FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION FOR USAID’S RIGHTS FOR GENDER DIVERSE POPULATIONS (RGDP) ACTIVITY May 7, 2021 This publication was produced for review by the United States Agency for International Development. It was prepared by ME&A, Inc. FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION FOR USAID’S RIGHTS FOR GENDER DIVERSE POPULATIONS (RGDP) ACTIVITY May 7, 2021 Contract/Order Number: GS-10F-154BA/72038819M00001 USAID Bangladesh Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning (BMEL) Activity Prepared by ME&A, Inc. 4350 East-West Highway, Suite 210 Bethesda, MD, 20814 USA DISCLAIMER This report is made possible by the support of the American people through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The contents are the sole responsibility of ME&A, Inc. and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United States Government. TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................. i 1.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1 1.1 RGDP Activity Background ........................................................................................... 1 1.2 RGDP Activity Aims, Goal, and Objectives................................................................ 2 2.0 Evaluation Purpose, Audience, and Scope ......................................................................... 2 2.1 Evaluation Purpose, Audience, Scope, and Team ....................................................... 2 2.2 Evaluation Questions....................................................................................................... 3 3.0 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY .................................................................................. 4 3.1 Evaluation Methods......................................................................................................... 4 3.2 Stakeholders and Sampling............................................................................................. 4 3.3 Data Analysis.................................................................................................................... 6 3.4 Methodological Limitations............................................................................................ 7 4.0 FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS......................................................................................... 8 4.1 EQ 1: How relevant has RGDP been in promoting justice and access to services for GDPs in Bangladesh? ................................................................................................................... 8 4.2 RGDP Relevance to Secondary Stakeholders ............................................................ 12 4.3 Relevance of RGDP’s Technical Approach ............................................................... 14 4.4 Relevance of the Digital Safety and Security Training ............................................. 15 4.5 EQ 2: How effective has RGDP been in increasing understanding and knowledge and enhancing capacity to protect GDP rights and promote justice and access to services for GDPs in Bangladesh? ........................................................................................................... 16 4.6 EQ3: How sustainable has RGDP been? .................................................................... 26 4.7 EQ4: How impactful has RGDP been in improving GDP access to justice and services? ....................................................................................................................................... 29 5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................................. 34 ANNEXES .................................................................................................................................... 37 Annex 1: Scope of Work ............................................................................................................ 38 Annex 2: Reference Tables ........................................................................................................ 42 Annex 3: Barriers to RGDP Being Relevant ........................................................................... 47 Annex 4: Data Collection Tools (KII and FGD Guides and Survey) .................................. 51 Annex 5: List of Stakeholders Interviewed ............................................................................. 73 Annex 6: List of Documents Reviewed ................................................................................... 85 Annex 7: Team CVs, COIs, and NDAs.................................................................................... 87 LIST OF TABLES Table 1: RGDP Objectives.............................................................................................................. 2 Table 2: Number of Primary and Secondary Beneficiaries Interviewed by Divisional City.......... 5 Table 3: Number of KIIs and FGDs Conducted with Primary and Secondary Stakeholders by Divisional City................................................................................................................. 5 Table 4: Examples of Actions Taken by Select Secondary Stakeholders .................................... 18 Table A2-1: Key Evaluation Questions ........................................................................................ 42 Table A2-2: Primary and Secondary Stakeholders ....................................................................... 43 Table A2-3: External and Internal Barriers to RGDP Being Relevant ......................................... 44 Table A2-4: Examples of Utilization of the Knowledge and Skills Gained Through RGDP by Secondary Stakeholders ................................................................................................. 45 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: “I believe the RGDP project was effective in creating sustainable environment to promote justice and access to services for GDPs.” ...................................................... 13 Figure 2: “I believe RGDP was relevant to stakeholders in Bangladesh in enhancing their capacity to protect GDP rights and promote justice and access to services for GDPs.” .............. 13 Figure 3: “I believe that this approach was relevant to promoting justice and access to services for GDPs in Bangladesh.” ................................................................................................... 14 Figure 4: “I believe the RGDP project was effective in improving the social environment for GDPs to access public services.” .............................................................................................. 19 Figure 5: “To what extent do you feel the RGDP project was effective in enhancing the capacity of relevant stakeholders to advocate and reduce harassment, stigma, and discrimination of GDPs?” ...................................................................................................................... 23 Figure 6: “Percentage of all survey respondents believing RGDP was effective in creating sustainable environment to promote justice and access to services for GDP.” ............. 27 Figure 7: “I believe the enabling environment will sustain after the end of the activity in June 2021.” ............................................................................................................................. 27 Figure 8: “I believe RGDP was effective in enhancing the capacity of relevant stakeholders to advocate and reduce harassment, stigma, and discrimination of GDPs.” ...................... 34 ACRONYMS Acronym/Term Description Bandhu Bandhu Social Welfare Society BBS Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics BMEL Bangladesh Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning CBO Community-Based Organization COVID-19 Coronavirus Disease 2019 CSO Civil Society Organization DIC Drop-in Center DLAC District Legal Aid Committee DSS Digital Security and Safety EQ Evaluation Question ET Evaluation Team FGD Focus Group Discussion GBV Gender-Based Violence GDP Gender Diverse Population GOB Government of Bangladesh HRID Human Rights in Development IEC Information Education and Communication IDI In-Depth Interview INGO International Non-Governmental Organization IP Implementing Partner KII Key Informant Interview LGBTI Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Intersex M&E Monitoring and Evaluation ME&A ME&A, Inc. MEL Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning MHC Medical Health Center MSM Men Who Have Sex with Men NHRC National Human Rights Commission of Bangladesh NLASO National Legal Aid Service Organization PIL Public Interest Litigation PSA Public Service Announcement RGDP Rights for Gender Diverse Populations SBU Sensitive But Unclassified SOGIE Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity/Expression SOW Scope of Work SRH Sexual and Reproductive Health SRHR Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights UN United Nations UNFPA United Nations Populations Fund USAID United States Agency for International Development VAW Violence Against Women VDP Village Defense Party i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION The United States Agency for International Development in Bangladesh (USAID/Bangladesh) commissioned ME&A, Inc. (ME&A) to conduct a final performance evaluation of the Rights for Gender Diverse Populations (RGDP) Activity, implemented by the Bandhu Social Welfare Society (Bandhu). The evaluation’s purpose was to assess the extent to which the activity has achieved its overall objectives and focused on the following four evaluation questions (EQs): • How relevant has RGDP been in promoting justice and services for gender diverse populations (GDPs) in Bangladesh? • How effective has RGDP been in increasing understanding and knowledge, and capacity of relevant stakeholders to promote justice and access to services for GDPs in Bangladesh? • How sustainable are the benefits of RGDP? • How impactful has RGDP been in improving access to justice and services for GDPs? The evaluation covered RGDP’s implementation period from July 2018 to December 2020. RGDP’s goal is to advance human rights advocacy for GDPs by strengthening the capacity of relevant stakeholders about the human rights and needs of this underrepresented minority group. RGDP increases awareness and knowledge among the GDPs about their rights, improves access to different public services and legal aid for GDPs through sensitizing service providers and community members, and strengthens stakeholders’ capacity to advocate and reduce human rights violations against GDPs. The evaluation used a mixed-methods data collection design consisting of a document review, key informant interviews (KIIs), focus group discussions (FGDs), and an online survey. The evaluation team (ET) conducted eight KIIs and nine FGDs with a total of 45 members of GDPs (including six Rohingya), 50 KIIs and 10 FGDs with secondary stakeholders, and 109 online surveys with secondary beneficiaries. The ET used document review and descriptive statistics, content and contribution analysis, and data synthesis to assess the activity’s relevance, effectiveness, sustainability, and impact. Due to restrictions on association related to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), parts of this evaluation were conducted using remote interviewing technologies (i.e., Skype, Zoom, Google Meet, Microsoft Teams, and WebEx). FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS This report provides an independent, external, and objective evaluation of RGDP and makes recommendations to guide future programming focused on GDPs in Bangladesh. Organized under the four main evaluation criteria, below are findings related to RGDP’s programmatic relevance and effectiveness, the sustainability of its results, and its impact on primary and secondary beneficiaries. As is evident from this evaluation report, RGDP has had good results. The findings reveal that RGDP has been relevant and effective in increasing awareness and knowledge among GDPs about their rights and access to justice. It was also material in addressing GDPs’ access to legal and healthcare services and making said services available to them. At the same time, RGDP was able to successfully adjust its activity implementation format and cope with the unforeseen circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic. ii Despite challenges, RGDP increased secondary stakeholders’ knowledge and understanding about GDPs, and provided them with contextualized knowledge and practical skills to take context￾specific actions to effectively protect GDP rights and promote justice and access to services. Findings demonstrate very positive results related to RGDP’s effectiveness in enhancing the capacity of relevant stakeholders to reduce harassment, stigma, discrimination, and violations against GDPs, as well as improve the social and legal environments for GDPs in Bangladesh. Yet, while progress in these areas was noticeable, it was very slow and remains fragile. Where RGDP feel short, was in meeting the socioeconomic needs of GDPs. RGDP’s achievements exist against the backdrop of a violent and oppressive sociocultural environment that is not conducive to the protection of GDP rights and promotion of justice and access to services for GDPs. This is supported by an unfavorable legal framework, including a lack of laws and policies that protect and promote GDP rights, justice, and access to services. Findings indicate a great need to address GDP rights, justice, and access to services more holistically and strategically, by boosting the existing collaborative efforts with local, regional, and international partners working on GDP programming, and engaging in more targeted advocacy around policy development and implementation. The latter requires systematic and strategic engagement with actors within the Government of Bangladesh (GOB) who will promote the laws and policies needed to bring change to the sociocultural environment, secure GDP rights and protection under law, and thereby improve the lives of GDPs in Bangladesh. Relevance RGDP’s relevance rested on helping GDPs meet their legal and health needs. By increasing awareness among GDPs about their human rights and entitlements, available legal and health services, and how to access these services, RGDP connected GDPs to critical services. During the COVID-19 pandemic, RGDP’s relevancy increased further through COVID-19 education and information sharing among GDPs, assistance in obtaining COVID-19 pandemic-related government support, and mental and physical health counseling. RGDP was also relevant in maintaining the mental and sexual health needs of the Rohingya GDP and the host community by raising awareness about available health services and making said services available to the Rohingya GDPs and the host community. Limiting factors include the high levels of stigma and discrimination towards those who identified themselves as or are perceived as part of the GDP in the Kutupalong camp areas, the distance from the camp to mental health centers, and a shortage of testing equipment and medical supplies. While these external factors are not related to gaps or flaws in RGDP’s design nor to implementation shortcomings, they do highlight the need for a more holistic approach to protecting rights and promoting justice and access to services for the Rohingya GDP and the host community. Rather than compartmentalizing efforts into health-related or other atomistic activities, a more comprehensive, coordinated approach would increase programming relevancy and effectiveness. Although RGDP demonstrated its relevance in addressing GDPs’ knowledge of their rights, access to legal and healthcare services, and ability to cope with COVID-19 stresses, it was unable to effectively link GDPs with relevant employment opportunities and employers. For example, in 2019, RGDP convened only one out of two planned job fairs and had limited private and public sector/industry engagement in the first two years of implementation prior the outbreak of the iii COVID-19 pandemic. Further, no in-person or online efforts were made in 2020 or 2021 to prepare GDPs for the job market opportunities post pandemic. Primary beneficiaries found RGDP relevant because it increased their knowledge and understanding of rights and services available to them. Secondary stakeholders found RGDP relevant because the activity increased their knowledge and understanding of GDPs and enhanced their capacity to promote justice and access to services for GDPs. This is attributed to preexisting demand among secondary stakeholders for comprehensive and evidence-based knowledge and skills. RGDP’s technical approach was relevant but had a few shortcomings. The multidisciplinary character of the approach was an effective mechanism for increasing GDPs’ knowledge and understanding of their rights and entitlements, as well as for enhancing secondary stakeholders’ capacity to provide tailored support and empowerment to GDPs. However, it lacked clear recruitment criteria for participation of primary beneficiaries in the majority of RGDP activities and suffered from an occasional misalignment between beneficiaries’ language of communication (e.g., Ruáingga, Bangla) and the language of implementation and the educational materials provided (English), the one-off character of activities, and lack of activity follow up. These factors hampered GDPs’ ability to access some services and increase their overall status and power in their communities. As such, while RGDP’s technical approach may have been highly relevant for secondary stakeholders, it may have been less so for its primary beneficiaries. A more targeted and contextualized technical approach is needed, along with more strategic and better coordinated implementation. Primary and secondary beneficiaries found the Digital Security and Safety (DSS) training to be highly relevant. DSS training met GDPs’ needs and enhanced secondary stakeholders’ capacity to protect GDP rights and promote justice and access to services for GDPs. It equipped both the GDP and non-GDP participants with the knowledge and skills to reduce external risk and online threats, enabling GDPs to protect themselves from cyberattack and cyber abuse (e.g., online harassment and blackmail). DSS training also provided participants with a sense of security and confidence in communicating with other GDP members and the non-GDP. The online space is particularly important to members of GDPs and their allies in Bangladesh given the challenges of closing social space. Increasingly, online space is the only environment in Bangladesh where people feel safe to explore their gender identity, feel part of a (still marginalized) GDP community, seek or provide help, guidance, and education, and initiate and sustain change. Effectiveness RGDP effectively increased secondary stakeholders’ knowledge and understanding about GDPs in Bangladesh. The methodological approach included documentaries, case studies, and life stories told by members of GDPs, and was acknowledged as an efficient medium for raising awareness about GDPs and the issues impacting them. For certain secondary stakeholders, provision of contextualized knowledge and practical skills tailored to the actual roles and competencies of each stakeholder type, as opposed to the utilization of a “one size fits all” diffusion approach, enhanced capacity, and enable them to take context￾specific actions to effectively protect GDP rights and promote justice and GDP access to services. For some other secondary stakeholders, the fact that most of RGDP’s activities were implemented iv on a one-off basis and that pre and post-activity assessments were not part of the implementation, limited the degree of effectiveness. 1 There were very positive results related to RGDP’s effectiveness in improving the social environment for GDPs. Beneficiaries mostly understood the improved social environment as the ability of the GDPs to occupy spaces, access services or opportunities, and obtain resources previously reserved for the non-GDP. RGDP brought conceptual and factual clarity to stakeholders’ negative stereotypes, misperceptions, and misinformation about the needs and vulnerabilities of GDPs, including rights violations and the need for justice and services. This led primary beneficiaries to seek and access services, and secondary stakeholders—some for the first time—to be willing to consider providing services to GDPs. However, while progress was noticeable, it was very slow and remains fragile. Despite the gains made, specific challenges remain that are beyond the scope of the current phase of RGDP; challenges which can potentially impact the improvements made by RDGP to the social environment for GDPs. Despite the remaining challenges, RGDP was effective in improving the legal environment for GDPs in Bangladesh. The activity successfully engaged with important actors in the fields of legal services, justice, and protection and promotion of human rights to improve provision of legal services to GDPs. RGDP engaged in public interest litigation (PIL) and worked with legal experts to address the exclusion and discrimination, abuses, and violence against the third gender. While the evaluation found that the content of the public awareness messages (public service announcements [PSAs]) provided through local radio stations was appropriate to non-GDP listeners and relevant to GDP members, it did not find convincing evidence of the PSAs’ effectiveness or measurable impact on the lives of primary and secondary beneficiaries of RGDP. RGDP was effective in enhancing stakeholders’ capacity to reduce harassment, stigma, discrimination, and violations of GDP rights. Several accomplishments contributed to this outcome, including developing and implementing a training module to address GDP human rights issues, tapping into the established Ain-Alap legal service unit and setting up ten legal clinics at drop-in centers (DICs) and community-based organizations (CBOs), and developing and implementing DSS trainings. RGDP effectively collaborated with and increased the capacity of nine CBOs. This is attributed to providing the CBOs with technical support to build capacity and improve organizational structure. Skill development in sustainability and income generation was particularly important to ensure CBOs’ survival and their ability to operate with increasing independence. RGDP also created a platform for CBOs to gain relevant competencies to improve the social and legal environment for GDPs. In this, RGDP may have effectively created a new cadre of professionals to protect GDP rights and promote justice and access to services for GDPs in Bangladesh. RGDP was effective in initiating contact, sensitizing, and promoting advocacy with the Government of Bangladesh (GOB), although this has not led to the creation of a dedicated network of GDP advocates and government officials. Yet, RGDP was successful in advocacy with the National Human Rights Commission of Bangladesh (NHRC) and the Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics (BBS). Successes included the inclusion of third gender in the national census, and PIL which further fortified partnerships with NHRC to improve its support for GDPs. However, there 1 Some pre and post-test assessment was conducted with community watchdogs, for instance, after the “Best Practices and Challenges” workshop. v is a lack of convincing evidence that RGDP’s efforts have led to improved advocacy and GOB support for GDPs. Likewise, while RGDP established several ministry and government official contacts, these ministries and individuals did not facilitate advocacy for policy improvements. Sustainability While RGDP was effective in creating a sustainable environment to protect GDP rights and promote justice and access to services for GDPs in Bangladesh. RGDP’s engagement in advocacy with the GOB, organization of sensitization meetings and trainings to increase acceptance and understanding of GDPs among secondary stakeholders, and provision of individual fellowships to raise awareness of others about GDPs contributed to this efficacy. However, the evaluation found only a limited likelihood for sustainability of RGDP benefits over time due to the lack of committed and ongoing resources and lack of a mechanism to advance human rights advocacy for GDPs in Bangladesh. The evaluation identified several project level barriers to sustainability. For example, the one-off character of the majority of RGDP workshops and trainings, including their short implementation time and lack of follow up, resulted in not enough opportunities for a thorough attainment of skills among relevant stakeholders. In addition, the lack of focus on and engagement with family members of GDPs as part of RGDP’s implementation was identified as another barrier to sustainability. Impact Overall, RGDP had a positive impact on the lives of GDP primary beneficiaries; however, not all activities have been equally effective. Successes include increased GDP confidence in their own sexual orientation and gender identity/expression (SOGIE) status as well as the confidence to speak out about their status and interact with members of the non-GDP. Uplifting confidence to interact with others was reported as the ability to raise one’s voice to improve one’s own rights and dignity in society and communicate with groups or individuals that have previously been viewed as adversaries, e.g., religious leaders. The latter is a remarkable achievement considering the historically negative effect of conservative religious norms and beliefs on the lives of GDPs. While the evaluation was unable to quantify this outcome, RGDP’s positive impact on the lives of GDPs led some to overcome depression and suicidal thoughts. RGDP also instilled a level of eagerness among GDPs to share the knowledge and skills needed to protect GDP rights and promote justice and access to services with other members of GDPs and the non-GDP. Provision of non-formal education that focused on basic literacy and sexual and reproductive health (SRH) information has been found to be relevant to GDPs. However, there was no evidence that these activities resulted in behavior change supporting improvements in GDPs’ ability to advocate for their rights and increase their access to justice and other services. Educational content varied between implementation sites, and interest in RGDP among participating GDPs was limited, both of which hampered impact. RGDP had a transformative effect on some of its secondary stakeholders. The most frequently reported impact was that it evoked positive personal attitudinal changes. This resulted in outcomes including a willingness to break down the social barriers to discussing SOGIE openly, recognition of SOGIE-based stigma and discrimination as a serious problem, acknowledgment of the scale of discrimination, abuse, and violations of GDP rights, acknowledgment of the cultural and religious norms that fuel discrimination, abuse, and violations of GDP rights, the social milieu that propels it, and the legal environment that maintains it, and, thus, an increased confidence to speak out against the social injustices confronting GDPs. These changes go beyond RGDP’s objectives. vi RECOMMENDATIONS RGDP should consider the following actions to address the findings and conclusions in this report: 1. Include specialized educational or vocational trainings for GDPs to build the skills required for employment in a skilled craft or trade. 2. Include focus on engagement with family members of GDPs to ensure their support for protection of GDP rights and promotion of justice and access to services for GDPs. This could be done by providing basic information, e.g., how family rejection behaviors affect their children, to help families support children who identify themselves as GDP. 3. Invest in more strategic and systematic efforts to frequently, and in a coordinated way, engage with a broad range of private sector employers/industries across a number of geographic locations. To this end, the organization of frequent offline and online fora to connect, network, and link GDPs with potential employers is essential. 4. Address the needs of the Rohingya and the host community using a more holistic, comprehensive, and coordinated approach. The scope of RGDP’s next phase should focus on addressing, in close coordination and partnership with United Nations (UN) agencies, not only the mental health needs, but also their socioeconomic, legal, and educational needs. This should include collaborative efforts with UN agencies and other relevant stakeholders to create a supportive environment by addressing pervasive stigma and discrimination against GDPs based on stereotypes, misinformation, and misperceptions. 5. Contextualize and tailor all components to GDPs’ specific realities, needs, and vulnerabilities, as well as their strengths and competencies. This includes: a) developing clear recruitment criteria for primary beneficiaries to participate in RGDP activities and establishing a comprehensive monitoring mechanism to measure the impacts on GDP lives; and b) aligning the language of RGDP implementation and the educational materials provided with beneficiaries’ language of communication (e.g., Ruáingga, Bangla). 6. Ensure activities include specific inputs and outputs related to changes in the experiences of primary beneficiaries when seeking justice and accessing services. This will require a systematic measurement of all beneficiaries’ attitudinal and behavioral changes. 7. Develop and include mechanisms to track or measure the desired impact of the PSAs broadcasted by local radio stations. Developing efficient procedures and a mechanism to track or measure PSA effectiveness would be useful tools, not only for ensuring PSAs’ relevance and effectiveness but also in designing further gender-based violence (GBV) programming, in particular awareness-raising events, and political and social issue advocacy efforts that utilize persuasive messages aimed to promote rights, justice, and access to services for GDPs in Bangladesh. 8. Base future GDP programming on a sound technical approach that ensures activities are implemented regularly and on a continuous basis, and that each activity has follow-up, e.g., sensitization/orientation sessions. 9. Promote positive messages about GDPs to help shift perceptions and social norms. This will require not only planning but ongoing evaluation. A first step for the next phase of RGDP would be to differentiate between the reach and impact of public awareness messages provided by local radio stations. RGDP should also include indicators assessing vii the impact of the RGDP’s PSAs on listener attitudes and behaviors. Public awareness indicators can be measured by means of a public opinion survey, through face-to-face interviews among a representative sample of the targeted audience, or by deriving ratios of listeners exposed to PSAs to those who engaged in some form of measurable action during or after exposure. USAID should work with an independent, third-party research institution to develop an impact framework and questions. 10. Invest in the online space to provide a mechanism for RGDP to increase knowledge and understanding about GDPs and enhance the capacity of secondary stakeholders to protect GDP rights, promote justice, and enhance access to services. The virtual world is becoming increasingly vital to GDPs in Bangladesh as a space where GDP members can explore their own identities, feel part of something larger, communicate and network with one another, and seek or provide help, guidance, and education—especially during the COVID-19 pandemic. The online environment can also serve as a space to initiate, reinforce, and sustain social and political change in Bangladesh. 11. Continue to support the cadre of professionals created who are willing and able to protect GDP rights and promote justice and access to services for GDPs. RGDP’s next phase should regularly bring together sensitized and trained professionals and experts (relevant active stakeholders). This could be done through country-level meetings (annual or biannual) and additional capacity building seminars, trainings, and workshops with the objective of further nurturing stakeholders’ capacities and creating additional/new mentoring opportunities. Building on RGDP’s successes while accounting for remaining sociocultural, political, and legal challenges, USAID should: 12. Include strategic advocacy around development, implementation, and/or adaptation of favorable laws and policies that protect GDPs from violence and discrimination and promote their inclusion in all aspects of human development, e.g., the decriminalization of male same-sex sexual acts under Section 377 of the Penal Code. 13. Adopt a more strategic and systematic approach to advocacy, beyond individual consultations or one-off meetings, to ensure lasting, effective working partnerships with the GOB. Such an approach will help influence decision-makers and decision-making processes at the local, divisional, and national levels. 14. Increase the current collaborative efforts with international or regional actors and mechanisms to increase influence on national institutions for effective advocacy in the restrictive political environment in Bangladesh. Future programming should better identify and more strategically engage with allies, e.g., the UN system, international development agencies, and other donors operating in Bangladesh, as well as diplomats and foreign embassies, to effectively bring the GDP agenda forward. 15. Continue provision of technical and financial support to RGDP’s implementing partner. With attention to the recommended improvements, RGDP should be considered a logical choice in the agency’s next efforts to provide awareness building, legal services and community education to promote and protect the basic human rights of GDPs in Bangladesh. 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION The United States Agency for International Development in Bangladesh (USAID/Bangladesh) commissioned ME&A, Inc. (ME&A) to conduct the final performance evaluation of the Rights for Gender Diverse Populations (RGDP) Activity implemented by the Bandhu Social Welfare Society (Bandhu). The evaluation was conducted by a team managed by the USAID/Bangladesh Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning (BMEL) Activity. 1.1 RGDP ACTIVITY BACKGROUND RGDP built on the successes of the USAID-funded Human Rights in Development Project (HRID) implemented by Bandhu from June 2015 to June 2018. RGDP provides awareness building, legal services, community education, and fellowships2 to students, lawyers, and media professionals, and supports and trains community members (e.g., local front line defenders and watchdogs) to promote and protect the basic human rights of gender diverse populations (GDPs).3 Additionally, the activity works to address human rights abuses and denial of health rights, and provides a rights￾based approach to health and social services for GDPs in Bangladesh. Implementation of RGDP programming has focused on achieving the following activity outcomes: • HRID established Ain-Alap, a legal helpline to field calls and provide information and referrals to additional resources. To provide greater legal support to GDPs, RGDP formed a panel of lawyers to provide legal advice and services. The panel now includes 204 lawyers in 64 districts. These lawyers also provide services at 10 legal clinics across the country. • Bandhu trained 160 frontline local human rights defenders and 48 active community members (watchdogs) from all Bangladesh administrative divisions to help GDPs learn about and assert their rights. • The watchdog members and frontline local human rights defenders work closely with GDPs in their communities. They provide legal information and mediation, document and investigate human rights violations, and help victims to access medical and legal services. • Through community radio public service announcements (PSAs) and by advertising the legal helpline, RGDP helps community members learn more about the rights of GDPs and the legal resources available to support them. • With the support of watchdog members and frontline local human rights defenders, RGDP receives complaints from GDPs and then documents and investigates the cases. Depending on the nature of cases, RGDP may refer them to a panel of lawyers, District Legal Aid Committees, or the National Human Rights Commission, with whom Bandhu works closely to address GDP rights issues. • RGDP works with private corporate agencies (e.g., Denim, Fashion House, Shapna, etc.) to provide employment opportunities to the GDP. 2 The fellowships are awarded on a one-off basis to lawyers, media personnel and students to produce stories, address legal issues, etc. 3 https://www.bandhu-bd.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Increasing-Access-to-Justice-for-Gender-Diverse￾Populations-in-Bangladesh.pdf 2 1.2 RGDP ACTIVITY AIMS, GOAL, AND OBJECTIVES 1.1.1 Aims RGDP aimed to advance human rights advocacy for GDPs by strengthening the capacity of relevant stakeholders about the human rights and needs of this population. The activity also aimed to increase awareness and knowledge among GDPs about their rights, improve access to different public services and legal aid for GDPs through sensitizing service providers and community members, and strengthen the capacity of different stakeholders to advocate for and reduce human rights violations against GDPs. 1.1.2 Goal RGDP’s goal is to promote justice for GDPs in Bangladesh by working in the following seven thematic areas4 : • Sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) of GDPs • Advocacy for improved rights, policies, and services • Basic education—formal and non-formal education • Skills development, livelihoods training, and job provision • Gender-based violence (GBV) and mental health counseling • Community systems strengthening • Safety and security of GDPs 1.1.3 Objectives RGDP is comprised four main objectives (see Table 1). Table 1: RGDP Objectives Objective Description 1. To increase awareness and knowledge among gender and sexual minority communities about their human rights, self-responsibilities, and duties. 2. To improve the sociocultural and legal environment for GDPs to access public services through sensitizing policymakers and stakeholders. 3. To enhance the capacity of relevant stakeholders to reduce harassment, stigma, discrimination, and human rights violations in relation to sexual orientation and gender identity. 4. To mobilize the gender-diverse community and relevant stakeholders to ensure safety and legal rights. 2.0 EVALUATION PURPOSE, AUDIENCE, AND SCOPE 2.1 EVALUATION PURPOSE, AUDIENCE, SCOPE, AND TEAM Following the Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Framework developed for RGDP, the purpose of this final performance evaluation is to assess the extent to which the activity has achieved its overall objectives. 4 RGDP Annual Report 2018–2019 and AR 2019–2020, p. 8. 3 The evaluation was carried out in four of the eight divisional cities where the activity is or was implemented. Its specific goals are: • To assess the relevance and effectiveness of RGDP in promoting justice for GDPs in Bangladesh, including improving the sociocultural and legal environment for GDPs to access public services, and mobilizing GDPs and relevant stakeholders to ensure safety and legal rights. • To assess the sustainability and impact of RGDP with regards to increasing awareness and knowledge among GDPs about their human rights, self-responsibilities, and duties; and enhancing the capacity of relevant stakeholders to reduce harassment, stigma, discrimination, and human rights violations in relation to sexual orientation and gender identity/expression (SOGIE). • To draw lessons from RGDP and propose strategic recommendations for USAID’s future programming for GDPs in Bangladesh. The primary intended audience for the evaluation’s findings and recommendations is the Office of Democracy, Human Rights, and Governance of USAID/Bangladesh. Considering the risks of openly discussing any lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex (LGBTI) issues in Bangladesh and the sensitivity of the sector, the evaluation and its report(s) will be considered sensitive but unclassified (SBU). USAID will decide on distribution, as appropriate. The evaluation’s findings and recommendations will inform USAID’s future design and implementation of activities related to increasing the rights and inclusiveness of GDPs. The evaluation was carried out over a period of approximately 13 weeks, from January 22 to April 26, 2021. The data collection fieldwork lasted from February 15 to March 4, 2021. (The data collection tools are presented in Annex 4). A three-person core evaluation team (ET)—composed of an international team leader/evaluation specialist, one local senior evaluation specialist with expertise in human rights, and one local senior evaluation specialist with expertise in gender—was responsible for conducting all aspects of this final performance evaluation: desk work and fieldwork, data analysis, and report writing. The ET was supplemented by two local note-takers/enumerators and supported by the BMEL M&E Specialist. Members of the BMEL team provided backstopping, quality assurance, communications with USAID/Bangladesh, support with online survey administration and dissemination, and overall management of the ET (see Annex 7). 2.2 EVALUATION QUESTIONS This final performance evaluation addresses USAID/Bangladesh’s four evaluation questions (EQs) and 25 sub-questions (see Table A2-1, Annex 2). The four key EQs are: • How relevant has the RGDP been in promoting justice and services for GDPs in Bangladesh? • How effective has RGDP been in increasing awareness, knowledge, and capacity to promote justice for GDPs in Bangladesh? • How sustainable are the benefits of RGDP? • How impactful has RGDP been in improving GDPs’ access to justice and services? 4 3.0 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY This evaluation utilized a mixed-methods approach combining both qualitative and quantitative data collection methods. These included a document review, key informant interviews (KIIs), focus group discussions (FGDs), and an online stakeholder survey. Due to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the ET conducted data collection using both in-person and remote techniques, i.e., Skype, Zoom, Google Meet, Microsoft Teams, and WebEx. 3.1 EVALUATION METHODS Document review: The desk review aimed to assess RGDP’s progress towards making a difference in the lives of GDP members based on outcomes delineated in its M&E Framework and performance indicators. To achieve this, the ET reviewed the following activity documentation, in chronological order: program description; three Annual Work Plans; M&E Framework; 2018– 2019 and 2019–2020 Annual Reports; 2018–2020 Quarterly Reports; performance data collected by the activity; activity monitoring, evaluation, and learning plan (AMELP); performance indicator reference sheets; baseline data; success stories; and case studies. Please see Annex 6 for a list of all documents reviewed for this evaluation. Focus group discussions and key informant interviews: One semi-structured interview guide for KIIs and FGDs was developed for this evaluation. The tool asked stakeholders to provide information on evaluation topics about which they had knowledge. Some questions, however, particularly those concerning capacity building or provision of access to services for GDPs, were only asked of selected groups of respondents, e.g., lawyers, paralegals, and physicians. To review the data collection tools, see Annex 4. Online survey: The ET administered an online survey assessing stakeholders’ perceptions of the relevance, effectiveness, sustainability, and impact of RGDP. See Annex 4 for the online survey questionnaire. 3.2 STAKEHOLDERS AND SAMPLING 3.2.1 Stakeholders The evaluation captured the views and opinions of two main RGDP Activity stakeholder groups: primary stakeholders/beneficiaries and secondary stakeholders/beneficiaries. (See Table A2-2 in Annex 2 for a complete list of stakeholders.) • The primary stakeholders: GDPs including men who have sex with other men (MSM), Hijra, lesbian women, gay men, bisexual men and women, and transgender males and females from eight divisions across the country including GDPs identifying as members of the Rohingya community. • Secondary stakeholders: media (journalists, actors, radio hosts/stations), justice sector (legal service providers including lawyers and paralegals, judges, law enforcement officers), health sector (medical service providers including physicians and mental health counselors), education sector (including university students and teachers), employment sector (including private sector employers and employees), religious and faith-leaders, front line human rights defenders and watchdogs, civil society (including nine community￾based organizations [CBOs]), and other groups (general population/the non-GDPs) who 5 are in a position to bring change to society in terms of facilitating social justice, improving rights, and providing equitable justice for GDPs. 3.2.2 Sampling The ET worked closely with USAID and Bandhu to identify and select KII and FGD participants using purposive, or non-probability, sampling methods. KIIs included interviewing a cross section of RGDP’s primary (members of GDPs) and secondary (secondary stakeholders) beneficiaries including the IPs (USAID and Bandhu). For a full list of people interviewed, see Annex 5. Between February 16 and March 4, 2021, the ET conducted 50 KIIs and 10 FGDs with secondary stakeholders reaching a total of 106 respondents, and eight KIIs and nine FGDs with members of GDPs reaching a total of 45 respondents (including six Rohingya GDP members). Table 2: Number of Primary and Secondary Beneficiaries Interviewed by Divisional City Stakeholder Type Dhaka Sylhet Cox’s Bazar Mymensingh Total Primary Stakeholders GDPs 11 8 7 13 39 Rohingya GDP members 6 6 Total # of individuals per divisional city 11 8 13 13 Secondary Stakeholders Implementing Partners (IPs) 5 2 1 1 10 Multilaterals/International Non-Governmental Organizations (INGOs) 3 3 6 Government of Bangladesh (GOB) 4 3 1 8 Media, journalism 3 4 6 13 Justice sector (legal services) 7 3 1 4 15 Health sector (medical services) 2 2 2 4 10 Education sector (students, teachers) 8 6 14 Employment sector (private sector employers) 1 1 2 Religious and faith leaders 1 1 2 Civil society (CBOs, Volunteers, and Watchdogs) 6 7 3 7 23 Other (Dhaka-Parents, Cox’s Bazar-Partners) 4 6 Total # of individuals per divisional city 44 22 11 29 Table 3: Number of KIIs and FGDs Conducted with Primary and Secondary Stakeholders by Divisional City Form of Data Collection Dhaka Sylhet Cox’s Bazar Mymensingh Total Primary Stakeholders FGD 3 1 4 1 9 KII 6 1 1 8 Secondary Stakeholders FGD 4 2 4 10 KII 23 10 9 8 50 Case Study 3 1 1 5 An online survey was conducted with secondary stakeholders who had participated in RGDP activities, or were trained, sensitized, or provided with knowledge about GDP rights and skills to promote justice and access to services for GDPs. The online survey was not designed to provide statistically significant results but rather to triangulate findings from the other evaluation data sources. The ET obtained a complete contact list of RGDP secondary stakeholders from Bandhu, 6 with 160 email addresses and 803 phone numbers. The ET used ArcGIS Survey123 to conduct the online survey, which was disseminated to RGDP secondary stakeholders on February 26, 2021, using email and SMS/text messages, and on February 28, 2021, using a WhatsApp message to the Bandhu WhatsApp Group. To boost the response rate, a reminder email, SMS/text message, and WhatsApp message were sent out on March 2, 4, 6, and 8, with the final reminder sent on March 10. A total of 109 completed surveys were received from respondents in the eight divisional cities in Bangladesh. Characteristics of the online survey respondents are presented in Annex 2. 3.3 DATA ANALYSIS The evaluation used mixed methods and relied predominantly on qualitative data collected through the KIIs and FGDs with GDPs, GOB, civil society, service providers, and IPs. Quantitative data were generated through the online survey with the GOB, civil society organizations (CSOs), service providers, and IPs. During the analysis phase, findings for each EQ and data source and, if relevant, for each respondent group (type of stakeholder) were defined. The evaluation included five data analysis methods, as follows: 1. Document review and descriptive statistics: Quantitative data from RGDP documents and any data collected by USAID and Bandhu teams were used to describe what RGDP accomplished. Data included findings related to inputs (e.g., capacity building provided, trainings conducted, meetings held, job placements for GDP members secured, etc.) and outputs (e.g., increased capacity among relevant stakeholders to advocate and reduce harassment, stigma, discrimination, and human rights violations of GDPs), as well as activity results and outcome data. 2. Descriptive statistics: The ET used descriptive statistics to examine quantitative data from the program documents, KIIs, FGDs, and online survey addressing all four EQs. In general, descriptive statistics provide trends and simple summaries by type of stakeholder or type of activity. Data visualization techniques (e.g., graphs, tables, etc.) illustrate the results. 3. Content analysis: The ET used content analysis to examine and illustrate patterns revealed in KII and FGD responses. Interview transcripts were coded for thematic analysis. Content analysis identified themes relevant to the EQs, recorded the frequencies of the themes, and examined the content of the illustrative text to provide a better understanding of statement meaning as well as the context in which statements were made. The analysis assessed and, when warranted, highlighted evidence that deviated from the common themes. 4. Sustainability analysis: EQ3 required making informed conclusions about the sustainability of accomplishments and, by inference, about RGDP’s objectives and specific components. The evaluation identified factors that allowed RGDP’s objectives to be achieved over a sustained period of time. It then asked questions about the likelihood that these factors will remain the same, improve, or worsen after RGDP ends. 5. Contribution analysis: EQ1 and EQ4 examine how effective RGDP was at protecting GDP rights and promoting justice and services for GDPs in Bangladesh. To answer these questions, the evaluation used a simple form of contribution analysis to assess what changes have occurred (e.g., gaining knowledge and understanding about GDP rights), and then worked backwards to identify what contributed to these changes. 6. Data synthesis: The evaluation’s conclusions are based on the totality of evidence and on the combination of results from different data sources to derive summary findings. Where 7 findings converge, the evaluation formulates conclusions to answer the EQs based on strong evidence. Where findings diverge, the evaluation examines the strength of the evidence associated with each source to derive reasoned conclusions. Data synthesis is used to address all four EQs. 3.4 METHODOLOGICAL LIMITATIONS The use of various data sources enabled the ET to triangulate information, but evaluations always have methodological limitations, particularly those utilizing remote evaluation techniques. The first limitation was the small sample size. Second, the methodological approach of the evaluation was to collect responses from primary beneficiaries and secondary stakeholders related only to areas where they have knowledge. Some questions in this evaluation have been relevant and appropriate to GDPs, some to secondary stakeholders, and some to both. For example, GDP members were not asked questions about the relevance of the technical approach of RGDP or its sustainability. This is because they were unfamiliar with the complexities of technical approaches used for GDP programming or with the concept of sustainability. Third, some findings were based on the subjective perceptions of key informants and, thus, are inevitably subject to bias. Selection bias in the form of contacts provided by USAID and Bandhu could mean that only respondents with positive experiences may have been invited to participate in the evaluation. Social desirability bias can result in respondents answering questions to conform with what is perceived as acceptable to their community. To mitigate this, the ET randomly selected individuals from a list of active beneficiaries’ databases. In addition, the team also used different data collection methodologies and data triangulation to mitigate these limitations. By combining information from documents and interviews with multiple sources, any one piece of biased data would not skew the analysis. The COVID-19 pandemic created travel and mobility restrictions. The team leader did not travel to Bangladesh, while the national policy analyst adopted a strict “shelter-in-place” protocol. Thus, some KIIs were done remotely. Remote interviews limit personal interaction making it difficult to observe non-verbal cues or body language. Also, limitations related to Internet bandwidth made communication difficult at times. Notwithstanding, remote interviews had the advantage of being more cost efficient than in-person interviews (i.e., no travel required) and generally made it easier to find mutually convenient interview times. Overall, the team leader was able to complete selected interviews with minimal difficulty. In addition, it needs to be acknowledged that several broader context/external factors were barriers, affecting RGDP’s ability to implement its activities in a relevant and effective way. These have negatively influenced the extent to which RGDP is perceived as impactful and sustainable over time. Addressing these barriers was not in the scope of RGDP, but they are crucial to understanding the findings presented in this evaluation report. These barriers are presented and discussed in greater detail in Annex 3. 8 4.0 FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS 4.1 EQ 1: HOW RELEVANT HAS RGDP BEEN IN PROMOTING JUSTICE AND ACCESS TO SERVICES FOR GDPS IN BANGLADESH? RGDP focused largely on scaling up the activities implemented under its predecessor, HRID.5 More than half of the GDP members the ET interviewed indicated that they were long-term beneficiaries of USAID-funded activities implemented by Bandhu. During one FGD in Dhaka, a Hijra guru stated, “most of us have been involved with the activities of Bandhu for many years,” and in Sylhet, another GDP member said, “I am a person of the GDP community; I have been working with Bandhu for 15-16 years.” In Mymensingh, a hijra guru stated, “I have been working with Bandhu since 2011.” Given that Bandhu has managed other projects funded by USAID and international donors, there was often a degree of confusion among the primary and secondary stakeholders interviewed as to which project they were talking about. This was well illustrated in a FDG with paralegals in Mymensingh, in which a respondent stated, “we know about the activities of Bandhu but we are not aware about which project we are getting into.” This suggests, either, shortcomings in the way USAID branding and marking requirements were followed by RGDP, or an inadequate level of information sharing with the activity’s recipients. Considering the above, the assessment of how relevant RGDP was in promoting justice and access to services for GDPs should be understood as part of a continuing long-term investment by USAID—and other donor organizations—in the rights of GDPs in Bangladesh. 4.1.1 Relevance of RGDP to the needs of GDPs One of RGDP’s objectives was to address the need for GDPs to be made more aware and knowledgeable about their rights and the services available to them. Desk review and KII data reveal that RGDP increased GDPs’ understanding of what legal rights and entitlements they have, and what legal, physical, and mental health services are available to them and how to access them. According to the 2018–2019 Annual Report, several activities implemented under RGDP, e.g., health education sessions in Dhaka and Mymensingh, have increased stakeholder awareness about existing services and increased service-seeking behavior among members of GDPs.6 Furthermore, the report suggests that the increase in participation in health education sessions has resulted in an increased knowledge about mental and sexual and reproductive health rights among GDPs. Similar observations were corroborated in the 2019–2020 Annual Report, which concluded that GDPs are now well informed about psychosocial service centers. Twenty (20) out of 39 GDP members interviewed explicitly reported that RGDP was relevant to increasing their knowledge and understanding about their own rights and entitlements. Aggregated across all four divisional cities, findings from KIIs show that RGDP made a significant contribution to increasing GDPs’ understanding of their legal rights and entitlements, as well as what legal and physical and mental health services are available to them and how to access them. 5 Some new activities were also added, mainly based on the recommendations made in the Collaborative Learning Exercise on Human Rights in Development Project report developed by Social Impact for USAID in April 2016. Please see the Rights for Gender Diverse Population (RGDP), Project Work Plan. June 15, 2018–June 14, 2021. 6 Annual Report, Rights for Gender Diverse Population Activity, Milestone 09, June 14, 2018–June 15, 2019. 9 The ET also triangulated GDPs’ reports with secondary stakeholders’ opinions. Some secondary stakeholders, particularly those who work directly with GDPs and provide social, legal, or mental health services, were in the position to attest to or contradict whether, for instance, there has been increased service-seeking behavior among GDPs as a result of RGDP. During KIIs, a total of 33 secondary stakeholders (journalists, physicians, lawyers, paralegals, front line volunteers, a law enforcement officer, a religious leader, a teacher, and a parent) stated that RGDP was relevant to increasing knowledge and understanding among GDPs about their own rights and entitlements. Furthermore, the primary and secondary stakeholders interviewed for this evaluation affirmed that RGDP was relevant in meeting one or more specific social, legal, or health needs of GDPs. Most of the secondary stakeholders interviewed—notably front line volunteers and watchdogs in Mymensingh, lawyers in Mymensingh and Sylhet, and representatives of District Legal Aid Committees (DLACs) in Dhaka and Sylhet—stated that RGDP met GDPs’ legal needs. A lawyer engaged through RGDP stated, “through this project they (Bandhu) are meeting the legal needs of the GDP in Sylhet.” The ET found that legal services provided to GDP members in Mymensingh had led some to legally own a portion of property inherited from their parents. Medical doctors interviewed in Sylhet, confirmed that RGDP has also met the physical and mental health needs of GDPs including COVID-19-related health needs. The relevance of RGDP in meeting GDP legal and health needs was well articulated in several KIIs with members of the GDPs. For example: • In Cox’s Bazar, a watchdog and a member of the GDP, stated that through RGDP he had learned about his legal rights and entitlements, and particularly who to contact and where to go in case of rights violations, abuse, and violence. • In Dhaka, another member of the GDP reported, “previously, we (GDP) didn’t have the opportunity to have access to health services. We didn’t know where to go because whenever we went to the hospitals doctors never saw us personally. With the project, I know where to go and that I will receive the medical advice or medication that I need.” • In Mymensingh, a transgender woman stated that participation in a health education session had raised her awareness and understanding about various psychological issues and mental health-related problems, and the measures available to deal with them. She also reported that the sensitization workshops with physicians and doctors allowed her stigma-free access to local health services. Referring to her recent visit to a local health facility, she stated, “Previously I couldn’t receive health services; I couldn’t even go there [the hospital].” • In Sylhet, a member of the GDP reported that she and other members of the GDP used to face challenges when seeking legal advice or services. She reported that, “now, we get help from the panel lawyers and the paralegals in any difficult situation we face in our life. We seek help from them because we know we can.” Other similar statements were reported in all four divisional cities and were corroborated by the results of the online survey with secondary stakeholders. In the survey, 68.9 percent of respondents agreed and 17.9 percent strongly agreed with the statement that “RGDP was relevant to the needs of GDPs in Bangladesh.”7 The survey results also provide additional information regarding the type of RGDP activities that were the most relevant to GDP needs. According to the survey respondents, specialized training or capacity building, e.g., how to access legal, health, and employment services (52.3 percent), followed by awareness meetings, presentations 7 In the survey, one respondent each disagreed and strongly disagreed with the statement. 10 (51.4 percent), and community-based advocacy activities (38.5 percent), were the most relevant activities for meeting the needs of GDPs in Bangladesh. 4.1.2 Relevance of RGDP to the socioeconomic needs of GDPs One of RGDP’s aims was to be relevant to GDPs’ socioeconomic needs by organizing job fairs involving the commercial, manufacturing, financial, and development sectors and facilitating links between GDPs and job market opportunities.8 Impacted by the sudden travel and mobility restrictions in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, and implemented with limited engagement with the private sector employers/industry, RGDP was unable, to a larger extent, to link GDPs with relevant employment opportunities and employers. For example, considering the persistent workplace discrimination of GDPs, RGDP correctly recognized the need for, and consequently implemented, an orientation session with employees of Denim Expert Ltd. (Denim) to create a positive, welcoming, and GDP-friendly atmosphere. However, in order to reinforce and communicate Denim’s commitment to GDP inclusion, regular diversity training and workshops should have been implemented. According to the RGDP Activity Workplan, two job fairs involving the commercial, manufacturing, financial, and development sectors should have been organized, followed by a linking of competent GDP members with the job market or appropriate companies. Yet, between 2018 and 2019—prior to the COVID-19 pandemic outbreak—RGDP implemented only one job fair. Further, while RGDP implemented an orientation/sensitization session with employees at Denim after a few GDP members have been hired, no follow up took place to foster an environment where GDP employees feel valued, free to express their SOGIE status, and motivated to be productive. This may have contributed to the majority of GDPs, voluntarily or involuntarily, leaving their jobs at the company. The evaluation found that, while some GDP members were recruited at Denim, RGDP made no other in-person or online efforts to prepare GDPs for job market opportunities post-pandemic. In 2019, a total of 19 GDP members were hired at Denim and SWAPNO. 9 At the time of this evaluation, however, all but two had left their employment. Four were furloughed due to COVID￾19-related circumstances, four were fired as they did not maintain appropriate work times, another four were let go due to petty theft, and one left due to sickness. Since RGDP’s inception in 2018, only two businesses were successfully engaged and offered job placement to GDP members: Denim and SWAPNO. Except these two businesses, RGDP has not established extensive networks or strong collaborations with the private or public sectors to improve GDP socioeconomic status. There are two possible explanations for these discouraging findings. • First, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, planned in-person events, including job fairs, were either canceled or postponed indefinitely. • Second, RGDP had limited engagement with private sector employers in all eight divisional cities covered by the activity. This was mentioned in several KIIs with secondary stakeholders in Sylhet, as well as GDP members in Mymensingh and Sylhet. In those KIIs, participants stated that RGDP had not created extensive, strong, and sustainable links with private sector employers and, as such, had not been relevant to GDP socioeconomic needs. 8 Annual Report, Rights for Gender Diverse Population Activity, Milestone 09, June 14, 2018–June 15, 2019. 9 Strengthening Women’s Ability for Productive New Opportunities (SWAPNO) is a social transfer project for ultra￾poor women to be engaged in public works essential for the economic and social life for rural communities. It promotes employment and, most importantly, future employability of extreme poor rural women. 11 It is important to note that two out of 19 GDP members who were initially linked with and later hired by the garment sector had positive employment experiences, and the opportunity provided to them had significant impact on their lives.10 In addition, other RGDP primary beneficiaries, who were not part of the job fairs but have been supported by the IP, appear to have found informal work in the hospitality sector. In Sylhet, for instance, two GDP members found work in a well￾known local restaurant. In Mymensingh, Bandhu offered employment to two RGDP beneficiaries, sourced through other projects run by the organization. One Sylhet GDP member was employed as youth leader in the Youth Engagement for Inclusive Development, Gender Parity and Social Justice project funded by the Manusher Jonno Foundation (MJF), and in Mymensingh, another was offered a position of “watchdog,” as Bandhu’s representative to the DLAC. 4.1.3 Relevance of RGDP during the COVID-19 pandemic Vulnerable groups in Bangladesh, particularly GDPs lacking adequate support structures within their communities, are at a high risk of adverse COVID-19-related impacts.11 A recently conducted survey (Bandhu, 2020) about the COVID-19 pandemic community response in the transgender and Hijra communities in Bangladesh, revealed that the COVID-19-related crisis had particularly severe impacts on GDPs. The survey found that during the pandemic, GDP members have experienced financial hardship that led to low self-esteem, depression, anxiety, and social withdrawal. They have also experienced emotional, physical, sexual violence and abuse, and discrimination in obtaining health support and other services, e.g., governmental emergency aid. The evaluation found that RGDP’s response to COVID-19 was appropriate in that it swiftly raised GDPs’ awareness of COVID-19 risks and mitigation measures, and promptly addressed their immediate socioeconomic and well-being needs. First, in collaboration with the nine CBOs engaged by the project, RGDP provided GDPs with facts and figures about the COVID-19 pandemic. This included phone advice and the distribution of awareness leaflets about preventive and mitigation health practices. The CBOs also distributed face masks to GDP members. Second, assistance was provided to GDPs to obtain COVID-19 pandemic-related government support. Last, using tele-counseling, GDP members were provided with mental and physical health counseling, particularly on how to deal with lockdown-related depression, low self-esteem, and anxiety. Several KIIs with GDP members provided accounts of RGDP effectively addressing the immediate COVID-19 pandemic-related needs of GDPs. A Mymensingh GDP member noted, “RGDP mental counseling was done over the phone. Most of us [members of the GDP] were afraid of the COVID-19 pandemic and faced hardship related to lost income, lack of food, and isolation. The counselor advised us not to panic and provided information about preventative measures against the virus. We were given much needed food relief.” 4.1.4 Relevance of RGDP to the needs of the Rohingya GDP One of RGDP’s aims was to provide health care services to the Rohingya GDP and the host community in Cox’s Bazar. The evaluation found that RGDP was relevant to the needs of the Rohingya GDP and the host community, particularly their mental and sexual health needs. RGDP met the Rohingya GDP’s health needs by improving their knowledge of the health services available to them, and by making such services available to them. This had a positive impact on 10 See RGDP 2018-2019 Annual Report, describing the employment experience of Shima Akther and Dilruba Akhter. 11 “States must include LGBT community in COVID-19 response”: The how and why from a UN expert. International Day against Homophobia, Transphobia and Biphobia (May 17, 2020). Available at: https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=25889&LangID=E 12 the lives of members of the Rohingya GDP interviewed. According to RGDP’s 2019–2020 Annual Report, the activity was providing psychosocial counseling and referral service to Rohingya GDP members in the Kutupalong camp areas. 12 Since RGDP’s inception in 2018, nine health education sessions have been organized at the Medical Health Center (MHC) with a total of 113 members of the Rohingya GDP and the host community, and a total of 167 GDP members received psychosocial counseling.13 Out of this cohort, 109 Rohingya and host community GDP members were then referred to the Bandhu Wellness Center in Kutupalong, Ukhiya, an intervention implemented simultaneously by Bandhu and supported by the United Nations Populations Fund (UNFPA), for non-communicable disease, human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immune deficiency syndrome (HIV/AIDS), and sexually-transmitted infection (STI) testing and treatment. KIIs conducted in Cox’s Bazar with secondary stakeholders, in particular multilateral organizations and representatives of the health sector, revealed that RGDP was successful in meeting the health needs of the Rohingya GDP and the host community. The online survey results corroborate this finding as, 66.7 percent of all respondents agreed (52.2 percent) or strongly agreed (14.4 percent) that RGDP was relevant to the needs of the Rohingya GDP and the host community. 14 However, while RGDP was relevant to the mental and sexual health needs of the Rohingya GDPs and the host community, a FGD and individual interviews with this population revealed that not all GDPs were able to equally access the services and assistance provided by RGDP due to three external factors: high levels of stigmatization and discrimination of GDPs in the Kutupalong camp areas, the distance from the camp to the MHC, and the shortage of testing or medical supplies. All three were barriers to receiving health treatment (see Annex 3). 4.2 RGDP RELEVANCE TO SECONDARY STAKEHOLDERS The evaluation sought to assess how, if, and to what extent RGDP was relevant to increasing knowledge and building the capacity of secondary stakeholders to promote justice and access to services for GDPs. The online survey results show that RGDP was relevant to the needs of secondary stakeholders to promote justice and access to services for GDPs in Bangladesh. Just over 85 percent agree (66.4 percent) or strongly agree (18.7 percent) that RGDP was relevant to enhancing secondary stakeholders’ capacity to promote and protect GDPs’ rights and access to services. 12 Annual Report, Rights for Gender Diverse Population Activity, 2nd Year; June 14, 2019–June 15, 2020. 13 Annual Report, Rights for Gender Diverse Population Activity, 2nd Year; June 14, 2019–June 15, 2020. 14 However, nearly eight out of 90 survey respondents either disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement that RGDP was relevant to the needs of Rohingya GDPs, and 22 stated they, “do not know or are not sure.” Please note that 19 respondents skipped this question. 13 Figure 1: “I believe the RGDP project was effective in creating sustainable environment to promote justice and access to services for GDPs.” 18.7 66.4 1.9 13.1 Strongly agree Agree Disagree I do not know or Not sure When asked about the extent to which RGDP was relevant to stakeholders in Bangladesh in enhancing their capacity to protect GDP rights and promote justice and access to services for GDPs, almost 76 percent respond that it was very much (33.3 percent) or fairly (42.5 percent) relevant to the needs of GDPs.15 Figure 2: “I believe RGDP was relevant to stakeholders in Bangladesh in enhancing their capacity to protect GDP rights and promote justice and access to services for GDPs.” 3.4 20.7 42.5 33.3 Slightly Somewhat Fairly Very much The relevance of RGDP in increasing knowledge and understanding about GDPs and enhancing the capacity of secondary stakeholders to protect GDP rights and promote justice and access to services for GDPs was frequently reported in the KIIs. Over 45 key informants interviewed in Dhaka, Mymensingh, and Sylhet agreed that RGDP was either relevant or very relevant and has met a range of specific needs associated with the ability to effectively protect GDP rights and promote justice and access to services. 16 Aggregated, these KIIs emphasized the existing demand 15 In the survey, 22 respondents skipped this question (this might be a function of the skip pattern). 16 A large majority of key informants interviewed spoke about aggregated, rather than singular, needs of governments and partners. These needs include but are not limited to: 1) technical needs in conducting or planning to conduct national violence against women (VAW) prevalence surveys; 2) technical needs in conducting ongoing, secondary analysis of their VAW data; 3) increasing capacity to analyze, interpret, understand, disseminate, and use VAW data; 4) understanding and effectively using VAW data to influence decisionmakers; 5) understanding the importance of responsible data collection; 6) conducting ethical and rigorous, inclusive national VAW surveys; and 7) being confident in explaining complex VAW data to others. 14 among relevant secondary stakeholders for comprehensive and evidence-based knowledge about GDPs in Bangladesh, as well as how RGDP met the demand. In one KII, a senior staff member of a multilateral organization in Dhaka who attended one of RGDP’s sensitization workshops stated, “The project [RGDP Activity] was really relevant to promoting justice and access to services for GDPs in Bangladesh. This is because it has focused on detangling the commonly held misperceptions and negative stereotypical views about GDPs. When I attended the activity, I saw supportive reactions, commitment and even excitement among some [secondary stakeholders] about what they can do to ensure the rights and entitlements of GDPs and how they can promote GDP justice and access to services.” The evaluation identified also broader context external factors and project related barriers to RGDP being relevant; these are discussed in Annex 3. (See also Table A2-3 in Annex 2 for a list of external and internal barriers affecting RGDP’s relevancy.) 4.3 RELEVANCE OF RGDP’S TECHNICAL APPROACH To address this, RGDP took a multidisciplinary technical approach: on the one hand, working with GDPs and a diverse range of secondary stakeholders on seven thematic areas17 and, on the other hand, focusing on raising awareness about GDPs, improving the social and legal environments for GDPs, and making public services more accessible to GDPs. The evaluation sought to examine how relevant this technical approach was in achieving RGDP’s overall objectives. The evaluation found that that one aspect of RGDP’s technical approach—the combination of sensitization meetings, presentations, panels and roundtables, training and capacity building events, community-based advocacy and outreach activities, provision of fellowships and the establishment of a network of organizations across the seven thematic areas, combined with the focus on raising awareness and building capacity of a diverse range of relevant stakeholders— offered a holistic and comprehensive mechanism for the protection of GDP rights and the promotion of justice and access to services for GDPs. In the online survey, almost nine out of 10 respondents agreed or strongly agreed (61.7 percent and 27.1 percent, respectively) that RGDP’s technical approach was relevant to promoting justice and access to services for GDPs in Bangladesh (Figure 3). Figure 3: “I believe that this approach was relevant to promoting justice and access to services for GDPs in Bangladesh.” 27.1 61.7 2.8 0.9 7.5 Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree I do not know or Not sure 17 The seven thematic areas are: a) GDP SRHR; b) advocacy for increased rights, policies, and services; c) basic education—formal and non-formal education; d) skills development and livelihoods training and jobs; e) GBV and mental health counseling; f) community systems strengthening; and g) GDP safety and security. 15 Fifteen (15) KIIs, across all four divisional cities, with key informants possessing relevant technical knowledge corroborated these online results. One key informant in Dhaka, stated RGDP’s technical approach was relevant as it was developed on an understanding of the challenging sociocultural environment and unfavorable political milieu for GDPs in Bangladesh, the needs and vulnerabilities of the GDPs in Bangladesh, and the gaps and challenges among relevant secondary stakeholders to better address these needs and vulnerabilities. Investing in a multidisciplinary technical approach was relevant and effective in increasing knowledge and understanding of GDP rights and entitlements among GDPs themselves. It was similarly effective for secondary stakeholders in providing context-specific support and tailored empowerment to GDP members as they advocate for their own human rights and seek to improve their lives. When asked to select the type of RGDP activity that was the most relevant in enhancing their capacity to protect GDP rights and promote justice and access to services for GDPs, over half of the survey respondents (56 percent) selected the meetings, presentations, conferences, panels, and roundtables, while 52.3 percent chose specialized trainings and capacity building events, and 43.1 percent chose community-based advocacy activities, outreach, or community trainings. RGDP’s investment in a multidisciplinary approach ensured engagement with a wide range of cultural gatekeepers, societal agents of change, and important actors in the political sphere who are in positions of power to initiate the sociopolitical and cultural transformations needed to improve the sociocultural and legal environment for GDPs. This approach was particularly relevant and effective in working with representatives of the legal and medical sectors, especially lawyers, paralegals, and young physicians. It was equally relevant and effective working with civil society including CBOs, media, university students, and religious leaders, who were mobilized to ensure the safety, legal, sexual, reproductive, and mental health services and rights for GDPs. Yet despite its general success, methodological flaws in RGDP’s technical approach have been identified. These methodological aspects are closely linked with the overall barriers to RGDP’s relevance (see Annex 2, Table A2-3) as well as the lack of clear recruitment criteria for the selection of primary beneficiaries, occasional misalignment between beneficiaries’ language of communication (e.g., Ruáingga, Bangla) and the language of implementation of some activities and the educational materials provided (English), one-off character of activities, and lack of activity follow up. In addition, the limited focus on GDP economic empowerment—particularly efforts to increase the GDP socioeconomic status through partnerships with private sector employers or linkages for GDP members with existing job market opportunities—was identified as a shortcoming in RGDP’s technical approach. This finding is of particular importance for RGDP’s relevance and has critical implications for the sustainability of progress made under the activity. While RGDP’s technical approach may have been highly relevant for secondary stakeholders, it may have been less so for its primary beneficiaries. 4.4 RELEVANCE OF THE DIGITAL SAFETY AND SECURITY TRAINING With the objective to strengthen the digital safety and security (DSS) capacity of GDPs and selected secondary stakeholders, DSS trainings were implemented as part of RGDP. Per the 2019– 2020 Annual Report, during the 2018–2019 reporting period, RGDP implemented three training sessions with a total of 38 individuals and implemented five divisional trainings with a total number of 102 primary and secondary stakeholders during the 2019–2020 reporting period.18 18 Annual Report, Rights for Gender Diverse Population Activity, 2nd Year; June 14, 2019–June 15, 2020. 16 Data from the desk review, KIIs, and online survey revealed the DSS training was highly relevant to both GDP members and secondary stakeholders, in particular to their ability to use technologies and digital devices in a safe and secure manner to raise awareness, advocate, and communicate about GDP-related issues. Specialized training or capacity building—including DSS training— received the second highest survey response rating for RGDP activity relevance. The ET interviewed a total of 39 secondary stakeholders with knowledge of and first-hand experience with the DSS training. These key informants consistently reported that the DSS training was relevant or very relevant in enhancing the capacity to serve GDPs. Importantly, several GDP members also reported that DSS training provided them with the knowledge and skills to protect themselves from cyberattack and cyber abuse including online harassment and blackmail. In several cases, GDP members also mentioned that the training gave them a sense of security and confidence in communicating with other GDP members and the non-GDP. Positive results of the DSS trainings were also well articulated in the 2018–2019 and 2019–2020 Annual Reports which stated that the training had made participants more aware of digital threats. 19 Further, almost six in 10 (57.8 percent) online survey respondents reported specialized trainings or capacity building efforts, like the DSS training, as the most effective activity in enhancing the capacity of secondary stakeholders to advocate for and reduce harassment, stigma, and discrimination of GDPs in Bangladesh. RGDP documents also reveal the positive impact of the DSS training on the work of Bandhu staff and CBOs. According to several RGDP Quarterly Reports from 2018 and 2019, Bandhu staff not only became more aware of cyber threats related to their work on GDP issues, but also became skilled in taking mitigation measures to reduce external risk and online threats. Some staff reported frequent utilization of the newly established organizational standards for digital safety and security. According to the 2019–2020 Annual Report, Bandhu and individual staff members became safer in terms of digital communication with GDPs and the use of social media to promote rights and justice for GDPs in Bangladesh.20 4.5 EQ 2: HOW EFFECTIVE HAS RGDP BEEN IN INCREASING UNDERSTANDING AND KNOWLEDGE AND ENHANCING CAPACITY TO PROTECT GDP RIGHTS AND PROMOTE JUSTICE AND ACCESS TO SERVICES FOR GDPS IN BANGLADESH? Bandhu has been working in Bangladesh since 1996 to shape enabling social and legal environments for GDPs to enjoy their rights and access to justice and services. It supports GDPs in obtaining social justice, equality, and SRHR. Bandhu has a long history of programmatic engagement in Bangladesh, including the simultaneous implementation of multiple projects that provide similar and overlapping services. This makes it difficult to fully attribute some outcomes and impacts solely to RGDP interventions. For example, the health care needs and human rights issues of the Rohingya GDP and the host community in Kutupalong, Ukhiya, have been addressed by both RGDP and by the Men, Boys and Transgender SRHR response amongst Rohingya and Host Community project funded by UNFPA.21 Therefore, and similarly to the findings in other sections of this evaluation report, conclusions related to effectiveness of RGDP must be 19 Annual Report, Rights for Gender Diverse Population Activity, 1st Year; June 14, 2018–June 15, 2019. 20 Annual Report, Rights for Gender Diverse Population Activity, 2nd Year; June 14, 2019–June 15, 2020. 21 Please see Bandhu’s Annual Report 2019 (Equalizing Equities) available at: https://www.bandhu-bd.org/wp￾content/uploads/2013/12/Annual-Report-2019-of-Bandhu.pdf 17 understood through the lens of interconnectedness as well as the continuity of Bandhu’s work in Bangladesh. 4.5.1 Effectiveness of the RGDP in increasing understanding and knowledge about GDPs and enhancing capacity to protect GDP rights and promote justice and access to services for GDPs among secondary stakeholders The ET interviewed over 100 key informants representing a wide range of RGDP secondary stakeholders in Cox’s Bazar, Dhaka, Mymensingh, and Sylhet. This included front line volunteers and community watchdogs, paralegals and DLAC representatives, panel lawyers, physicians, journalists and media fora, educators, students and their parents, and two religious leaders. The goal was to better understand how effective RGDP has been in increasing secondary stakeholders’ understanding and knowledge about GDPs and how effective the activity was in enhancing their capacity to promote GDP rights and promote justice and access to services for GDPs. Effectiveness of RGDP in increasing understanding and knowledge about GDPs among secondary stakeholders Across all four divisional cities, more than 50 secondary stakeholders agreed that RGDP was effective in increasing their knowledge and understanding of GDPs in Bangladesh. KIIs with some GOB officials in Dhaka, Mymensingh, and Sylhet and Dhaka-based representatives of multilateral and international organizations working in Bangladesh to promote human rights who participated in or attended some of RGDP’s activities confirmed this finding. This position was made clear in an interview with a legal expert in Dhaka who reported, “The project [RGDP] really allowed those at [National Legal Aid Service Organization] NLASO to better understand what GDP means, how it manifests, and what are the challenges GDPs face in Bangladesh. The activity brought awareness that rights of GDPs should be guaranteed and protected. A number of the lawyers, judges and paralegals at NLASO were unaware of the fact that GDPs face stigmatization, discrimination, abuse of rights and various acts of physical, emotional and psychological violence.” KIIs also highlighted the importance of the methodological approach RGDP utilized to raise awareness of GDPs, which included documentaries, case studies, and life stories told by GDP members as an effective medium of communication. In a KII, a panel lawyer in Mymensingh reported that, after watching a documentary about GDPs, he realized his ethical responsibility to, “stand side-by-side with GDPs because they are a part of the Almighty’s creation.” The ET documented similar findings in KIIs and FGDs with students and media fora attesting to RGDP’s effectiveness in increasing secondary stakeholders’ understanding and knowledge about GDPs. These finding were corroborated by the results of the online survey. When asked if they agree with the statement, “The RGDP activity was effective in improving my understanding and knowledge about GDP rights and services,” 93.6 percent of respondents reported that they agree (48 percent) or strongly agree (54 percent). Effectiveness of RGDP in enhancing capacity to protect GDP rights and promote justice and access to services for GDP Although RGDP was generally effective in enhancing the capacity to protect GDP rights and promote justice and access to services for GDPs, the degree of effectiveness was not uniformly agreed upon among all types of secondary stakeholders. For some secondary stakeholders, enhancement of capacity meant improving their ability to take specific actions to protect GDP 18 rights and promote justice and access to services for GDPs (see Table 4). Enhanced capacity was achieved through the provision of contextualized and practical skills tailored to the actual role and competency of their group, rather than through utilization of a “one size fits all” approach to skills diffusion. In this regard, some secondary stakeholder types felt better served than others. Table 4: Examples of Actions Taken by Select Secondary Stakeholders Type of Secondary Stakeholder Effectiveness Paralegals, Front Line Volunteers, and Community Watchdogs • Effective at the local level to deal with GOB officials, law enforcement agency representatives, panel lawyers, other decision-makers, and business owners. For example, in Sylhet, paralegals negotiated with several land and property owners to secure rental agreements for GDPs. • For paralegals, effective to refer, investigate, and document local level cases of violations of GDP rights. • Effective to become active observers in DLAC offices across Bangladesh. Religious Leaders • Effective in reaching out to their congregants and followers with positive messaging about GDPs. Attendees of the DSS Training22 • Effective for communication using online apps including Facebook and WhatsApp in safe and secure ways. Media Fora • Effective for broadcasting promotional messaging about GDP rights across Bangladesh. Journalists • Effective in publishing news or newspaper articles on GDPs in the local and national online and print media. CBO Representatives • Effective to develop and implement action plans, including plans to start a small￾scale income-generation activities, and to start and submit non-governmental organization (NGO) registration processes with the GOB. Results of the online survey further attest to the generally high degree of effectiveness of RGDP in enhancing their capacity to protect GDP rights and promote justice and access to services for GDPs. When asked how strongly they agree with the statement, “I believe the RGDP activity was effective in increasing my capacity to promote and protect GDP rights and improve access to services for GDPs,” 95.4 percent of respondents agree (57.8 percent) or strongly agree (37.6 percent). When asked “to what extent the RGDP project was effective in increasing your capacity to promote and protect GDPs rights and to improve access to services for GDPs,” the plurality responded very much (39.6 percent), with 35.6 percent reporting fairly and 21.8 percent somewhat. Combined, 97 percent of respondents reported RDGP was at least somewhat effective. However, KIIs revealed that some secondary stakeholders did not think RGDP was fully effective in increasing their capacity to protect GDP rights and promote justice and access to services for GDPs. Among the reasons given was that RGDP did not provide enough opportunities for a thorough attainment of needed skills. This reason was not limited to one or two types of secondary stakeholder, or to one or two divisional cities visited by the ET. On the contrary, except for educators, students, and their parents, this criticism was widely reported, especially by front line volunteers and community watchdogs, paralegals and DLAC representatives, panel lawyers, 22 DSS training participants included: GDPs, representatives of the media, legal, and medical sectors, and civil society including CBOs and front line volunteers and watchdogs, and representatives of multilateral and international organizations, among others. 19 physicians, journalists, and media fora in Dhaka, Mymensingh, and Sylhet.23 In addition, some secondary key informants contended RGDP did not provide measurable results related to social change. Except for anecdotal statements from a few secondary stakeholders and some poorly supported conclusions in RGDP documents,24 no reliable data exist that can be used to measure how RGDP effected social changes. Baseline data about the preexisting capacity of secondary stakeholders (or about their knowledge and understanding of GDPs) were not collected, and no post-activity assessments were conducted with most secondary stakeholders25 to better understand how their knowledge, attitudes, or practices changed because of RGDP’s activities. RGDP also did not include specific inputs or outputs related to changes in the experiences of the primary beneficiaries in accessing and utilizing these services. The evaluation also identified several broader context external factors and three project-related barriers to RGDP being fully effective (see Annex 3). 4.5.2 Effectiveness of RGDP in increasing the social and legal environment for GDPs One of RGDP’s objectives was to improve the social and legal environment for GDPs to access public services; the evaluation sought to examine how, and to what extent, this objective was met. First, in the online survey, respondents were asked if they believe RGDP was effective in increasing the social environment for GDPs to access public services, the extent of any increase, and which activity was most effective in this process. RGDP’s effectiveness in improving the social environment for GDPs to access public services received an overwhelming positive response. When asked how strongly they agree with the statement “I believe the RGDP project was effective in improving the social environment for GDPs to access public services,” 90 percent of all survey respondents strongly agree (22.9 percent) or agree (67 percent) with the statement. Figure 4: “I believe the RGDP project was effective in improving the social environment for GDPs to access public services.” 23 In Cox’s Bazar the ET captured only a very small number of secondary stakeholders with relevant knowledge, which did not allow them to draw substantive conclusions about RGDP’s effectiveness in enhancing capacity to protect GDP rights and promote justice and access to services for GDPs. 24 Refers to “impacts” or “results” provided in 2018–2020 Quarterly Reports as well as the 2018–2019 and 2019–2020 RGDP Annual Reports. See: Annual Report, Rights for Gender Diverse Population Activity, 1st Year; June 14, 2018– June 15, 2019; Annual Report, Rights for Gender Diverse Population Activity, 2nd Year; June 14, 2019–June 15, 2020. 25 Some pre and post-test assessment was conducted with community watchdogs, for instance, after the “Best Practices and Challenges” workshop. 22.9 67.0 0.9 0.9 7.3 0.9 Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree I do not know or Not sure Not applicable 20 Second, when asked “to what extent the RGDP project was effective in improving the social environment for GDPs to access public services,” 98 percent responded that RGDP the was at least somewhat effective. Among the survey respondents, more than half (56 percent) mentioned that the most effective way for RGDP to improve the social environment for GDPs to access public services was through meetings, presentations, conferences, panels, roundtables, and/or workshops on GDPs, while 41.3 percent mentioned specialized trainings or capacity building events (e.g., legal, health, and DSS training), and 38.8 percent mentioned community-based advocacy activities, outreach, or community trainings (e.g., campaigns, awareness projects). The qualitative interviews confirmed these results. In KIIs, the social environment was mostly understood as the ability of GDPs to occupy spaces, access services or opportunities, or obtain resources that have been previously socially reserved for, or predominately frequented by, the non-GDP. The best examples of this are: 1) access to health services, particularly access to public hospitals and clinics where the attitudes of staff have previously made it difficult for GDPs to access or utilize selected services (e.g., sexual and reproductive health [SRH]); and 2) access to social safety net programs that focus on the reduction of poverty and vulnerability by addressing a range of the most marginalized population groups through different forms of GOB assistance. Out of approximately 55 key informants interviewed—both primary and secondary beneficiaries—45 participants said RGDP had improved the social environment for GDPs in Bangladesh. This was reported equally in Dhaka, Mymensingh, and Sylhet and to a more limited extent in Cox’s Bazar, where the ET captured only a small number of secondary stakeholders with relevant knowledge regarding improvements in social environment. The evaluation found that RGDP has brought conceptual and factual clarity to the plethora of negative stereotypes, misperceptions, and misinformation among relevant stakeholders about the needs and vulnerabilities of GDPs. This, in turn, has led stakeholders—some for the first time—to be willing to consider GDP service provision. As a secondary stakeholder in Dhaka stated, “They [secondary stakeholders] started to feel more at ease, more comfortable with GDP, more inclined and more responsible to provide services to GDPs.” Among RGDP primary beneficiaries, the most frequently reported evidence of positive social change was the friendly, welcoming attitude of health care service providers. According to some KIIs, this has led GDP members to gain confidence in contacting local healthcare providers for advice, care, and/or treatment and, in some cases, to disclose one’s SOGIE status. Among RGDP secondary beneficiaries, particularly lawyers, paralegals, front line volunteers, and community watchdogs, the most frequently reported evidence of positive social change was the ability to collaborate with relevant entities and authorities, e.g., law enforcement agencies, when providing services to GDPs. This was illustrated in an interview in Sylhet with a community watchdog and a paralegal, both identifying themselves as GDP members, who reported that, “The police administration hardly helped us or even listened to us before. They had very little idea about GDPs and mostly were scared to talk to us. When we visited the police station, they used to force us to leave the place immediately. They hardly gave us services or treated us as a human. Getting legal services and protection from the police was very difficult previously. Now we can go any police station and get help from them like others. This situation was created by the intervention [RGDP].” 21 However, interviewees in all four cities emphasized that while progress has been noticeable in improving the social environment for GDPs, it was very slow in coming and remains fragile. This suggests that despite the gains made, several challenges remain, which are outside the scope of this phase of RGDP: discriminatory laws and harmful social and gender norms remain pervasive. GDPs continue to face stigma, discrimination, and harassment in access to services, remain invisible at all levels of political leadership, and report experiencing physical, sexual, emotional, and economic violence. Furthermore, the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic in Bangladesh threaten to reverse some of the progress that has been made. Interviewees also stated COVID-19 exacerbates existing inequalities between GDPs and the non-GDP in Bangladesh in every sphere— from health and the economy, to security and social protection. The evaluation also found positive results in terms of RGDP improving the legal environment for GDPs to access public services. When asked how strongly they agreed with the statement “I believe the RGDP project was effective in improving the legal environment for GDPs to access public services,” over three-quarters of respondents (77.4 percent) either strongly agree (23.6 percent) or agree (53.8 percent) that RGDP was effective. And when asked “to what extent the RGDP project was effective in improving the legal environment for GDPs to access public services,” 94 percent agree that RGDP was at least somewhat effective. Survey respondentsranked meetings, specialized trainings and capacity building, and community-based advocacy and outreach activities and trainings as the most effective ways to improve the legal environment and access to services for GDPs—48.6 percent, 45 percent, and 33.9 percent, respectively. Twenty (20) key informants attested to RGDP’s effectiveness in improving the legal environment for GDPs to access public services. These respondents represented both primary and secondary RGDP stakeholders. Key informants reported that improved effectiveness resulted from: 1) RGDP’s ability to successfully reach out to and engage with important players in the fields of legal services, justice, and protection and promotion of human rights, including law enforcement agencies, judiciary staff, lawyers, judges, and the National Human Rights Commission of Bangladesh (NHRC); and 2) the ability of secondary stakeholders (governmental and non￾governmental) to provide legal services to GDPs. Key informants also revealed that RGDP created linkages between various human rights and GDP rights advocates from the public sector and civil society. This is also mentioned in the 2018–2019 and 2019–2020 Annual Reports. Multiple referrals of GDP rights abuses and violations cases have been made to the NHRC, DLAC, and other relevant governmental institutions in Bangladesh, which have been documented. Also, RGDP conducted several sensitization and capacity building meetings with the Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics (BBS), Department of Youth Development, NHRC, and Ansar Village Defense Party (VDP) department. These are remarkable achievements given the unfavorable legal framework and lack of laws and policies to protect GDP rights and promote justice and GDP access to services. Despite these achievements, some key informants reported doubts about GDP’s effectiveness in improving the legal environment for GDPs, understood as the environment that through local or national legislation recognizes and protects GDP rights. Some KIIs referred to RGDP’s inadequate conceptual design, which did not include a focus on development of a national law or policy that would strengthen legal protection against all forms of GBV, including against GDPs or people of SOGIE status. Changing laws is a lengthy and intensive process, especially within the current context in Bangladesh, and may be unrealistic under the RGDP implementation timeframe and limited project resources. In spite of that, with its three-year implementation plan, and considering the achievements of the predecessor HRID project, RGDP could have focused on legal reform but 22 missed the opportunity. This is important as GDP-inclusive laws and policies improve the overall acceptance of gender diverse people in society. GDP inclusion is, broadly speaking, viewed as conducive to the emergence of less restrictive gender norms that improve gender equality. 4.5.3 Effectiveness of public awareness messages (or PSAs) provided through local radio stations Local radio is an important medium for reaching and influencing the attitudes and practices of disadvantaged and vulnerable, rural and hard to reach populations in Bangladesh. The evaluation found that the public awareness messages (or PSAs) provided through 15 community radio stations to raise awareness of GDP had impressive reach. Between 2018–2019 the radio stations broadcasted PSAs more than 5,748 times covering approximately 5,373,000 listeners, and between 2019–2020, broadcasted PSAs 3,904 times covering approximately 5,122,000 listeners. Through interviews with primary and secondary beneficiaries, the evaluation found that the PSAs’ content of was appropriate to non-GDP listeners as they contained important positive messages about GDPs and their rights and entitlements. Simultaneously, the evaluation found that the PSAs’ content was relevant to GDP members as they contained information including the Ain-Alap hotline number and local legal clinics and services available to GDPs. However, of the evaluation findings differ regarding the effectiveness of the PSAs. First, it is important to differentiate between the reach and impact. Unfortunately, there is no way to measure the PSAs’ impact as the radio stations relied upon traditional metrics for counting listeners to gauge reach. Yet, the unit of analysis in terms of effectiveness should be the individual listener, and the question focus should be on how the exposure to the PSAs affected the listener’s attitudes, beliefs, cognitions, and/or behaviors. To this end, the ET found no evidence of the effectiveness of RGDP’s PSAs, broadcasted by local radio stations. Evidence was also not found on how this activity measurably impacted the lives of RGDP’s primary and secondary beneficiaries. In an interview in Teknaf (Cox’s Bazar), a radio station manager stated that listeners perceived the PSAs as appropriate but, except for one anecdotal story, could not provide further evidence to show if these messages changed the mindset of non-GDP listeners. In all KIIs and FGDs, no respondent was able to provide evidence of the PSAs’ impact on peoples’ attitudes and behaviors. None of the secondary beneficiaries interviewed who reported an increase in their understanding and knowledge about GDPs were able to link this increase with the PSAs. Additionally, not a single GDP member interviewed reported being aware of their rights and entitlements or knowing about relevant services as a result of the PSAs. However, the KII with Bandhu members confirmed that the PSAs did result in a small number of GDP members calling the Ain-Alap hotline and seeking legal advice and support through local legal clinics. But the ET was not able to triangulate this information with GDP members. Evaluation findings suggest RGDP did not have mechanisms in place to track or measure the desired impact of the PSAs broadcasted by local radio stations. Also, the outbreak of COVID-19 may have severely limited the extent of service-seeking behavior among GDPs. Interviews with Bandhu members confirmed that, due to the pandemic, the organization was not able to conduct physical monitoring, nor to investigate and validate the PSAs’ impact on the lives of GDPs. 23 4.5.4 Effectiveness of RGDP in strengthening the capacity of stakeholders to advocate and reduce harassment, stigma, discrimination, and violations of GDP rights The evaluation sought to better understand RGDP’s effectiveness in enhancing stakeholders' capacity of relevant to reduce harassment, stigma, discrimination, and violations of GDP rights. When asked how strongly they agreed with the statement “I believe the RGDP project was effective in enhancing the capacity of relevant stakeholders to advocate and reduce harassment, stigma and discrimination of GDPs,” over nine in 10 respondents reported that they agree (58.7 percent) or strongly agree (32.1 percent) that RGDP was effective. Further, when asked extent to which they felt RGDP was effective in enhancing the capacity of relevant stakeholders to advocate and reduce harassment, stigma, and discrimination of GDPs, 97 percent responded that RGDP was at least somewhat effective. Figure 5: “To what extent do you feel the RGDP project was effective in enhancing the capacity of relevant stakeholders to advocate and reduce harassment, stigma, and discrimination of GDPs?” 3.2% 20.0% 43.2% 33.7% Slightly Somewhat Fairly Very Among the survey respondents, over half (57.8 percent) mentioned specialized trainings or capacity building events as the most effective RGDP activity RGDP for enhancing the capacity of relevant stakeholders to advocate for and reduce harassment, stigma, and discrimination of GDPs, followed by meetings, presentations, conferences, panels, roundtables, and/or workshops on GDPs, 56 percent, community-based advocacy activities, outreach, or community trainings (e.g., campaigns, awareness projects), 45 percent, and information education and communication (IEC) materials about GDPs, 42.2 percent. These results were supported by the desk review of project documents and the comments of several key informants in Dhaka, Mymensingh, and Sylhet who cited the establishment of the Ain-Alap legal service unit and 10 legal clinics at drop-in centers (DICs) and CBOs. According to the 2018– 2019 and 2019–2020 RGDP Annual Reports, during activity implementation, more than 370 GDP members received legal services from these legal clinics. Ain-Alap unit received 166 GDP rights violation cases through written complaints, and all were documented. In addition, more than half of these cases were investigated and resolved. The Ain-Alap helpline received more than 600 phone calls and GDPs received legal information, advice, and counseling through the helpline. Several other successful RGDP activities attest to the enhanced capacity of relevant stakeholders to reduce harassment, stigma, and discrimination and protect GDPs. These include the development and implementation of the DSS trainings, which provided relevant stakeholders with the knowledge and skills to protect GDPs from cyberattack and cyber abuse, including online harassment and blackmail. The GDP human rights training module—conducted with over 24 160 paralegals—is another such success. This training resulted in the establishment of eight divisional paralegal teams focused on increasing GDP access to justice with the aim of reducing discrimination, violence, and abuse and promoting GDP rights. Several KIIs conducted for this evaluation revealed how paralegals assist with case investigation and documentation using this training. In one interview in Mymensingh, a paralegal reported that RGDP created a network of local individuals—front line volunteers and community watchdogs, paralegals, and panel lawyers—who through close collaboration and partnership in referral, investigation, and documentation of cases, work to reduce abuses and violations of GDP rights. The interviewee stated, “The RGDP project created a relationship with DLAC, and it was able to create their own representatives that help GDPs. All of these help to decrease the violence against GDPs.” 4.5.5 RGDP effectiveness in collaborating with and enhancing the capacity of CBOs26 One of the four main objectives of RGDP was to improve the sociocultural and legal environment for GDPs to access public services. To help achieve this objective, RGDP established and nurtured a community of practice. Over several years, local CBOs received financial and technical support as part of Bandhu’s commitment to address the health care needs and human rights issues of GDPs in Bangladesh. RGDP selected nine divisional-level CBOs which were supported in carrying out activities. RGDP collaborated with and increased the capacity of these nine CBOs very effectively. Results of the desk review show how and to what extent RGDP improved the CBOs’ capacity to advance human rights advocacy for GDPs. RGDP provided the CBOs with technical support to enhance their capacity both in organizational structure and skill development including training in sustainability and income generation, e.g., how to develop business plans. RGDP also provided nominal financial support for office space rent and staff salaries. According to the RGDP 2018– 2019 and 2019–2020 Annual Reports, this support has led to CBOs organizing GDP rights advocacy events and/or creating or strengthening referral mechanisms with local health service providers. In addition, four CBOs started small-scale income generating activities including handcrafts, auto rickshaw maintenance, and pharmacy businesses. Secondary stakeholder informants in Dhaka, Mymensingh, and Sylhet, including several with CBO representatives, revealed that RGDP provided opportunities for CBO members to attend thematic meetings, presentations, panels, roundtables, and/or technical workshops, as well as to participate in specialized trainings (including DSS training). Informants noted this was effective in increasing their capacity to advocate for GDP rights. A cross-section of lawyers, paralegals, physicians, front line volunteers, and community watchdogs in the three cities, reported that RGDP created a platform for the CBOs to gain relevant competencies in increasing the sociocultural and legal environment for GDPs to access justice and public services—an important finding as staff of several of these CBOs were themselves RGDP primary beneficiaries. In Sylhet, a member of one CBO reported, “training that was provided to the CBO members enhanced their capacity to implement the programs. Now, they provide training to others.” This suggests that RGDP may have effectively initiated a transfer of knowledge and skills for the incoming cadre of professionals. In addition, informants mentioned how membership in a network of organizations (governmental and non-governmental) advocating for GDP rights, justice, and access to services, and the ability to network with others including multilateral and international organizations, e.g., 26 The nine CBOs are: Setu Bandhan Kollayan Shangho; Siri Shomaj Kollayan Shongstha; Bandhon Manob Unnayan Shangho; Shustho Jibon; Paddakuri Hijra Shangho; Diner Alo Hijra Shangho; Arpon Manob Kollayan Shangho Linkup Social Welfare Society (LSWS); and Sylhet Hijra Kollayan Shangho. 25 the Joint United Nations Program on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS), UNFPA, High Commission of Canada and Australia in Bangladesh, and others, contributed to increasing CBO capacity. The importance of the engagement of, and collaboration with, the CBOs is illustrated by one CBO survey respondent who commented that becoming a member of such a network was the most effective way he was able to increase his capacity to protect GDP rights and promote justice and access to services for GDPs. The same respondent also stated that RGDP was very effective in building partnerships with the various stakeholders to improve advocacy and support for GDPs. 4.5.6 RGDP effectiveness in building partnerships with the GOB to improve advocacy and government support for GDPs While members of the GOB were involved in RGDP as secondary beneficiaries, the evaluation sought to assess RGDP’s effectiveness in building partnerships with the GOB to improve advocacy and government support for GDPs. One of RGDP’s aims was to create a dedicated network of representatives from relevant government agencies to facilitate collaboration, sensitization training, advocacy for policy improvements, and engagement with other RGDP events and efforts. According to the 2018 RGDP Workplan, targeted agencies included the Department of Women and Child Affairs, Ministry of Social Welfare, Department of Social Services, Department of Youth Development, NLASO, NHRC, and Bangladesh Ansar VDP. At the national level, the ET interviewed eight government officials representing the following ministries: NHRC, Ministry of Education, Ministry of Law, Justice, and Parliamentary Affairs, and Ministry of Home Affairs. During these interviews, the ET did not find evidence that RGDP created a dedicated network between these ministries. While several ministerial representatives had attended RGDP activities, and government employees, e.g., members of law enforcement agencies, were secondary beneficiaries of RGDP, there is not enough evidence to show that sensitizing government officials led to improved advocacy and government support for GDPs. Moreover, the ET did not find evidence that these ministries or individuals collaborated with RGDP to facilitate sensitization training or advocacy for policy improvements. Several key informants emphasized that in order for these initial contacts to turn into long-lasting, effective working relationships, a more comprehensive, sustainable, strategic, and systematic approach is needed. Several Dhaka-based informants noted that building relationships with the GOB is a very slow process, and there are lots of barriers and challenges in creating meaningful, efficient, and effective partnerships with the GOB. This includes, for instance, the conservative attitudes of GOB officials towards GDPs, administrative bureaucracy to authorize and implement GDP-focused activities, and, importantly, the lack of policy or directives, or even resistance, to put GDPs on the political agenda. Some informants noted that while the Ministry of Law, Justice, and Parliamentary Affairs, NHRC, and Ministry of Home Affairs could have been good partners to engage with to improve advocacy and government support for GDPs, other ministries are also in a powerful position to create and maintain a favorable social environment for GDPs including the Ministry of Labor and Employment and Ministry of Social Welfare, neither of which RGDP engaged. A secondary stakeholder interviewed in Dhaka reported, “I think that the RGDP Activity allowed for continuation of previously established contacts and relationships with the GOB, but it has not created or succeeded in creating new ones yet. These partnerships are also fragile, because people rotate all the time within the government and today you may speak to one person, and tomorrow to another, completely new.” 26 Yet, it is also important to note that several secondary stakeholders mentioned RGDP’s success in its advocacy efforts with NHRC and the Bangladesh BBS for the inclusion of third gender in the national census. In addition, the evaluation found that public interest litigation (PIL) had strengthened the partnership with NHRC and improved its support for GDP. Although in 2013 the Bangladeshi government acknowledged transgender individuals as a separate gender, this population in Bangladesh continue to experience exclusion and discrimination, abuse, and violence.27 To address this concern, under RGDP plans have been formed to file PIL on violations of human rights of third gender. In December 2019, Bandhu, with the support of NLASO, organized a consultation to discuss avenues for filing PIL. The evaluation found that as a follow up, the RDGP IP organized a PIL session with judges, panel lawyers, and paralegals to discuss the possibility of developing a draft law on inclusion of the third gender community. Consequently, in 2020 an agreement with Justice Watch Foundation (JWF)28 was signed to draft such law, and later in 2021, the RGDP IP presented the draft law to NHRC, which formed a platform in collaboration with several legal aid organizations to review and revise the draft law. This success is somewhat reflected in the online survey results, where 60.2 percent of respondents agreed and 32.4 percent strongly agreed that RGDP was effective in partnering with the GOB and other stakeholders, and thus improved GOB advocacy and support for GDPs. By bundling the GOB with other stakeholders, many of whom did do a lot to improve advocacy and support for GDPs, these survey findings are somewhat misleading. Therefore, the ET recommends that more focus be paid to the qualitative findings presented in preceding paragraphs. 4.6 EQ3: HOW SUSTAINABLE HAS RGDP BEEN? The ET took a multi-dimensional approach to exploring RGDP’s sustainability. On the one hand, assessing RGDP’s effectiveness in creating a sustainable environment for the promotion of justice and access to services for GDPs and also evaluating the likelihood of sustainability of RGDP benefits over time. Despite several positive findings, the ET found mixed results in this area. The results of the qualitative interviews and the online survey both suggest that RGDP was effective in creating a sustainable environment to promote justice and access to services for GDPs in Bangladesh. When survey respondents were asked how strongly they agree with the statement, “I believe the RGDP project was effective in creating a sustainable environment to promote justice and access to services for GDPs,” the vast majority (84.8 percent) either agree (64.4 percent) or strongly agree (20.4 percent) that RGDP was effective. 27 Anam, T. (2015). Transgender rights, Bangladesh style. New York Times; Hossain, A. (2017). The paradox of recognition: Hijra, third gender and sexual rights in Bangladesh. Culture, Health & Sexuality, 19(12), 1418–1431.; Jebin, L., & Farhana, U. (2015). The rights of Hijra in Bangladesh: An overview. Journal of Nazrul University, 3(1 and 2), 1–9. 28 JWF is a registered non-profit organization working to promote peace, human rights, and good governance. It collaborates with human rights groups and grassroots development and social movements to enforce the rights of poor, marginalized people and challenge oppression, exploitation, and discrimination against any group or individual on the grounds of gender, disability, age, religion, ethnic group, sexual orientation, and health, economic, or social status. 27 Figure 6: “Percentage of all survey respondents believing RGDP was effective in creating sustainable environment to promote justice and access to services for GDP.” 20.4 64.8 3.7 11.1 Strongly agree Agree Disagree I do not know or Not sure Furthermore, nearly seven in 10 survey respondents agreed (42.2 percent) or strongly agreed (27.5 percent) that the enabling environment—knowledge about GDPs and skills to protect GDP rights and promote their access to justice and services—will sustain after RGDP ends in June 2021, while 13.8 percent either disagreed (11 percent) or strongly disagreed (2.8 percent) with the statement. Another 16.5 percent of respondents reported they “do not know or are not sure.” Figure 7: “I believe the enabling environment will sustain after the end of the activity in June 2021.” 27.5 42.2 11.0 2.8 16.5 Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree I do not know or Not sure The desk review also found RGDP effective in terms of creating a sustainable environment to promote justice and access to services for GDPs through direct engagement with various secondary stakeholders. The significance of such direct engagement in creating a sustainable environment lays in the opportunity to further increase the knowledge base about GDPs among decision￾makers, increase their responsiveness to GDP human rights concerns, and build credibility and recognition of RGDP. This is evident through the following: • Engagement in advocacy with the NHRC and other GOB ministries and agencies to better address GDP rights. • Organization of sensitization meetings and trainings to increase acceptance and understanding of GDPs for some decision-makers as well as academics and experts, journalists, law enforcement personnel, religious leaders, and other community members across Bangladesh. For example, according to the 2019–2020 Annual Report, RGDP trained 22 religious leaders, 65 media personnel, 242 school children and parents, 213 university students, and 66 law enforcement personnel. Furthermore, there is evidence 28 that some religious leaders committed to share the positive information they learned with their constituencies and followers. • Provision of individual fellowships to lawyers, journalists, and students to raise awareness of others about GDPs and support GDPs in obtaining relevant services. According to the 2019–2020 Annual Report, RGDP awarded fellowships to 29 students from several universities (University of Dhaka, BRAC University, State University, North South University, and Independent University). To encourage others to act, RGDP gave several rights defenders awards for their outstanding contribution to the protection of GDP rights and promotion of justice and access to services for GDPs. However, while the desk review and the survey results suggest RGDP created a sustainable environment to promote justice and access to services for GDPs, the KIIs raised questions about the sustainability of RGDP benefits over time. When asked, most key informants reported doubts about the sustainability of RGDP benefits. For example, of the 52 primary and secondary stakeholders interviewed, more than half (35 key informants) did not find the benefits sustainable. Furthermore, among key informants who do believe in benefits’ sustainability, more than half suggested sustainability only of the awareness raising component and not the skills gained through RGDP. For example, among 16 GDP members interviewed in Mymensingh and Sylhet who received paralegal and health counseling training under RGDP, there was a consensus around the sustainability of the knowledge and skills gained. Aggregated, these findings suggest that, while RGDP raised knowledge about GDPs among secondary beneficiaries and most stated that they will remain aware of their responsibilities to facilitate social justice for GDPs, there is a gulf between knowing about and being able to do something about GDP rights and entitlements. In interviews, most lawyers, paralegals, physicians, journalists, teachers, students, and religious leaders, and some front line volunteers and community watchdogs, agreed that the awareness raised would remain, but a large proportion also reported being uncertain whether they will be able to put this knowledge into practice. At the project level, the evaluation identified two factors that are a challenge to the sustainability of benefits reported by primary and secondary stakeholders in all four divisional cities. First, the one-off character of the majority of RGDP activities, short implementation time, and lack of follow up to trainings and workshops resulted in stakeholders perceiving the benefits as partially or not at all sustainable. Reflecting the views of multiple key informants in Cox’s Bazar, Dhaka and Mymensingh, one secondary stakeholder in Dhaka stated, “there is a need for additional investment in the area, and the work requires long-term support. This does not happen after one training. It is not something you achieve overnight.” In a similar vein, several GDP members expressed their doubts regarding the sustainability of benefits. A hijra guru in Mymensingh noted, “it is not possible to change the mentality of the general people so we need to organize more advocacy meetings.” Second, GDP members and secondary stakeholders, including front line volunteers and community watchdogs, suggested that although RGDP did not include engagement with families of GDP members, lack of such focus is a challenge to sustainability. Bangladeshi culture places a high value on close familial relationships; and family plays a significant role in one’s socioeconomic and emotional wellbeing. Critically, experiences of social exclusion, discrimination, abuse, and violence often begin within the family. Evidence shows that Hijra may choose to leave their families to protect them from experiencing social stigma or may be forced to leave their homes if family members do not approve of their SOGIE status. In a study conducted by Bandhu (2019) with 346 GDP members, 62 percent of respondents reported that they endured 29 physical abuse in the family, 72 percent reported experiencing verbal and mental abuse, and 54 percent stated they were forced to leave their family because of their SOGIE status. 29 In fact, as reported in the 2019–2020 RGDP Annual Report, the main reasons for GDPs in Cox’s Bazar to seek counseling through the Mental Health Service Center were depression, low self-esteem, and anxiety related to family problems. Therefore, a number of GDPs and secondary stakeholders perceived not including family members of GDPs in RGDP activities as a major barrier to the sustainability of benefits among GDPs. The above findings can be linked to and explained by several other factors mentioned earlier, which although beyond the scope of RGDP objectives, need to be taken into account when discussing the sustainability of RGDP’s achievements: 1) the existing violent and oppressive sociocultural and political climate in Bangladesh, and 2) the unfavorable legal framework and lack of GDP-specific laws and policies. For example, in one KII, a key informant in Dhaka stated that, “the Bangladeshi society is still not ready for a full-fledged open and honest conversation about LGBT.” This, according to the informant, limits the extent to which knowledge and skills can be retained and transferred, e.g., in the case of government employees or local services providers such as lawyers and doctors wanting to pass RGDP knowledge and skills to the incoming cadre of professionals. Furthermore, the overall lack of factors such as political will, clear and contextualized political agendas, programmatic ministerial directives, and funding at the national and local levels, compounded with difficulty in improving the knowledge and capacity of government employees to address GDP issues, act as power obstacles to systematically and strategically protecting the rights and promoting justice and access to services for GDPs in Bangladesh. As a result, according to one informant, a number of the secondary beneficiaries of RGDP feel they are not able to put into action what they have learned through RGDP. This, in turn, may be the reason why the secondary stakeholders interviewed reported doubts regarding the suitability of the benefits. One key informant in Dhaka who participated in several RGDP activities stated, “NLASO is a legal organization, and we are institutionalized as a government entity. We don’t have any mandate to work specifically on GDPs which makes the retention of the knowledge and application of skills difficult.” He also added, “NLASO very often appoints new judiciary staff, and people come and go. Trained people leave, untrained people come. Retention of knowledge and skills among governmental staff is a challenge.” Although the evaluation concludes with mixed results related to the sustainability of RGDP benefits over time, numerous examples of utilization of the knowledge and skills secondary stakeholders gained through RGDP have been identified. These are a testament to the positive impact RGDP has on its beneficiaries (which will be discussed in the next section, Impact). 4.7 EQ4: HOW IMPACTFUL HAS RGDP BEEN IN IMPROVING GDP ACCESS TO JUSTICE AND SERVICES? 4.7.1 Impact of RGDP on GDP lives In addition to tangible RGDP results related to raising awareness and knowledge among primary beneficiaries about their own rights and entitlements, the evaluation found that RGDP had a life￾changing impact and other positive effects on some primary beneficiaries. Across all four divisional cities, the impact most frequently reported by GDP members was gaining self-confidence with their own SOGIE status—and the confidence to speak out about it. For 29 Bandhu. 2019. Political Economy Analysis for Gender Diverse Communities in Bangladesh. May 2019. 30 example, a GDP member interviewed in Cox’s Bazar reported experiencing mental health problems related to her SOGIE status and how she was able to overcome it after participating in RGDP health education sessions. She stated, “I became very frightened as I could not share it [her SOGIE status] with anyone. I became very upset. Then I decided to visit the mental health center and got myself treated, and I discovered the different world.” Another example of RGDP’s impact is the story of a GDP member in Sylhet who, after attending mental health counseling sessions realized that suicide was not the solution to his worries. Inspired by the knowledge gained in the sessions, he decided to start “a new life.” For another GDP member in Sylhet, the ability to see the world around differently translated into “wanting to live.” The interviewee described the impact of RGDP’s mental health counseling sessions saying, “I used to be in deep depression before [RGDP]. I couldn’t speak properly to anyone and I think my situation has improved since then.” Another positive impact primary beneficiaries report is confidence in interacting with the non￾GDP in their vicinity. As a result of several RGDP workshops and trainings, a GDP member in Cox’s Bazar, concerned with how the non-GDP perceive her, reported gaining trust in own ability to interact with the non-GDP in her vicinity. A GDP who attended a RGDP activity in Dhaka also reported gaining self-confidence with own SOGIE-status and ability to interact with others. “I attended a program at the Madrassa. At first, I was very scared of the people around me, especially of the principal [religious leader]. A few moments later [after a RGDP activity], both the students and teachers accepted me. My thoughts about religious leaders and institutions have changed.” Increased confidence to interact with others has also been reported as the ability to communicate with groups or individuals that have been previously seen as adversaries. In a FGD in Dhaka, a hijra guru stated that she and other members of her group who participated in a sensitization workshop conducted for both GDPs and secondary stakeholders, can now “sit together with a religious leader which was a challenge previously.” In Mymensingh, in Setu Bondhon Hijra Kallayan Songho, the ET found an Imam involved with RGDP who teaches the Holy Quran to GDPs. According to a Hijra guru, the possibility of religious education has a meaningful impact for GDPs. As a result, GDP members in Mymensingh expressed an increase in self-confidence and sense of life purpose. This a remarkable achievement considering the historically negative effect of prevalent conservative religious norms and beliefs on the lives of GDPs in Bangladesh. However, despite these anecdotal accounts, the ET was unable to quantify this experience. A very small number of religious leaders participated in RGDP (22) and the ET was only able to interview two for this evaluation. Therefore, it is early to draw general conclusions about positive shifts in attitudes or behaviors among religious leaders. Societally, conservative religious norms have curbed freedom of expression, particularly SOGIE. The ET identified cases where RGDP helped GDP members find the confidence to raise their voices regarding improvement of their rights and dignity in the society. In Sylhet, a transgender member gave an example of discrimination experienced while standing in a female-only line for health services. Describing the negative reaction of non-GDP members, she reported, “People kept ignoring me. They kept opposing me for being a transgender but because of RGDP I [now] tell them that I also have the right to take services like them.” Several other GDP members reported that RGDP gave them the courage to claim rights to land and other resources and opportunities. 31 The evaluation found that RGDP’s positive impact on the lives of primary beneficiaries— particularly the uplifting of confidence—had led them to decide to become agents of change in their localities and surrounding social ecology. While Bangladeshi GDPs are often described as vulnerable, marginalized, and powerless, GDP members can also act in powerful ways to improve their own and others’ safety and rights and access to justice and services, and to be the first responders when crisis strikes and decision-makers in their own communities and Hijra deras. Change within gender diverse communities cannot happen and be successful or sustainable if it does not involve GDP members themselves. Findings indicate that RGDP inspired primary beneficiaries to act and share with other GDP members and the non-GDP knowledge about GDP rights and entitlements and, to a limited extent, share the skills needed to mobilize and ensure an improved environment for GDP. This impact goes beyond RGDP’s original hypothesis and intermediate result, which assumed GDPs will become aware of their rights and raise their own voices to improve the sociocultural and legal environment to access public services. Several in-depth interviews (IDIs) and FGDs with GDP members in Cox’s Bazar, Dhaka, Mymensingh, and Sylhet revealed how RGDP inspired, encouraged, and motivated them to act to sensitize others—both GDPs and the non-GDP—about their rights, and the importance of building and maintaining a healthy, safe, and welcoming environment for GDPs to seek justice and access to services. For example, a transgender female articulated how, through RGDP, she learned and became knowledgeable about the ways to seek legal advice and support in filing human rights abuses cases. This inspired her to sensitize others in her community and help connect them to legal assistance. She stated, “I tell them (other GDP members) to come to me, if they have any major issues, then I take them to the legal authorities who agreed to help us.” This finding is important as sensitization is a prerequisite for attitudinal and behavioral transformation. The evaluation found several examples of actions taken by RGDP primary beneficiaries to share knowledge about GDP rights and entitlements. In Dhaka, a GDP member who shared information about his health and the importance of access to confidential and friendly SRH services for GDP reported, “Now they have accepted me the way I am, and they have realized that this [being a GDP member] is not a disease.” 4.7.2 Impact of non-formal education on the lives of GDP RGDP implemented non-formal educational activity that focused on two areas: functional literacy and continuing education training for GDP members who are illiterate or semi-literate, and SRH education. According to RGDP Annual Reports, a total of 40 GDP members attended non-formal education courses in Dhaka and Mymensingh. This involved 49 sessions completed between June 2019 and March 2020. The 2018–2019 and 2019–2020 Annual Reports provide several results including the ability to write, read, and pronounce Bengali vowels, and the ability to count numbers by looking at pictures. This is a remarkable achievement considering the very low levels of literacy among Bangladeshi GDPs, barriers to access to education for GDPs, and prevailing challenges for GDP members in educational institutions including bullying, discrimination, exclusion, and violence that led to school dropout among GDPs. However, while the desk review produced success stories of improvements in basic literacy and increase in knowledge of SRH, the ET could not find tangible positive impacts of such education on the GDPs’ ability to advocate for their rights and increase their access to justice and other services. KIIs and FGDs with GDP members revealed a very fragmented and incomplete picture regarding the impact of this activity on the lives of GDPs. On the one hand, interviews with GDPs revealed that the basic literacy and SRH education was relevant to the needs of GDPs. In a FGD 32 with primary beneficiaries of RGDP, one GDP participant reported, “[Name] has recently joined the project, she knew nothing about education. Recently, after learning from the RGDP project, she is able to write her name. In the place where [name] used to put her fingerprint as her signature, she is able to write her name now. This is a big achievement.” However, beyond the reported increase in basic literacy, the evaluation did not find evidence that this knowledge helped GDP members increase their own awareness and knowledge about their rights or entitlements or mobilize them to ensure better safety and legal rights. There were no reports that the SRH component of the non-formal education activity has helped increase awareness among GDPs about their health rights or services available to them. Also, secondary stakeholders had a rather divided opinion about the impact of non-formal education activities on the lives of GDP members. In the online survey, only 30.3 percent of respondents reported that training for GDP members, including non-formal education, was relevant to the needs of GDPs in Bangladesh. The evaluation findings suggest several explanations for this. First, while the utmost effort was taken to ensure that the evaluation captured the opinions of primary beneficiaries on a range of RGDP activities, the ET interviewed only three GDP members who participated in the non-formal education activity. They were unable to provide sufficient or relevant in-depth information relating to the impact of non-formal education. To this extent, the 2018–2019 RGDP Annual Report describes several challenges to non-formal education including the high rates of inconsistency in participation among GDPs and limited interest among GDP members to learn in English. Second, GDP members were recruited in Mymensingh and Dhaka for non-formal education; however, the content of each module varied in these locations—from education focused on SRH to numeracy and literacy—and there were problems with the course materials’ relevance. The latter was reported in an interview with the course educator in Mymensingh, who stated that the SRH content not only focused on individuals beyond reproductive health (40-60 years of age) but also excluded materials relevant to non-binary gender identities. As a result, GDP members were less interested, limiting the activity’s impact on participants’ lives. 4.7.3 Impact of RGDP secondary stakeholders Similar to the findings on RGDP effectiveness, the ET found that RGDP had a notable impact on the lives of its secondary beneficiaries. Most frequently reported was that RGDP activities evoked positive personal and attitudinal transformation, particularly among staff members of multilateral organizations and INGOs promoting advocacy and rights in Bangladesh, as well as local CBOs, panel lawyers, physicians, journalists, and students. This included their willingness to address, and consequently break down, the social barriers to discussing SOGIE openly, acknowledging the scale of discrimination, abuse, and violations of GDP rights, and, for GDP members, having the confidence to speak out against social injustice. With involvement in RGDP, secondary stakeholders started to recognize stigma and discrimination in relation to SOGIE as a serious problem—to acknowledge the cultural and religious norms that fuel the problem, the social milieu that propels it, and the legal environment in which it is maintained. This led to positive personal attitudinal transformations. One CBO informant put it this way: “When I started working with the GDPs…I was a little confused about my on sexual orientation. I was afraid that others can perceive me as a GDP member simply by me working with GDPs. Many problems can arise from our society regarding being a GDP member, but I realized I have to walk in the same shoes as GDPs to ensure their rights. I 33 used to think about whether my family will approve that, but after going through the training, and learning about all the issues, I do not have any anxiety anymore.” This positive personal transformation can be partially attributed to the actual RGDP objectives (and activities), but also to the specific actions and approaches taken by the staff of Bandhu, educators, facilitators, and instructors implementing the RGDP activities. They have encouraged change through deliberate efforts to clarify SOGIE concepts and expose beneficiaries to new ideas and practices related to gender identity and human rights for all, as discussed in the trainings, workshops, and meetings. The positive personal transformation can also be attributed to RGDP secondary beneficiaries themselves, who recognized common negative attitudes and practices and harmful social and gender norms prevalent in the Bangladeshi society as problematic and were determined to change them. A lawyer interviewed in Mymensingh reported that through his engagement with RGDP he realized that “GDPs are humans and have equal rights like other non￾GDP members in Bangladeshi society.” After learning about the difficulties of being a GDP member, he independently reflected on his student life when he and others used to tease an effeminate male student at his university, concluding “it was wrong.” In a similar way a physician in Sylhet stated that, after a series of trainings implemented as part of RGDP, he took some time off to reflect on his own beliefs around GDPs. He then concluded that specific attitudes and practices among GDP members including street begging and money collection (chola), or cases of harassment of non-GDP members by GDPs, are a direct result of social exclusion, marginalization, and denial of rights, justice, and services to GDPs in Bangladesh: “our society has pushed them [GDPs] on the edge.” In another KII in Sylhet, a journalist reported that RGDP has helped those working in media to reflect on the way they portray the GDPs in online and print media, and to think about steps they can take to promote sociocultural norms that are supportive of GDPs. A similarly positive RGDP impact was observed among students interviewed in Dhaka, and, to some extent, in Mymensingh, who either received a fellowship, attended sensitization or awareness raising workshops or trainings, or have been mobilized to action30 with the intention to reduce discrimination and stigma against the GDPs, or promote GDP rights. This is meaningful as RGDP considered this type of secondary stakeholder particularly important—“students are the future stakeholders who can support GDPs in positive manners if they are sensitized.”31 Reflecting the opinion of his classmates, a young student interviewed in Dhaka talked about a journey of transformation saying: “…before attending the program, we always had a negative vibe whenever we thought about GDP. To us, they were ‘bad’ human beings with ‘bad’ temper, who lead immoral life. We thought that they always do ‘bad’ things. But because of this program, our thoughts have been changed. We have accepted GDPs just like others and we agree that they also deserve to life a normal life.” As new knowledge and skills were provided, and new ideas and social and gender norms were proposed and discussed as part of RGDP implementation, secondary stakeholders also gained the confidence to speak out against harassment, stigma, and discrimination of GDPs. Results of the online survey attest to this. In the online survey, nine in 10 respondents agreed (58.7 percent) or 30 For example, to write documents, articles, papers, short stories about the GDP. 31 2018 RGDP Activity Workplan. 34 strongly agreed (32.1 percent) that RGDP enhanced the capacity of relevant stakeholders to advocate and reduce harassment, stigma, and discrimination of GDPs.32 Furthermore, over three-quarters of respondents (76.8 percent) felt that RGDP was very effective (33.7 percent) or fairly effective (43.2 percent) in doing so (see Figure 8). Figure 8: “I believe RGDP was effective in enhancing the capacity of relevant stakeholders to advocate and reduce harassment, stigma, and discrimination of GDPs.” 32.1% 58.7% 1.8% 0.9% 6.4% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree I do not know / not sure Percent Survey respondents reported meetings, presentations, conferences, panels, roundtables, and/or workshops and specialized training or capacity building conducted with secondary stakeholders as the two types of the RGDP activities that were the most effective in enhancing their capacity to advocate and reduce harassment, stigma, and discrimination of GDPs in Bangladesh. The ET’s qualitative interviews also collected compelling examples of how to develop the confidence to speak out and reduce SOGIE-based violence, leading to tangible actions to ensure the wellbeing of GDPs. These include, for example, a promise made by the principal of a Dhaka medical college to start a GDP-specific ward and a paralegal in Sylhet taking steps to help two GDP members secure employment in local hotel. Similar examples have been reported in other KIIs with paralegals, front line volunteers, community watchdogs, young physicians, students in Mymensingh and Sylhet, and a DLAC representative in Sylhet. Aggregated, these KIIs show how confidence gained through RGDP inspired, encouraged, motivated, and mobilized secondary stakeholders to ensure justice and rights for GDPs. 5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS RGDP should consider the following actions to address the findings and conclusions in this report: 1. Include specialized educational or vocational trainings for GDPs to build the skills required for employment in a skilled craft or trade. 2. Include focus on engagement with family members of GDPs to ensure their support for protection of GDP rights and promotion of justice and access to services for GDPs. This could be done by providing basic information, e.g., how family rejection behaviors affect GDP children, to help families support children who identify themselves as GDP. 32 In the online survey, two out of 109 survey respondents disagreed and only one respondent strongly disagreed that RGDP was effective in enhancing the capacity of relevant stakeholders to advocate and reduce harassment, stigma, and discrimination of GDP. 35 3. Invest in more strategic and systematic efforts to frequently, and in a coordinated way, engage with a broad range of private sector employers/industries across a number of geographic locations. To this end, the organization of frequent offline and online fora to connect, network, and link GDPs with potential employers is essential. 4. Address the needs of the Rohingya and the host community using a more holistic, comprehensive, and coordinated approach. The scope of RGDP’s next phase should focus on addressing, in close coordination and partnership with United Nations (UN) agencies, not only the mental health needs, but also their socioeconomic, legal, and educational needs. This should include collaborative efforts with UN agencies and other relevant stakeholders to create a supportive environment by addressing pervasive stigma and discrimination against GDPs based on stereotypes, misinformation, and misperceptions. 5. Contextualize and tailor all components to GDPs’ specific realities, needs, and vulnerabilities, as well as their strengths and competencies. This includes: 1) developing clear recruitment criteria for primary beneficiaries to participate in RGDP activities and establishing a comprehensive monitoring mechanism to measure the impacts on GDP lives; and 2) aligning the language of RGDP implementation and the educational materials provided with beneficiaries’ language of communication (e.g., Ruáingga, Bangla). 6. Ensure activities include specific inputs and outputs related to changes in the experiences of primary beneficiaries when seeking justice and accessing services. This will require a systematic measurement of all beneficiaries’ attitudinal and behavioral changes. 7. Develop and include mechanisms to track or measure the desired impact of the PSAs broadcasted by local radio stations. Developing efficient procedures and a mechanism to track or measure PSA effectiveness would be useful tools, not only for ensuring their relevance and effectiveness but also in designing further GBV programming, in particular awareness-raising events and political and social issue advocacy efforts that utilize persuasive messages aimed to promote rights, justice, and access to services for GDPs in Bangladesh. 8. Base future GDP programming on a sound technical approach that ensures activities are implemented regularly and on a continuous basis, and that each activity has follow-up, e.g., sensitization/orientation sessions. 9. Promote positive messages about GDPs to help shift perceptions and social norms, This will require not only planning but ongoing evaluation. A first step for the next phase of RGDP would be to differentiate between the reach and impact of public awareness messages provided by local radio stations. RGDP should also include indicators assessing the impact of the RGDP’s PSAs on listener attitudes and behaviors. Public awareness indicators can be measured by means of a public opinion survey, through face-to-face interviews among a representative sample of the targeted audience, or by deriving ratios of listeners exposed to PSAs to those who engaged in some form of measurable action during or after exposure. USAID should work with an independent, third-party research institution to develop an impact framework and questions. 10. Invest in the online space to provide a mechanism for RGDP to increase knowledge and understanding about GDPs and enhance the capacity of secondary stakeholders to protect GDP rights, promote justice, and enhance access to services. The virtual world is becoming 36 increasingly vital to GDPs in Bangladesh as a space where GDP members can explore their own identities, feel part of something larger, communicate and network with one another, and seek or provide help, guidance, and education—especially during the COVID-19 pandemic. The online environment can also serve as a space to initiate, reinforce, and sustain social and political change in Bangladesh. 11. Continue to support the cadre of professionals created who are willing and able to protect GDP rights and promote justice and access to services for GDPs. RGDP’s next phase should regularly bring together sensitized and trained professionals and experts (relevant active stakeholders). This could be done through country-level meetings (annual or biannual) and additional capacity building seminars, trainings, and workshops with the objective of further nurturing stakeholders’ capacities and creating additional/new mentoring opportunities. Building on RGDP’s successes while accounting for remaining sociocultural, political, and legal challenges, USAID should: 12. Include strategic advocacy around development, implementation, and/or adaptation of favorable laws and policies that protect GDPs from violence and discrimination and promote their inclusion in all aspects of human development, e.g., the decriminalization of male same-sex sexual acts under Section 377 of the Penal Code. 13. Adopt a more strategic and systematic approach to advocacy, beyond individual consultations or one-off meetings, to ensure lasting, effective working partnerships with the GOB. Such an approach will help influence decision-makers and decision-making processes at the local, divisional, and national levels. 14. Increase the current collaborative efforts with international or regional actors and mechanisms to increase influence on national institutions for effective advocacy in the restrictive political environment in Bangladesh. Future programming should better identify and more strategically engage with allies, e.g., the UN system, international development agencies, and other donors operating in Bangladesh, as well as diplomats and foreign embassies, to effectively bring the GDP agenda forward. 15. Based on USAID’s long tradition of and experience in supporting efforts to advance human rights advocacy for GDPs in Bangladesh, continue provision of technical and financial support to RGDP’s IP. With attention to the recommended improvements, RGDP should be considered a logical choice in the agency’s next efforts to provide awareness building, legal services, and community education to promote and protect the basic human rights of GDPs in Bangladesh. 37 ANNEXES 38 ANNEX 1: SCOPE OF WORK USAID/Bangladesh Tasking Request: Democracy, Human Rights and Governance (DRG) Office Date of Request: October 19, 2020 Type of Task: Final performance evaluation for “USAID's Rights for Gender Diverse Populations (RGDP)” activity. Implementer: Bandhu Social Welfare Society (Bangladeshi NGO) Duration: June 15, 2018 - June 14, 2021 (three-year activity) TEA: $849,535 Geographic Coverage and partners: Bandhu Social Welfare Society’s coverage is national; they operate in all eight divisions. The organization assists and works in cooperation with nine community-based organizations (CBOs) and a large number of stakeholders. Description of Activity: (Guidance – please provide a short summary of the activity that will receive service/s; it should contain at minimum the objectives of the activity, anticipated results (or results if available) major challenges to implementation, and major successes); (Guidance – if this an assessment or special study, please provide topic, necessary explanation, and rationale for undertaking) The Rights for Gender Diverse Populations (RGDP) Activity is a three-year, $850k Fixed Amount Award – Milestone based activity implemented by Bandhu Social Welfare Society (BSWS). The RGDP activity aims to advance human-rights advocacy for gender diverse populations (GDPs) by strengthening the capacity of civil-society organizations and sensitizing policy makers and religious leaders about the human rights and needs of this underrepresented minority group. The activity increases awareness and knowledge among the GDP about their rights; improves access to different public services and legal aids for GDPs through sensitizing service providers and community members; and strengthens the capacity of different stakeholders to advocate and reduce human rights violations against GDPs. According to Bangladesh law, same-sex activity is illegal and punishable. Working with LGBTI issues in Bangladesh is risky and very sensitive both culturally and religiously. At present there is no legislation in Bangladesh to recognize the rights of gender diverse populations or address issues of harassment against them. Traditionally, Hijra or transgender populations are visible and somewhat accepted in the society. However, they are usually an extremely marginalized population, with no access to decent work and income, social or legal protection and education. BSWS is the only registered local NGO in Bangladesh working on GDP and LGBTI issues. One of their key advocacy efforts has been the government passage of an anti-discrimination law that would criminalize violence against gender-diverse communities on the basis of gender. Activity Goal: The goal of the activity is to promote justice for gender diverse and sexual minority populations in Bangladesh. Bandhu has been working in seven thematic areas: • Sexual and reproductive health and rights of GDPs. • Advocacy for improved rights, policies and services. • Basic education—formal and non-formal education. • Skills development and livelihoods training and jobs. 39 • Gender-based violence and mental health counseling. • Community Systems Strengthening. • Safety and Security of GDPs. Four key RGDP objectives are: • Objective 1: To increase awareness and knowledge among gender and sexual minority communities about their human rights, self-responsibilities and duties. • Objective 2: To improve the sociocultural and legal environment for gender diverse populations to access public services through sensitizing policy makers and stakeholders. • Objective 3: To enhance the capacity of relevant stakeholders to reduce harassment, stigma, discrimination and human rights violations in relation to sexual orientation and gender identity. • Objective 4: To mobilize the gender diverse community and relevant stakeholders to ensure safety and legal rights. Issue: The development problem is that the government only officially recognizes the “hijra” or transgender community but does not recognize other gender diverse population (GDP) groups, who suffer from human rights abuses and access to justice. Many do not have access to public services and have been excluded from their families, having to join hijra communities led by hijra gurus. Many hijras do not have access to jobs and resort to begging to survive. Public events: BSWS holds public events to advocate on behalf of GDPs. They organize public events in cooperation with the National Human Rights Commission and other stakeholders, e.g., the U.S. Ambassador attended the Human Rights Day event and Deputy Chief of Mission attended the International Day against Homophobia, Transphobia and Biphobia (IDAHOT) event. The proposed final performance evaluation will: assess RGDP’s programmatic relevance in assisting GDPs; the implementers’ performance in achieving targeted results; determine if the program is on course to meet set objectives; assess program approach and management effectiveness; opportunities/challenges in working with the Government of Bangladesh and other key stakeholders (i.e., lawyers, medical professionals, police, universities, religious leaders, and the private sector); and provide recommendations to USAID/Bangladesh for future GDP programming. Research Question: (Guidance – If an evaluation, please provide at least 3 research questions the evaluation team will consider) Proposed main evaluation questions are: • To what extent has the RGDP activity achieved the activity’s stated objectives? • What were the major challenges or obstacles in achieving the objectives of the activity? • How effective is the RGDP activity in strengthening the capacity of gender diverse populations? • Have the Hijra been able to have better access to government services as a result of the activity? • How effective has BSWS been in conducting outreach to GDP Rohingya in Cox’s Bazar? • How effective has the RGDP activity been increasing awareness and understanding of the key stakeholders about GDP rights and in advocating on their behalf? Sub-questions: 40 • How effective is the RGDP activity programming in improving sociocultural and legal environment for gender diverse communities by working with law enforcement agencies, policy makers, service providers, religious leaders, community members and private sector companies? • How effective has BSWS been at coordinating their work with the nine CBOs they partner with? • To what extent has the RGDP activity been successful in strengthening capacity of human rights defenders to reduce harassment, stigma, discrimination and human rights violations against GDPs? • To what extent has the RGDP activity been successful in providing access to justice and legal aid support to GDPs? • To what extent has the RGDP activity been successful in networking with GOB and other stakeholders to advance government support for GDPs? • Is the current RGDP activity’s technical approach and/or interventions the most effective way to manage and achieve project objectives? • To what extent has the RGDP activity achieved sustainability, that is, to what extent have they improved the capacity of GDPs and CBOs? • How effective is BSWS’s MEL system in reporting RGDP activity results? Geographic Coverage (Guidance – If this is third-party monitoring, please provide locations of sites to be visited) The evaluation should cover implementation sites in at least three or possibly four divisions, including Dhaka, Chattogram/Cox’s Bazar, Mymensingh and Sylhet. Dates of performance and timeline: (Guidance – Please provide an anticipated start date and or completion date. Please note that, depending on the complexity of the requested services, the period of performance, from initiation to completion, can be significant) The period of performance for the evaluation is roughly 10 weeks, based on a five-day work week, from on or about January 2021 to on or about March 2021. This period includes the desk review (i.e., Program Description with Milestones, Three Year Workplan, MEL plan, Annual reports, Quarterly Reports, Success stories, other reports and deliverables), field work and meetings with beneficiaries and key stakeholders, in and out-briefing with USAID, focus group discussion with beneficiaries, report writing and submission of a draft and final report. Team Composition/Qualifications of Consultants The Evaluation Team will be comprised of three key personnel: a team leader (US/TCN Evaluation Specialist), and two team members (Local Sectoral Specialists). One or two evaluation assistants/translators/note takers can be included in the team. Qualifications: 1. Team Leader: An international Senior Evaluation Specialist with Ph. D. or equivalent degree and experience in evaluating human rights and gender programs and research and understanding of closing space of marginalized communities in developing countries. The Team Leader will direct the team, finalize evaluation design; coordinate activities/meetings; lead focus group discussions (FGDs) and key informant interviews (KIIs); consolidate individual input from team members; analyze findings and draft the evaluation report; 41 coordinate the process of assembling the final findings, recommendations and final report. S/he also will lead preparation and presentation of key evaluation findings and recommendations to USAID/Bangladesh. The evaluation team leader is required to have experience working with LGBTI communities, a deep understanding of issues related to gender and sexually diverse populations, and a good knowledge of the human rights sector. At least ten (10) years of experience in conducting evaluation and evaluation management is required. Experience in conducting assessments on human rights/LGBTI/gender issues at international level or in developing countries is required. Ability to produce a high-quality evaluation report in English is essential. 2. Two National Team Members: Senior or mid-level evaluation specialists should have at least seven years of experience in designing and conducting field-based evaluations and assessments for capacity building and advocacy programs related to gender diverse populations (LGBTI) and human rights. The team members will assist the team lead to manage focus group discussions, interviews, develop data collection tools and analysis. Relevant experience in Bangladesh is preferred. Must have excellent oral and written communication skills both in Bangla and in English. Overall, the team will need expertise in USAID practices and experience in program evaluation; program design and analysis; quantitative and qualitative data collection and analysis; survey design and analysis; and DRG gender program issues. In addition, the two national team members need to be culturally sensitive and understand the risks of assisting GDPs in the country where only transgender and hijra rights have been recognized. Deliverables: (Guidance – In a bullet format, please provide a list of anticipated deliverables (e.g. Design proposal; Draft questionnaires, protocols and other data collection instruments; Updated SOW, if applicable; Draft Report; Mission Presentation; Final Report in electronic version that incorporates comments, statements of difference (if applicable) and appendices; Data sets; etc.) • Desk review • Evaluation Team planning meetings • Evaluation design and work plan • Evaluation design matrix and data collection instrument • In-brief meeting with USAID • Mid-term briefing and interim meetings with USAID (as required) • Debriefing with USAID • Debriefing with partners • Draft the evaluation report • Final Report (due within two weeks after USAID provides comments on the draft report; total length, excluding references and annexes, should not exceed 30 pages.) Important Note: It is important for the contractor to be very careful and sensitive when recruiting a local evaluation team. Working on LGBTI issues in Bangladesh is risky and BMEL will have to recruit a team that has worked with LGBTI and has a good understanding of the overall environment, its sensitivities and risks for the community. The team will also need to be careful in using key terms, publicly avoiding use of LGBTI and instead using “gender diverse population.” We want to ensure the “do no harm” policy is maintained with the beneficiary community members, partner stakeholders and the evaluation team. 42 ANNEX 2: REFERENCE TABLES Table A2-1: Key Evaluation Questions EQ# Evaluation Criteria Key EQs Linkage to Objective# Area of Inquiry (Evaluation Sub-Questions)33 1. Relevance • How relevant has the RGDP been in promoting justice and services for GDPs in Bangladesh? #1-4 • To what extent has RGDP been effective in partnering with the Government of Bangladesh (GOB) and other stakeholders to improve advocacy and government support for GDPs? • What were the enablers/barriers to such partnerships? • How relevant was the training of front line local human rights defenders and watchdogs in providing legal information and mediation, documenting and investigating human rights violations, and making referrals? • How relevant was the awareness raising for GDP human rights, self-responsibilities, and duties? • How relevant was the provision of physical and mental health assistance/coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID￾19) counseling to GDPs in Cox’s Bazar? • How relevant was the digital security training to promoting justice and services for GDPs in Bangladesh? 2. Effectiveness • How effective has RGDP been in increasing awareness, knowledge, and capacity to promote justice for GDPs in Bangladesh? #1; #3 • How effective was the awareness raising for GDP human rights, self-responsibilities, and duties? • To what extent has RGDP increased awareness and understanding of the key stakeholders about GDP rights and advocacy on their behalf? • To what extent has RGDP been effective in strengthening the capacity of stakeholders to advocate and reduce harassment, stigma, discrimination, and human rights violations against GDPs? • To what extent has RGDP improved the understanding among of stakeholders about GDPs? • To what extent has RGDP been effective in providing legal advice and services to GDPs? • How effective have the panel of lawyers been in providing legal advice and services to GDPs at 10 legal clinics across the country? • To what extent have the public radio service announcements been effective in increasing awareness of GDP rights and the legal services available to them? • How effective has the training of front line local human rights defenders and watchdogs been in assisting GDPs to learn about and assert their rights? • What were the enablers/barriers to increasing awareness, knowledge, and capacity to promote justice for GDPs in Bangladesh? 3. Sustainability • How sustainable #1-4 • To what extent has RGDP been sustainable? 33 This set of questions is illustrative and does not represent all of the sub-questions to be utilized for each type of stakeholder targeted through this evaluation. Please see the data collection tools for the respective sets of sub￾questions. 43 EQ# Evaluation Criteria Key EQs Linkage to Objective# Area of Inquiry (Evaluation Sub-Questions)33 are the benefits of RGDP? • How effective has RGDP been in ensuring that the increased awareness, knowledge, and capacity to promote justice and improve services for GDPs in Bangladesh will be sustained? • Is the current RGDP technical approach (thematic areas) the most appropriate for sustainability? • How effective has RGDP been in ensuring that the employment opportunities provided to GDPs will be sustained? 4. Impact • How impactful has RGDP been in improving GDPs’ access to justice and services? #1-4 • To what extent have the sensitization activities of policymakers and stakeholders improved the sociocultural and legal environment for GDPs to access public services including justice, health, and/or employment? • How effective has Bandhu been at coordinating their work with the nine CBOs they partner with and in improving their capacity? • What is the impact of and how effective has RGDP been in assisting the Rohingya GDP in Cox’s Bazar in accessing physical and mental health/COVID-19 counseling? • How effective has RGDP been in providing mental health assistance (e.g., including Rohingya and other GDPs)? • What positive or negative unintended consequences have been created by RGDP? • How effective was RGDP in improving advocacy by the key stakeholders? Table A2-2: Primary and Secondary Stakeholders Type Description Primary Stakeholders GDPs 34 • MSM • Hijra • Lesbian women • Gay men • Bisexual men and women • Transgender males and females Secondary Stakeholders Civil Society • Multilaterals/international non-governmental organizations (INGOs) • Civil society (9 CBOs, Front line Volunteers, Community Watchdogs) • Other (Dhaka-Parents, Cox's Bazar-Partners) • Religious and faith leaders • Employment sector (private sector employers, employees) 34 The evaluation will refer to all sub-categories of the LGBTI spectrum as GDPs. This is based on the overall RGDP Activity approach, which did not disaggregate the primary beneficiary group based on SOGIE-status. Furthermore, the ET purposely avoid the use of the acronym “LGBTI” and instead use “GDP.” This choice is driven by the social stigmatization, and in some cases, opposition and negative attitudes towards the use of the term LGBTI, which might have led to respondents’ unwillingness to take part in the evaluation. 44 Type Description Government Stakeholders35 • National Human Rights Commission • Ministry of Education • Ministry of Law, Justice, and Parliamentary Affairs • Ministry of Home Affairs Service Providers • Justice sector (legal services) • Media, journalism • Health sector (medical services) • Education sector (students, teachers) Donor and Implementing Partner (IP) • USAID • Bandhu Table A2-3: External and Internal Barriers to RGDP Being Relevant Barriers External Factors The violent and oppressive sociocultural environment is not conducive to the protection of GDP rights and promotion of justice and access to services for GDPs. • Lack of or limited understanding of the concepts of SOGIE as well as growing, and often widely tolerated, discrimination, abuse, and violence towards those who identified themselves as or are perceived as LGBTI resulted in some KIIs considering RGDP as not relevant. • Growing radicalization, institutionalized discrimination, and growing state constrains on civil society are reversing the progress Bangladesh made in the field of human rights since 2009 and have also impacted the way some secondary stakeholders have participated in the GDP-focused RGDP Activity. • Pressure on GDPs to conform to heterosexual norms and “traditional” heteronormative practices, concerns related to social sanctions, and fear of family repercussions related to openly being a GDP member combined with restrictive social norms have led several GDP members to consider RGDP as not relevant. Unfavorable legal framework and a lack of laws and policies that protect and promote GDP rights, justice and access to services • Male same-sex sexual acts are criminalized in Bangladesh under Section 377 of the Penal Code and punishable by life imprisonment. Members of the LGBTI groups opined that police applied the law as a con to harass LGBTI individuals, it was also reported that members of LGBTI communities received threatening messages via telephone, text, and social media; some were harassed by police. LGBTI groups have been facing official discrimination in employment and occupation, housing, and access to government services. • The transgender community represented by Hijras is legally recognized but is subject to societal discrimination. They have also been facing momentous challenges in accessing justice as they are harassed by the police; some hijras also claimed they were raped by the police, who utilized the Section 377 of the Penal Code “as a tool for extortion.”36 Selected attitudes and practices of the GDPs themselves • Reported lack of interest among GDPs in alternative income generation methods. • Limited education and literacy skills resulted in GDP members being unable to understand and claim their rights and entitlements. This has left some service providers unable to provide relevant services to GDP or promote equitable access to services for GDPs. • GDPs are not very receptive to any new thing which does not go with their culture. 35 Not all ministries/departments listed were direct beneficiaries of RGDP; however, they may be in a position to provide information about their awareness, knowledge, or capacity to promote justice and services for GDPs in Bangladesh. 36 Global Human Rights Defence, “The Invisible Minority: The Situation of LGBT Community in Bangladesh,” (pp. 20-21), June 17, 2015. Available at: http://www.ghrd.org/fileadmin/user_upload/LGBT_Report.pdf 45 Barriers • GDP members are reluctant to seek services and ensure own rights and entitlements. This was self-reported by GDP members who identified their fears of coming out or being recognized or identified as GDP members, and the likelihood of family￾based repercussions and social sanctions including discrimination, abuse, and violence. Project-Related Factors Occasional misalignment of the beneficiaries’ language of communication (e.g., Ruáingga, Bangla) with the language of implementation and the educational materials provided (English) • In several interviews, GDP members reported language barriers. In some instances, the language of implementation of activities did not match the language of communication among participants (Ruáingga, Bangla), and has precluded some GDP members from participation. This has led to some negative experiences among GDPs. One FGD participant in Mymensingh reported: “It was very humiliating for me to attend that course. I do not know English and I was feeling extremely sad and awkward in that training.” Lack of primary beneficiaries’ clear recruitment criteria for the majority of RGDP activities • Importantly, in KIIs with multilateral organizations and a few secondary stakeholders, key informants suggested that literate and better educated members of GDPs are often disinterested in attending development activities focused on marginalized and vulnerable populations. As such, projects like RGDP are forced to recruit the same GDP members or work with a specific subset of this population, Moreover, those GDP members who work as sex workers are also not eager to attend trainings that focus on informal education, e.g., garment factory work. In addition, their lifestyle requires evening/night work, which precludes them from attending activities during the day. The ET encountered several instances in which FGDs or in-depth interviews (IDIs) with some GDP members could not be held until late evening hours. Furthermore, GDP members who are in school, e.g., a GDP nursing student interviewed in Sylhet, are also sometimes unable to attend trainings during the day. One-off character of activities and no activity follow ups • Many of RGDP’s activities with primary and secondary stakeholders were implemented as one-off activities. In addition, RDGP’s extensive geographical coverage resulted in no follow ups; this has left beneficiaries unable to further strengthen and cement their knowledge and skills and/or put what they have learned into practice. Table A2-4: Examples of Utilization of the Knowledge and Skills Gained Through RGDP by Secondary Stakeholders Type of Secondary Stakeholders Extent of Influence Front line volunteers and community watchdogs ● During the COVID-19 pandemic outbreak, individuals collected food and support for GDPs. ● Individuals took personal initiative to provide relief to GDPs. This was because their capacity was built and awareness and understanding of the needs and vulnerabilities of GDPs was raised. ● “I can tell that our front line volunteers and community watchdogs, members of CBOs, and other clusters like journalists, lawyers and students who received fellowship, they already work to create and maintain conducive environment to promote justice and access to services for GDP…they will work together in the future” – Key Informant, Dhaka Students ● Dhaka University students organized awareness raising sessions and celebratory events focused on the rights of GDP. The idea was to sensitize others. ● Students at BRAC University requested additional sensitization and knowledge sharing sessions. 46 Type of Secondary Stakeholders Extent of Influence ● “Our knowledge will sustain. Bandhu said that they will involve us in different works about GDP. They also said that they will create network among all fellowship winners so in future we can work more as a team” – Student, BRAC University Religious leaders ● After the training, a religious leader invited RGDP to provide additional sensitization and awareness raising training in his madras. ● Additional sensitization and awareness raising session was organized with over 100 students in one madras. ● There was interest among religious leaders to facilitate own trainings in their own communities during Ramadan. ● “In my case, knowledge and motivation will not be erased because I attended the workshop” – Religious Leader 47 ANNEX 3: BARRIERS TO RGDP BEING RELEVANT While the evaluation findings show positive results related to RGDP being relevant to GDP social, legal, and health needs, increasing knowledge and understanding about GDPs, and enhancing the capacity of secondary stakeholders to protect GDP rights and promote justice and access to services for GDPs in Bangladesh, the evaluation also identified several barriers to relevance. External Factors A total of 20 KIIs with primary and secondary stakeholders revealed two specific external obstacles to RGDP effectively increasing knowledge and understanding about GDPs and enhancing the capacity of secondary stakeholders to protect GDP rights and promote justice and access to services for GDPs. It is important to note that these external obstacles do not suggest RDGP underperformance, inappropriateness, or lack of applicability to the lived reality and needs of primary or secondary stakeholders. Rather, they are the reasons why some primary or secondary stakeholders may have perceived RGDP as less relevant to their ability to protect GDP rights and promote justice and access to services for GDPs. These two factors obstructed not only the extent to which RGDP was perceived as relevant, but also the extent to which RGDP was reported to be effective, sustainable, and impactful. • The existing violent and oppressive sociocultural and political climate in Bangladesh that creates, reinforces, and sustains an environment that is not conducive to the protection of GDP rights, and promotion of justice and access to services for GDPs. Fear of widespread discrimination and violence makes GDPs both hesitant and reluctant to seek legal services. • The unfavorable legal framework and lack of laws and policies that protect and promote GDP rights, and ensure actual justice and access to services for GDPs. This was documented in KIIs with primary and secondary stakeholders in all four divisional cities who extensively referred to the criminalization of male same-sex sexual acts under Section 377 of the Penal Code. In one FGD with members of the GDP in Mymensingh, a hijra respondent, referring to the GOB’s recognition of the Hijra in Bangladesh as a separate gender, stated, “still, I don’t have a national ID card as third gender. When going to a hospital for service, I still become discriminated (against) when I stand in the female-only line. Sometimes I don’t know where I should stand—in the line for men or for women. They don’t have any separate line for us; it is not a law.” Interestingly, several key informants interviewed—in particular, service providers including lawyers and paralegals in Dhaka and Mymensingh, doctors and young physicians in all districts examined, and several other stakeholders in Dhaka—suggested that the attitudes, practices, and specific behaviors of GDPs were an obstacle to RGDP’s relevance. For example, in Sylhet, a key informant stated that the lack of interest among GDPs to leave the culture of cash collection and sex work made some activities of RGDP (e.g., non-formal education or job fairs) seem less attractive and, as such, less relevant, to GDPs themselves. It is important to note that this is also related to the overall low education background of primary beneficiaries, as well as some hijra gurus being against employment and more in favor of begging. A paralegal interviewed in Sylhet stated, “members of GDPs are not really receptive to any new things which do not go with their culture.” In Mymensingh, a panel lawyer reported that it is hard for him to provide legal services, particularly regarding property inheritance, as GDPs seek service as a way of revenge on family members they are in conflict with. In several other interviews in Dhaka and Sylhet, limited educational background and low levels of literacy among the GDP, predominantly the inability to 48 understand and make sense of the concept of legal rights and entitlements, were perceived as obstacles that prevented some secondary stakeholders from providing relevant services to GDPs. A lawyer in the legal clinic at the drop-in-center (DIC) in Sylhet reported, “GDP illiteracy and lack of education is one of the barriers for them to access legal services and for us to work properly on legal cases. It is very hard for us to have them understand their rights and what they need to do to claim their entitlements.” It is important to remember, however, that some, if not all, GDP attitudes and behaviors are shaped, reinforced, driven, and sustained by the underlying sociopolitical, socioeconomic, cultural, and religious norms and factors in Bangladesh. Members of GDPs frequently reported a reluctance to claim their own rights and entitlements and to seek services due to a fear of “coming out,” being recognized or identified as a GDP member, and the high likelihood of family-based repercussions and social sanctions including exclusion, discrimination, abuse, and violence. At the same time, this does not mean that GDP members are helpless victims, without voice or agency. GDP members regularly navigate the complexities of their world and the power imbalances that shape it. It is important not to consider GDPs as powerless or victims and not to portray them in this way to the Bangladesh non-GDP. Project-Related Factors The evaluation uncovered several gaps and specific flaws in the design and shortcomings in the implementation of RGDP that limited the activity’s relevance for improving the knowledge and understanding about the GDP and enhancing the capacity of secondary stakeholders to protect GDP rights and promote justice and access to services for GDPs. The specific barriers37 include: • GDP members and secondary stakeholders in Cox’s Bazar, Mymensingh, and Sylhet reported that several of the health education sessions and learning materials were delivered in English (or Bangla only, as opposed to Ruáingga or other languages spoken in the camps), precluding a number of GDP members from meaningful participation. In some instances, this led to GDP members being unable to access health care services, including mental health counseling and COVID-19-related care. • KIIs and FGDs with members of the GDP in Cox’s Bazar, Dhaka, and Sylhet also revealed flaws in the participant recruitment strategy. In several KIIs with GDPs, it was reported that RDGP recruited predominantly older, literate, and educated primary beneficiaries.38 This is important for two reasons. First, having clear recruitment criteria (i.e., illiterate or educated, ability to speak Bangla or Bangla and English, history of previous engagement with Bandhu-implemented activities) is an important part of the implementation process itself. It would have helped to ensure that the primary beneficiaries received the most relevant knowledge and skills that would make the most positive contribution to their lives. In some cases, the recruitment approach resulted in delivery of SRH sessions to individuals beyond reproductive health (i.e., 50 and 60 years of age). Second, clear recruitment criteria would have reduced the risk of unintentional exclusion of some GDPs, particularly in Cox’s Bazar, leading to RGDP being seen as irrelevant. Through the desk review, the ET was unable to identify recruitment criteria 37 The first two barriers relate to the way some RGDP activities were implemented, while the third is linked with the RGDP’s design. 38 This does not include informal education activity, which was focused on illiterate GDPs. 49 regarding primary beneficiaries, nor has the team identified any strategy that would ensure targeted participation of GDPs. • The one-off character of many RGDP activities in all four divisional cities, short implementation time, and lack of follow up to trainings and workshops resulted in some stakeholders perceiving RGDP as partially relevant or not relevant at all. This was evident in KIIs with several secondary stakeholders, in particular a law enforcement officer a religious leader in Sylhet, and a university teacher in Dhaka who stated, “the duration of the workshop was too short,” “half a day seminar is not enough,” and “the work of the RGDP project is relevant for all who attended the workshop but I think one workshop is not enough to make a change and to ensure stakeholders are aware of and are able to work for GDPs,” respectively. A key informant interviewed in Dhaka articulated these concerns, “…providing relevant stakeholders with knowledge and understanding of GDPs and enhancing their capacity to protect GDP rights and promote justice and access to services for GDPs requires lots of time, effort, human and financial resources. One organization, one project, one activity is not going to make a difference. You need to create champions of change and that requires continuous effort. That was missing from the RGDP project.” The same respondent added, however, “there is still a long way to go, but it was relevant.” Enablers and barriers to the effectiveness of RGDP The evaluation identified several external barriers that have a specific negative effect on RGDP’s effectiveness. These include: 1) hostile sociocultural environment, 2) unfavorable legal framework, and lack of laws, and policies that protect GDP rights and promote justice and access to services for GDPs; and 3) certain characteristic of GDP and their attitudes and behaviors including low levels of education and literacy among GDPs., and lack of will to seek health services or legal assistance. The latter have led to some secondary stakeholders being unable to protect GDP rights and promote justice and access to services for GDPs. This was illustrated during an interview by a DLAC representative in Sylhet, “GDP are scared to share their legal cases with head office, they do not like to file a legal case.” Further, during a KII, a community watchdog in Mymensingh reported, “Many cases like this [criminal] we cannot solve or take action on because our GDP community members do not want to go to the lawyer or to the police. They are scared to reveal who they are.” The evaluation also found three project-related shortcomings and design flaws which negatively impacted RGDP’s overall effectiveness. Stakeholders also identified two of these factors—the one-off character of activities (and lack of activity follow up) and the lack of primary beneficiaries clear recruitment criteria for the majority of RGDP activities—as barriers to RGDP being fully effective. While work with families of primary beneficiaries was not part of RGDP design and implementation, the lack of such activity was identified as a barrier to RGDP effectiveness (and is reported as a challenge to the sustainability of benefits of RGDP, as described in the Sustainability section of this report). Experiences of social exclusion, discrimination, abuse, and violence often begin within the family itself; and family members can be a powerful support system in understanding and claiming one’s rights and entitlements. In a KII, one GDP member in Sylhet attested, “the biggest discrimination we face is in our families, and families are the barrier from the very beginning of our life. They force us to leave, they exclude us from our properties,” The need to engage with family members of primary beneficiaries was reported in more than 20 50 interviews with key informants with both GDPs and secondary stakeholders; this need can be summarized by a physician interviewed by the ET in Sylhet: “we basically need to focus on [the] GDP’s families, and need to enhance their capacity and change their mindset.” Key informants also emphasized the role of family members in GDPs’ resilience. 51 ANNEX 4: DATA COLLECTION TOOLS (KII AND FGD GUIDES AND SURVEY) KIIs and FGDs – Primary Stakeholders Question Relevance EQ 1: How relevant has the RGDP’s been in promoting justice and services for GDPs in Bangladesh? I would like to discuss how relevant has the RGDP project been in promoting justice and services for GDPs in Bangladesh. Particularly in (1) Raising awareness of the governments and service providers about GDPs living in Bangladesh; (2) Improving the sociocultural and legal environment for GDPs, and (3) Making public services more accessible to GDPs through sensitizing service providers, policy makers and other stakeholders. 1.1 How relevant was the RGDP to meeting your needs? • How about the needs related to accessing justice? • How about the legal, health, education, employment needs (e.g. be able to access legal advice)? 1.2 What has changed (or not) as a result of meeting (or not) these needs? • Can you provide concrete examples of these? 1.3 How relevant was the provision of physical and mental health assistance/COVID-19 counseling to you? 1.4 What were some of the enablers/barriers to meetings your needs? • Can you provide examples? 1.5 Can you provide suggestion of how more relevant RGDP project could have been? • Or suggestion/example of what would make it more relevant to meeting your needs? Effectiveness EQ2. How effective has the RGDP activity been in increasing awareness, knowledge, and capacity to promote justice for GDPs in Bangladesh? Now I would like to ask you few questions about how effective the RGDP project has been in increasing your knowledge about your rights and access to services. 2.1 How effective was the knowledge that your received from RGDP project to being able to advocate for your rights (to know your rights)? • What rights? • Can you provide example? 2.2 What has changed as a result of this increased ability to advocate for your own rights? 2.3 What were the barriers/enablers for you to gain knowledge to advocate for your rights? • Please provide examples. 2.4 How effective was the RGDP project in providing you the skills to access services? • For example, to seek legal advice/health counseling, employment? • Please provide examples. 2.5 What were the barriers/enablers for you to gain skills to access services? • For example, to seek legal advice/health counseling, employment? • Please provide examples. 2.6 To what extent has the RGDP project helped to make the public services more accessible to you? • How? • Please provide some examples. 52 Question 2.7 What were the barriers/enablers to that? 2.8 To your knowledge, has the social (e.g. access to physical and mental health services and employment) and legal (e.g. access to justice) environment Bangladesh change a result of the RGDP project? Sustainability EQ3: How sustainable are the benefits of the RGDP project? I would like to know whether what you the knowledge and the skills that you gained through the RGDP will last longer. 3.1 To what extent will you be able to utilize the knowledge and the skills gained through the RGDP project after the project ends? • Will you (Yes/No)? • Can you explain and provide example of how? 3.2 What are some barriers/enablers for you to continue utilizing the new knowledge and skills after the end of the project? Impact EQ 4: How impactful has the RGDP project been in improving GDPs access to justice and services? 4.1 What has changed in your life as a result of the RGDP project? • How? • What contributed to the change? • Please give examples. 4.2 To what extent this project has improved (or not) your access to services such as medical, legal, employment? 4.3 How did the increased access to justice and services improved your life? • Please provide some examples. • What has changed in our life as a result of the access? 4.4 To what extent the mental health assistance has improved (or not) your life situation? How? Please provide examples. Many projects have unintended positive or negative consequences. For example, a project may create opposition, resistance or even open disapproval among some populations. On the other hand, some project may lead beneficiaries to new, outstanding opportunities that have not been calculated as part of a project. 4.5 When you think about the specific activities of the RGDP, were there any (un)intended positive or negative consequences? • Particularly, as result of the activity where you were involved? We are at the end of the interview, and I would now like to ask you about some recommendations that may help improve your situation in Bangladesh. 4.6 What recommendations can you provide to USAID and Bandhu to better promote your rights and access to services? How else can RGDP better serve your needs? 4.7 Is there anything else you would like say about the RGDP project? 53 KIIs and FGDs – Secondary Stakeholders Question Target Group Relevance EQ1. How relevant has the RGDP’s been in promoting justice and service for GDPs in Bangladesh? I would like to discuss how relevant has the RGDP project been in promoting justice and services for GDPs in Bangladesh. Particularly in (1) Raising awareness of the governments and service providers about GDPs living in Bangladesh; (2) Improving the sociocultural and legal environment for GDPs, and (3) Making public services more accessible to GDPs through sensitizing service providers, policy makers and other stakeholders. Let’s start with relevance related to various stakeholders in Bangladesh such as legal, health providers, private sector, government, media, etc. 1.1 How relevant was the knowledge and capacity provided to you as part of the RGDP project to effectively promote rights and access to services for GDPs (providing legal, health, other services)? • Can you provide examples? All 1.2 How relevant was the RGDP project to providing understanding/knowledge and enhancing capacity of stakeholders in Bangladesh to promote and protect GDPs rights and access to services? • What needs have been/have not been met? All 1.3 What were some of the enablers/barriers to raising their understanding/knowledge and enhancing their capacity? • Can you provide examples? All 1.4 How relevant was the digital security training to promoting justice and access services for GDPs in Bangladesh? Bandhu/CBOs Let me ask you now about the relevance of RGDP to the needs of GDPs in Bangladesh. 1.5 How relevant was the RGDP project to the needs of GDPs in Bangladesh? • What needs have been/have not been met? • What about the needs (health including mental and COVID 19 counseling) for Rohingya GDPs? All, but especially community in Cox’s Bazar. 1.6 Do you have any other comments on the relevance? All The RGDP project technical approach to promoting justice and services for GDPs in Bangladesh was a combination of raising awareness about GDPs, improving the social (e.g. access to physical and mental health services and employment) and legal (e.g. access to justice) environments for GDPs, and making public services more accessible to GDPs. 1.7 How relevant was this approach to promoting justice and access to services for GDPs in Bangladesh? All Effectiveness EQ2. How effective has the RGDP project been in increasing awareness, knowledge and capacity to promote justice for GDPs in Bangladesh? One of the goals of the RGDP project was to increase understanding/knowledge, and capacity stakeholders to promote and protect GDPs rights and to improve access to services for GDPs in Bangladesh. 2.1 To what extent has the RGDP project improved your understanding and knowledge about GDPs? • Which activities have improved your understanding? • How have the activities improved your understanding? • Please provide some examples. All 54 Question Target Group 2.2 To what extent has the RGDP project improved your capacity to promote justice and access to services for GDPs? • Which activities have improved your understanding? • How have these activities improved your understanding? • Please provide some examples. All 2.3 What were the barriers/enablers to increase your understanding /knowledge and capacity to promote justice and services for GDPs? • Can you provide example? All One of the goals of the RGDP project was to improve the social environment (e.g. access to physical and mental health services and employment) and legal environment (e.g. access to justice) for GDPs to access public services through sensitizing policy makers and various stakeholders. 2.4 How effective was the RGDP project in improving the social environment for GDPs to access public services? • What access to employment/being able to find and sustain job? • Being able to seek health services? All 2.5 To what extent the RGDP project was effective in improving the legal environment for GDPs to access public services? • Promoting access to legal services, advice, counseling among GDPs? • Promoting documentation, investigation of cases? All 2.6 How effective was the RGDP project in ensuring access to justice and services for Rohingya GDPs? • Access to physical and mental health/COVID-19 counseling. • Access to legal services? All, but especially community in Cox’s Bazar. 2.7 When you think about your involvement with the RGDP project (e.g. as a lawyer), how effective was the learning/knowledge/skills gained in you providing GDP-specific legal advice and services? • How were these activities efficient? • What were the barriers/enablers to the efficiency? Paralegal & panel Lawyers 2.8 Did you receive any fellowship? If yes, how did you utilize the fellowship? • What difference did the fellowship you received made in promoting justice and access to services for GDP? Paralegal & panel Lawyers, Students & journalist 2.9 Is there anything else you would like to add about the effectiveness of the RGDP project? All Sustainability EQ3. How sustainable are the benefits of the RGDP activity? I would like to ask you a few questions about how sustainable the RGDP project is. Sustainability relates to creating an enabling and lasting environment conducive to the GDPs justice and rights in the Bangladeshi society. Various activities of the RGDP project may have contributed to lasting benefits of the RGDP project on the lives of GDPs in Bangladesh. For example, thee activities could be: • Meetings, presentations, conferences, panels roundtables and/or workshops on GDPs. • Specialized training or capacity building (e.g. legal, health, employment) • Training for GDPs (non-formal education and/or skill development). • GDP advocacy activities (e.g. campaign, awareness project). 55 Question Target Group • Information education and communication (IEC) materials about GDPs. • Community outreach or community training • Broadcasting of Public Service Announcement about GDPs. • Membership in a network of organizations (governmental and non-governmental) advocating for GDPs. • Research about GDPs. • Fellowship on GDPs (e.g., grant to conduct documentary/write document or develop a small project). 3.1 How likely it is that the knowledge and skills you gained through the RGDP will be long-lasting? • Will you be able to promote justice and access to services among GDP without the support of RGDP project (after the end of the project)? All 3.2 What are some barriers/enablers to the continuity of the knowledge or/and skills to promote justice and access to services for GDPs without the support of the RGDP project? All Impact EQ4. How successful has the RGDP project been in improving GDPs access to justice? Many projects have unintended positive or negative consequences. For example, a project may create opposition, resistance or even open disapproval among some populations. On the other hand, some project may lead beneficiaries to new, outstanding opportunities that have not been calculated as part of a project. 4.1 When you think about the RGDP (and its many activities), what were some (un)intended positive or negative consequences? • Positive? • Negative? Everyone One of the RGDP project objectives was to create enabling environment for GDPs in Bangladesh through impactful partnerships with relevant stakeholders. 4.2 To what extent has the RGDP project impacted the lives of GDPs in Bangladesh? • Good/bad? • What has changed? • Can you provide examples with concrete cases illustrating results of such improvement? All 4.3 How successful has the RGDP project been in creating partnerships with GoB around GDP and their rights and access to services? • Can you provide examples with concrete cases illustrating results of such improvement? All 4.4 How successful has the RGDP project been in collaborating with organizations (CBOs/NGOs) in Bangladesh in coordinating their work and improving their capacity to promote justice and access to services for GDPs in Bangladesh? • Which organizations? • How? • Can you provide illustrative example? All One of the RGDP project objectives was to enhance capacity of stakeholders to advocate and reduce harassment, stigma, and discrimination of GDPs. 4.5 How effective has the RGDP activity been in strengthening your ability to advocate and reduce harassment, stigma and discrimination of GDPs in Bangladesh? • How were these activities effective? All 56 Question Target Group • Can you provide a few example of how the knowledge/capacity gained through RGDP allow you to reduce violence against GDPs? 4.6 What were the barriers/enablers to strengthening your ability to advocate and reduce harassment, stigma and discrimination of GDPs in Bangladesh? All 4.7 When you think about your involvement with the RGDP project (e.g. as a lawyer), what impact the learning/knowledge/skills gained made in you providing GDP-specific legal advice and services? • Can you provide some example? Paralegal & panel Lawyers We are at the end of the interview. I have two more questions. 4.8 Are there any suggestions you would like to share with USAID and Bandhu to better promote justice and access to services for GDPs in Bangladesh? All 4.9 Is there anything else you would like say about the RGDP project? All 57 RGDP Activity – Online Evaluation Survey # Question Responses Question Type Relevance 1. Introduction 1.1 On behalf of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) in Bangladesh and Bandhu Social Welfare Society (Bandhu), we are conducting an evaluation of the Rights for Gender Diverse Population (RGDP) project implemented from July 2018 to the end of 2020. Gender Diverse Population includes for example hijras or transgender. We would like to ask you to help us better understand the effectiveness, relevance, sustainability and impact of the RGDP project by participating in this survey. We hope that you will participate in this survey. Your opinions are extremely important in providing recommendations on adjusting the project, and to better promote justice and services for gender diverse populations (GDPs) in Bangladesh. All of your answers will be confidential, and you will not be identified. Your details will not be shared with anyone, and information provided will be used only for the research purpose. N/A N/A Introduction 1.2 Do you consent to voluntarily participate in the survey? • Yes • No Select One If selected “No” skip to Q 1.3 End Survey (constraint to prevent further participation) 1.3 Thank you for your time, based on the responses you have given, this concludes the survey for you. Please click submit below to end the survey. End Survey End Survey 58 # Question Responses Question Type Relevance 2. Demographic Data 2.1 In which division in Bangladesh do you live? • Barishal (িবরশাল Barishal) • Chatttogram (চটটরাম) • Dhaka (ঢাকা Dhaka) • Mymensingh (ময়িমনসংহ Mymensingh) • Khulna (খুলনা Khulna) • Rajshahi (রাজশাহী Rajshahi) • Rangpur (রংপুর Rangpur) • Sylhet (িেসলট Sylhet) • Other (please specify) • None of the above Select One If selected “None of the above” skip to Q 1.3 End Survey (constraint to prevent further participation) 2.2 Your Sex • Female • Male • Hijra (GDPs) • Prefer not to disclose Select One/Open ended 2.3 What type of institution do you represent? • Government (e.g., ministry, agency, department, etc.) • Non-governmental organization (NGO) • Community-based organization (CBO) • University/school, other academic institution • Health clinic/medical facility • Religious institution (Mosque, Hindu temple, church) • Radio station/TV/Print media • Legal clinic, legal institute • Research institution • Private sector (e.g., corporate) • None of the above • Other [please specify] Select One/Open ended 59 # Question Responses Question Type Relevance 2.4 Which of the following best describes the work you do? • Policy maker (e.g., working in the government) • Private sector (non-government) • Employer (I am private employer) • Activism/advocacy work (e.g., defending human rights, campaigning on various issues, etc.) • Teaching (e.g., educating others at university, school, academic institution) • School-goer (student) • Lawyer (I work in legal environment, legal clinic, etc.) • Medical staff (doctor/physician/nurse; I work in hospital, clinic, etc.) • Clinical psychology (counseling) • Media (as journalist, actor, radio station host, etc.) • Religious work (e.g., teaching Islam, Buddhism, etc.) • Research (e.g., conducting researcher) • Other [please specify] Select One/open ended 2.5 Which target group(s) do you work on? • General population • GDP (Hijras, transgender, etc.) • Rohingya • Rohingya GDP • All of the above • Other (Specify) • None of the above/I don’t know Select Multiple/ open ended 60 # Question Responses Question Type Relevance 2.6 What thematic areas do you work on? • Education • Health • Human rights • Gender-Based Violence • Justice • Economic/employment opportunities • Leadership and political participation • Peace and conflict resolution • Rohingya (e.g., rights, services, etc.) • Other (Specify) Select Multiple/ open ended 3. Your Engagement with the RGDP project 3.1 The RGDP project, implemented by Bandhu, builds on a long history of support from USAID to promote justice and services for GDPs in Bangladesh. Note 3.2 When did you first become involved in any of the activities under the RGDP project? • Year and month [please specify] Open ended (date) If “before July 2018” or after “December 2020” skip to Q 1.3 End Survey (constraint to prevent further participation) 61 # Question Responses Question Type Relevance 3.3 Which of the following activities of the RGDP project you engaged in? (select all that apply) • I attended meetings, presentations, conferences, panels roundtables and/or workshops on GDPs. • I received specialized training or capacity building (e.g., legal, health, employment, digital security/safety). • I provided specialized services to GDPs (legal, health, employment, etc.). • I attended a training for GDPs (e.g., non￾formal education and/or skill development). • I attended community-based advocacy activities, outreach or community training (e.g., a campaign, awareness project, etc.). • I received information education and communication (IEC) materials about GDPs. • I created radio-based Public Service Announcement about GDPs. • I heard broadcasting of Public Service Announcement about GDPs rights or services. • I become a member of a network of organizations (governmental and non￾governmental) advocating for GDPs. • I participated in a research about GDPs. • I received a fellowship on GDPs (e.g., received grant to conduct documentary/write article, develop a small project, etc.). • Other (Specify) • None of the above Select Multiple/open ended If selected “None of the above” skip Q 1.3 End Survey (constraint to prevent further participation) 4. Perception of the RGDP project effectiveness 4.1 One of the goals of the RGDP project was to increase understanding/knowledge, and capacity stakeholders to promote and protect GDPs rights and to improve access to services for GDPs in Bangladesh. Note 62 # Question Responses Question Type Relevance 4.2 I believe the RGDP project was effective in improving my understanding and knowledge about GDPs rights and services. • Strongly agree • Agree • Disagree • Strongly disagree • I don’t know/Not sure • Not Applicable Select One If “strongly disagree” “don’t know/not sure” or “not applicable,” skip to Q 4.5 4.3 To what extent the RGDP project was effective in improving your understanding and knowledge about GDPs rights and services? • 1 Not at all • 5 Very much Rating Scale 4.4 Which activity of the RGDP project has been particularly effective in improving your understanding and knowledge about GDPs rights and services? (select all that apply) • Meetings, presentations, conferences, panels roundtables and/or workshops on GDPs. • Specialized training or capacity building (e.g., legal, health, employment, digital security/safety). • Training for GDPs (non-formal education and/or skill development). • Information education and communication (IEC) materials about GDPs. • Community-based advocacy activities, outreach or community training (e.g., campaign, awareness project). • Broadcasting of Public Service Announcement about GDPs rights and services. • Membership in a network of organizations (governmental and non-governmental) advocating for GDPs rights and services. • Research about GDPs. • Fellowship on GDPs (e.g., grant to conduct documentary/write article, develop a small project). • Other (Specify) • None of the above Select Multiple/open ended 63 # Question Responses Question Type Relevance 4.5 I believe the RGDP project was effective in increasing my capacity to promote and protect GDPs rights and to improve access to services for GDPs. • Strongly agree • Agree • Disagree • Strongly disagree • I don’t know/Not sure • Not Applicable Select One If “strongly disagree” “don’t know/not sure” or “not applicable,” skip to Q 4.8 4.6 To what extent the RGDP project was effective in increasing your capacity to promote and protect GDPs rights and to improve access to services for GDPs. • 1 Not at all • 5 Very much Rating Scale 4.7 Which activity of RGDP has been particularly effective in increasing your capacity to promote and protect GDPs rights and to improve access to services for GDPs. (select all that apply) • Meetings, presentations, conferences, panels roundtables and/or workshops on GDPs. • Specialized training or capacity building (e.g., legal, health, employment, digital security/safety). • Training for GDPs (non-formal education and/or skill development). • Information education and communication (IEC) materials about GDPs. • Community-based advocacy activities, outreach or community training (e.g., campaign, awareness project). • Broadcasting of Public Service Announcement about GDPs rights and services. • Membership in a network of organizations (governmental and non-governmental) advocating for GDPs rights and services. • Research about GDPs. • Fellowship on GDPs (e.g., grant to conduct documentary/write article, develop a small project). • Other (Specify) • None of the above Select Multiple/open ended 64 # Question Responses Question Type Relevance 4.8 The RGDP project aimed to build partnerships with the Government of Bangladesh and other stakeholders to improve advocacy and government support for GDPs. Note 4.9 I believe the RGDP project was effective in building partnerships with the Government of Bangladesh and other stakeholders to improve advocacy and government support for GDPs. • Strongly agree • Agree • Disagree • Strongly disagree • I don’t know/Not sure • Not Applicable Select One If “strongly disagree” “don’t know/not sure” or “not applicable,” skip to Q 5.1 4.10 To what extent do you feel the RGDP project was effective in partnering with the Government of Bangladesh and other stakeholders? • 1 Not at all • 5 Very much Rating Scale 4.11 I believe that these partnerships will remain active after the end of the RGDP project. • Strongly agree • Agree • Disagree • Strongly disagree • I don’t know/Not sure Select One 4.12 One of the goals of the RGDP project was to improve the social environment (e.g., access to physical and mental health services and employment) and legal environment (e.g., access to justice) for GDPs to access public services through sensitizing policymakers and various stakeholders. Note 4.13 I believe the RGDP project was effective in improving the social environment for GDPs to access public services. • Strongly agree • Agree • Disagree • Strongly disagree • I don’t know/Not sure • Not Applicable Select One If “strongly disagree” “don’t know/not sure” or “not applicable” skip to Q 4.16 4.14 To what extent the RGDP project was effective in improving the social environment for GDPs to access public services? • 1 Not at all • 5 Very much Rating Scale 65 # Question Responses Question Type Relevance 4.15 To your knowledge, which activity of RGDP project was the most effective to improving the social environment for GDPs to access public services? (select all that apply) • Meetings, presentations, conferences, panels roundtables and/or workshops on GDPs. • Specialized training or capacity building (e.g., legal, health, employment, digital security/safety). • Training for GDPs (non-formal education and/or skill development). • Information education and communication (IEC) materials about GDPs. • Community-based advocacy activities, outreach or community training (e.g., campaign, awareness project). • Broadcasting of Public Service Announcement about GDPs rights and services. • Membership in a network of organizations (governmental and non-governmental) advocating for GDPs rights and services. • Research about GDPs. • Fellowship on GDPs (e.g., grant to conduct documentary/write article, develop a small project). • Other (Specify) • None of the above Select Multiple 4.16 I believe the RGDP project was effective in improving the legal environment for GDPs to access public services. • Strongly agree • Agree • Disagree • Strongly disagree • I don’t know / Not sure • Not applicable Select One If “strongly disagree” “don’t know/not sure” or “not applicable,” skip to Q 4.19 4.17 To what extent the RGDP project was effective in improving the legal environment for GDPs to access public services? • 1 Not at all • 5 Very much Rating Scale 66 # Question Responses Question Type Relevance 4.18 To your knowledge, which activity of RGDP was the most effective to improving the legal environment for GDPs to access public services.? (select all that apply) • Meetings, presentations, conferences, panels roundtables and/or workshops on GDPs. • Specialized training or capacity building (e.g., legal, health, employment, digital security/safety). • Training for GDPs (non-formal education and/or skill development). • Information education and communication (IEC) materials about GDPs. • Community-based advocacy activities, outreach or community training (e.g., campaign, awareness project). • Broadcasting of Public Service Announcement about GDPs rights and services. • Membership in a network of organizations (governmental and non-governmental) advocating for GDPs rights and services. • Research about GDPs. • Fellowship on GDPs (e.g., grant to conduct documentary/write article, develop a small project). • Other (Specify) • None of the above Select Multiple 4.19 I believe the RGDP project has been effective in ensuring GDPs access to employment opportunities. • Strongly agree • Agree • Disagree • Strongly disagree • I don’t know/Not sure Select One 4.20 I believe the RGDP project was effective in ensuring access to legal services for Rohingya GDPs. • Strongly agree • Agree • Disagree • Strongly disagree • I don’t know/Not sure Select One 67 # Question Responses Question Type Relevance 4.21 I believe the RGDP project has been effective in ensuring access to physical and mental health/ COVID-19 counseling for Rohingya GDPs. • Strongly agree • Agree • Disagree • Strongly disagree • I don’t know/Not sure Select One 5. Perception of how relevant the RGDP project was. 5.1 One of the aims of the RGDP project was to be relevant to the needs of GDPs, and to be relevant to stakeholders in Bangladesh in enhancing their capacity to promote and protect GDPs rights and access to services. 5.2 I believe the RGDP project was relevant to the needs of GDPs in Bangladesh? • Strongly agree • Agree • Disagree • Strongly disagree • I don’t know/Not sure • Not applicable Select One If “strongly disagree” “don’t know/not sure” or “not applicable,” skip to Q 5.6 5.3 To what extent was the RGDP project relevant to the needs of GDPs in Bangladesh? • 1 Not at all • 5 Very much Rating Scale 68 # Question Responses Question Type Relevance 5.4 To your knowledge, which activity of RGDP project was the most relevant to the needs of GDPs in Bangladesh? (select all that apply) • Meetings, presentations, conferences, panels roundtables and/or workshops on GDPs. • Specialized training or capacity building (e.g., legal, health, employment, digital security/safety). • Training for GDPs (non-formal education and/or skill development). • Information education and communication (IEC) materials about GDPs. • Community-based advocacy activities, outreach or community training (e.g., campaign, awareness project). • Broadcasting of Public Service Announcement about GDPs rights and services. • Membership in a network of organizations (governmental and non-governmental) advocating for GDPs rights and services. • Research about GDPs. • Fellowship on GDPs (e.g., grant to conduct documentary/write article, develop a small project). • Other (Specify) • None of the above Select Multiple 5.5 I believe the RGDP project was relevant to the needs of Rohingya GDPs. • Strongly agree • Agree • Disagree • Strongly disagree • I don’t know/Not sure Select One 5.6 I believe the RGDP project was relevant to stakeholders in Bangladesh in enhancing their capacity to promote and protect GDPs rights and access to services. • Strongly agree • Agree • Disagree • Strongly disagree • I don’t know/Not sure Select One If “strongly disagree” “don’t know/not sure” or “not applicable,” skip to Q 5.9 69 # Question Responses Question Type Relevance 5.7 To what extent was the RGDP project relevant to stakeholders in Bangladesh in enhancing their capacity to promote and protect GDPs rights and access to services. • 1 Not at all • 5 Very much Rating Scale 5.8 To your knowledge, which activity of RGDP project was the most relevant to stakeholders in Bangladesh in enhancing their capacity to promote and protect GDPs rights and access to services. (select all that apply) • Meetings, presentations, conferences, panels roundtables and/or workshops on GDPs. • Specialized training or capacity building (e.g., legal, health, employment, digital security/safety). • Training for GDPs (non-formal education and/or skill development). • Information education and communication (IEC) materials about GDPs. • Community-based advocacy activities, outreach or community training (e.g., campaign, awareness project). • Broadcasting of Public Service Announcement about GDPs rights and services. • Membership in a network of organizations (governmental and non-governmental) advocating for GDPs rights and services. • Research about GDPs. • Fellowship on GDPs (e.g., grant to conduct documentary/write article, develop a small project). • Other (Specify) • None of the above Select Multiple 5.9 The RGDP project technical approach to promoting justice and services for GDPs in Bangladesh was a combination of raising awareness about GDPs, improving the socio and legal environments for GDPs, and making public services more accessible to GDPs. Note 70 # Question Responses Question Type Relevance 5.10 I believe that this approach was relevant to promoting justice and access to services for GDPs in Bangladesh. • Strongly agree • Agree • Disagree • Strongly disagree • I don’t know/Not sure Select One 5.11 If you have any other comments on the relevancy of the RGDP project, please provide them here. Open-ended Text 6. Perception of sustainability and impact of the RGDP project 6.1 We would now like to ask you a few questions about how sustainable and impactful the RGDP project is. Sustainability relates to creating an enabling and lasting environment conducive to the GDPs justice and rights in the Bangladeshi society. Note 6.2 I believe the RGDP project was effective in creating sustainable environment to promote justice and access to services for GDPs. • Strongly agree • Agree • Disagree • Strongly disagree • I don’t know/Not sure Select One If “strongly disagree” “don’t know/not sure” or “not applicable,” skip to Q 6.4 6.3 I believe the enabling environment will sustain after the end of the project in June 2021. (select all that apply) • Strongly agree • Agree • Disagree • Strongly disagree • I don’t know/Not sure Select One 71 # Question Responses Question Type Relevance 6.4 One of the goals of the RGDP project was to enhance the capacity of relevant stakeholders to advocate and reduce harassment, stigma, discrimination of GDPs in Bangladesh. 6.5 I believe the RGDP project was effective in enhancing the capacity of relevant stakeholders to advocate and reduce harassment, stigma and discrimination of GDPs. • Strongly agree • Agree • Disagree • Strongly disagree • I don’t know/Not sure Select One If “strongly disagree” “don’t know/not sure” or “not applicable,” skip to Q 7.1 6.6 To what extent do you feel the RGDP project was effective in enhancing the capacity of relevant stakeholders to advocate and reduce harassment, stigma and discrimination of GDPs? • 1 Not at all • 5 Very much Rating Scale 6.7 To your knowledge, which activity of the RGDP project were the most effective in enhancing the capacity of relevant stakeholders to advocate and reduce harassment, stigma and discrimination of GDPs in Bangladesh? (select all that apply) • Meetings, presentations, conferences, panels roundtables and/or workshops on GDPs. • Specialized training or capacity building (e.g., legal, health, employment, digital security/safety). • Training for GDPs (non-formal education and/or skill development). • Information education and communication (IEC) materials about GDPs. • Community-based advocacy activities, outreach or community training (e.g., campaign, awareness project). • Broadcasting of Public Service Announcement about GDPs rights and services. • Membership in a network of organizations (governmental and non-governmental) advocating for GDPs rights and services. • Research about GDPs. • Fellowship on GDPs (e.g., grant to conduct documentary/write article, develop a small project). • Other (Specify) • None of the above Select Multiple/open ended 72 # Question Responses Question Type Relevance 6.8 I believe the capacity of relevant stakeholders to advocate and reduce harassment, stigma and discrimination of GDPs in Bangladesh will sustain after the end of the project in June 2021. • Strongly agree • Agree • Disagree • Strongly disagree • I don’t know/Not sure Select One 7. Additional Comments and Closing 7.1 Do you have any additional comments? • Yes • No Select One If “No” skip to Q 7.2 7.2 Please provide any additional comments that you may have had about your experience with the RGDP project? Open-Ended Text 7.3 You have reached the end of the survey. On behalf of ME&A, Bandhu and USAID, thank you for your responses. Note The End 73 ANNEX 5: LIST OF STAKEHOLDERS INTERVIEWED 74 RGDP Activity Evaluation List of All Stakeholders Interviewed/Met Day Status39 Name Position Organization/ Affiliation Contact Format Place ET Secondary Stakeholders Implementing Partner: USAID Bangladesh 23/02 Yes Slavica Radosevic Political Processes Team Lead, DRG USAID sradosevic@usaid.gov Remote via Zoom Dhaka PP Implementing Partner: Bandhu Social Welfare Sociaty (Bandhu) 18/02 Yes Umme Farhana Zarif Kanta Director Policy Advocacy and Human Rights Bandhu info@bandhu-bd.org Remote via Zoom Dhaka PP 17/02 Yes Md.Moshiur Rahman Manager Policy Advocacy Bandhu info@bandhu-bd.org Remote via Zoom Dhaka PP 26/02 Yes Shale Ahmed Executive Director Bandhu shale@bandhu-bd.org Remote via Zoom Dhaka PP 28/02 Yes Tanvir Islam Assistant manager- Legal Support and Security Bandhu 01313526745 In Person Dhaka ZN 18/02 Yes Nazmul Islam Hoque Coordinator Bandhu 01718573574 In Person Cox’s Bazar ZN 25/02 Yes Kanai Sarker Mithun Medical Assistant, DIC Office Bandhu 01672521993 In Person Dhaka ZN 18/02 Yes Md. Jahirul Islam DIC Manager Bandhu 01757575698 In Person Sylhet RR 20/02 Yes Afzal Hossain Medical Assistant Bandhu 01717 926338 Phone Sylhet RR 23/02 Yes Abdullah-Al￾Ashik DIC Manager Bandhu 01720839167 In Person Mymensingh RR Multilaterals, and International Organizations 16/02 Yes Hazera Khanam Protection Associate (SGBV) LGBT Local Focal Point UNHCR 01752770969 In Person Cox’s Bazar ZN 39 Scheduled, completed, or not completed. 75 Day Status39 Name Position Organization/ Affiliation Contact Format Place ET 18/02 Yes Joelle Charbonneau Communications and Knowledge Management Officer UN Women Inter Sector Coordination Group 01313475776 In Person Cox’s Bazar ZN 18/02 Yes Subarna Dhar Coordinator Gender Hub UNFPA Bangladesh 01815383430 In Person Cox’s Bazar ZN 25/02 Yes Dr. Saima Khan Country Manager UNAIDS Bangladesh knans@unaids.org Remote via Zoom Dhaka PP 22/02 Yes Dilruba Haider Giulia Pelosi Palash Das Programme Specialists UN Women Bangladesh dilruba.haider@unwomen.org; giulia.pelosi@unwomen.org; palash.das@unwomen.org Remote via Email Dhaka PP 02/03 Yes Rosalee LaPlante Counsellor Political Affairs Canadian High Commission in Bangladesh rosalee.laplante@international. gc.ca Remote via Zoom Dhaka PP Government of Bangladesh 05/03 Yes M. Rabiul Islam Deputy Director National Human Rights Commission 8801671185280 Phone Dhaka ZN 24/02 Yes Prof. Md. Farhadul Islam National Curriculum & Textbook Board Member Ministry of Education Remote via Zoom PP 23/02 Yes Md. Aktar Uz Zaman Assistant Director National Legal Aid Service Organization Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs aktar_elaw@yahoo.com Remote via Zoom Dhaka PP 25/02 Yes Bidhan Tripura AIG, Crime (Dhaka Metro) Police Head Quarter Ministry of Home Affairs Bidhan.tripura@yahoo.com Remote via Zoom Dhaka PP 17/02 Yes Md.Mamunur Rahman Siddeque District Legal Aid Officer (Senior Assistant Judge) Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs dlac.sylhet@gmail.com 01701267391 In Person Sylhet RR 25/02 Yes Mst. Raoshan Ara Rahman District Legal Aid Officer, Senior Assistant Judge Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs Raosha28lawdu@gmail.com 01712536021 In Person Mymensingh RR 20/02 Yes Sharif Md. Sanowar Hossain Sub-Inspector (UB, S.M.P) Ministry of Home Affairs 01912067024 In Person Sylhet RR 20/02 Yes Sajjadur Rahman Constable No: 753 (S.M.P) Ministry of Home Affairs 01789278674 In Person Sylhet RR 76 Day Status39 Name Position Organization/ Affiliation Contact Format Place ET Civil Society (9 CBOs and front line HR defenders and watchdogs) 19/02 Yes Sarwar Kamal Shablu Watchdog and front line Volunteer Bandhu 01867321638 In Person Cox’s Bazar ZN 19/02 Yes Abul Monsur Watchdog and front line Volunteer Bandhu 01818283390 In Person Cox’s Bazar ZN 19/02 Yes Rahimullah Watchdog and front line Volunteer Bandhu 01820069630 In Person Cox’s Bazar ZN 24/02 Yes Rasel Ahmed Watchdog and front line Volunteer Bandhu 01990569278 In Person Dhaka ZN 24/02 Yes Rupom Ahmed Watchdog and front line Volunteer Bandhu 01711229075 In Person Dhaka ZN 24/02 Yes Saiful Islam Saif Watchdog and front line Volunteer Bandhu 01920269777 In Person Dhaka ZN 24/02 Yes Shova Sarkar Watchdog and front line Volunteer Bandhu 01725294096 In Person Dhaka ZN 01/03 Yes Mitu Hijra CBO staff Podmakuri Hijra Sango 01688597718 In Person Podmokuri Hijra Songo Office, Doyagong, Dhaka ZN 01/03 Yes Md. Arefin Chowdhury CBO staff Sustho jibon 01625734694 In Person Sustho Jibin Office, Ashampur, Dhaka ZN 19/02 Yes Mahfuz Alam Finance Secretary CBO staff Sylhet Hijra Kollayan Songho sylhethijraks@gmail.com 01991467603 In Person Sylhet RR 17/02 Yes Abdur Rahim Front line Volunteer Sylhet Hijra Kollayan Songho 01874350573 In Person Sylhet RR 17/02 Yes Reshmi Front line Volunteer Sylhet Hijra Kollayan Songho 01761048028 In Person Sylhet RR 17/02 Yes Mila Front line Volunteer Sylhet Hijra Kollayan Songho 01639853480 In Person Sylhet RR 77 Day Status39 Name Position Organization/ Affiliation Contact Format Place ET 17/02 Yes Jui Front line Volunteer Sylhet Hijra Kollayan Songho 01626578199 In Person Sylhet RR 17/02 Yes Kawsar Ahmed Watchdog Sylhet Hijra Kollayan Songho 01737107318 In Person Sylhet RR 17/02 Yes Sukta Hijra Watchdog Sylhet Hijra Kollayan Songho 01770303862 In Person Sylhet RR 23/02 Yes Mehedi Hasan Rabbi Front line Volunteer Setu Bandhon Hijra Kallayan Songho 01780023008 In Person Mymensingh RR 23/02 Yes Bijli Hijra Front line Volunteer Setu Bandhon Hijra Kallayan Songho 01686776961 In Person Mymensingh RR 23/02 Yes Jaba Front line Volunteer Setu Bandhon Hijra Kallayan Songho 01933255113 In Person Mymensingh RR 23/02 Yes Md.Rayhan Watchdog Setu Bandhon Hijra Kallayan Songho 01983776050 In Person Mymensingh RR 23/02 Yes Sondha Islam Front line Volunteer Setu Bandhon Hijra Kallayan Songho 01735051067 In Person Mymensingh RR 23/02 Yes Tonu Hijra Watchdog Setu Bandhon Hijra Kallayan Songho 01715513559 In Person Mymensingh RR 27/02 Yes Tonu Hijra CBO staff Setu Bandhan Kollayan Shangho mymensingh.rcc@gmail.com 01715513559 In Person Mymensingh RR Service Providers40 20/02 Yes Dr. Riyad Medical Officer Khaliyajhuri, Upazila Health Complex, Netrokona 01680398479 Phone Sylhet RR 20/02 Yes Dr. Mobin Medical Officer Brammon Para, Upazila Health Complex, Cumilla 01751121700 Phone Sylhet RR 40 Includes: Media sector (reporters, journalists, actors); Justice sector (lawyers, paralegals, staff if legal clinics, judges, other legal services); Health sector (physicians, other medical services staff), Education sector (students, teachers); Employment sector (private sector employers); Religious and faith-leaders; Other (general population/non-GDP). 78 Day Status39 Name Position Organization/ Affiliation Contact Format Place ET 28/02 Yes Dr. Adiba Intern doctor Shahid Syed Nazrul Islam Medical College, Kishorgonj 01814386017 Phone Mymensingh RR 28/02 Yes Dr.Sohel Intern doctor Shahid Syed Nazrul Islam Medical College, Kishorgonj 01779606706 Phone Mymensingh RR 28/02 Yes Dr.Rana Intern doctor Shahid Syed Nazrul Islam Medical College, Kishorgonj 01795298170 Phone Mymensingh RR 28/02 Yes Dr. Ahosan Intern doctor Shahid Syed Nazrul Islam Medical College, Kishorgonj 01944423539 Phone Mymensingh RR 21/02 Yes Shariful Islam Palas Officer CSR and Gross welfare SWAPNO 01926026999 In Person Dhaka ZN 21/02 Yes Shawkat Hoossain Team Leader Marie Stopes Clinic 01712832135 In Person Dhaka ZN 23/02 Yes Maolana Md. Sidduqur Rahman Senior Assistant Teacher, madrassa Mohammadia Anabia Fazil Madrasha 01711378359 In Person Dhaka ZN 21/02 Yes Songhanondo Tharo Religious Leader 01817755359 Phone Sylhet RR 23/02 Yes A.N.M. Mayeen Uddin Shiraji Religious leader Mohammadia Anabia Fazil Madrasha 01711378359 In Person Dhaka ZN 23/02 Yes Rizvee Ahmed (Dakhil 9) Students (madrassa) Mohammadia Anabia Fazil Madrasha 01711378359 In Person Dhaka ZN 23/02 Yes Mahadi Hasan (Dakhil 10) Students (madrassa) Mohammadia Anabia Fazil Madrasha 01711378359 In Person Dhaka ZN 23/02 Yes Umme Habiba (Dakhil 10) Students (madrassa) Mohammadia Anabia Fazil Madrasha 01711378359 In Person Dhaka ZN 23/02 Yes Samia Akter (Dakhil 10) Students (madrassa) Mohammadia Anabia Fazil Madrasha 01711378359 In Person Dhaka ZN 24/02 Yes Shamim Reza Psychosocial Counselor Bandhu Social Welfare Society 01687475611 In Person Dhaka ZN 79 Day Status39 Name Position Organization/ Affiliation Contact Format Place ET 24/02 Yes Jony DSS training participant Bandhu Social Welfare Society 01990569278 In Person Dhaka ZN 19/02 Yes Sukta Hijra Psychosocial counselor Hijra Jubo Kollayan Songostha hijrajubo.2018@gmail.com 01770303862 In Person Sylhet RR 25/02 Yes Shahnaz Munni Chief News Editor News 24 Editor shahnazmunnibd@gmail.com In Person Dhaka ZN 25/02 Yes Md. Shafiullah Sumon Senior Reporter Bangladesh Television sumonpress@gmail.com In Person Dhaka ZN 25/02 Yes Atika Rahman RTV Media Forum of Bandhu atikarahman.rtv@gmail.com In Person Dhaka ZN 28/02 Yes Tamanna Huq Media and Advocacy Officer Ain O Salish Kendra 01717654440 In Person Dhaka ZN 28/02 Yes Shah Alam Advocate (panel lawyer) Dhaka Judge Court 01727547545 In Person Dhaka ZN 28/02 Yes Asheque Rahman Advocate, Dhaka Judge Court, panel lawyer Dhaka Judge Court 01913503604 In Person Dhaka ZN 28/02 Yes Anjan Advocate, panel lawyer Dhaka Judge Court 01817535640 In Person Dhaka ZN 28/02 Yes Asheque Rahman Advocate, panel lawyer Dhaka Judge Court (legal clinic, Bandhu) 01913503604 In Person Dhaka ZN 01/03 Yes Khndokar kajol Teacher (Non formal Education) Podmakuri Hijra Sango 01711569288 In Person Dhaka ZN 02/03 Yes Tajul Islam Adviser, Legal unit BLAST 01712254111 Phone Dhaka ZN 02/03 Yes Robaet Ferdous Professor Dhaka University 01711616972 In Person Dhaka ZN 03/03 Yes Shafiul Gani Head Teacher Abdullah Memorial High School, Bawni, Turag 01673647634 In Person Dhaka ZN 03/03 Yes Rashid Khanam Parent Abdullah Memorial High School, Bawni, Turag 01673647634 In Person Dhaka ZN 03/03 Yes Zesmin Akter Parent Abdullah Memorial High School, Bawni, Turag 01673647634 In Person Dhaka ZN 03/03 Yes Shuily Gomez Parent Abdullah Memorial High School, Bawni, Turag 01673647634 In Person Dhaka ZN 03/03 Yes Anny Parent Abdullah Memorial High School, Bawni, Turag 01673647634 In Person Dhaka ZN 80 Day Status39 Name Position Organization/ Affiliation Contact Format Place ET 04/03 Yes Mujibul kamal Rana (Arovi) Employee SWAPNO 01819037530 In Person Dhaka ZN 04/03 Yes Sonali Akhter Mou Paralegal Independent 01611412007 In Person Dhaka ZN 04/03 Yes Evan Ahmed Kotha Hijra Guru Shacheton Hijra Adikar Sanfha 01714539057 In Person Dhaka ZN 04/03 Yes Shamiul Alim Shammi Hijra Guru Owner of Uttaron Beauty Parlor 01912877001 In Person Dhaka ZN 04/03 Yes Shahnewaj Srabonti Hijra Guru Shacheton Hijra Adikar Sanfha 01725781308 In Person Dhaka ZN 18/02 Yes Sujon Sarker Medical Assistant Wellness Center 01533575638 In Person Cox’s Bazar ZN 18/02 Yes Mostafa Kamal Psychosocial Councilor Mental Health Support Center 01813212860 In Person Cox’s Bazar ZN 17/02 Yes Nayan Participant of the DSS training Independent 01854580038 In Person Cox’s Bazar ZN 17/02 Yes Himela (Himel Apa) Paralegal Sylhet Hijra Kollayan Songho N/A In Person Sylhet RR 18/02 Yes Md.Saiful Islam Talukdar Panel Lawyer Judge Court 01736312314 adv.saifulislamtalukder@gmail .com In Person Sylhet RR 18/02 Yes Suborna Hamid Senior Staff Reporter Channel I, The Daily Sabuj Sylhet 01716530488 hamidsuborna@gmail.com In Person Sylhet RR 18/02 Yes Sadikur Rahman Saki District Correspondent Channel I, The Daily Sabuj Sylhet 01716795993 In Person Sylhet RR 18/02 Yes Sattar Ajad News Editor Shuvo Protidin (Daily Newspaper) 01717721999 In Person Sylhet RR 18/02 Yes Nasir Uddin District Correspondent Bangla News, Doinik Shamol Sylhet 01718350900 In Person Sylhet RR 24/02 Yes Ariyan Romio Paralegal Trishna Hijra Kallayan Songostha 01913141040 In Person Mymensingh RR 25/02 Yes Mahamudul Hasan Milon District Correspondent Mohona Television 01717788279 In Person Mymensingh RR 81 Day Status39 Name Position Organization/ Affiliation Contact Format Place ET 25/02 Yes Eliyas Ahmed District Correspondent Desh TV 01718126229 In Person Mymensingh RR 25/02 Yes Sultan Mahmud Konok Staff Reporter Channel 24 01974000024 In Person Mymensingh RR 25/02 Yes Najmus Sakib Camera Person Channel 24 01754819736 In Person Mymensingh RR 25/02 Yes Obaidul Hoque District Correspondent Dhaka Post 01687104152 In Person Mymensingh RR 25/02 Yes Hamimur Rahman District Correspondent ATV Limited 01919053306 In Person Mymensingh RR 26/02 Yes Md. Fulsar Ali Psychosocial Counselor Bandhu 01751653772 In Person Mymensingh RR 26/02 Yes Md. Rayhan DLAC Bandhu Representative RGDP 01983776050 In Person Mymensingh RR 26/02 Yes K.M. Kamrul Hasan Teacher (Non-Formal Education) RGDP 01712175434 In Person Mymensingh RR 27/02 Yes Mir Emran Ali Pavel Panel Lawyer Judge Court 01916699776 In Person Mymensingh RR 28/02 Yes Rifa University Student Brac University 01676777878 Phone Dhaka RR 28/02 Yes Nishat University Student Brac University 01620941087 Phone Dhaka RR 28/02 Yes Subrina University Student Brac University 01707956229 Phone Dhaka RR 28/02 Yes Tamim University Student Brac University 01764568030 Phone Dhaka RR 28/02 Yes Fayjul University Student Brac University 01707956229 Phone Dhaka RR Primary Stakeholders GDPs and Rohingya GDPs 16/02 Yes Mx. Shundari Hijra President/GDP Sylhet Hijra Kollayan Shangho sylhethijraks@gmail.com 01716295566 In Person Sylhet RR 16/02 Yes Suchona Hijra Member/GDP Sylhet Hijra Kollayan Shangho 017155435069 In Person Sylhet RR 16/02 Yes Sadek Ahmed Member/GDP Sylhet Hijra Kollayan Shangho 01786928231 In Person Sylhet RR 82 Day Status39 Name Position Organization/ Affiliation Contact Format Place ET 16/02 Yes Foyez Ahmed Member/GDP Sylhet Hijra Kollayan Shangho 01703156100 In Person Sylhet RR 16/02 Yes Abdul Momin Member/GDP Sylhet Hijra Kollayan Shangho 01671623504 In Person Sylhet RR 16/02 Yes Rabiul Islam Member/GDP Sylhet Hijra Kollayan Shangho 01701439996 In Person Sylhet RR 16/02 Yes Payel Member/GDP Sylhet Hijra Kollayan Shangho 01309152031 In Person Sylhet RR 17/02 Yes Atikur Rahman (Digital Safety security) GDP Setu Bondhon Hijra Kallayan Songho 01764290790 In Person Sylhet RR 23/02 Yes Akhi Member/GDP Setu Bondhon Hijra Kallayan Songho 01703670944 In Person Mymensingh RR 23/02 Yes Sohana Shikdar Member/GDP Setu Bondhon Hijra Kallayan Songho 01822019335 In Person Mymensingh RR 23/02 Yes Chompa Member/GDP Setu Bondhon Hijra Kallayan Songho 01731884263 In Person Mymensingh RR 23/02 Yes Farjana Alam Executive Member/GDP Setu Bondhon Hijra Kallayan Songho 01962769032 In Person Mymensingh RR 23/02 Yes Rojoni Member/GDP Setu Bondhon Hijra Kallayan Songho 01307276973 In Person Mymensingh RR 23/02 Yes Rabina Member/GDP Setu Bondhon Hijra Kallayan Songho 01737627863 In Person Mymensingh RR 24/02 Yes Mamun Member/GDP Setu Bondhon Hijra Kallayan Songho 01960406664 In Person Mymensingh RR 24/02 Yes Jule Member/GDP Setu Bondhon Hijra Kallayan Songho 01721204048 In Person Mymensingh RR 24/02 Yes Wasim Hijra Member/GDP Setu Bondhon Hijra Kallayan Songho 01787000023 In Person Mymensingh RR 24/02 Yes Krishna Hijra Member/GDP Setu Bondhon Hijra Kallayan Songho 01996821196 In Person Mymensingh RR 24/02 Yes Shopna Hijra Member/GDP Setu Bondhon Hijra Kallayan Songho 01731122710 In Person Mymensingh RR 83 Day Status39 Name Position Organization/ Affiliation Contact Format Place ET 24/02 Yes Maruf Hasan Munni Member/GDP Setu Bondhon Hijra Kallayan Songho 01993838683 In Person Mymensingh RR 25/02 Yes Bobi Shikdar Member/ GDP Alorpothe Hijra Somaj Kallayan Songostha 01746671432 In Person Mymensingh RR 17/02 Yes Salamatullah GDP Rohingya Camp 01891582246 In Person Cox’s Bazar ZN 17/02 Yes Yeasin GDP Rohingya Camp 01961353906 In Person Cox’s Bazar ZN 17/02 Yes Mastatata GDP Rohingya Camp 01905333289 In Person Cox’s Bazar ZN 17/02 Yes Samsul Alam GDP Rohingya Camp 01892933378 In Person Cox’s Bazar ZN 17/02 Yes Arifullah GDP Rohingya Camp 01575290301 In Person Cox’s Bazar ZN 17/02 Yes Azizullah GDP Rohingya Camp 01870200953 In Person Cox’s Bazar ZN 17/02 Yes Azizul Haque GDP (Partner) Rohingya Camp 01844830874 In Person Cox’s Bazar ZN 17/02 Yes Shofi Ullah GDP (Partner) Rohingya Camp 01648688579 In Person Cox’s Bazar ZN 17/02 Yes Zubair GDP (Partner) Rohingya Camp 01754867169 In Person Cox’s Bazar ZN 17/02 Yes Zoshim GDP (Partner) Rohingya Camp 01811018754 In Person Cox’s Bazar ZN 17/02 Yes Zama GDP (Partner) Rohingya Camp 01933-976013 In Person Cox’s Bazar ZN 17/02 Yes Amin GDP (Partner) Rohingya Camp 01851205265 In Person Cox’s Bazar ZN 18/02 Yes Sagor Borua GDP (Host community) Host Community 01866073531 In Person Cox’s Bazar ZN 18/02 Yes Md. Eunos GDP (Host community) Host Community 01882052502 In Person Cox’s Bazar ZN 18/02 Yes Fazlu Haque GDP (Host community) Host Community 01868661610 In Person Cox’s Bazar ZN 18/02 Yes Nur Ahammad GDP (Host community) Host Community 01838029395 In Person Cox’s Bazar ZN 18/02 Yes Abul Boshor GDP (Host community) Host Community 01888026853 In Person Cox’s Bazar ZN 18/02 Yes Sheuli Hijra GDP (Host community) Host Community 01861056044 In Person Cox’s Bazar ZN 01/03 Yes Utpakhi Hijra, GDP Sustho Jibon 01789945136 In Person Dhaka ZN 84 Day Status39 Name Position Organization/ Affiliation Contact Format Place ET 01/03 Yes Tumpa Hijra GDP Sustho Jibon 01795683241 In Person Dhaka ZN 01/03 Yes Ronti(Chumki GDP Sustho Jibon 0168054430 In Person Dhaka ZN 01/03 Yes Arif(Rushani) GDP Sustho Jibon 01625734694 In Person Dhaka ZN 01/03 Yes Russel (MSM), GDP Sustho Jibon 01673293958 In Person Dhaka ZN 01/03 Yes Imran (Meghla) GDP Sustho Jibon 01947769166 In Person Dhaka ZN 01/03 Yes Rusali Ahmed GDP Sustho Jibon 01908789713 In Person Dhaka ZN 85 ANNEX 6: LIST OF DOCUMENTS REVIEWED # Project Documents 1 Annual Report, Rights for Gender Diverse Population Activity, 2nd Year; June 14, 2019 – June 15, 2020. 2 Annual Report, Rights for Gender Diverse Population Activity, 1st Year; June 14, 2018 – June 15, 2019. 3 Assessment Non Formal Education for Hijra. Prepared by Mohammad Iqbal Hossain, Bandhu Social Welfare, October 20, 2019 4 Baseline Assessment Non Formal Education for Hijra. Prepared by Mohammad Iqbal Hossain, Bandhu Social Welfare, October 21, 2018 5 Consultation Meeting Report. Consultation Meeting with Bar Association, Chittagong. November 10, 2020. 6 Details Segregated Primary Target GDP List 7 Digital Security Training Module. 8 Effectiveness of Information, Communication and Education (ICE) Materials. An Assessment Report for Bandhu Social Welfare, September 2018. 9 Event Report. Consultation Meeting with Barishal Metropolitan Police. January 13, 2020. 10 Event Report. Consultation Meeting with Young Physician. January 28, 2019. 11 Event Report. Consultation Meeting with Young Physician. November 02, 2020. 12 Event Report. Consultation on Inclusion of Third Gender in National Census. December 13, 2018. 13 Event Report. Sensitization Sessions for Law Enforcement Agencies. June 19, 2019. 14 Event Report. Sensitization Sessions for Law Enforcement Agencies. May 4, 2019. 15 Gaps in the Election Process and Voter Rights of Third Gender Population in Bangladesh. Author: Suparna Salahuddin, ASM Amanullah and Giasuddin Ahmed, Bandhu Social Welfare, February 14, 2019. 16 List of Activities Implemented as Per Districts 17 List of Project partners. 18 List of Rights for the Gender Diverse Population (RGDP) Activity Partners (List of 9 CBOs), Bandhu Social Welfare 19 List of Secondary Stakeholders 20 Module Final on Human Rights of Gender Minorities (Bangla document), Bandhu Social Welfare (No date available) 21 Monitoring Evaluation & Learning Plan. USAID’S Rights for Gender Diverse Population (RGDP) Activity. June 15, 2018- June 14, 2021 22 Name of Ministries and Agencies. 23 Paralegal Training Module, Bandhu Social Welfare (No date available) 24 Political Economy Analysis for Gender Diverse Communities in Bangladesh. Author: ASM Amanullah, Giasuddin Ahmed, Tanvir Abir, Bandhu Social Welfare, May 5, 2019. 25 Project award certificate with schedule and program description. June 14, 2018 26 Quarterly Report, Rights for Gender Diverse Population Activity, Milestone 01, June 15, 2018 – Sep 14, 2018 27 Quarterly Report, Rights for Gender Diverse Population Activity, Milestone 02, Sep 15, 2018 – Dec 14, 2018 28 Quarterly Report, Rights for Gender Diverse Population Activity, Milestone 03, December 15, 2018 - March 14, 2019 29 Quarterly Report, Rights for Gender Diverse Population Activity, Milestone 04, March 15, 2019 – June 14, 2019 30 Quarterly Report, Rights for Gender Diverse Population Activity, Milestone 05, June 15, 2019 – Sep 14, 2019 31 Quarterly Report, Rights for Gender Diverse Population Activity, Milestone 06, Sep 15, 2019 – Dec 14, 2019 32 Quarterly Report, Rights for Gender Diverse Population Activity, Milestone 07, December 15, 2019 - March 14, 2020 33 Quarterly Report, Rights for Gender Diverse Population Activity, Milestone 08, March 15, 2020 – June 14, 2020 86 # Project Documents 34 Quarterly Report, Rights for Gender Diverse Population Activity, Milestone 09, June 15, 2020 – Sep 14, 2020 35 Rationale for Mental Health Centers in Dhaka, Mymensingh and Cox’s bazar. July 15, 2016 – July 14, 2018 36 Report on Orientation Session with Denim Expert for Creating Job Opportunities. September 01, 2018. 37 Research on Stigma towards Gender Diverse Population in Educational Institutions, Prepared by Inspira Advisory and Consulting Ltd. (No date available) 38 RGDP Activity Theory of Change 39 RGDP DQA Checklist 04.07.2019 Revised BSWS. April 7, 2019 40 Rights for Gender Diverse Population (RGDP) at a Glance. Bandhu Social Welfare, January 27, 2021 (a PowerPoint presentation) 41 Rights for Gender Diverse Population (RGDP), Project Work Plan. June 15, 2018 - June 14, 2021 42 Training Intervention Report. September 16–17, 2019. 43 Training Report. Consultation meeting on PIL Issue. 4 December 2019. # Additional Research 44 Covid-19: Quick Survey for Community Response for TG and Hijra. May 19, 2020. 45 Quick Situation Analysis of Transgender and Hijra in Covid-19 Lockdown in Bangladesh. 46 Rapid Assessment Among People Living with HIV to understand the Effects of COVID-19 Outbreak 47 The Situation of the Sex Workers in Bangladesh and Further Initiatives under Covid-19 Pandemic. 87 ANNEX 7: TEAM CVS, COIS, AND NDAS Candidate: Piotr Pawlak, Ph.D. Position: Team Leader – BMEL S027 (Final Performance Evaluation for “USAID's Rights for Gender Diverse Populations (RGDP)” Activity) Key Qualifications Dr. Piotr Pawlak is a gender and social inclusion specialist with over 15 years of relevant experience, including extensive experience in the democracy, human rights, and governance (DRG) sectors in Bangladesh. Dr. Pawlak has direct experience in designing qualitative and quantitative research on gender issues in Bangladesh to assess the gender gaps and dynamics including differential access to resources, services, opportunities, leadership roles, and decision￾making power for men and women as well as social inclusion issues including ethnic minorities, migrant population, and LGBTI. Dr. Pawlak has a direct experience in working with a range of stakeholders in Bangladesh and is experienced in working on USAID-funded gender and social inclusion assessments and evaluations. Within the Bangladeshi context, Dr. Pawlak has direct experience in conducting gender assessments. In 2017, as a Technical Gender Advisor for World Vision Bangladesh he carried out gender assessment for the Nobo Jatra (New Beginning), a five-year USAID Food for Peace Title II Development Food Security Activity that seeks to improve gender equitable food security, nutrition, and resilience in southwest Bangladesh. As part of his technical assistance, Dr. Pawlak led an extensive formative research with communities; developed and field-tested educational curriculum to work with men and boys to promote gender equality; and provided capacity building for gender team and staff. Between 2014–2015, Dr. Pawlak served as a Technical Advisor on a multi-country gender initiative that examined the prevalence and factors associated with various types of GBV in Bangladesh, and South Asia at large. Dr. Pawlak highlighted the gaps where intensive research or interventions might be undertaken to decrease the prevalence of GBV in the country. He mapped and reviewed evaluated and promising GBV interventions in Bangladesh; led extensive fact￾finding consultations with stakeholders in Bangladesh and developed a set of strategic recommendations for the Government of Bangladesh on how to effectively prevent and respond to GBV, including violence against transgender and lesbian women and girls. Based on the research findings, he co-authored book, Violence against Women and Girls: Lessons from South Asia (World Bank, 2016). As masculinities expert with extensive research experience in South Asia, in 2014, Dr. Pawlak supported the design and implementation of a qualitative study in peri-urban slums of Dhaka, Bangladesh, to explore how poverty and migration drive changes in gender norms at the household level. As a result, he co-authored, Masculinities, Gender Norms and Development in South Asia report (World Bank, 2015), with a case study on Bangladesh. Dr. Pawlak is experienced in working on USAID-funded gender and social inclusion assessments, evaluation and reviews. Education Ph.D., Human Rights and Peace Studies, Mahidol University, Thailand, 2018 M.A., Political Science, University of Idaho, USA, 2005 B.A., Education and International Relations (University of Warsaw; Poland; 2003) 88 Professional Experience Gender and LGBTI-focused Evaluation and Research for USAID, 2012–2020 Evaluation Leader, UNFPA, Asia-Pacific, Oct. 2020–Dec. 2020. Conducted mix-method evaluation of the kNOwVAWdata Initiative aimed to provide technical support and sustainable capacity building, enabling countries to undertake VAW prevalence studies in an ethical and scientifically robust way. Assessed relevance and effectiveness, and impact and sustainability of the Initiative. As a result, developed evaluation report with recommendations to guide future phase of the project and scale up to other regions globally. Evaluation Technical Specialist, Management Systems International, Afghanistan, Aug. 2019–Jan. 2020. Conducted mixed-methods evaluation of the USAID’s $29 million PROMOTE’s Musharikat program promoting gender equality and women’s empowerment in Afghanistan. Led data collection, including series of qualitative interviews and quantitative survey to measure the performance, management, and sustainability of the program, and provided technical direction for the assignment including data coding and analysis. As a result, developed evaluation report with strategic recommendations for USAID on how to better promote women’s empowerment in Afghanistan. Senior Gender/LGBTI Expert, NORC, Colombia, Serbia and South Africa, Jul. 2017–Apr. 2018. Conducted mixed-methods evaluation of the USAID’s LGBTI Global Development Partnership (GDP). Design and implemented evaluation approach. Using Most Significant Change methodology carried out qualitative research, and analyzed data. The evaluation results helped to assess the efficacy of the GDP, and effectiveness of the field-based programs. Produced report with recommendations how LGBT populations in developing countries can be better served by USAID and partners. Lead Senior Researcher, Social Impact, China and Southeast Asia, Jan. 2019–Apr. 2019. Conducted gender analysis and stakeholder mapping, and identified approaches and programs promoting gender quality in eight development sectors. As a result, developed country analytical briefs and regional synthesis report addressing gender gaps. The research findings augmented ongoing strategy and project-level design in preparation for development of the USAID’s Regional Development Cooperation Strategy. Team Leader, Mendez, England & Associates, Kosovo, Aug. 2016–Dec. 2016. Designed and implemented Kosovo-wide qualitative gender research. Designed qualitative research methodology and instruments, conducted data collection including with LGBTI community, and data analysis. As a result, produced a detailed report, which identified challenges, constraints, and bottlenecks in regard to gender equality including equality for LGBTI population in Kosovo. The report included strategic recommendations in the area of countering rigid gender and power relations and incorporating gender issues into future USAID projects in Kosovo. Technical Advisor, ICF International, Bangladesh and Asia-Pacific, Sept. 2014–Sept. 2015. Conducted project-based qualitative gender analysis and developed recommendations for specific gender considerations in the climate change mitigation. Integrated gender aspects into existing approaches including Triple Bottom Line and Green Growth. Provided technical assistance to project partners, including in Bangladesh, and advised on gender performance indicators and gender-sensitive impact assessment of current project activities. Developed and implemented 89 gender training for the USAID/LEAF Asia and the Pacific Leadership Program on Gender, Climate and REDD+. Senior Researcher, Chemonics International, Haiti, Sri Lanka, and Kenya, Dec. 2012–Aug. 2013. Conducted qualitative assessment of GBV programs and developed best practices manual to effective interventions in pre-crisis, crisis, and post-crisis phases. As part of the assessment, designed and conducted qualitative research and conducted a series of gender workshops with USAID partners. As a result of the assessment, developed the M&E Toolkit for GBV Interventions in Pre-crisis, Crisis, and Post-crisis Phases for the use by USAID and partners. Senior Researcher, Chemonics International, India and South Africa, Aug. 2012–Dec. 2012. Designed and conducted a qualitative research to better understand what works in scaling up of GBV interventions globally. As part of the research, reviewed and assessed effective strategies for scaling up of GBV interventions in countries served by USAID. As a result, developed report and produced strategic recommendations for USAID highlighting what works in scaling up of GBV programs. Gender and LGBTI-related Consultancies for the UN, Aug. 2012–Dec. 2020 Senior Gender Expert, UNESCO, Bangladesh and Asia-Pacific, Aug. 2020–Dec. 2020. Designed and led training of 19 regional Ministries of Education including from Bangladesh in mainstreaming gender and advancing gender-responsiveness in education planning, policymaking and content as well as teacher development. The training covered how to address LGBTI population through education policies and programs. As a result, needs of 19 Gender Focal Points of ministries of education in member countries regarding gender mainstreaming in education systems and education policies have been addressed, and regional network of ministerial gender experts has been strengthened. Senior LGBTI Expert, UNESCO Asia-Pacific, China, Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam, Sept. 2017–Nov. 2017. Developed four country briefs on the current understanding, nature, scope and impact of violence against LGBTI in schools including overview of relevant policy and programmatic responses. Based on the available data and regional consultations, developed analytical multi-country synthesis report and provided recommendations for UNESCO and partners on addressing violence against LGBTIs in schools in Asia-Pacific. Gender Specialist, UNICEF, Bangladesh and Asia-Pacific, May 2015–May 2016. Provided technical assistance to country offices for aligning country programs to the Gender Action Plan (GAP) 2014-2017 including providing gender capacity developments. Conducted gender-focused reviews and assessments of country program documents, and identified and negotiated opportunities to improve existing and create new opportunities for gender integration, with specific attention to LGBT issues in education and health. Designed and delivered gender trainings with specific components on SOGIE in Timor-Leste and the Philippines, and provided cross-sectional input to development of UNICEF country products and concepts. Provided technical support in relation to gender mainstreaming in relevant UNICEF program activities and engagements in Bangladesh and Asia-Pacific. Lead Researcher UNICEF, Bangladesh and South Asia, Aug. 2014–Mar. 2015. Designed and conducted qualitative research on SRGBV, including violence against LGBTI students, in Bangladesh and South Asia. Reviewed existing evidence and conducted assessment of policies and programs on prevention of SRGBV including violence against LGBTI students. As a result, 90 developed regional review with particular focus on generating new knowledge and evidence about the ways that education may contribute to peace-building, social cohesion, and tolerance. Developed recommendations for the UNICEF regional strategy to address SRGBV including violence against LGBTI students in Bangladesh and the region. Senior Gender Expert, UNESCO Paris HQ and Asia-Pacific Regional Bureau, Bangladesh and Global, Jan. 2019–May 2019. Mapped interventions addressing boys’ disengagement in education from a range of geographical contexts. As a result, identified and assessed practices that have increased educational options and opportunities for boys and addressed the underlying factors for boys’ disadvantage and engagement, including SOGIE status. As a result, developed situation report to inform UNESCO-led initiative’s strategies for policy dialogue. Senior Gender Expert, UNESCO HQ, Bangladesh and Asia-Pacific, Jun. 2015–Dec. 2015. Conducted mapping of existing indicators related to SRGBV including violence against LGBTI students in the region. Identified and prioritized a list of indicators for measuring the nature, scope, and consequences of SRGBV including violence against LGBTI students, and the coverage, outcomes, and impact of education sector’s response to such violence. As a result, developed regional report with gender-sensitive situational analysis highlighting the extent of LGBTI￾responsive policy developments in the region. Senior Gender Expert, UNESCO, Bangladesh and Asia-Pacific, Aug. 2013–May 2014. Identified and examined relevant literature, conducted desk review, expert interviews and scan of existing approaches in policy, programming, and implementation responses to SRGBV, with a special emphasis on the violence against LGBTI in schools. Summarized findings and produced recommendations for actions for regional dissemination. Developed a report, School-Related Gender-Based Violence in Asia and Pacific, with policy and research recommendations. Gender Consultant, UN Women, Lao PDR, Mar. 2015. Designed and pilot-tested a school￾based manual to prevent and reject violence, including violence against LGBTI students, and foster gender equitable attitudes and behaviors among youth. Provided recommendations and technical assistance to UN Women Regional Office for Asia-Pacific on further implementation and scale￾up of the pilot manual, and on addressing gender and social inclusion in further programmatic investments in the region. Gender and LGBTI-related Consultancies for The World Bank, 2012-2020 Senior Gender Expert, The World Bank, Thailand, Aug. 2018–Aug. 2019. Designed and implemented mix-method study documenting economic exclusion of Thai LGBTI people. The study highlighted current and emerging gender inequalities and social exclusion among LGBTI population. As a result, developed a report with policy options for the Government of Thailand ensuring an inclusive and cohesive environment for all Thai citizens. The research won the 2018 East Asia and the Pacific Vice-Presidential Unit Team Award. Senior Gender Expert, The World Bank, Thailand, Jan. 2018–Dec. 2018. By conducting a range of program diagnostics and identifying opportunities to promote gender equality and social inclusion including LGBTI population, developed Cambodia 2018 Country Gender Action Plan (CGAP). The CGAP established a plan of action for addressing gender-related priorities, including addressing equality for LGBTI population, in the upcoming Country Partnership Framework (CPF). 91 Senior Gender Expert, The World Bank, Cambodia, Jan. 2017–Dec. 2017. Conducted research on barriers to access to health services for LGBTI people in Cambodia. Based on the findings developed recommendations for the Government of Cambodia on how to strengthen response of health care service providers including through mitigation of SOGI-based violence. The research findings have been utilized by the World Bank Global SOGI Advisor in capacity building events globally. Senior Gender Expert, The World Bank, Thailand, Jan. 2016–May 2016. Supported preparation of 2018 Thailand Systematic Country Diagnostic (SCD). Provided gender-expert input, and integrated gender considerations into the SCD to promote quality and equitable education. As a result of the task, gender-responsiveness, including attention to Thai LGBTI population, has been included in future country programmatic and policy investments. Senior Gender Expert, The World Bank, Bangladesh, Jan. 2014–Aug. 2015. In Bangladesh, and other seven countries in South Asia, examined the prevalence and risk factors associated with various types of GBV, including violence based on SOGIE highlighting the gaps where intensive research or interventions might be undertaken. As part of the initiative, conducted stakeholder consultations in Bangladesh to better understand protective and mitigation factors for GBV. As a result, co-authored a book/report and developed strategic recommendations on how to promote gender equality and prevent GBV including against transgender women and girls through policy and programming. Other Related Consultancies in Bangladesh Lead Expert, World Vision, Bangladesh, Mar. 2017–May 2018. For the Nobo Jatra (New Beginning), a five-year USAID Food for Peace Title II Development Food Security project in Bangladesh, carried out formative research, and developed and field-tested educational curriculum to systematically engage men, partners of female beneficiaries of economic empowerment program, in support for equitable gender norms at the family level. Develop a community engagement plan and designed M&E framework to measure the degree of changes as a result of the intervention. Provided capacity building for gender team and staff on gender, masculinity, and gender transformative programming including through technical assistance, tool development, design, and delivery of a training of trainers. Languages English, German, and Polish 92 93 94 Candidate: Rabeya Rowshan Nationality: Bangladeshi Affiliation: ME&A Position: Senior Evaluation Specialist with Expertise in Human Rights Key Qualifications Ms. Rabeya Rowshan is a Commonwealth Fellow and obtained her M.S. in Gender and Development from University of Sussex, UK. She has more than 30 years of experiences in research, evaluation, project implementation, planning, and management. She published two books and a significant number of papers based on qualitative enquiries. Moreover, her experience in the development sector is enormous and she has already completed more than 55 projects and consulting assignments. Ms. Rowshan’s major thematic areas of work are gender and development, gender and violence, minority issues, governance, youth engagement and movement, human rights, and child rights and protection. She is very familiar with implementing and evaluating donor-funded projects and has produced a significant number of reports for studies, evaluations, and assessments of different programs and projects for various national and international organizations. Ms. Rowshan also volunteers as an Advisor with four organizations: Social Science Interest Group of ICDDRB, Dhaka Medical College Social Welfare, Nari Shonghoti, and Nagorik Uddyog. Education M.S., Gender and Development, University of Sussex, UK, 1998 M.S., Anthropology, Jahangirnagar University, Dhaka, 1989 B.A., Anthropology, Jahangirnagar University, Dhaka, 1988 Professional Experience Gender Expert, UCEP, Bangladesh, Sept. 2019–Oct. 2019. Developed review and revised Gender Policy. Gender Expert, Evaluation of Agricultural Growth & Employment Program (AGEP) DANIDA, Bangladesh, Dec. 2018–Aug. 2019. Joint project of Orbicon and Nordic. Lead Consultant, Capacity Assessment and Need Identification of Target Youth Volunteer of the Resilient, Inclusive, and Innovative Cities in Bangladesh, Mymensingh Municipality Project, NGO Forum for the Public Health, Jan. 2019–Feb. 2019. Lead Consultant, Nagorik Uddyog, Bangladesh, Jan. 2019. Member of the UN shadow report writing team on disability and minority in Bangladesh. Lead Consultant, Baseline Survey of the Strengthened Civil Society Protects and Promotes Women’s Rights Project, NETZ Bangladesh, Jun. 2018–Sept. 2018. Lead Consultant, End-line Survey to Assess Socio Economic and Demographic Status of Dalits, Christian Aid Bangladesh/Nagorik Uddyog, Jan. 2018–Mar. 2018. Workshop Facilitator, OBIROD Project, USAID/Management System International, Oct. 2017–Dec. 2017. Lead Consultant, South Asia WASH Results Program (SAWRP), Plan UK, Jul. 2017–Oct. 2017. Formative research for hygiene and sanitation behavior change design. Lead Consultant, Situation Analysis of Rural Sponsorship Program in Barisal, Shishuder Jonno Project, Save the Children International, Bangladesh, Jun. 2017–Sept. 2017. 95 Lead Consultant, SOMOSHTI Project, Swiss Development Cooperation (SDC), Care Bangladesh, Jan. 2017–Feb. 2017. Analysis of local context for engagement of women in economic activities and developed the WEE strategy of the SDC. Consultant, Justice for All Project, Nagorig Uddyog, Feb. 2017–May 2017. Documented best practices. Gender Expert, Practical Action Consultancy Unit, UNDP, Dhaka, Bangladesh, Jan. 2017. Gender responsive and climate resilience livelihood options identification research. Lead Researcher, Nagorik Uddyog, Jul. 2016–Dec. 2016. Situation analysis of Dalit women in Bangladesh. Team Leader, Save the Children International, Sept. 2016–Dec. 2016. Assessed government scheme for children with disabilities. Lead Consultant, National Network for Marginalized Communities (NNMC)/HEKS, Bangladesh, May 2016–Jul. 2016. Developing a five-year project proposal for NNMC, a Adivashi and Dalit network in north west Bangladesh. Group Business Director, MRB Bangladesh, a Kanter Group, Apr. 2015–Jun. 2016. Lead Consultant, Save the Children International, Dhaka, Dec. 2014–Apr. 2015. Exploring the current dimensions of child marriage and factors behind the practice: A study in Meherpur context. Gender Consultant, SDSD Project DASCOH, Bangladesh, Nov. 2014–Dec. 2014. Reviewed Gender Analysis Report of the SDC-DASCOH SDSD Project to improve it and make it reader￾friendly. Lead Consultant, Breaking the Silence, Dhaka, Bangladesh, Oct. 2014–Dec. 2014. Situation analysis of the project Prevent and Respond towards Violence against Children through a systems approach. National Consultant, Protecting Children from Violence: A Comprehensive Evaluation of UNICEF’S Global Strategies and Program Performance, Jul. 2014–Sept. 2014. Gender Consultant, Scouting for Gender Program Counterpart in Bangladesh of Oxfam Novib, Sept. 2013–Oct. 2013. Implemented by Nova Consultancy Bangla. Gender Consultant, Capacity Development for Local Governments Project, BARD/RDA/NILG, Aug. 2012–Oct. 2013. Funded by SDC and implemented by Verulam Associates Bangladesh Ltd., a sister concern of Verulam Associate UK. Lead Consultant, Baseline Study and Situational Analysis of Improving Child Protection and Rehabilitation of Children from Sexual Abuse and Exploitation in Bangladesh, Save the Children International and Bangladesh, Jun. 2012–Sept. 2012. Director, Civic Engagement Division, Transparency International Bangladesh, Apr. 2010– Dec. 2011. Consultant, Water Sanitation Program-South Asia the World Bank, Bangladesh, Sept. 2008– Jun. 2009. 96 Consultant, Save the Children UK, Dec. 2008–Mar. 2009. Impact assessment of the Emergency Response to rebuild the educational institutions and child safety places for children in affected areas. Team Leader, Evaluation of the Andulia Community Health Development Project, The Salvation Army International/Norwegian Embassy, Mar. 2009–Apr. 2009. Led three-member team evaluating the Andulia Community Health Development project. Evaluator, Prottasha-a Project, ABMS/Australian Baptist World Aid/Tear Australia/CRWSC, USA, Bangladesh, Oct. 2008. Member of a three-member team evaluating the Prottasha-a Project. Gender Specialist, Rapid Assessment of Bangladesh Labor Situation, USAID-USA/SSI￾Bangladesh, Bangladesh Aug. 2008. Member of a team conducting a rapid assessment of the Bangladesh Labor Situation, with a special focus on the RMG, EPZ, and Shrimp processing sectors. Gender Consultant, Horizontal Learning Program, WSP, The World Bank, Bangladesh, Mar. 2008–Jul. 2008. Gender Consultant, Aquaculture Project Evaluation, DANIDA, Bangladesh, Jan. 2008–Apr. 2008. Gender Mentor, Gender Equality in Education Project, Commonwealth Education Fund in Bangladesh, CEF, UK, May 2007–Dec. 2007. Team Leader, Evaluation of the Banshkahli Community Development Project, Australian Baptist Mission, Bangladesh/Australian World Aid, Nov. 2007–Dec. 2007. Team Member, Evaluation of the Joyrumkura PHCP Program, Australian Baptist Mission, Bangladesh/Tear UK, Aug. 2007. Team Member, Evaluation of the Doorbar Network, Naripakhoo Bangladesh, Mar. 2007. Evaluation of the largest feminist network in Bangladesh. Team Member, Study/Rapid Assessment on Hazardous Child Labor in Rural and Urban in Bangladesh, Save the Children Sweden-Denmark, Bangladesh, Jan. 2007–May 2007. Team Leader, Baseline and Situation Analysis of the Child Sexual Abuse, Exploitation and Trafficking Projects, Save the Children Sweden-Denmark, Bangladesh, Dec. 2005–Mar. 2007. Gender Specialist, Mainstreaming Gender Training, AWAID, Bangladesh, Mar. 2006. Conducted training on mainstreaming gender in organization and in the programs of AWAID and its partner NGOs of Bangladesh, India, and Australia. Gender Consultant, Development Association for Self-Reliance Communication and Health (DASCOH), Bangladesh, May 2005–Dec. 2006. Gender Consultant, Gender Audit of the Livelihood, Empowerment and Agroforestry Project, Intercooperation, Bangladesh, Jul. 2006–Aug. 2006. Conducted Gender Audit of the Livelihood, Empowerment and Agroforestry project, Intercooperation, funded by SDC. Gender Consultant, Mid-Term Evaluation of the Modhupur Development Project, Church of Bangladesh/Bread for the World, Germany, Bangladesh, Apr. 2006–May 2006. 97 Gender Specialist, Gender and Development Training, Assistance for Slum Development (ASD), Bangladesh, Oct. 2005–Nov. 2005. Conducted training on gender and development for the Action Aid-funded ASD project staff. Gender Specialist, Advanced Gender Training, DPHE-DANIDA, Bangladesh, Sept. 2005– Oct. 2005. Conducted advanced gender training for senior management level staff of DPHE￾DANIDA Water and Sanitation Program Components. Gender Specialist, Gender Assessment of DPHE-DANIDA Water and Sanitation Program Component, Bangladesh, Mar. 2005–Jun. 2005. Anthropologist, Final Assessment of Initiatives for Total Sanitation in 254 Villages, DPHE￾DANIDA Program, Bangladesh, Dec. 2004–Mar. 2005. Gender Specialist, Evaluation of Slum Mother and Children Program, ASD/Bread for the World, Germany, Bangladesh, Mar. 2005–Apr. 2005. Lead Researcher (Bangladesh part), Research Project “Implications of Violence against Women on the Development Process – A cross-country analysis between Kolkata and Dhaka,” Hijli INSPIRATION, Kolkata, India, Bangladesh, May 2004–Feb. 2005. Gender Specialist, Impact Evaluation of the Food Security Program, World Vision Bangladesh/International Institute of Rural Reconstruction, Philippines/Tango International, USA, Aug. 2004–Oct. 2004. Gender Specialist, Training Assessment, Caritas Development Institute (CDI), Caritas Bangladesh, Bangladesh, Feb. 2004–Mar. 2004. Assessment of CDI trainings. Consultant, Water, Engineering and Development Centre/DFID, Loughborough University, U.K., Aug. 2003–Oct. 2003. Consulted on a DFID-funded research project, Impact of Transport Sector Reform on Livelihood of Urban Poor. Research Coordinator, UNFPA-Bangladesh, Bangladesh, Sept. 2002–Aug. 2003. Graduate Teaching Assistant, Michigan State University, USA, Aug. 2001–May 2002. Consultant, National Arsenic Information Support Unit (NAISU), Water Aid UK/NGO Forum for Drinking Water Supply and Sanitation, Bangladesh, Jun. 2001–Jul. 2001. Country Team Leader/Anthropologist, DFID, Bangladesh, Mar. 2000–Apr. 2001. Anthropologist in DFID-funded research project, Marketing Constraints to Increasing Financial Returns to Small and Medium Scale Rice Paddy Producers in Bangladesh, jointly undertaken by The Natural Resource Institute, University of Greenwich, UK, The Bangladesh Rice Research Institute, and Bangladesh Agriculture University. Consultant, Training Assessment, NGO Forum for Drinking Water Supply & Sanitation, Bangladesh, Oct. 1999–Feb. 2000. Assessment of quality of training provided to the partner NGO. WID/GENDER Specialist, Bangladesh Arsenic Mitigation Water Supply Project (BAMWSP), Government of Bangladesh/World Bank, Apr. 1999–Nov. 1999. Evaluator, Impact Evaluation of the Community Aid Abroad (CAA), Oxfam Australia, Dec. 1999–Jan. 1999. Impact evaluation of ten Oxfam Australia-funded partner NGOs’ ten-year old programs. 98 Consultant, NGO Forum for Drinking Water Supply & Sanitation, Mar. 1997–Jun. 1997. Developed monitoring strategy and monitoring tools. Sociologist/Anthropologist, The Integrated Food Assisted Development Project, Sub Project 1: Development of Assetless Women, Vulnerable Group Development Program, GOB/Department of Women Affairs/EC/ Femconsult, Netherlands, Bangladesh, Oct. 1996– Jan. 1997. Visiting Fellow, Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex, UK, Jul. 1996–Sept. 1996. Senior Anthropologist, Overseas Development Aid (ODA)/Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex, UK, Bangladesh, Aug. 1994–May 1996. Anthropologist in an ODA￾funded research project, Poverty and Wellbeing in Bangladesh: Impact of Economic Growth and Rural Development. Co-Investigator, International Centre for Diarrheal Disease Research, Bangladesh (ICDDRB), Bangladesh, Jan. 1993–Aug. 1994. Co-investigator in a project on Health Care Use Pattern in Urban Slums in Dhaka. Evaluator, Women Savings Groups Impact Assessment, Save the Children (USA), Bangladesh, Apr. 1994–May 1994. Co-Investigator, Anthropological Research Project, ICDDRB, Nov. 1991–Dec. 1992. Research Assistant, PripPact, Apr. 1989–Jun. 1989. Assisted Professor Nurul Alam in preparing an annotated bibliography on Natural Disaster in Bangladesh. Publications and Journal Articles Rowshan, R. Bringing Dalit Women to the Forefront: Realities and Challenges, Ngorik Uddyog, Dhaka, Bangladesh (2017). Sharif. Najma, Rowshan. Rabeya and Huda. Afroz; Stopping Child Sexual Abuse in Bangladesh: Documentation of Good Practices, Save the Children Bangladesh (2015). Rowshan, R. & Nasrin, S. “Centering the Subject: Bourdieu, Foucault and Fairclough on Subjectivity and Agency, Structure and Practice, and Knowledge and Power,” Nrvijnana Patrika (Journal of Anthropology), (2013). “Horizontal Learning Case Studies: How Appreciative Inquiry Enhances Gender Equity,” September 2010, Horizontal Learning Program, WSP, The World Bank, Bangladesh. “A Contested Concept: Gender mainstreaming in Bangladesh”, EQUALS, Newsletter for Beyond Access: Gender, Education and Development, Issue 20, April 2008, Institute of Education (IoE), University of London and Oxfam, UK. “Politics of Sexuality: rape and the construction of gender identity,” Nrivijnana Patrika (Journal of Anthropology), Vol. 10, (2005). “From a Distancing Discourse to a Discourse of Familiarity: Reflections on Development in Rural Bangladesh for Future Research,” Nrvijnana Patrika (Journal of Anthropology), Vol. 9, (2003). Jalal S., Rowshan R. Culture: A Journey Through Anthropological Thoughts, The Jahangirnagar Review, Part II Social Science Vol. XXVI, Journal of the faculty of social science, Jahangirnagar University, Dhaka. 99 Rowshan, R. & Goodland, A. Discussion Paper: Summary Findings of the Anthropological Study in Paddy Marketing and Rural Livelihoods in Bangladesh. Final Technical Report. R7496 (ZB0202). NRI, (2001). “Female Labour Migration: Do Economist Tell the Whole Story?” Journal of the Bangladesh National Geographical Association, Vols. 27-28, Nos. 1-2, (1999-2000), Dhaka. “Mainstreaming or Marginalization of Women in Development? A Critique of Women's Role in The National Five Year Plan (1973-1995) in Bangladesh,” Discourse: A Journal of Policy Studies, Vol. 3, No. 1, (1999), Dhaka. Zeitlyn, S. & Rabeya Rowshan. “Privileged Knowledge and Mothers’ ‘Perceptions’: The Case of Breast-Feeding and Insufficient Milk in Bangladesh.” Medical Anthropology Quarterly, March 1997, Vol. 11, No. 1. Zeitlyn S., Rowshan R., Mahalanabis D., & Faruque, ASG, “The Ethnophysiology of Digestion and Diarrhoea in a Bangladeshi Hospital Population,” Journal of Diarrhoeal Disease Research, Dec. 11 (4); 243-248, (1993). “Women in Disaster,” The Journal of Social Studies, Vol. 57:81-88 July 1992. 100 101 102 Candidate: Dr. Zobaida Nasreen Nationality: Bangladeshi Affiliation: ME&A Position: Senior Evaluation Specialist with Expertise in Gender Diverse Population Key Qualifications Dr. Zobaida Nasreen, is an associate professor at the Department of Anthropology of University of Dhaka. As a Fulbright Visiting Scholar at Rice University, USA, she worked on a research project “Unpacking Sexuality: Policy and Practice in the U.S. and Bangladesh.” Her scholarship focused on experiences of activists in bringing changes to laws to support LGBTQ communities in the United States and how they have shaped popular understandings of these long marginalized and discriminated groups. She studied how activists from these communities as well as their allies have pushed for their greater acceptance and equality into education, employment, and other opportunities. She got published a book (Narratives of Gender Diverse People in Bangladesh) on the transgender/gender diverse issue in Bangladesh and the book was launched by the U.S. Ambassador, the Honorable Earl R. Miller. She also has experience developing a software to help binary population have access to better, more accurate information about gender diverse people. Ms. Nasreen has been serving as an expert member of Ministry of Social Affairs to develop programs for transgender communities in Bangladesh. She served as an expert advisor when the government decided to give the hijra voting rights for the first time in 2008; since the hijra identity was not recognized at that time, their right to franchise was granted on the condition that the hjjra who wear male attire must be registered as male voters and vice-versa. In Bangladesh, she has worked with both the Ministry of Social Welfare and Ministry of Women and Children Affairs on policy advocacy. She had been also working with several studies funded by DFID, UNDP, EU, ILO, and the Government of Bangladesh. As a social activist, she had been working within transgender community to know their status and started channelizing lobby for their job opportunities for them. She is working with them to place skilled hijras in the labor market and help them develop applications for jobs and other initiatives. Ms. Nasreen is also teaching sex workers’ children informally in an orphanage run by a former sex worker. Education Post Doc, Center for the Study of Women, Gender and Sexuality, Rice University, USA, 2018 Ph.D., Cultural Anthropology, Durham University, UK, 2016 M.A., Anthropology, Hiroshima University, Japan, 2003 M.Sc., Jahangirnagar University, Bangladesh, 2001 B.S., Jahangirnagar University, Bangladesh, 2000 Experiences on Evaluation, Research, and Assessment Study Consultant, Assessment on Rapid Situation Analysis of Child Marriage Situation during COVID-19 in Bangladesh, Manusher Jonno Foundation (MJF), Bangladesh, 2020. Assessed national impact on Child Marriage Situation due to COVID-19 situation. Identified interventions to respond to this emergency needs. Highlighted strategic recommendations for post COVID-19. Consultant, Evaluation and Assessment Study on Exploring the Factors That Inhibit or Contribute to the Sustainability of School Interventions on Menstrual Health, Simavi, Netherlands, Bangladesh, 2020. Major responsibilities included: literature review; questionnaire development; field visits and conducted FGDs, IDIs, and KIIs; data analysis; and report writing and presentation. Evaluator, Attain Proficiency of Ethnic Rural Women Through Justifiable, Intrinsic and Tenable Activities (APORAJITA), MJF, 2020. Major responsibilities included: Literature 103 review; preparing KII questionnaire and FGD protocol; piloting the tool and finalizing tool based on requirements; planning and coordinating field activity; arranging training for data collectors and supervisors; field visit, data collection, and analysis; and report writing, updating draft report by incorporating SCI feedback, and presentation of findings. Evaluator, Evaluation and Assessment Study on Strengthening Marginalized Community￾Managed Sustainable Primary Multilingual Education in Bandarban (Scope), MJF, Bangladesh, 2020. Major responsibilities included: reviewing all documentation related to assessment study; designing the study; meeting with relevant stakeholders; field visit for data collection; data analysis; and report writing and submission. Lead Evaluator, Strengthened Civil Society Protects and Promotes Women’s Rights Project NETZ Bangladesh/EU, Bangladesh, 2019. Designed evaluation strategy. Conducted field study including FGDs and IDIs, data analysis, and stakeholder analysis. Finalized report and disseminated to national and international audiences. Evaluator, Evaluation and Assessment Study Mapping of the Indigenous Peoples in Bangladesh, Part 1 of Comprehensive Human Rights Study on the Ethnic Minorities of Bangladesh, UNDP, Bangladesh, 2019. Consultant, Study on Exploring Multi-Layered Dimensions of Trafficking and Sustainable Protection Strategies of Indigenous Women and Girls in CHT and Plain Land, MJF, Bangladesh, 2019. Consultant, Need Assessment and Sustainability Evaluation in Education for the Children with Autism: Status and Challenges in the Special Schools in Bangladesh, BANBIES (Research Grant from Ministry of Education), 2019. Consultant, Violence and Harassment Against Indigenous and Tribal Women Workers in the World of Work in Bangladesh, ILO, 2018. The study followed participatory research methods including FGDs, consultation, and KIIs. Consultant, Practicing Syncretism Though Religious Cults in Bangladesh, University Grants Commission, Bangladesh, 2018. Designed research strategy and interview schedule. Conducted field study. Finalized report and presentation to national and international audiences. Project Director, Online Service to Hijra Community, A2i, Prime Minister Office, Bangladesh, 2017. This assignment was to develop the strategy of how to form online service delivery process for being them accessible by Hijra Community. Consultant, Women and Cyber Security, ICT Division, Bangladesh, 2017. Online application for filing case against sexual harassment in cyber space. Consultant, Freedom Fighters in Small Ethnic Groups and Their Present Situation, Prime Minister’s Office, Bangladesh, 2017. Researcher, History, Traits, and Practice of Local Festivals in Dhaka City, Bangladesh Asiatic Society, 2017. Consultant, State Violence, Forced Displacement and Indigenous Women’s Narratives in the Chittagong Hill Tracts in Bangladesh, (PhD thesis submitted in July 2016), Department of Anthropology, Durham University, UK, 2011-2016. Funded by the Commonwealth Scholarship Commission in the UK. 104 Consultant, Climate Change, Women Vulnerabilities and Risk Reduction, Rangpur Dinajpur Rural Service (RDRS), Bangladesh, 2010. Consultant, Problems and Prospects of Bawm Handicrafts: A Study, Social Science Research Council, Ministry of Planning, Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, 2008. Consultant, Women in Matrilineal Patriarchal Society: Mandis (Garo) in Bangladesh, Action Aid, Bangladesh, 2008. Consultant, Women Martyrs: Undocumented History of the Liberation War funded by Association for Community Development (ACD), 2007. Case study of 30 women martyrs of 1971. Consultant, Violence and The status of Dalit Women in Private at Public Spheres in Bangladesh, Oxfam GB, Bangladesh, 2007. Researcher, Hajong Women in Labour Market, Social Science Research Council, Ministry of Planning, Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, 2006. Gender Specialist, Forced Displacement, Migration and Trafficking Among the Indigenous Peoples in CHT, MCRG, Calcutta, Bangladesh, 2006. Researcher, Pioneering Indigenous Women in Bangladesh, Oxfam GB, Bangladesh, 2006. Research Team Member, Internal Displacements in South Asia, Mahanirban Kolkata Research Group, Kolkata, India, Bangladesh, 2005. Supervised by Meghna Guhathakurta. Research Team Member, Poverty and Health: Women Working in Tanneries, Research Initiatives, Bangladesh (RIB), Bangladesh, 2004. Team Member, Feasibility Study of Bilingual Education Project for Chakma, Garo, and Santal Communities, BRAC, Bangladesh, 2004. Team Member, Comparative Performance Study on L1 User and L2 User Children in Education at Indigenous Children’s Schools, BRAC, 2004. Team Member, Violence Against Women During Mahalchari Incident: An Overview, The Society for Environment and Human Development (SHED), Bangladesh, 2004. Consultant, Local Government and Community Participation: A Study on WATSAN Partnership Project, Development Association for Self-Reliance, Communication and Health (DASCOH), Bangladesh, 2003. Researcher, Cultural Discourse of Development: A Case Study on a Local Society of Chittagong Hill Tracts in Bangladesh, Hiroshima University, Japan, 2001-2003. Conducted as a requirement of M.A. degree. Researcher, Bangladesh War of Liberation: Documents and History Publishing Project, Bangla Academy, Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, 2000. Researcher, Social Construction of Reproductive Health of Pregnant and Lactating Mothers, Ford Foundation, 1999. With Professor Rasheda Akhtar. Publications Books • Narratives on Sexual Diversity, Srabon Prakashoni, Dhaka, Balderdash, 2019. 105 • Violence in South Asia (Co-Editor Ali Riaz, Farzana Zaman), Routledge, 711 3rd Ave, New York, NY 10017, 2018. • Anthropological Thought, Mowla Brothers, Dhaka, Bangladesh, 2018. • ProtikulerJatri Nari (Women’s Journey Against All Odds), Mawla Brothers, Dhaka, 2013. • Poverty and Health: Women in Tanneries, Research Initiatives, Bangladesh (RIB), Dhaka, 2008. • Muktijudde Shaheed Nari (Martyred Women of the Liberation War), Anupam Prokashoni, Dhaka, 2008. • Sromo Barjare Hajong Nari (Hajong Women in Labour Market), Srabon Prokashoni, Dhaka, 2008. • Mutijudde Adibashi Nari (Indigenous Women in the Liberation War), Sabdoshailee Prokashoni, Dhaka, 2007. • Pothikrit Adbashi Nari (Leading Indigenous Women in Bangladesh), Oxfam, GB, Dhaka, 2007. • Muktijudde Noakhali (Noakhali During the Liberation War), Mawla Brothers, Dhaka, 2007. • Nijbhume Parobashi (The marginalisation discourse of ethnic people in the northern part of Bangladesh), reprinted by Dibboprokash, Co-Authors, Mesbah Kamal and Ishani Charabarty, 2006. Journal Articles • “Bangali anthropologist among ‘Pahari’ communities: Relocating ‘self’ in the field work,” Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bangladesh (Hum.), Vol. 63(1), 2018, pp. 39-58, Asiatic Society of Bangladesh. • “’She even eats nappi’: Cultural mutuality in field work in Journal of Social Studies,” Centre for Social Studies, Dhaka, No. 153, June 2017. • “‘Beautiful Bangladesh’ has no indigenous people: State Paradoxes on Indigenity,” Journal of Social Studies, Centre for Social Studies, Dhaka, No. 152, March 2017. • “Could you please tell us who our real enemy is?: Friends and Traitors in the Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHT) in Bangladesh,” Journal of Social Studies, Centre for Social Studies, Dhaka, No. 150, June 2016. • “Doledale Theith See Huhui Thigthigi (Lizard is everywhere): Closing the Gap in Fieldwork in the Chittagong Hill Tracts in Bangladesh,” Social Science Review. Dhaka University Studies, June 2016. • “Territoriality and Entitlement: Semantic Politics of Indigeneity in Bangladesh,” Journal of Asiatic Society of Bangladesh, Vol. 57, No. 2, December 2012. • “Poverty and Health Hazards: Condition of Women Workers in Tanneries of Bangladesh,” Social Science Review, Dhaka University Studies, Part D, Vol. 27, June 2010. • “Is the unfolded process of nation-building in Bangladesh a masculine, Muslim, Bengali and class agenda?” Nrivijnana Potrika (Journal of Anthropology), Vol. 11, (2008), Department of Anthropology, Jahangirnagar University, Dhaka. • “Performance of Mother Tongue and Bangla Users in NFP Schools,” Diversity and Citizenship, Srabon Prokashoni, 2006, pp. 125-138. Co-authors: Mesbah Kamal and Abdul Malek. • “Case of Ethnic Communities,” Human Rights in Bangladesh 2004, Ain O Salish Kendra, Dhaka, 2006, pp. 95-110. 106 • “Discourse on Minority Representation: The Case of Hindu Religious Minority in Bangladesh,” Himalayan and Central Asian Studies, Vol. 7, No. 3-4, July-December 2003, pp. 85-100. Co-author: Haridhan Goswami. • “Cultural Constructions of Reproductive Health of Pregnant and Lactating Mothers: Experiences of Some Village Women in Bangladesh,” Journal of Asian Women’s Studies, Vol. 12, December 2003, pp. 62-77, Japan, Co-authors: Haridhan Goswami and Rasheda Akhtar. • 2002: ‘The Representation of Chittagong Hill Tracts: An Overview’, Contemporary Anthropology: Theory and Practice, edited by Dr NurulAlam, University Press Limited, Dhaka, July 2002, pp.149-162, Co-author: Rasheda Akhtar • “Politics of Development: ‘Pahari-Bengali’ Discourse in the Chittagong Hill Tracts,” Journal of International Development and Cooperation, Vol. 9, No. 1, 2002, pp. 97-112, IDEC, Hiroshima University, Japan, Co-author: Masahiko Togawa. In Bengali: • “Masculinity and Revisiting Femininity: The role of family and state in understanding gender,” Nari O Progoti, Vol. 25, Jan-June 2017. • “Matrisutrio Pitritantrik Samaj: Bangladesher Mandi” (Matrilineal Patriarchal Society: Mandis of Bangladesh), Bangladesh Asiatic Society Potrika, Vol. 28, December 2010, pp. 171-191. • “Bangladesher Chalochitre Muktijuddo (Representing Liberation War in the Films of Bangladesh),” SamajikBigyanPatrica, Dhaka University Studies, Part D, 2010, Co-author: Firoz Zaman Choudhury. • “Stapattar Nribiggan: Parichiti ebong Parishor” (Anthropology of Architecture), Samaj Nirikhkhon, Centre for Social Studies, Vol. 113. Dhaka, 2010. • “Abagunthane Jounota, Batchite Donomono (Hidden Discourses on Sexuality: Dilemma in Making Dialogues,” Gender Jogagajog (Gender Communication), Robayet Ferdous, Samiya Rahman, and Sabrina Sultana Chowdhury, eds., 2010. • “Sromo Bazare Hajong Nari (Hajong Women in Labour Market),” Bangladesher Arthosamajik Obostha Ebong Nari (Women and socioeconomic situation of Bangladesh), Selina Hossain, Rita Afsar, and Masuduzzaman, eds., 2007. • “Itihasher Ogronthito Boyan: Shahid Nar Proshongo (The Undocumented Narration of History: the Story of Martyred Women),” Muktijuddo O Uttorkal, NuhAlam Lenin, Agami Prokashoni, eds., 2007. • “Nacher Nribiggan (Anthropology of Dance),” Samaj Nirikhkhon, Centre for Social Studies, Vol. 97. Dhaka, 2007. • “Nari, Biye O Samajik Jouteker Dharona (Women, Marriage and the Notion of Cultural Dowry),” Nari O Progoti, Bangladesh NariPragati Sangha. Vol. 3, 2006, pp. 33-36. • “Nari: Raster Vitor Rastrohin (Women: Stateless within a State),” Nari O Progoti, Bangladesh Nari Pragati Sangha, Vol. 2, 2006, pp. 1-7. • “Adibashi Narir Trimukhi Prantikota,” Biponno Bhumijo, Mesbah Kamal and Arifatul Kibria, eds., July 2003, RDC and Kolkata University, pp. 65-78. • “ItihashNirmanerSanskriti,” BiponnoBhumijo, Mesbah Kamal and Arifatul Kibria, eds., July 2003, RDC and Kolkata University, Co-author: Eshani Chakrabarty, pp. 48-56. • “Samprotik Nribigganer Math: Ekti Parjalochona (Fields in Recent Anthropology: An Overview),” Samaj Nirikhon, Centre for Social Studies, University of Dhaka, Vol. 82, October 2001, Co-author: Rasheda Akhtar. 107 • “Nari, Biye o Paribar,” NarirKotha, AbulHasnath, ed., Mawla Brothers, February 2001, pp. 31-53. • “Garbhobati O Dugdhabati Narir Shasthwer Samajik Nirman (Social Construction of Reproductive Health of Pregnant and Lactating Mothers),” Nribijnana Potrika (Journal of Anthropology), Vol. 5, May 2000, Department of Anthropology, Jahangirnagar University, Dhaka, Co-author: Rasheda Akhtar, pp. 15-32. • “Ekjon Muktijodda Narir Oviggota o Bikhubdhota (Experience and Agony of a Woman Freedom Fighter),” Ekattorer Oviggota O Juddho Porobarthi Kothyo Kahini (Oral History of experiences of 1971 and the future of women victims), Hameeda Hossain, ed., February 2000, Ain O Salish Kendra. Co-author: Suraiya Begum. Conferences and Papers • Semantic Politics of Indigeneity and Indigenous Women’s Encounter in the Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHT) in Bangladesh, BDI conference, Yale University, USA, 2019. • “Who Is a “Real” Woman: Remirroring Self beyond the Bubbles,” Texas A&M University, Corpus Christi, TX, November 14, 2018. • Co-Convenor, Panel P27 - Understanding Political Violence in South Asia, 24th European Conference on South Asia, July 27-30, 2016, Warsaw, Poland. • “Narratives of Violence Against Indigenous People in Bangladesh,” Marx Memorial Library, London, UK, 2015. • “Legitimate and Illegitimate Power in the Chittagong Hill Tracts of Bangladesh,” SAAG Conference on Leadership, Authority and Legitimation in South Asia, CRASSH, November 20-21, 2015, University of Cambridge, UK. • “Ecology of Fear and Distrust: Closing the Gap in Field Work in the Chittagong Hill Tracts in Bangladesh,” Annual Anthropology Postgraduate Conference, April 29, 2015, Durham University, UK. • “The Ecology of Violence and Self-Surveillance in the CHT in Bangladesh: Everyday Form of Violence, Resistance and the Women’s Negotiation on Peace Building and Conflict Management,” Third Conference on Bengal Related Studies for Students and Young Scholars, October 24-26, 2014, Martin Luther University, Halle, Wittenberg, Germany. • “State Violence, Forced Displacement and Indigenous Women’s Narratives in the Chittagong Hill Tracts in Bangladesh,” Seminar, October 23, 2014, Bielefeld University, Germany. • “Understanding ‘Utopia” Through the Struggle and Activism of the Hill Women’s Federation in the Chittagong Hill Tracts of Bangladesh,” SAAG Conference on South Asian Utopias, July 3-4, 2014, Social Anthropology, Brunel University, UK. • “Reconnecting with the Disconnected Loved Ones Living in Foreign Lands Through Memory: Narratives of Returnee Refugees in the Chittagong Hill Tracts in Bangladesh,” IUAES 2014 Conference: IUAES 2014 Inter-Congress: the Future with/of Anthropologies, Tokyo, Japan. • “Material Culture and Semantic Politics of ‘Indigeneity’ in Bangladesh,” AAS Annual Conference on Displacements, Exclusions, and Minority Status, March 21-24, 2013, San Diego, CA. • “Mirror of Life: Narratives of the Displaced Indigenous Women in the Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHT) in Bangladesh,” Young Scholar’s Conference on Asian Studies in a Globalised World, March 4-6, 2013, Bangkok, Thailand. 108 • “Life Inside Hallung (Bamboo Made Basket): Construction of Memory Through Women’s Narratives of Displacement in Chittagong Hill Tracts,” 14th IASFM Conference, January 6-9, 2013, Swabhumi, Kolkata, India. 109 110 111 Candidate: Md. Efthakhar Mahamudul Hoque Mondol Position: Research/Evaluation Assistant 112 113 Candidate: Humaira Binte Faruque Position: Research/Evaluation Assistant 114