection was launched. NORC contracted with CARD Engineering for the E4W survey in Burundi; Ipsos South Africa for the GLP survey in Lesotho; and CIEN for the WEE in Mesoamerica survey in Guatemala. CARD Engineering conducted the E4W survey from March 6 to 10. Ipsos South Africa conducted the GLP survey from February 27 to March 2; and CIEN conducted the WEE in Mesoamerica survey from February 20 to March 16. SURVEY WEIGHTING Because of the sampling strategies used to select the survey samples, the raw survey data are not representative of the target population for any activity. Across the WEE cluster, the ET used different sampling strategies for each activity. For E4W, we drew a stratified random sample of 133 men and women in grassroots and media programs in Ngozi. We stratified the sample by program and gender. For GLP, we split the sample of 139 respondents equally between the two factories and drew a sample proportional to the total number of men and women in each factory. For WEE in Mesoamerica, we drew a sample of 109 women stratified by four selected communities in Huehuetenango — Santa Eulalia, Todos Santos, Petatan, and Concepcion. In order to estimate the characteristics of the target population, it is necessary to restore the proper proportions of all groups. This goal is accomplished by using data weights. Using data weights involves multiplying each case by a factor that reflects the probabilities of sample selection. The weight calculation is a division of two numbers for each stratum (s): the total population in the stratum (N_s) / the number of sampled individuals in the stratum (n_s): N_s/n_s. We calculated the weights for each stratum and applied them to the data. 66 | GBV PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: WEE AC EVALUATION USAID.GOV ANNEX C. DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENTS QUANTITATIVE INSTRUMENTS E4W BURUNDI SURVEY PROTOCOL 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 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 67 | GBV PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: WEE AC EVALUATION USAID.GOV 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? 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 10. Gender awareness program for men and women within coffee farmer cooperatives, including workshop sessions on social norms transformation and gendered dynamics 68 | GBV PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: WEE AC EVALUATION USAID.GOV 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 69 | GBV PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: WEE AC EVALUATION USAID.GOV 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 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] To 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) 70 | GBV PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: WEE AC EVALUATION USAID.GOV 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. [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 71 | GBV PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: WEE AC EVALUATION USAID.GOV 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 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] 72 | GBV PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: WEE AC EVALUATION USAID.GOV 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 73 | GBV PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: WEE AC EVALUATION USAID.GOV 2. “Women in Action” exchange forums for women-serving CSOs, entrepreneurs and media professionals 3. Awareness-raising sessions for key male stakeholders 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) 74 | GBV PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: WEE AC EVALUATION USAID.GOV 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. Which languages do you speak fluently? [select all that apply] 1. Kirundi 2. French 3. English 4. Other [Specify] 27. What is the highest level of education you have completed? 1. Never attended school 2. Primary school 3. Secondary school 75 | GBV PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: WEE AC EVALUATION USAID.GOV 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 9. Gitaramuka 10. Gitega 11. Makebuko 12. Matongo 13. Muhanga 76 | GBV PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: WEE AC EVALUATION USAID.GOV 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 77 | GBV PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: WEE AC EVALUATION USAID.GOV MICRO-JOURNEY BENIN SURVEY PROTOCOL 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, 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 78 | GBV PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: WEE AC EVALUATION USAID.GOV 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 79 | GBV PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: WEE AC EVALUATION USAID.GOV 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 80 | GBV PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: WEE AC EVALUATION USAID.GOV 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 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) 81 | GBV PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: WEE AC EVALUATION USAID.GOV 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) 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) 82 | GBV PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: WEE AC EVALUATION USAID.GOV 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] 1. The training was of very low quality or was 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 83 | GBV PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: WEE AC EVALUATION USAID.GOV 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 84 | GBV PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: WEE AC EVALUATION USAID.GOV 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. [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? 85 | GBV PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: WEE AC EVALUATION USAID.GOV 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 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 86 | GBV PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: WEE AC EVALUATION USAID.GOV 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 2. Primary school 3. Secondary school 4. Higher education (Bachelor’s degree) 5. Advanced degree (Master’s degree or Ph.D.) 87 | GBV PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: WEE AC EVALUATION USAID.GOV 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 88 | GBV PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: WEE AC EVALUATION USAID.GOV WEE IN MESOAMERICA GUATELEMA SURVEY PROTOCOL CONSENT PURPOSE OF STUDY The purpose of this study is to ask for your opinions about Women’s Economic Empowerment in Mesoamerica (WEE in Mesoamerica) 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 WEE in Mesoamerica Guatemala, implemented by the Rainforest Alliance and their partners – ASOCUCH, ACOFO P, 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 WEE in Mesoamerica 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 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 89 | GBV PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: WEE AC EVALUATION USAID.GOV 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? 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, to the best of your knowledge, please indicate which activities and services are available for WEE in Mesoamerica Guatemala program participants. [select all that apply] 1. Leadership, basic entrepreneurship, and value chain development trainings for women’s groups 2. Training on irregular migration issues and risks for women's groups 3. Training on skills to report possible violence at the family level for women's groups 4. Trainings on gender sensitivity and recognition of violence against women and girls for male and female groups 5. Sensitization campaigns to promote an enabling environment that increases women's economic empowerment 6. Income-generating productive activities linked to the poultry, sheep, coffee and vegetable chains for women entrepreneurs 7. Assistance with accessing microcredit through village banks and other institutions for women entrepreneurs 8. Access to the Women’s Entrepreneurship Fund to grant resources to groups of women for use in new livelihood activities 9. Access to Women’s Leadership Alliance and other networks of municipal women for women entrepreneurs 90 | GBV PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: WEE AC EVALUATION USAID.GOV 10. Community forums and other meetings to promote the development and well-being of women 11. Awareness sessions and other material on sexual and reproductive health 12. Other [Specify] 13. Don’t know 14. No response 2. Which activities and services have you participated in, used, or received? [select all that apply] 1. Leadership, basic entrepreneurship, and value chain development trainings for women’s groups 2. Training on irregular migration issues and risks for women's groups 3. Training on skills to report possible violence at the family level for women's groups 4. Trainings on gender sensitivity and recognition of violence against women and girls for male and female groups 5. Sensitization campaigns to promote an enabling environment that increases women's economic empowerment 6. Income-generating productive activities linked to the poultry, sheep, coffee and vegetable chains for women entrepreneurs 7. Assistance with accessing microcredit through village banks and other institutions for women entrepreneurs 8. Access to the Women’s Entrepreneurship Fund to grant resources to groups of women for use in new livelihood activities 9. Access to Women’s Leadership Alliance and other networks of municipal women for women entrepreneurs 10. Community forums and other meetings to promote the development and well-being of women 11. Awareness sessions and other material on sexual and reproductive health 12. Other [Specify] 13. None 14. Don’t know 15. 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 91 | GBV PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: WEE AC EVALUATION USAID.GOV 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 WEE in Mesoamerica 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] 1. Referral pathways for victims of GBV 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 for victims of GBV 6. Professional skills, leadership and business skills training for women entrepreneurs 7. Employment opportunities in established companies and organizations 8. Entrepreneurial opportunities and support for women entrepreneurs 9. Healthcare services (including sexual and reproductive health rights awareness) 10. Community advocacy and awareness-raising on women’s issues 11. Other [Specify] 12. Don’t know 13. 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 92 | GBV PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: WEE AC EVALUATION USAID.GOV 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) 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 93 | GBV PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: WEE AC EVALUATION USAID.GOV 5. Very ineffective 6. Don’t know 7. No response 9. Have there been any cases in which WEE in Mesoamerica Guatemala 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 2 or 3 or 4] You mentioned earlier that you have participated in some trainings under the WEE in Mesoamerica Guatemala 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 was 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 94 | GBV PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: WEE AC EVALUATION USAID.GOV 6. No response 13. [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 WEE in Mesoamerica project teams? 1. Yes 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] 15. Did the COVID-19 pandemic affect the effectiveness of the trainings and other support services you received under the WEE in Mesoamerica project? 1. Yes 2. No 3. Don’t know 4. No response 16. [If Q15 = Yes] Please explain and provide examples if possible. [open-ended response] GBV PREVENTION 17. 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. Leaders of women’s groups 4. Spouses and partners of women entrepreneurs 5. Government representatives 6. Other [Specify] 7. Don’t know 8. No response 18. Are there people in your community who you think should have been involved in WEE in Mesoamerica Guatemala activity but were not? 1. Yes 2. No 95 | GBV PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: WEE AC EVALUATION USAID.GOV 3. Don’t know 4. No response 19. [IF YES]: Who are these people? [open-ended response] 20. 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 21. [IF YES]: What aspects are difficult? [open-ended response] SUSTAINABILITY 22. Identify which activities you would like to see more of in your community during the rest of the WEE in Mesoamerica Guatemala implementation period. 1. Leadership, basic entrepreneurship, and value chain development trainings for women’s groups 2. Training on irregular migration issues and risks for women's groups 3. Training on skills to report possible violence at the family level for women's groups 4. Trainings on gender sensitivity and recognition of violence against women and girls for male and female groups 5. Sensitization campaigns to promote an enabling environment that increases women's economic empowerment 6. Income-generating productive activities linked to the poultry, sheep, coffee and vegetable chains for women entrepreneurs 7. Assistance with accessing microcredit through village banks and other institutions for women entrepreneurs 8. Access to the Women’s Entrepreneurship Fund to grant resources to groups of women for use in new livelihood activities 9. Access to Women’s Leadership Alliance and other networks of municipal women for women entrepreneurs 10. Community forums and other meetings to promote the development and well-being of women 11. Awareness sessions and other material on sexual and reproductive health 12. Other [Specify] 96 | GBV PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: WEE AC EVALUATION USAID.GOV 13. Don’t know 14. No response 23. Do you think the women’s inclusion activities implemented by WEE in Mesoamerica Guatemala will continue beyond the end of the project? 1. Yes 2. No 3. Don’t know 4. No response 24. What do you think your community needs to do to make sure these activities continue? [open-ended response] 25. To what extent do you agree with the following statements: If I wanted to give feedback on WEE in Mesoamerica Guatemala, 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 The WEE in Mesoamerica Guatemala activity had enough staff to effectively implement activities and support the needs of my community. 1. Strongly agree 2. Agree 3. Neutral (Neither agree nor disagree) 4. Disagree 5. Strongly disagree 97 | GBV PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: WEE AC EVALUATION USAID.GOV I would recommend the WEE in Mesoamerica Guatemala activity to other women in my community. 1. Strongly agree 2. Agree 3. Neutral (Neither agree nor disagree) 4. Disagree 5. Strongly disagree PARTICIPANT BACKGROUND 26. How old are you? 1. 16-24 2. 25-34 3. 35-44 4. 45-54 5. 55-64 6. 65-74 7. 75+ 8. Don’t know 9. No response 27. What is your gender? 1. Woman 2. Man 3. Other [Specify] 4. Don’t know 5. No response 28. What is your ethnicity? 1. Mam 2. Mestizo 3. Poqomchi' 4. Maya Q'eqchi ' 98 | GBV PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: WEE AC EVALUATION USAID.GOV 5. Maya K'iche ' 6. Other [Specify] 29. Which languages do you speak fluently? [select all that apply] 1. Spanish 2. Poqomchi' 3. Q'eqchí ' 4. K'iche ' 5. English 6. Other [Specify] 30. 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 31. Which municipality do you reside in? 1. Santa Eulalia 2. Todos Santos Cuchumatan 3. Petatán 4. Concepcion Huista 5. Other [Specify] 6. Don’t know 7. No response 32. Which community in [Q31 Answer] do you reside in? 1. Candelaria Amedipk [If Q31 = 1] 99 | GBV PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: WEE AC EVALUATION USAID.GOV 2. Sede Amedipk [If Q31 = 1] 3. Villa Nueva [If Q31 = 1] 4. Yultaq [If Q31 = 1] 5. Chanjon [If Q31 = 2] 6. Cheninhuitz [If Q31 = 2] 7. Chicoy [If Q31 = 2] 8. Mash [If Q31 = 2] 9. San Martin Cuchumatan [If Q31 = 2] 10. Teogal [If Q31 = 2] 11. Tuipat [If Q31 = 2] 12. Tuipocamal [If Q31 = 2] 13. Tzunul [If Q31 = 2] 14. La Playa [If Q31 = 2] 15. Rio Ocho Chiquito [If Q31 = 2] 16. Tuipocamal [If Q31 = 2] 17. Valenton I [If Q31 = 2] 18. Cabic [If Q31 = 3] 19. Canton Limarez [If Q31 = 3] 20. Petatán [If Q31 = 3] 21. Com [If Q31 = 4] 22. Concepcion Huista [If Q31 = 4] 23. Other [Specify] 24. Don’t know 25. No response 100 | GBV PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: WEE AC EVALUATION USAID.GOV GLOBAL LABOR PROGRAM LESOTHO SURVEY PROTOCOL 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. 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. 101 | GBV PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: WEE AC EVALUATION USAID.GOV 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? 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 employees at Nien Hsing. [select all that apply] 1. Anti-GBVH workshops 2. Information line (0800) 3. Investigations of GBVH by Workers’ Rights Watch 4. Other [Specify] 5. Don’t know 6. No response 2. Which activities and services have you participated in, used, or received? [select all that apply] 1. Anti-GBVH workshops 2. Information line (0800) 3. Investigation of GBVH complaints by Workers’ Rights Watch 4. Other [Specify] 5. None 102 | GBV PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: WEE AC EVALUATION USAID.GOV 6. Don’t know 7. No response 3. [for each service or activity selected under Q2] To what extent are you satisfied with this service or activity? 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 Nien Hsing need most to prevent gender-based violence and harassment? 1. Referral pathways 2. Legal assistance services 3. Institutional accompaniment 4. Hotline services 5. Psychosocial support services 6. Housing shelters and safe spaces 7. Economic empowerment services (including professional skills training and entrepreneurial opportunities) 8. Immigration documentation support services 9. Healthcare services (including sexual and reproductive health rights) 10. Other [Specify] 11. Don’t know 12. No response 5. [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. 103 | GBV PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: WEE AC EVALUATION USAID.GOV 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 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. 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 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? 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 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:] 104 | GBV PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: WEE AC EVALUATION USAID.GOV 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 anti-GBVH program has provided services for sexual harassment victims at Nien Hsing? 1. Yes 2. No 3. Don’t know 4. No response 10. [IF YES to Q9]: 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. Have there been any cases in which the anti-GBVH program has held perpetrators accountable for gender-based violence and harassment at Nien Hsing? 1. Yes 2. No 3. Don’t know 4. No response 12. [IF YES to Q11]: In how many instances can you recall? 1. 1-5 cases 2. 6-10 cases 3. 11-15 cases 105 | GBV PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: WEE AC EVALUATION USAID.GOV 4. 16-20 cases 5. More than 20 cases 13. [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:] 1. Yes 2. No 3. Don’t know 4. No response 14. [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] 1. The training was of very low quality or was very unrealistic 2. The training was of low quality or was unrealistic 3. The training was of good quality or was realistic 4. The training was of very good quality or was very realistic 5. Don’t know 6. No response 15. [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] 1. I received very low-quality support 2. I received low-quality support 3. I received high-quality support 4. I received very high-quality support 5. Don’t know 6. No response 106 | GBV PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: WEE AC EVALUATION USAID.GOV 16. [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] 1. Workers’ Rights Watch conducted a very low-quality investigation 2. Workers’ Rights Watch conducted a low-quality investigation 3. Workers’ Rights Watch conducted a high-quality investigation 4. Workers’ Rights Watch conducted a very high-quality investigation 5. Don’t know 6. No response GBV PREVENTION 17. At Nien Hsing, which groups of people are important for influencing change? 1. Human resources 2. Senior leadership 3. Factory managers 4. Textile workers 18. Are there people at Nien Hsing who you think should have been involved in the anti-GBVH program but were not? 1. Yes 2. No 3. Don’t know 4. No response 19. [IF YES to Q18]: Who are these people? [open-ended response] 20. Is the ability to prevent gender-based violence and harassment difficult because of traditions or the local culture in your community? 1. Yes 2. No 3. Don’t know 4. No response 21. [IF YES to Q20]: What aspects are difficult? [open-ended response] SUSTAINABILITY 107 | GBV PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: WEE AC EVALUATION USAID.GOV 22. Identify which activities you would like to see continue at Nien Hsing after the anti-GBVH program has ended. 1. Anti-GBVH workshops 2. Information line (0800) 3. Investigation of GBVH complaints by Workers’ Rights Watch 4. Other [Specify] 5. Don’t know 6. No response 23. 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:] 1. Yes 2. No 3. Don’t know 4. No response 24. What do you think Nien Hsing needs to do to make sure these activities continue? [open￾ended response] 25. 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. 1. Strongly agree 2. Agree 3. Neutral (Neither agree nor disagree) 4. Disagree 5. Strongly disagree I believe the staff of the anti-GBVH program will consider my feedback seriously. 1. Strongly agree 2. Agree 108 | GBV PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: WEE AC EVALUATION USAID.GOV 3. Neutral (Neither agree nor disagree) 4. Disagree 5. Strongly disagree PARTICIPANT BACKGROUND 26. 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 27. What is your gender? 1. Woman 2. Man 3. Other [Specify] 4. Don’t know 5. No response 28. What is your ethnicity? 1. Basotho 2. Zulu 3. Other [Specify] 29. Which languages do you speak fluently? [select all that apply] 1. Sesotho 2. English 3. Afrikaans 109 | GBV PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: WEE AC EVALUATION USAID.GOV 4. Zulu 5. Xhosa 6. Other [Specify] 30. 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 110 | GBV PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: WEE AC EVALUATION USAID.GOV QUALITATIVE INSTRUMENTS FGD PROTOCOL – PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS Respondent Name, DRG Area(s) of Expertise, Institution Date: Start Time: 111 | GBV PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: WEE AC EVALUATION USAID.GOV 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. ● 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. 112 | GBV PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: WEE AC EVALUATION USAID.GOV Topic Question 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. I. 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? 5. What other services could the [Micro Journey / E4W / Engendering Industries / Global Labor Program] activity provide to your community to prevent instances of GBV? II. 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? 113 | GBV PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: WEE AC EVALUATION USAID.GOV Topic Question 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. 114 | GBV PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: WEE AC EVALUATION USAID.GOV Topic Question 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? 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? a. Did certain groups benefit more than others? b. 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? III. 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? 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? 115 | GBV PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: WEE AC EVALUATION USAID.GOV Topic Question IV. 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? IMPLEMENTATION EVALUATION QUESTIONS The questions below will be asked only for the WEE in Mesoamerica (WEE in Mesoamerica) activity. Topic Question Introduction Today we are going to discuss the progress and performance of the WEE in Mesoamerica (WEE in Mesoamerica) 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 WEE in Mesoamerica activity henceforth. Awareness 1. First, I would like to know how you learned about the WEE in Mesoamerica activity? Participation 2. What made you decide to participate in the WEE in Mesoamerica 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 WEE in Mesoamerica activity? If yes, what conditions would make participating in the WEE in Mesoamerica 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 WEE in Mesoamerica 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 WEE in Mesoamerica 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 WEE in Mesoamerica interventions could be improved? 10. Do you think that the WEE in Mesoamerica activity had enough staff to support the needs of your community? 11. Do you think the activity was able to adapt when programming did not 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 WEE in Mesoamerica 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 WEE in Mesoamerica activity has changed because of you or someone else giving feedback? If so, could you give an example. 15. During your participation in the WEE in Mesoamerica activity, did staff request your input about aspects of the activity that could improve? 16. Do you believe program participant opinions about the WEE in Mesoamerica 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 WEE in Mesoamerica activity? 116 | GBV PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: WEE AC EVALUATION USAID.GOV 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 / WEE in Mesoamerica]? 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 / WEE in Mesoamerica] within USAID/GenDev’s GBV portfolio. 117 | GBV PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: WEE AC EVALUATION USAID.GOV Category Topic Question Prevention 1. What has been the most important contribution of [Micro-Journey / E4W / Engendering Industries / Global Labor Program / WEE in Mesoamerica] to preventing gender-based violence (GBV)? Please, explain how. Protection 2. What are the main lessons learned about preventing violence that you can share? Accountability ASK FOR RELEVANT ACTIVITIES THAT TARGET IMPUNITY: 2. How has [Micro-Journey / E4W / Engendering Industries / Global Labor Program / WEE in Mesoamerica], directly or indirectly, contributed to increasing perpetrator accountability? Coordination 3. Have you or your organization participated in meetings with other IPs via USAID/GenDev? 4. 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 5. Have you been briefed on USAID strategies and priorities around GBV? Populations 4. Are there any underserved or especially vulnerable groups that your activity has reached? 5. Which vulnerable groups susceptible to GBV has [Micro-Journey / E4W / Engendering Industries / Global Labor Program / WEE in Mesoamerica]? 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 / WEE in Mesoamerica]? 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 / WEE in Mesoamerica]? 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 / WEE in Mesoamerica] that you might have changed, particularly based on any emerging evidence? Outcomes 13. What were the primary outcomes of [Micro-Journey / E4W / Engendering Industries / Global Labor Program / WEE in Mesoamerica]? 14. What outcomes or other influence has [Micro-Journey / E4W / Engendering Industries / Global Labor Program / WEE in Mesoamerica] 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? 118 | GBV PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: WEE AC EVALUATION USAID.GOV Category Topic Question Intervention Implementation 17. How did you identify changemakers in the org/community for [Micro-Journey / E4W / Engendering Industries / Global Labor Program / WEE in Mesoamerica]? 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 / WEE in Mesoamerica]? Replicability, Transferability, and Adaptability 23. Where else would you recommend implementing [Micro-Journey / E4W / Engendering Industries / Global Labor Program / WEE in Mesoamerica]? 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 WEE in Mesoamerica activity (Rainforest Alliance). Design 25. Could you speak to how WEE in Mesoamerica 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 WEE in Mesoamerica? ToC 27. Is there a theory of change that specifies the intervention approaches to the changes that will lead to the intended outcomes? 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 WEE in Mesoamerica 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 WEE in Mesoamerica 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 WEE in Mesoamerica? 37. Has work been done to support the potential sustainability of this activity? 38. What are the cost implications of sustaining these activities? The questions in this section will only be asked to the respective IP for each activity. 119 | GBV PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: WEE AC EVALUATION USAID.GOV Category Topic Question 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? WEE in Mesoamerica 47. We understand that COVID-19 had a significant impact on the activity. Could you describe some of these challenges for WEE in Mesoamerica 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? 120 | GBV PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: WEE AC EVALUATION USAID.GOV KII PROTOCOL - USAID Respondent Name, Designation, 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 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. 121 | GBV PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: WEE AC EVALUATION USAID.GOV Topic Question 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 (WEE in Mesoamerica) (Guatemala). We will refer to them as the [Micro Journey / E4W / Engendering Industries / Global Labor Program / WEE in Mesoamerica] activity henceforth. 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 / WEE in Mesoamerica] 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? 6. How does information flow from grantees up to USAID/GenDev? a. 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? 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? 122 | GBV PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: WEE AC EVALUATION USAID.GOV Topic Question 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? 123 | GBV PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: WEE AC EVALUATION USAID.GOV 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 26. 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? 27. What components or approaches in the WEE cluster ended? Why? (PROBE: funding, political willingness, cultural competency, etc.) a. What strategies were absent or could have been improved to increase sustainability for those activities or approaches that ended? 28. Are there any lessons learned for the WEE activity cluster about sustainability in the current context and existing stakeholders? If so, please elaborate. 124 | GBV PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: WEE AC EVALUATION USAID.GOV Topic Question 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? 125 | GBV PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: WEE AC EVALUATION USAID.GOV ANNEX D. SOURCES OF INFORMATION 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. 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. 126 | GBV PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: WEE AC EVALUATION USAID.GOV 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. 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. 127 | GBV PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: WEE AC EVALUATION USAID.GOV Search for Common Ground. (2021c). HRSM Quarterly Report—April to June 2021. Search for Common Ground. (2021d). HRSM Quarterly Report—January to March 2021. 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. 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. 128 | GBV PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: WEE AC EVALUATION USAID.GOV 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 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 WEE in Mesoamerica 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. 129 | GBV PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: WEE AC EVALUATION USAID.GOV KEY INFORMANTS Activity IP Local Partner Program Participant Micro-Journey 2 2 4 E4W 2 2 - GLP 2 4 - Engendering Industries 6 2 7 WEE in Mesoamerica 2 2 - GenDev 3 130 | GBV PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: WEE AC EVALUATION USAID.GOV ANNEX E. DISCLOSURE CONFLICTS OF INTEREST Name Title Organization Evaluation Position? ☐ Team Leader ☐ Team member Evaluation Award Number (contract or other instrument) USAID Project(s) Evaluated (Include project name(s), implementer name(s) and award number(s), if applicable) 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 activities are being evaluated or in the outcome of the evaluation. 3.Current or previous direct or significant though indirect experience with the project(s) being evaluated, including involvement in the project design or previous iterations of the project. 4.Current or previous work experience or seeking employment with the USAID operating unit managing the evaluation or the implementing organization(s) whose project(s) are being evaluated. 5.Current or previous work experience with an organization that may be seen as an industry competitor with the implementing organization(s) whose project(s) are being evaluated. 131 | GBV PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: WEE AC EVALUATION USAID.GOV 6.Preconceived ideas toward individuals, groups, organizations, or objectives of the particular activities and organizations being evaluated that could bias the evaluation. I certify (1) that I have completed this disclosure form fully and to the best of my ability and (2) that I will update this disclosure form promptly if relevant circumstances change. If I gain access to proprietary information of other companies, then I agree to protect their information from unauthorized use or disclosure for as long as it remains proprietary and refrain from using the information for any purpose other than that for which it was furnished. Signature Date U.S. AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20523