Annual Review – post April 2018

Title: Prevention of Violence Against Women and Girls: Research and Innovation Fund

Programme Value £ (full life): £25,420,000 Review Date: April 2019

Programme Code: 203709 Start Date: December 2013 End Date: December 2019

Summary of Programme Performance Year 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019Programme Score B A+ A A+ A+ A+Risk Rating Medium Medium Major Major Moderat

eModerate

DevTracker Link to Business Case: http://iati.dfid.gov.uk/iati_documents/3942847.docxDevTracker Link to Log frame: http://iati.dfid.gov.uk/iati_documents/4746219.xlsx

A. Summary and Overview (1-2 pages)

Description of programme

“The What Works consortium includes some of the most widely cited researchers in the field. …No other donor has invested comparable resources into VAWG research… this is a highly respected initiative with the potential to make a major contribution to knowledge in the field.”

UK Independent Commission for Aid Impact (2016), DFID’s efforts to eliminate violence against women and girls: A learning review, pp15: 3.2

Violence against women and girls (VAWG) is the most widespread form of abuse worldwide: globally, one in three women is beaten or sexually abused by an intimate partner in her lifetime i. DFID’s £25 million flagship ‘What Works to Prevent Violence’ research and innovation programme engages leading international experts to produce rigorous evidence on the most effective interventions to drive down rates of VAWG. The evidence being generated is a global public good, intended to help DFID, developing country governments and international partners everywhere to improve the effectiveness of their efforts to prevent VAWG. A review of DFID’s efforts to eliminate VAWG by the UK Independent Commission for Aid Impact (ICAI), and the independent mid-term evaluation of What Works ii, found that the data and evidence from What Works will be useful across the global community, with high potential to shape donor investment over the next 5-10 years.

What Works is making a substantial contribution to delivering the UK’s commitments on VAWG, as set out in the UK Strategy to End Violence Against Women and Girls (2016-20), the UK’s National Action Plan on Women, Peace and Security (2018-22), DFID’s Strategic Vision for Gender Equality (published March 2018), and DFID’s Education Policy ‘Get Children Learning’ which commits to scale-up support for reducing school-based violence. The programme also supports the achievement of the targets on VAWG within the Sustainable Development Goals, which the UK was influential in shaping.

What Works is driving innovation and evidence in three main areas:

Component 1 (C1) is rigorously evaluating 15 innovative approaches to prevent VAWG across 12 countries in Africa and Asia that have potential to be taken to scale. It is also conducting research on VAWG and disability, and costing studies to generate evidence on the value for money of VAWG prevention programming. It is delivered by a consortium led by the South Africa Medical Research Council (SAMRC), which also serves as the Secretariat for the overall programme to ensure coordination and synergy between the components. C1 has a budget of £18 million.

Component 2 (C2), led by the International Rescue Committee (IRC), is researching the drivers, prevalence, trends over time and effective prevention and response mechanisms for VAWG in conflict and humanitarian emergencies. C2 has a budget of £5.1 million.

1

Component 3 (C3), led by the National University of Ireland (NUI) Galway, is building the business case for action on VAWG by developing new economic research methods for measuring social and economic costs of VAWG and generating data on the impacts of VAWG on households, businesses, and economies. The research is based on empirical studies in South Sudan, Ghana and Pakistan. C3 has a budget of £1.8 million.

The What Works Independent Evaluation (Component 4), led by IMC Worldwide, is assessing performance of all three components through a mid-term review (received March 2017), end-term final evaluation, and three ‘check-ins’ with implementing partners on research uptake in 2017, 2018 and 2019. C4 has a budget of £400,000.

Summary supporting narrative for the overall score in this review

Over the last year, What Works has made good progress against output targets, scoring A+ (‘moderately exceeding expectations’). The table below summarises output scores for 2018/19 in relation to the three components.

Output Relevant to components 2018-19

score

Weighting1

(SAMRC)2

(IRC)3

(NUI)1 High quality, policy-relevant evidence on VAWG prevention Y A++ 25%2 Innovation programmes implemented and evaluated Y A 20%3 Research on VAWG in conflict and humanitarian emergencies Y A+ 15%4 Research on economic and social costs of VAWG Y A 10%5 Dissemination, stakeholder engagement and promoting uptake Y Y Y A+ 20%6 Building Southern capacity to generate and communicate research Y Y Y A+ 10%

In the year under review, data collection has been completed for all research studies across 16 countries, generating evidence that has strong policy relevance for DFID, HMG and international partners. Results are encouraging, with over half of the rigorously evaluated pilots showing significant reductions in violence of around 50%. Most also achieved multiple secondary effects on outcomes such as food security, earnings and savings, mental health, alcohol use, and gender equitable attitudes.

The programme has shown significant capacity for analysing and publishing findings for academic and technical audiences, evidenced in the extensive body of 131 peer reviewed journal articles and reports published by the consortium to date (92 of these by C1). This track record of publications is continuing to build the credibility of the research and making a significant contribution to expanding global knowledge on VAWG. The independent evaluators (IMC) have assessed the quality as high across components, with outputs that are ‘deemed world-leading’ and likely to impact academic thinking and policy and practice.iii

The 12-month programme extension issued in January 2019 has lengthened the time available for research uptake to maximise the impact of the findings. With a growing body of evidence to disseminate, the programme has intensified efforts to build demand, share findings and support take-up of knowledge

2

Box 1: End-line results show significant reductions in VAWG

Ghana: Sexual and physical IPV reduced by half following an intervention that supported community mobilisers to educate and sensitise the community on VAWG.

DRC: Women’s experience of IPV more than halved from 69% to 29%, and non-partner sexual violence reduced from 21% to 4%, following a project with faith leaders and community action groups.

Afghanistan: The intervention, which worked in 20 schools in conflict-affected Jawzjan Province, led to a 50% reduction in peer violence and significant reductions in corporal punishment.

Pakistan: Right to Play’s school-based intervention led to a 47% reduction in corporal punishment in school for girls and a 26% drop for boys, as well as significant reductions in peer violence.

Tajikistan: By combining social and economic empowerment, this intervention led to a 50% reduction in IPV and a 4-fold increase in the proportion of women with earnings in past month. Depression nearly halved for women and more than halved for men.

and recommendations. Supported by DFID, researchers have used their profile and networks to hold successful dissemination events during 16 Days of Activism in London, at the UN Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) in New York, and at the World Bank in DC. DFID country offices have actively engaged, holding launch events in Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Ghana, Nepal, Pakistan, South Sudan, Tajikistan, and Zambia. Results are getting media pick-up, including a highly positive piece and photos in The Guardian on the intervention in Tajikistan; and in the Telegraph on results from Ghana and the DRC.

There is evidence of impact on policy and programmes. The new UN Women/WHO ‘RESPECT’ framework on preventing violence against women uses examples from What Works to encourage the UN system to replicate these proven approaches. What Works evidence has shaped the design of DFID’s bilateral programmes in Malawi and Zimbabwe. There is strong demand for this evidence from country offices and interest in scaling up, for example in DFID DRC which is exploring opportunities to adapt and replicate the successful What Works intervention in other provinces.

Capacity development remains a major success of the programme. Practitioners better understand how to use evidence and Southern researchers have gained skills and confidence in collecting and analysing data and publishing and presenting papers. At the Annual Scientific Meeting (ASM) in October/November 2018, grantees shared how much they valued the technical support they received, the new networks that have emerged and the opportunity to learn from each other’s programmes. For most, the relationship between researchers and practitioners has become mutually beneficial: one practitioner described this “revolutionising” how she works.

The programme’s success in driving innovation was also highly visible again this year. What Works is setting new global standards and measures: generating data to help set standards for disability inclusive VAWG prevention; launching new, practitioner-friendly guidance on how to incorporate VAWG measurement in analysis, monitoring and evaluation in humanitarian and conflict environments; developing new methods to measure costs and cost effectiveness of violence prevention; and pioneering research on how cash affects VAWG in acute humanitarian settings. The independent evaluators described the programme as being “on track as a brand leader by modeling innovative approaches which can inform the development of programming across numerous countries and contexts”.iv

Recommendations for the final eight months

Component 1

1. The priority for the final months of the programme is finalising and publishing high quality, impactful synthesis products, including the flagship report mapping interventions and their outcomes to identify common dimensions of successful interventions. As recommended by the Independent Advisory Board (IAB), for each synthesis product agreed with DFID,v the Secretariat should establish and actively engage sub-groups that draw in expertise from across the wider What Works programme to support comparative analysis, identification of key messages, and co-authorship. This should include Southern researchers/practitioners from C1 projects. A realistic timeframe for comments and review should be agreed between SAMRC/product leads and DFID before drafting begins, and IAB members should be given advanced notice of when their inputs will be needed.

2. The Secretariat and DFID should capture learning from what did not work as well as what works, while supporting grantees to communicate mixed findings in a nuanced way and proactively managing sensitivities around interventions that did not show evidence of violence reduction in the specific setting. National dissemination and standalone products may not always be appropriate for these studies, but the learning and conclusions from across these projects should be captured in synthesis products and peer reviewed journal articles. DFID needs to send a strong message that we applaud partners for being courageous learning organisations that are willing to rigorously evaluate their interventions and learn from this.

3. By end of June 2019, C1 should coordinate across the three components to develop a comprehensive communications plan for the final six months of the programme, including media and digital products, in consultation with DFID. This should set out how the programme will use key moments such as the Sexual Violence Research Initiative Conference in October and the Preventing Sexual Violence Initiative International Conference in November to maximise opportunities for research uptake and influence.

3

4. C1 should swiftly finalise analysis and messaging of the costs/cost effectiveness data for Ghana, Kenya, Rwanda, South Africa, and Zambia and submit the planned paper on costs of VAWG prevention interventions for peer review by end of August 2019. Data collection for the Pakistan costing/cost effectiveness study should be completed by end of August 2019 and the data included in the cost-effectiveness paper by end October. Outcomes papers on findings from all 15 end-line evaluations should be submitted for peer review by no later than end of August 2019 (recognising that publication will take longer).

Component 3

5. C3 should focus on publication of papers drawn from quantitative (not only qualitative) data, including publishing at least one peer review article synthesising quantitative and qualitative findings on social and economic costs from across the three countries before the end of the programme.

6. C3 should ensure submission of the completed Methodological Guidance and Policy Maker Toolkit to DFID by the renegotiated deadline of start of June 2019.

All components and DFID

7. Working with IMC’s Evaluation Team, components should strengthen tracking and reporting in quarterly/milestone reports on the impact of stakeholder engagement and research uptake activities, including use of evidence by government stakeholders.

8. DFID should agree with the components how to ensure public access to the wealth of evidence and public materials produced through the programme after it ends in December, including the future of the What Works website.

9. ISD and RED should continue to engage country offices, central teams, HMG and other donors to support adaptation, replication and scale-up of proven What Works approaches, and the use of learning to improve the effectiveness of approaches with mixed findings.

4

B: DETAILED OUTPUT SCORING (suggest 1 page per output)

Output Title High quality and policy relevant evidence on what works to prevent violence against women and girls produced (Component 1)

Output number per LF 1 Output Score A++

Impact weighting (%): 25% Impact weighting % revised since last AR? N

Indicator(s) Milestone(s) for this review Progress 1.1 Cumulative number of research outputs published or accepted for publication on what works to prevent VAWG (peer reviewed articles, open access journal articles, working papers that have gone through a credible peer review or QA process).

Total outputs (cumulative): 58

Peer reviewed outputs (journal articles, book chapters): 48 (3 on disability and 4 on costing)

Peer reviewed outputs that are open access: 32

Self-published outputs (working papers, reports, etc): 10

Milestone exceeded: 92 research products (cumulative)

Peer-reviewed: 72 cumulative Reported in last AR: 40Published this reporting period: 30 (1 on disability)Accepted for publication: 2 In peer review: 24 (2 on disability, 1 on costing)

Of the 72 published peer reviewed articles, 67 cumulatively are open-access.

Self-published: 20 cumulativeReported in last AR: 15This reporting period: 5

1.2 Cumulative number and type of improvements in methods and indicators for capturing impact of what works to prevent violence.

10 Milestone exceeded: 11 (cumulative)

Reported in last AR: 8This reporting period: 3 improvements in methods

1.3 Cumulative number of specific datasets on prevention interventions of VAWG cleaned, archived and accessible.

20 (2 are on costing and disability)

Milestone exceeded: 33 open access (cumulative)

All quantitative datasets include questions on disability. Costing data will be made publicly available within 12 months of finalising data collection, in line with DFID’s policy.

1.1 Research outputs

The What Works independent evaluators (IMC) commended C1 for “an impressive number of outputs and demonstrating extraordinary commitment and a publication strategy that is clearly working – the outputs are high quality, carry significant impact, and are rigorously positioned in line with gaps in global knowledge”.vi C1 has taken advantage of influential health and medical journals which attract both an academic and practitioner readership, such as The Lancet and BMJ.vii

Cumulatively C1 has published 92 research outputs over the life of the programme (Annex 1), far exceeding the target of 58. This includes 72 peer reviewed articles (published or accepted for publication), with a further 24 in peer review. Almost all peer reviewed articles (67 of 72) have been published open access. One peer-reviewed journal article on disability has been published, with two others under peer review and a further three being drafted. Outcomes papers from seven projects have been submitted to peer reviewed journals, with others close to completion.

5

A methodological paper on the costing methodology has been submitted to a peer reviewed journal and is under review. The paper on costs of VAWG prevention interventions is in progress but has been delayed by difficulties agreeing the costing data for the Zambia intervention. This must be swiftly resolved (by no later than June 2019): a call has been set up between all relevant parties and DFID to agree a way forward. DFID and LSHTM have agreed to temporarily delay completion of the third planned paper on cost-effectiveness of VAWG prevention interventions to allow incorporation of data from an additional costing study of Right to Play’s intervention in Pakistan. This sixth study is being funded from underspend following the success of Right to Play’s intervention and demand for data on its costs/cost effectiveness to inform decisions about potential scale-up.

1.2 Methods

Cumulatively, 11 new methodological tools have been developed and published since the start of the programme, exceeding the milestoneviii. This year a standardised methodology for conducting cost analyses of interventions to prevent VAWG in low- and middle-income settings has been developed and published on the What Works website. The methodology is presented in a manual with downloadable excel spreadsheets to support practitioners and researchers to cost violence prevention interventions, with particular value for deciding what and how to scale-up. This year, C1 has also carried out methods research on measures of economic and emotional abuse and their relationship with health impacts. ix In addition, a measure of workplace violence was developed and published for the Bangladesh study.x

1.3 Datasets

C1 has established a repository for datasets from What Works as part of the SAMRC’s data repository. All C1 quantitative datasets that are more than one year from the end of data collection have been put in the repository. To date, 33 datasets have been made open access (available here). All quantitative datasets include questions on disability.

Lessons identified this year, and recommendations for the year ahead linked to this output10. C1 should submit outcomes papers on findings from all 15 end-line evaluations for peer review by

no later than end of August 2019 (recognising that publication will take longer).

11.C1 should swiftly finalise analysis and messaging of the costs/cost effectiveness data for Ghana, Kenya, Rwanda, South Africa, and Zambia and submit the planned paper on costs of VAWG prevention interventions for peer review by end of August 2019. Data collection for the Pakistan costing/cost effectiveness study should be completed by end of August 2019 and the data included in the cost-effectiveness paper by end of October.

6

Output Title Innovation programmes to prevent violence against women and girls are implemented and evaluated in the global south (Component 1)

Output number per LF 2 Output Score A

Impact weighting (%): 20% Impact weighting % revised since last AR? N

Indicator(s) Milestone(s) for this review Progress 2.1 Number of innovation and grants successfully awarded and implemented, all with solid M&E strategies in place

9 innovation projects being implemented and generating robust evidence

Milestone metAll 9 innovation projects have finished implementation, end-line data collection and analysis.

2.2 All impact evaluation projects successfully implemented, with data collection undertaken and data analysed for baseline, midline (if appropriate) and endline research.

6 Milestone metAll 6 impact evaluations have finished implementation, end-line data collection and analysis.

In the year under review all C1 projects finished implementation, including providing the intervention to control arms (where planned), and completing data collection. C1 has invested in two/three-day analysis workshops for most projects to bring together research and intervention teams. These have been an effective way to analyse results and explore ambiguities collectively to build confidence in findings, and to support partners to develop audience-specific messaging, begin drafting written outputs, and hold external dissemination workshops. Two of these workshops were held in the last annual review period, and a further nine in the year under review.

Costing studies have been completed in all five planned countries (Ghana, Kenya, Rwanda, South Africa and Zambia). DFID has requested an additional cost effectiveness study of the successful Right to Play school-based intervention in Pakistan to inform decisions about its possible scale-up. Qualitative research on disability has also been completed in five countries (Ghana, Pakistan, Rwanda, South Africa and Tajikistan).

With projects closing, ISD will continue to engage country offices, central teams and other donors (e.g. the World Bank and UN Trust Fund) to explore funding opportunities that would enable adaptation and scale-up of proven What Works interventions, and refinement of approaches with mixed findings. Some DFID country offices are exploring options for future funding and several What Works projects have succeeded in securing new funding. For example, Equal Access Nepal secured a grant from the World Bank and Sexual Violence Research Initiative (SVRI) for further research to look at the pathways of diffusion into the wider community. DFID DRC is exploring options for using the evidence gathered through phase one and translating it into delivery at scale in some of their priority provinces.

Lessons identified this year, and recommendations for the year ahead linked to this output In the year ahead, ISD and RED will continue to engage country offices, central teams and other

donors to explore funding opportunities that would enable adaptation and scale-up of proven What Works interventions, and refinement of approaches with mixed findings.

7

Output Title Rigorous research and evidence on drivers, prevalence, trends, prevention and response in conflict and humanitarian emergencies produced (Component 2)

Output number per LF 3 Output Score A+

Impact weighting (%): 10% Impact weighting % revised since last AR? N

Indicator(s) Milestone(s) for this review Progress 3.1 Cumulative number of research outputs (peer reviewed articles, reports, working papers) on VAWG in conflict and humanitarian contexts

Cumulative: 20

Peer reviewed outputsPublished or accepted for publication: 3…of which, open access: 2

Self-published outputs Reports, working papers, etc: 15

Milestone exceeded: 22 (13 in AR 2018, 9 this year)

Peer reviewed this yearPublished: 1Submitted and in peer review: 5

Self-publishedThis reporting period: 3

3.2 Cumulative number and type of improvements in methods and indicators for research and evaluation on VAWG in humanitarian and conflict contexts

3 Milestone exceeded:Reported in last AR: 3Achieved this reporting period: 1Cumulative to date: 4

3.3 Cumulative no. of specific datasets on prevention interventions cleaned, archived and accessible

(TBC) Milestone: tbc (discussing with DFID)

Progress under component 2 has exceeded targets this year, and so is scored A+. Led by IRC, the Component 2 consortium includes six other organisationsxi and has supported five research projects (see Box).

Since the last annual review, Component 2 has generated nine new research outputs, including six peer-reviewed articles completed and submitted for publication (one of which has already been published) and three reports: and so exceeds the milestone for indicator 3.1. The three new reports were:

The final report for the state-building / peace-building study (SBPB) which was completed and launched in September 2018. Following the completion of qualitative data collection in 2017, the team spent the first half of 2018 analysing the data alongside results from global and country level literature reviews, applying an analytical framework developed by the research team for the study. Consultations were held on the analysis with the Technical Advisory Group for the study and separately with VAWG, research and fragility specialists within DFID and the FCO, before the full report was finalised.

In December 2018 the Global Women’s Institute (GWI) at George Washington University finalised the report “Violence against Adolescent Girls: Trends and Lessons in East Africa”. This presents findings from secondary analysis of the quantitative and qualitative data collected for the South Sudan prevalence study and was co-funded by What Works and the DFID-funded GAGE consortium.

8

Box 2: The five Component 2 studies1. A study of how the humanitarian sector met women and girl’s protection

needs in the response to Typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines, including the effectiveness of deployed GBV experts (completed previously).

2. Mixed-methods research on the prevalence, forms, patterns and drivers of VAWG in South Sudan (completed previously)

3. Assessment of the comprehensive case management model using a task-sharing approach with refugee community workers in the refugee camps of Dadaab, northern Kenya (completed previously).

4. Assessment of how different forms of VAWG and the drivers of VAWG have been addressed by national actors in state-building and peace-building processes, and how VAWG in turn affects these processes.

The report on Cash transfers in Raqqa Governorate: changes over time in women’s experience of violence and wellbeing was shared by the lead author in the gender and cash transfer sub-working group of the of the humanitarian Grand Bargain process in Washington in April.

Papers that were reported as submitted for review in the previous annual report have now been published in the 2018/19 project year:

In October 2018, researchers from the Africa APHRC and LSHTM had their paper published in the Journal of Refugee Studies, entitled ‘They Say Our Work Is Not Halal’: Experiences and Challenges of Refugee Community Workers Involved in Gender based Violence Prevention and Care in Dadaab, Kenya .

In January 2019, GWI and CARE were accepted to publish their first peer reviewed article on the SBPB study, entitled: Exploring the intersection of violence against women and girls with post-conflict state-building and peace-building processes: A new analytical framework in the Journal of Peace Building and Development.

Annex 2 provides the full list of peer-reviewed articles and publications. Over the remaining life of the programme, Component 2 is on track to submit six more journal articles and one final self-published report.

Over the last year, Component 2 has contributed to improvements in research methods and indicators (indicator 3.2) with the development of a research toolkit for Gender-based Violence Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation (RME) with Refugee and Conflict-Affected Populations Manual. A working draft of the has been finalized and was launched by GWI during the June Interaction Forum event. The manual has filled a gap in the field by providing recommendations to standardise the collection of data in a rigorous and ethical way with women experiencing violence in humanitarian settings. The presentation was attended by approximately 40 people including technical staff from key U.S. government humanitarian agencies. The manual is due to be incorporated into several major international initiatives and guiding documents in early 2019. The Raqaa cash study also contributed to a gap in methodological evidence on how to conduct research in acute settings on protection issues in a technically, ethically sound and robust manner. The approach to research preparations for acute emergency settings adopted for the cash study constituted a significant contribution to the research field, and a paper on methodological learning was submitted to BMJ Global Health in February 2019.

In this reporting period, Component 2 has developed two datasets (indicator 3.3): the South Sudan Adolescent girls study (537 number of quantitative interviews with adolescent girls that was extrapolated from the full prevalence study dataset) and the Raqqa cash study (456 quantitative interviews with women and 40 qualitative interviews). This brings the cumulative number of component 2 datasets to 21.

Partners continue to explore the best approach to publishing the quantitative datasets in accordance with DFID’s policy, most likely through databases and websites already established by research institutions within the consortium. Treatment of the qualitative data needs to be agreed (see below).

Lessons identified this year and recommendations for the year ahead linked to this output In the year ahead C2 will continue discussions with DFID on the publication of the qualitative

datasets, or exemption thereof, given the sensitive nature of the data and potential risk to respondents.

9

Output Title Policy relevant research, evidence and methodological advances on the economic and social costs of VAWG in developing countries (Component 3)

Output number per LF 4 Output Score A

Impact weighting (%): 10% Impact weighting % revised since last AR? N

Indicator(s) Milestone(s) for this review Progress 4.1 Cumulative number of research outputs published or accepted for publication (peer reviewed articles (open access/non-open access), working papers that have gone through a credible peer review or QA process) on economic and social costs in developing countries

C3 =

Total Number of outputs: 12

Peer reviewed outputs: 6

Peer reviewed outputs that are open access: 2

Self-published: 3

Country Research Reports: 3

Milestone exceeded: 19 research outputs (cumulative)

Peer reviewed Reported in last AR: 5 (all open-access)Published/in press in this reporting period: 2 (both open access)In peer review: 1 Cumulative: 7 (all open access)

Self-publishedReported in last AR: 5This reporting period: 1Cumulative: 6

Country Research Reports: 3 Summary and 3 Technical reports

4.2 Cumulative number and type of improvements in methods and indicators for research and evaluation on the economic and social costs of VAWG in developing countries

C3 = 4 (3 scales + 1 economic costing methodological guidance)

Milestones moderately not met

Reported in last AR: 5This reporting period: 0Cumulative: 5

The methodological guidance is on track for completion by end of May 2019

4.3 Cumulative number of specific datasets on economic & social costs cleaned, archived and accessible

C3 = 6

(3 business-level datasets + 3 household-level datasets)

Milestone metSix quantitative data sets (including women’s and household data from three countries; and employee and management data from three countries) have been cleaned, archived and made accessible.

4.1 Research outputs on economic and social costs of VAWGThe major focus for C3 in this period has been writing the country reports on economic and social costs of violence in Ghana, Pakistan and South Sudan (a technical and summary report was produced for each). Following recommendations made in the previous Annual Review and at the IAB meeting in November, a review process was established to support the methodological rigour and strategic messaging of the country reports, involving the IAB, national advisory groups, DFID (including economists in the focus countries), and Components 1 and 2. C3 has made revisions based on this advice, for example focusing on losses to businesses due to days missed from work as a result of VAWG rather than loss to GDP which would require some bold assumptions. In-country validation workshops were held to test results with national advisory boards, where national stakeholders emphasised the importance and novelty of the findings.

In addition to the country reports, two peer reviewed articles have been published or are in press in this period on: The Health-Related Impacts and Costs of VAWG in Ghana, published in the Journal of Public Health in Africa; and The Social Costs of VAWG on Survivors, their Families and Communities in

10

Pakistan, published in the Pakistan Journal of Women’s Studies. Both draw on the qualitative research. A new methodological paper validating the scale used to measure lost productivity has been submitted for peer review. A short article on Violence against Women and Economic Participation has also been published in Understanding Society: Putting people in the picture, which has a wide reach of 10,000 academics, policy-makers, journalists and organisations with an interest in social and public policy.

4.2 Improvements in methods on economic and social costs of VAWGC3 reported five methodologies in the previous annual review developed to measure the economic and social costs of VAWG, including scales to measure presenteeism (being late to work, leaving early, not concentrating); the impact of VAWG on social cohesion; and the long-term impacts of violence on human capabilities. The analysis methods for the scales were presented to the Technical Advisory Group (TAG) in December 2017.

The methodological guidance was delayed due to serious illness and bereavement among core staff but is on track for submission to DFID by end of May 2019.

4.3 Cumulative number of datasets and analysis on economic and social costs of VAWGIn line with the data management plan agreed with DFID in 2017, data collected by C3 is now publicly accessible via the Harvard Dataverse. Six quantitative datasets have been cleaned, archived and made available. This includes three datasets from the business surveys with employees and managers, and three datasets from the household and women’s surveys.

Lessons identified this year, and recommendations for the year ahead linked to this output

The priority for C3 in the final months of the programme is publication of papers drawn from the quantitative (not only qualitative) data, including publishing at least one peer review paper synthesising quantitative and qualitative findings on economic and social costs of VAWG from across the three countries before the end of the programme.

C3’s draft methodological guidance should be submitted to DFID for review by 31 May 2019.

11

Output Title Effective dissemination of findings, and engagement with key stakeholders which aims to promote use of evidence (all three Components)

Output number per LF 5 Output Score A+Impact weighting (%): 20% Impact weighting % revised since last AR? N

Indicator(s) Milestone(s) for this review

Progress

5.1 High quality research uptake and stakeholder engagement strategies developed and implemented for all components and overall programme

All 4 strategies implemented including:

C1 = 1 event/Roundtable

C2 = 3 events/ roundtables

C3 = 1 policy-maker toolkit on economic & social costs

C1 and C2 significantly exceeded this milestone. C3’s milestone was moderately not met.

The cross-component RU&E Strategy is being operationalised for all components, supported by the Theory of Change for RU, a Target Audience Matrix and a cross component joint research uptake plan.

C1 = 19 WW-convened eventsat national and global levels in this reporting period (56 cumulatively); C1 also presented at a further 11 events convened by others. C2 = 3 in this reporting period (9 cumulatively)C3 = Milestone moderately not met. The policy-maker toolkit is on track for completion by end of May 2019.

5.2 Cumulative number of policy or stakeholder engagement meetings to promote use of evidence (across all 3 components)

C1 = 15 (cumulative)

C2 = 13 (cumulative)

C3 = 14 (cumulative)

Cross-component = 15 (2 on disability and 1 on costing)

Milestone exceeded overall

C1 = In addition to the events reported above, 11 policy or stakeholder engagement meetings were held in this reporting period (129 cumulatively).

C2 = 32 in this reporting period (100 cumulatively)

C3 = 9 in this reporting period (26 cumulatively).

Cross-component = 4 in this reporting period (28 cumulatively).

5.3 Cumulative number of a) high-quality synthesis products and policy/evidence briefs (that have gone through a credible peer review or QA process) and (b) high-quality well targeted communications materials (blogs, newspaper articles, infographics, videos) produced and disseminated

C1= 50

C2 = 6

C3 = 21

Synthesis Products = 16 (4 on disability)

Milestone exceeded overall

C1 = 58 in this reporting period (226 cumulatively) 12 project-specific evidence briefs (including 6 on

end-line results) 5 blogs 25 news items 4 videos (1 on disability) 8 Infographics 2 thematic synthesis briefs (1 on disability and 1

on VAWG and education)C2 = 15 in this reporting period

(42 cumulatively)C3 = 1 in this reporting period

(21 cumulatively) Cross component Newsletters = 3 (18 cumulatively)

Synthesis products = On track. Production of synthesis products has been moved into the extension period. Two synthesis products were published in this reporting period (on education and disability) and three more are being finalised. 10 have been published in previous years.

12

Guided by Component-specific and cross-Component research uptake (RU) strategies and work plan (indicator 5.1), all three components have been active in engaging with policy-makers and other stakeholders (indicator 5.2) to communicate the programme’s findings. DFID country offices have used their convening power to host national dissemination events together with What Works project partners in Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Ghana, Nepal, Pakistan, South Sudan and Tajikistan.

Component 2 had an active year of targeted engagement with policy makers, practitioners and the public through media and key policy opportunities. Dissemination of the South Sudan report continued with a week of in-country activities in July 2018; and an influential presentation at the debate, hosted at the New York offices of the International Peace Institute in February, on the need for the renewal of the mandate for the UN Mission in South Sudan (UNMISS)xii. The state-building / peace-building multi-country study was launched in London at the end of September at an event attended by researchers, policy-makers and practitioners (including British Army); and the Raqqa cash study was discussed at CaLP’s ‘Cash week’ in October and the final results shared at the Grand Bargain gender and cash sub-working group in Washington DC at the end of Aprilxiii.

Increasingly, Component 2 leads have been presenting two or more studies from the portfolio at a given event, which enables them to communicate What Work’s contribution to the overall agenda relating to VAWG in conflict and humanitarian contexts. These opportunities have included the DFID humanitarian advisors’ annual Professional Development Conference in September; the FCO-led London film festival around Preventing Sexual Violence in Conflict (PSVI) in November; presentation of the SBPB and South Sudan studies at a World Bank event entitled “No Safe Space: Gender and Violence in Conflict Affected Humanitarian Settings” in November, which was attended by NGOS, USAID and the U.S. Department of State; and in March three side events delivered at CSW 63 (two with UN Women and one with UNDP) and one at the World Bank.

In April 2019, Component 3 launched their findings on the costs of VAWG in South Sudan at an event opened by the Minister for Gender, Child and Social Welfare and covered on national TV and radio. The head of DFID South Sudan and Director of the National Bureau of Statistics spoke at the launch, which was attended by representatives from the Ministries of Education, Finance, and Gender, Vice-Chancellors of Juba University and University of Upper Nile, and businesses.

What Works has also engaged effectively with UK and international audiences, holding a series of events on VAWG and education in London during 16 Days of Activism, and at the CSW to showcase findings from across the programme. In March 2019, DFID collaborated with the World Bank to organise a learning exchange and operational clinic on preventing VAWG that brought together What Works experts with World Bank advisers. There was strong interest in using the evidence to inform the Bank’s operations in the education, health and social protection sectors. The Programme has also made effective use of IAB members and their networks to support research uptake, for example holding a webinar and a face-to-face engagement with UN partners in the Asia-Pacific Regional Office, hosted by UN Women. Participation by external partners (multilateral and bilateral donors) at the Annual Scientific Meeting in Kathmandu further attests to how What Work’s knowledge generation is valued and is influencing others.

As the programme enters its final year the Management Committee and DFID, with advice from the IAB, have agreed a final list of evidence briefs and synthesis products (indicator 5.3). This includes a flagship report mapping interventions and their outcomes to identify common dimensions (individually or in combination) of successful interventions. Based on advice from DFID’s Chief Scientific adviser and the IAB, the Secretariat has begun to establish sub-groups that draw in experts from the wider What Works programme to support analysis and drafting of key products. The first synthesis product on VAWG and

13

Box 3: Policy influence in South Africa

In South Africa, What Works evidence informed the planning of the National Gender-based Violence and Femicide Summit. What Works staff sat on the Steering Committee and task team on prevention and were invited to help write the President’s speech. The Conference Declaration refers to the importance of research and evidence on what works. A key informant interviewed by the Independent Evaluation Team, Dr Chandre Gould Institute for Security Studies, noted that “There is an enormously important ‘policy moment’ happening in South Africa currently. What Works are very present in the conversation and are driving it hard with evidence.”

Education was produced by C1 for the CSW in March 2019. A synthesis report on VAWG in Conflict and Humanitarian contexts is being finalised by C2. These products complement the large number of project-specific briefs and communications produced this year. xiv At the meeting in Nepal, IAB members committed to review key products and gave recommendations for developing cross-component messages (see ‘Lessons identified’ on next page).

In the year under review, the Programme, with support from DFID’s Comms Department, has engaged with media houses to host influential journalists on country visits in Tajikistan and Ghana. This resulted in positive coverage in The Guardian and The Telegraph as well as Apolitical and Open Democracy. C2’s South Sudan study has continued to gain traction in multiple media outlets throughout 2018, including features in The Independent , The Guardian , National Public Radio , and The Associated Press News, amongst others. The report findings were also highlighted during high profile visits to South Sudan by actress and advocate Ashley Judd in June 2018, covered by the BBC and USA Today. Securing further high-profile media coverage is a priority for the final months of the Programme.

C1 results have also been communicated through videos and infographics, for example for Pakistan and the DRC, and as well as via blogs and social media. Opportunities have sometimes been missed because the timeframe for producing comms products has been too short, resulting in a rush to complete products ahead of dissemination events which can affect quality. In the final six months, C1 should coordinate across programme to develop and implement a comprehensive communications plan setting out how the programme will use key moments to maximise opportunities for research uptake and influence (see below).

An innovation in What Works has been extensive support to grantees around VAWG prevention curricula development, adaptation and implementation, culminating this year in publication of curricula for 12 out of 15 projects on the website (six were developed during the course of the programme). Two have been translated into local languages and four more are being edited. This is the first time that multiple curricula have been made available in one accessible public space, making a significant contribution to the VAWG prevention field. Three months following upload, the curricula had been downloaded 1,476 times.

Lessons identified this year, and recommendations for the year ahead linked to this output

The priority over the final months of the programme is finalising and publishing high quality, impactful synthesis products, including C1’s flagship report mapping interventions and their outcomes to identify common dimensions of successful interventions; and the global evidence review on Interventions to Prevent Violence Against Women and Girls, updated from the inception phase. As recommended by the IAB, for each key product agreed with DFID, the Secretariat should establish and actively engage sub-groups that draw in experts from the wider What Works programme to support comparative analysis, identification of key messages, and co-authorship, including Southern researchers/practitioners from C1 projects. A realistic timeframe for comments and review should be agreed between SAMRC / product leads and DFID before drafting begins, and IAB members should be given advanced notice of when their inputs will be needed.

As recommended by the IAB, evidence products should: (i) focus on what works, why, under what circumstances, and for whom; (ii) differentiate between evidence that is robust and that which is suggestive; and (iii) focus on synthesising evidence across the Programme, rather than the wider field.

By end of June 2019, C1 should coordinate across the three components to develop a comprehensive communications plan for the final six months of the programme, including media and digital products, in consultation with DFID. This should set out how the programme will use key moments such as the Preventing Sexual Violence Initiative (PSVI) International Conference and Sexual Violence Research Initiative (SVRI) meeting to maximise opportunities for research uptake and influence.

C3 should ensure submission of the completed Policy Maker Toolkit to DFID by the renegotiated deadline of start of June 2019.

14

Output Title Effective capacity building activities with (southern) partners, organisations, implementing partners, and individuals carried out to generate and communicate evidence (all three components)

Output number per LF 6 Output Score A+

Impact weighting (%): 10% Impact weighting % revised since last AR? N

Indicator(s) Milestone(s) for this review Progress 6.1 High quality capacity building strategies developed and implemented for all components

3 Strategies implemented including:

C1= no. of projects with capacity built on reporting outcomes of the evaluations = 15

C2 = 1 residential certificate course on VAWG; 6 Southern-based researchers and civil society actors present findings at events

C3 = participation at 1 additional Scientific Meeting, 2 academic exchanges with related disciplines (international and in country).

C1: Capacity Development Strategy developed in 2014 with activities underway since 2015. All grantees have developed and implemented capacity development plans, with good evidence that capacity has increased across all 15 grantees.

C2 = 4 in this reporting period (10 cumulative)

C3= 1 attendance at a Scientific Meeting; 4 academic exchanges in this review period.xv

6.2 Cumulative number of research products (including conference presentations) co-authored by Southern researchers (including NGO professionals & civil society stakeholders) (defined in terms of nationality, wherever resident)

C1 = 27

C2 = 6

C3 = 10

C1 = 37 peer reviewed articles and reports and 35 presentations in this review period co-authored by Southern researchers (190 cumulatively)

C2= 5 in this reporting period (21 cumulative)

C3 = 8 in this review period (31 cumulative)

Led by C1, capacity development remains a major, unanticipated benefit of the programme that has substantially exceeded expectations. At the ASM, C1 grantees shared with DFID how much they valued the technical support they received, the new networks that have emerged and the opportunity to learn from each other’s programmes. Practitioners now better understand how to use evidence, and Southern researchers have gained skills and confidence in collecting and analysing data and publishing and presenting papers. Some participants have also found What Works a useful platform to access other donor funding to sustain and scale their work. Despite initial tensions, for most the relationship between researchers and practitioners has become mutually beneficial: one practitioner described this “revolutionising” how she works. The Community of Practice established within What Works is already showing signs of ‘independent life’, with grantees reaching out to each other and expressing interest to continue working together even after the programme ends.xvi

In 2018, the focus has been on supporting grantees to analyse their findings, develop audience-specific messages and draft written outputs, particularly for projects with mixed findings. The project-specific

workshops bringing together research and intervention teams have been an effective way of supporting this in Nepal, Pakistan, Ghana, South Africa, Rwanda, Kenya and Afghanistan. A one-day capacity development workshop organised by C1 ahead of the ASM was also

well received, bringing together 70 researchers and implementers from over 20 countries to support effective research uptake, fundraising, and ideas for ongoing networking and consolidating skills beyond the closure of What Works contracts.

15

“One of the best projects in my life. Working with technical advisers taught us many things including how to analyse our work using rigorous methods and how research studies are designed. It inspired me to start a PhD” Programme Manager, Nepal

C1 developed a tool to measure changes in grantee capacity and identify priorities for support. Between the first exercise (March 2016) and September 2018, capacity had increased across all grantees, with the most significant gains made in evidence and theory-based prevention programming, project monitoring, and research uptake and influencing policy change. Lessons on effective capacity development have been written up in a peer review article that will be published by Development in Practice.

6.2 Research products including conference presentations co-authored by Southern researchersThe collaboration and co-authorship between Northern and Southern partners in the production of research products is an innovative element of What Works, which is opening up new opportunities for Southern partners.xvii C1 has continued to encourage Southern partners to publish and present as first authors. Based on the strong foundation of support provided, 29 of the 32 peer reviewed journal articles published by C1 during this review period had Southern co-authors. Six of these were first-time first authors. Grantees have also presented study findings at international conferences such as the World Safety 2018 Conference and the Nursing Network on VAW International and at in-country dissemination events. Twenty-two of C1’s 35 presentations (63%) were led and/or delivered by Southern researchers and/or co-researchers.

Several of the C2 outputs over this year have been led by Southern researchers or technical specialists. These include a paper in the Journal for Refugee Studies, submitted by researchers from the African Population and Health Research Centre (APHRC) and LSHTMxviii. In Kathmandu, researchers from APHRC and CARE Nepal co-authored and co-presented findings from the Dadaab and State-building / peace-building studies respectively, at the ASM and the programme seminar delivered at the offices of DFID Nepal the previous weekxix.

All of C3’s country reports and all three peer review journal articles submitted/in press in this period were co-authored by Southern researchers.

Lessons identified this year, and recommendations for the year ahead linked to this output

The strong collaboration between Northern and Southern partners should continue as the final flagship synthesis products are developed. C1 should draw in expertise from Southern partners across the programme (beyond the Secretariat) to support comparative analysis and synthesis on what works, for whom, where and why.

16

“Heartiest gratitude for the overwhelming support throughout the WW journey... It has been a very meaningful and exacting journey of my professional career. I feel proud to be associated with such high calibre and incredible professionals… We will remain connected.” Programme Manager, Pakistan

C: THEORY OF CHANGE AND PROGRESS TOWARDS OUTCOMES (1-2 pages)

Summarise the programme’s theory of change and any major changes in the past year (1/2 page)

The theory of change (ToC) for What Works laid out in the 2013 Business Case remains broadly relevant. The ToC makes explicit the assumption that by supporting and evaluating innovative interventions, the programme will address “A lack of knowledge and evidence on what works [which]…is hampering progress in making girls and women safer...” With conscious efforts to encourage uptake of this knowledge, the generation of evidence would “influence international and national policies and programmes to be more effective, thereby directly improving the lives of women, girls and their families”xx.

In 2017 the independent evaluators (IMC) noted that in the process of contracting the programme, DFID had asked each component to develop their own component-specific theory of change; and that there were unresolved gaps and differences in emphasis between these Component-level ToC, and between them and the Business Case ToCxxi. To resolve this, a draft revised ToC was discussed by the Management Committee and finalised in November 2017. The revised ToC sought to (i) better capture the innovative nature of the programme, including capacity development; (ii) reflect – and encourage – greater integration between Components; particularly in respect to (iii) themes of supporting new partnershipsxxii, strategic communications and research uptake, and capacity building; and (iv) recognise that a transformational shift in global norms and large-scale reduction in VAWG (i.e. the intended impact and outcome) will take much longer than the current programme lifespan. These changes will be reflected in revisions to the logframe which will be used for the final Project Completion Report in 2020.

Describe where the programme is on track to contribute to the expected outcomes and impact, and where it is off track and so what action is planned as a result in the year ahead

As it enters its final months, the programme is on track to achieve its intended outcome of improved development of and investment in VAWG policies and programmes across the global South. IMC’s 2018 Progress Report concluded that the programme is on track to shape donor investment over the next 5-10 years and offer many opportunities to leverage funding.xxiii It also found that What Works is modelling innovative approaches which will inform the development of programming across numerous contexts.

Programmes are using evidence to improve the effectiveness of VAWG prevention activities (outcome indicator 1)xxiv; for example, What Works findings informed the €500m Spotlight Initiative’s Theory of Change on preventionxxv and is referenced in several background documents. Component 2 is beginning to shape promising opportunities for uptake of programme findings and recommendations in humanitarian policyxxvi. Evidence from What Works is also being used by DFID advisers in the design of new programmes and business cases, such as in Nepal, Zimbabwe, Malawi and the DRC.

Evidence and insights from What Works are helping to develop or improve policies for violence prevention at national, regional and global scales (outcome indicator 2). The new UN Women / WHO RESPECT framework on preventing violence against women uses examples from What Works to encourage the UN system to replicate these proven approaches. Component 2’s South Sudan study was cited by Yasmin Sooka, Chairperson of the Commission on Human Rights in South Sudan, at the 39th

Human Rights Council session in November 2018, and has been referenced in questions and debates across both houses of the UK parliament.

Several of the innovative approaches designed and evaluated by C1 have secured funds to scale up (outcome indicator 3) or support adaptation, replication and/or refinement. For example, Equal Access Nepal secured a grant from the World Bank and SVRI for further research to support refinement of their approach, while DFID Rwanda’s Indashyikirwa intervention has been adapted and rolled out by the World Bank. Implementing organisations have reflected on insights from mixed findings – both at the ASM and through the tailored project-specific workshops – which has helped identify concrete proposals for modification to enhance future effectiveness, such as Women for Women International’s model in Afghanistan. DFID is strongly supportive of these organisations that are willing to rigorously evaluate their interventions and learn from this.

Explain major changes to the logframe in the past year IMC proposed changes to the programme logframe based on the revised theory of change (see above). The suggested changes attempt to define outputs in terms of common programme-level functions and

17

objectives to which all Components (or at a minimum, two of the three) contribute. This would contrast with the current logframe, in which each of the first four outputs maps to just one corresponding Component workplan (see Section A above). DFID and the Components discussed these proposals at the Management Committee but decided to make only very minimal changes to the logframe at this late stage of the programme, as follows: Clarification of output indicators 1.1, 3.1 and 4.1 to specify that research outputs must be published or

accepted for publication (not only submitted for peer review) in order to count towards milestones. Revision of output indicator 2.2 as recommended in the previous Annual Review so that it clearly

relates to the progress being made in implementation of the impact evaluations.

Describe any planned changes to the logframe as a result of this review (1/2 page) There are no planned changes to the logframe as a result of this review, however new end of programme targets will need to be agreed between the Components and DFID following the programme extension to December 2019. Where relevant, the original end of programme targets will be moved into the extension period. New end-of-programme targets will be developed for some output indicators to reflect additional synthesis and research uptake activities agreed through the extension. Discussions on targets have begun between DFID and each Component and will be concluded by end of June 2019.

D: VALUE FOR MONEY (1-2 pages)

Assess VfM compared to the proposition in the Business Case, based on the past year (1 page)

As recognised in the Business Case, it is difficult to measure the VfM of a research and innovation programme of this type. Benefits are diverse and hard to quantify and there is no straightforward way to show a rate of return on VAWG research. What Works is undertaking detailed VfM analysis to calculate the costs, cost effectiveness (cost per person for whom violence was averted in the past year), and estimated scale-up costs of six of the interventions from C1. Results will be published in the latter half of 2019. This will generate VfM data and insights about what drives cost effectiveness, with particular value for deciding what and how to scale up VAWG prevention programmes, both within and beyond DFID. Preliminary analysis reaffirms current evidence suggesting that violence prevention interventions have the potential to be highly cost effective, and that cost effectiveness increases at scale. For example, initial results from Ghana find a mean cost per DALY averted of just $61 and a 95% probability that, based on agreed thresholds, the intervention will be cost effective at scale based on the health benefits alone.

In the year under review, the principal programme costs have remained innovation grants, research costs, staffing and travel. Innovation grants and impact evaluations have made up the majority of expenditure under Component 1 (around 88% of the overall global programme budget). Staffing costs for the three components vary according to the market price for the type of skills being hired and the location where staff are sourced, comprising 30%, 73% and 68% of each component’s budget respectively. All three components have taken action to manage programme costs and maximise VfM.

Economy Indicator: Inputs (consumables, travel, staff, grants proposals and management) of appropriate quality are procured at the best price.

What Works has taken very seriously the requirement from DFID to fund work wherever possible by mobilising resources within the existing budget and finding other ways to achieve VfM. The funds required for the one-year programme extension were funded through efficiency savings from within the programme. At DFID’s request, suppliers calculated salary costs based on reduced daily rates and part-time rather than full-time contributions. Daily fee rates are competitive: The Director of the Consortium and lead for C1 has a daily rate which comes in significantly under DFID’s benchmarked fee rate for project leadership of £781. Fee rates for almost all technical experts come in under the DFID benchmarked rate of £609, despite being leading international experts in this field.

All partners have kept international travel costs to a minimum through use of technology, for example by presenting evidence via webinars (C1) and conducting follow-up qualitative interviews with in-country staff by phone/Skype (C2). Nepal was chosen as the location of the 2018 ASM in large part because of the affordable accommodation available in a hotel large enough to host the meeting, the availability of

18

affordable flights from Europe and other parts of Asia, and the need for fewer flights because two grantees are based in Kathmandu. Alternative settings were costed before Nepal was selected as the best VfM option. All components utilise competitive bidding for procurement including flights (booked by an agent with access to charity fees for C2) and venue hire for the Nepal ASM, as in previous years.

C2 has continued to utilise consortium partners’ existing infrastructure to minimise costs for venue hire and transport, for example using IRC vehicles for the cash study and holding training and interviews in IRC project buildings. IRC technical support staff in northeast Syria supported the research without financial contributions through What Works.

Efficiency Indicators: i) The volume and quality of research produced and capacity building provided ii) Monitoring planning process to ensure that use of inputs is planned well and that resources are available to achieve outputs such as research uptake.

The range of outputs makes it hard to generate a meaningful per-output production cost. However, the reporting against the logframe in Section B of the Annual Review clearly demonstrates the volume and quality of research being produced.

Effectiveness Indicator: i) Number of research outputs from this programme published in high quality peer review publications, including open access publications ii) Number of policies of international, national, regional organisations and donors (including CSOs, NGOs) that demonstrate use of evidence from this programme iii.) Evidence of scale up.

Section B describes the effectiveness of the programme in generating academic and policy-relevant data and research, most of which is open access and available to other researchers to use freely beyond the lifetime of What Works. There is evidence that outputs are being used and that knowledge gained is informing national and international policies and campaigns (Section C). The programme is delivering an evidence and research base as a global public good which is expected to drive more effective interventions worldwide, significantly magnifying the expected value of the investment. Global public goods were identified in the DFID Best Buys papers as a ‘mega-buy’. There is also good evidence of strengthened capacity of southern-based organisations reporting/demonstrating increased capacity to design and evaluate effective violence prevention programmes (Section C).

Equity Indicator: Equity is demonstrated as an important criterion in procurement of inputs (e.g. hiring staff), siting projects among a diverse set of beneficiaries and plans for research uptake activities.

Equity has been a central consideration for all three Components. Focusing on low income countries and highly marginalised groups within middle income countries, What Works is reaching some of the most disadvantaged and vulnerable girls and women and there is good evidence that equity is being built into programme delivery and results.

To better understand links between disability and VAWG, C1 included the Washington Group Short Set of Questions on Disability in all its quantitative impact evaluations and conducted 58 in-depth qualitative interviews with women and men with disabilities. This is generating data that will help set standards for disability-inclusive VAWG prevention programming. Project partners have developed proactive strategies for inclusion, such as conducting home visits to people with disabilities and partnering with National Councils of Persons with Disabilities to train programme staff on disability inclusion (in Rwanda). C1 interventions and evaluations have deliberately targeted particularly marginalised populations, such as women and girls living in slums (3 projects) and female sexual workers.

All partners have established fairness in their recruitment processes. Under C2, research partners for the Kenya study included Refugee Case Workers in all stages of the research process. The great majority of peer reviewed articles and reports published by C1 and C3 have a Southern first or co-author. C1 and C2 have given visibility to the voices of affected populations through case studies, such as the project videos. Under C2, the cash study fieldwork in north-eastern Syria was conducted using local data collectors and was designed in partnership with IRC’s field team.

Explain whether and why the programme should continue from a VfM perspective, based on its own merits and in the context of the wider portfolio (1 page)

19

The remaining seven months are essential for the impact and VfM of DFID’s £25m investment. Terminating the programme now would mean that a significant proportion of the research findings would not be written up, published and disseminated. Evidence would be much less likely to translate into changes in policy and practice, significantly undermining the impact of DFID’s investment. It was for these reasons that the 12-month programme extension to December 2019 was recommended and approved.

Over this period, the programme will consolidate and optimise learning from the programme by synthesising and publishing findings from across the three programme components and 23 separate studies and disseminating key conclusions to the sector. Given the high estimated costs of VAWG, more effective policies and programming that contribute to a reduction in VAWG would yield benefits that considerably exceed programme costs.

The What Works Programme has taken very seriously the requirement from DFID to fund the final 12-month programme extension wherever possible by mobilising resources within the existing budget and finding other ways of achieving VfM. As described above, suppliers reduced their requests for staff time and calculated salary costs based on reduced daily rates and part-time rather than full-time contributions. Having done this, and with very careful attention to economy throughout implementation of What Works, the 12-month extension has been funded through savings from within the initial envelop of What Works funding rather than from new funds.

E: RISK (½ to 1 page)

Overall risk rating: Moderate (updated April 2019). This year 12 risks have been actively monitored at a programme level – six of these have been classed as moderate and six as minor. Annex 1 presents the programme’s updated risk register.

All interventions have finished, and data collection is complete (apart from the Pakistan costing study). Many of the contracts with programme partners have subsequently ended. This has significantly reduced fiduciary, delivery, operational and safeguarding risks. As noted above, delivery risks have also been reduced by the 12-month programme extension issued by DFID in January 2019, which lengthened the time available for research uptake to maximise the impact of the evidence.

DFID continues to actively scrutinise the programme’s level of risk and work closely with partners to mitigate and manage the risks identified. In this reporting period the main risks have been delivery and reputational, relating primarily to use and impact of the research. Sensitivities around interventions that have not demonstrated an impact on reducing violence and communicating mixed findings have required careful handling from DFID and the Secretariat.

All three components have dealt with these challenges well and have proactively reviewed and strengthened risk management where needed. Components have conducted monthly checks of individual project risks and submitted updated risk registers to DFID with quarterly (SAMRC and IRC) reports. Regular meetings have been held between the C1 Consortium Director, Programme Manager, and DFID. Risk is a standing item at the Management Committee.

Delivery: Risks associated with implementation and data collection have reduced as projects have closed. A significant risk continues to be the difficulties of translating high-quality evidence into more effective policy and practice. The programme extension has helped to mitigate this by providing additional time to synthesise end-line findings to generate a programme-wide body of evidence and support targeted research uptake around end-line results. DFID has also focused the three ‘check-ins’ by the independent evaluators (IMC) on research dissemination and uptake to support learning in this area.

One of the lessons from the recent April 2019 Progress Report is that while it is relatively easy to communicate and influence around clear and positive findings, it is more challenging to communicate mixed findings in a way that establishes confidence in the research. C1 has managed this risk through investment in workshops that bring together research and intervention teams for each project to analyse findings and explore ambiguities collectively to build confidence in findings. The analysis workshops have also supported the production of final reports for projects where research capacity is weaker. This

20

has helped to mitigate delays in programme delivery and ensure a strong shared understanding of the results and what this means for the evidence base.

These data analysis workshops were also effective at identifying problems with the data collection and taking necessary action. The end-line survey of VSO Nepal’s project was re-done following problems identified during the analysis workshop, while in Bangladesh, patterns in the data raised concerns around its validity, which led to a discovery that some factory managers had interfered with data collection. The decision was ultimately taken not to publish.

The challenges of working in conflict-affected contexts have continued to require careful management in this period. In Afghanistan, deteriorating security threatened end-line data collection. C1 monitored the situation closely and managed the risks well, withdrawing research teams from the field until it was safe to complete data collection. In Syria, C2 effectively managed delivery risk involving the field teams, for example by securing external buildings where interviews were conducted to ensure women’s confidentiality and safety. Following increased scrutiny of the endline tool by the Kurdish military authorities, the endline data collection was adjusted to remove questions around sexual exchange, coercion and assault in order to reduce risks to participants, staff and IRC’s programming. In other contexts, securing government buy-in and permission to publish research findings has required intensive engagement, which paid off.

C3 suffered illness and bereavement among core staff over this period which has led to delays in the production of outputs. The country reports also took longer to finalise than initially anticipated due to several rounds of revisions following feedback from IAB, national advisory board members, and DFID. Although time-consuming, this process has strengthened their quality.

Fiduciary: During this period, C1 actively monitored and mitigated the risk of misappropriation of funds, particularly in research projects where there are financial incentives to participate. Additional measures were implemented for the end-line evaluation of one of the C1 projects in Afghanistan following challenges identified at the midline, including extra training and independent monitoring. All endline data has now been collected and analysis is complete, significantly reducing fiduciary risk for the remainder of the programme. Most final payments to C1 and C3 downstream partners have been made, with 31 out of 43 of C1’s contracts now closed. To effectively manage fiduciary and delivery risk in the remaining months of the programme, the Secretariat will only release final payments to grantees upon verification of final deliverables.

The overall risk of misuse of funds is low, with checks and balances in place to prevent this. All invoices are cross checked to ensure that each milestone has been approved by the programme team before quarterly payments are made. Financial forecasts and reconciliations are regularly checked by a DFID financial analyst.

All three consortia operate under milestone contracts. The three component leads help other partners manage the risk associated with this fixed price contract model. This risk has been exacerbated this year by the protracted process required to extend contract end dates to December 2019. This has required organisations signing up for the first time to new and significantly expanded DFID terms and conditions, with the result that agreeing contract extensions has taken a long time. In the case of the C2 contract, this took a full twelve months, which created challenges for IRC in retaining the necessary consortium resources to work in the extension period, when the contract extension for this work came at a very late stage.

Reputational Risk: Vigilance around reputational risk has become even more essential as research findings are released and disseminated to the public. All three components have developed communications protocols, which have been agreed with DFID and disseminated to downstream partners. The protocols include guidance on reputational risk and stipulate quality assurance and sign-off procedures for written products and communication materials to ensure that areas of potential reputational damage are identified and addressed. Guidance has been provided to all grantees on the communication and dissemination protocols to follow in promoting What Works funded evidence beyond their contract eligibility periods.

All written products go through a rigorous quality assurance process, which includes review by IAB members and DFID, and signoff by the SRO. For C1, sub-groups will be established to draw in experts

21

from across the programme to ensure a robust approach to analysis that gives confidence in the findings. C2 has managed careful messaging around the findings from the Raqqa study, ensuring that the findings are understood and interpreted correctly. C3 has established a process of review involving IAB members, the national Technical Advisory Group in each country and DFID. This has resulted in several rounds of review and revision that have helped ensure findings are clear and robust.

Safeguarding: Safeguarding is central to the core business of What Works and is built into the ethical and safety guidelines for research that were developed during the programme inception phase and disseminated to all grantees. Safeguarding remains a focus of DFID’s risk discussions with programme partners.

F: DELIVERY, COMMERCIAL & FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE (1-2 pages)

Performance of partnerships What Works remains a complex programme involving implementation partners at the Secretariat, Component and project levels; with oversight from country-level project advisory groups, component-specific Technical Advisory Groups (TAGs) and the Independent Advisory Board (IAB). The programme is managed by two DFID Senior Responsible Owners (SROs): one, in Policy Division, manages components 1 and 3, and the other, in Research and Evidence Division (RED), manages component 2. The SROs are jointly responsible for component 4, the independent evaluation. They are supported by two Programme Managers.

Quarterly Management Committee Meetings, chaired by DFID, remain the main cross-component forum for management and accountability. The three components also continue to meet monthly to discuss individual component progress and areas of concern, and separately with DFID. All the partners had the opportunity to meet face-to-face in November for the IAB meeting and quarterly Management Committee which followed the three-day 2018 Annual Scientific Meetings in Kathmandu.

Delivery against planned timeframe

Overall, deliverables for this reporting period are on track:

Component 1 has met all milestones except those that have been rolled into the 2019 extension period based on formal agreement with DFID (for example, relating to synthesis products, including on disability). The 2019 programme extension will allow for the completion of final deliverables. Publication of the C1 costing studies is behind schedule, in part because DFID requested an additional costing study in Pakistan but also because the costs of the Zambia intervention are still under discussion. We are confident that this will be resolved in the next month to allow for completion of deliverables before the end of the contract (see section B).

Component 2 has delivered an ambitious programme of work despite a range of challenges. The completion rate of IRC’s contract milestones stands at 95% at end of Year 4.

Component 3 has had setbacks due to illness and bereavement among staff members which resulted in a significant loss of person-time over the annual review period. New deadlines have been negotiated and DFID will closely monitor C3’s progress to ensure it is on-track to meet these.

Component 4 delivered the second and third research uptake progress report in this period. The dates were agreed in advance with DFID and submitted on time. The C4 milestone schedule has been updated as part of the contract amendment negotiations to better align with new programme timeline.

Despite good progress in the period under review, components are behind schedule compared with the original timescale set out at the beginning of the programme in 2013 (for legitimate reasons set out below). However, following the programme extension, components are now on track to complete agreed deliverables before the end of their current contracts (9 December 2019).

For Component 1, delays have been due to longer than planned inception phases required for some projects, significant capacity development needs, and external factors such as the earthquake in Nepal, deteriorating security in Afghanistan, and election-related violence in South Africa, Kenya and

22

Afghanistan in 2018. Eight of the interventions needed to be developed or significantly adapted before the start of the evaluations and this was not factored into the original timeline. Consequently, contracts for some downstream partners have been extended into 2019 to allow more time for research uptake, dissemination and synthesis. C1 has provided extra support to downstream partners for data analysis and writing through project-specific workshops (described above). This has helped to reduce the time required from completion of endline data collection to dissemination of results.

C3 is a relatively small team so the loss of staff capacity due to illness and bereavement was difficult to absorb. C3 has managed these impacts through contracting support via consultants and sharing workloads during absences. However, when combined with the delays experienced in the previous annual review period due to the need to re-survey in Pakistan, and the significant revisions required to the country reports in this review period, this has impacted on the quantity and/or schedule of publications compared to the original milestone schedule. The timeline for reports, methodological guidance and the policy-makers toolkit were adjusted to allow time for these to be completed to a high standard. C3 will need to make good progress over the next few months to ensure remaining outputs are delivered on time.

Financial Management

Overall financial management of the programme is good. During the year, spending of all three components has varied from forecasts due to the external challenges outlined above, which have led to completion of some milestones and associated payments rolling over from one quarter into the next. Following the programme extension, components are now on track to spend their entire budget by the end of the programme.

For Component 1, as of April 31st 2019, 96% (£10,372,559) of the budget allocated for grantees (£11,796,903) has been disbursed and 83% (£5,225,514) of the budget allocated for completed milestones (£6,077,049) has been disbursed. Almost all of C1’s remaining budget is forecasted to be spent by the end of the contract. Final payments to partners will only be paid on receipt of final deliverables, which is expected in the last two quarters of the programme. C1 continues to provide DFID with a cash reconciliation every three months to highlight any cash balance uncommitted at the end of the period. This has ensured that DFID does not pay funds in advance of need and allows the programme team to track spend more accurately. This information is included along with the quarterly progress reports and updated financial forecast.

Component 2’s financial management has been good in this reporting period. Project spending to date is largely on track with only three milestones carried over to Year 5 (the year beginning November 2018)xxvii. All milestones are on track to be delivered within the contract period. Narrative reporting continues, as in previous years, on a quarterly basis, with update meetings at quarter-end with the Component 2 leads.

Due to Component 3’s setbacks over the past 12 months, milestones have slipped from timeframes set out within in NUI Galway’s contract. C3 should look to improve their approach to financial management to ensure that forecasting is accurate over the remainder of the programme. 

Table 1: Budget and spend by component (£)

Component Total Budget

Total Spend FY 2018/19

Total spend to 31st

April 2019Balance

1 Prevention 18, 008, 361 £2, 139, 284 £16, 557, 259 1,451,1022 Conflict and crisis 5,171,897 687,295 4,687,381 484,5163 Economic and social costs 1, 793, 088 65, 000 1, 678, 959 114, 1294 Evaluation 394, 805 19, 740 236, 882 157, 923

Total 25, 368, 151 2 511 319 23, 160, 481 2 207 670Component 1 Component 2 Component 3

Date of last narrative financial report(s) December 2018 September 2017 December 2018Date of last audited annual statement (s) March 2018 September 2017 July 2018

23

G: MONITORING, EVIDENCE & LEARNING (1-2 pages)

Monitoring (1/2 page)

The two DFID Senior Responsible Officers (SROs) hold progress meetings with Component leads at roughly monthly intervals. All three Components come together remotely with DFID and IMC (the independent evaluators) in quarterly meetings of the Management Committee.

All three Component leads, IMC, DFID (both HQ and selected Country Office advisors) and the individual projects came together in Kathmandu, Nepal at the end of October and beginning of November 2018 for the ASM and face-to-face meetings of the Management Committee and (IAB. These annual meetings provided an opportunity for collective monitoring of progress against milestones (review of research findings) and of the functioning of programme management arrangements. They also enabled DFID to seek feedback directly from grantees on programme management and on the support provided by SAMRC and partners. As described above, grantees particularly emphasised the benefits of peer learning and new networks, and the value of the What Works capacity support. In Nepal, both grantees and the IAB echoed sentiments about keeping the family together through cost effective measures such as communities of practice.

IMC is contracted to provide independent evaluation of the programme. This is conceived as a ‘critical friend’ function: independent of the programme but engaged from an early point in implementation to provide ongoing assessment to improve learning and performance during the lifetime of the programme. IMC has carried out three short progress reviews between the April 2017 Mid-Term and the end-of-programme final evaluation, with the final report shared with DFID ahead of this annual review. This light-touch review process is innovative and provides DFID and the implementing partners with a valuable additional perspective on the programme. Overall, the April 2019 report was positive, particularly welcoming the quantity and quality of academic outputs and effective dissemination and outreach.

For this Annual Review, each of the three Components prepared an annual report which were consolidated into one report by the Secretariat and shared with DFID. The Review has been drafted by the two SROs and the VAWG Team Programme Manager, with inputs from other members of the VAWG team in Policy Division and the Governance, Conflict and Social Development Team in Research and Evidence Division. Additional sources include the August 2018 and April 2019 progress reports by IMC, feedback from users of What Works findings working within DFID (Policy Division, RED, and selected country offices) and beyond, a closed session with DFID and C1 grantees at the ASM, and feedback from beneficiaries on field visits to Equal Access Nepal, VSO Nepal, and Stepping Stones Creating Futures in South Africa.

Evidence (1/2 page)

There have been no major changes in the sources of evidence for programme M&E over the last year. There are now well-established systems for collecting and reviewing routine management information on progress with project implementation at the Component level; cross-Component coordination meetings and quarterly (virtual) Management Committee meetings with DFID; and an annual face-to-face meeting of the Management Committee (and IAB) around the ASM. This year the DFID team also visited three of the C1 projects (two in Nepal and one in South Africa) to meet with downstream partners and beneficiaries. These, plus the three light-touch progress evaluations by IMC, provide the key sources of evidence for what the programme is doing and achieving.

As the individual projects within the portfolio have reached completion, it has become possible to assess (i) the quality of final research outputs and (ii) effectiveness of the channels (launch events, contacts with policy-makers, participation in events such as the CSW) by which these findings and recommendations are communicated. As described under ‘Outputs’ above, over the course of 2018/19 a number of the studies have generated accessible, high quality reports and achieved a good profile through a combination of launch events, communications and networking.

Learning (1/2 page)

Learning from What Works takes place at a number of levels. As a research and innovation fund, the programme is explicitly focussed on generating and sharing lessons about the nature of VAWG (patterns

24

and trends in prevalence, forms, drivers, and the characteristics of perpetrators and survivors), the costs of this violence, and the effectiveness of different programmatic approaches to prevention. Lessons are also sought regarding how the programme works to deliver these objectives: M&E supports critical reflection on the degree to which the design and implementation of the programme is effective in generating, synthesising and communicating knowledge that helps to change programmes, policies and outcomes. Over the last 12 months, the ‘critical friend’ role of the independent evaluators has focussed on strengthening how the programme approaches and tracks research uptake.

Over the last year, these lessons have been used to inform the request for a one-year programme extension and DFID’s design of a successor programme to What Works. DFID presented preliminary proposals for a successor programme to the IAB in Nepal and sought their views, including on key lessons from What Works to build on. The discussions provided strong endorsement of the proposed programme and further useful ideas for the design.

Progress on recommendations from previous reviews (1/2 page)

Recommendations from last year’s annual review related principally to output 5 on research uptake, which was identified as a priority for this review period.

1. Now that the programme extension has been approved, SAMRC should coordinate across the three components to develop a joint work plan for research uptake (RU) to cover the period from April 2018 to the end of the programme. This should be developed in consultation with DFID and the Independent Advisory Board (IAB), and should set out month-by-month:

component-specific flagship publications, policy briefs, and key events to target with emerging findings;

cross-component synthesis products and events;

incorporation – and reflection on / response to – research emerging from outside the What Works programme that relates to the programme’s findings (reinforcing, challenging or extending conclusions from What Works);

a division of labour for coordination of cross-component initiatives, that draws on the expertise of partners across the three components and ensures that partners are working to their strengths;

plans for RU and comms activities at the country level for each What Works country, including launch of endline findings – recognising that these will evolve as new opportunities emerge.

Complete: This was done but remains ongoing priority. The plan was approved by DFID and reviewed by the IAB in November in Nepal (refer to Section B). It is revisited at quarterly Management Committee Meetings. Publications and synthesis products were also discussed and agreed as part of the extension process and are set out in the amended contracts. The need to draw on the expertise of partners across the components was reiterated again by the IAB in Nepal and is reflected in a recommendation in this Annual Review.

2. The programme has shown significant capacity for disseminating research to academic and technical audiences, evidenced in the impressive body of academic papers and conferences already delivered. Partners should build on the credibility that this has established to continue to strengthen efforts to reach non-academic audiences, such as policy makers and practitioners. Partners should:

Agree on the list of cross-component synthesis products to be produced between now and the end of the programme, in consultation with DFID and the IAB. A list should be shared with DFID by no later than the end of June 2018.

Put more emphasis on reports of a length and format that will influence non-academic audiences. The four Evidence Briefs, C1’s Does Faith Matter? policy brief, and C2’s No Safe Place policy brief are good examples.

25

Develop sector specific products (e.g. education, economic development, conflict), as recommended by the IAB in 2017.

Capture learning from practice as well as research, including publishing lessons on building capacity for research and intervention on VAWG, as recommended by the IAB in 2017;

Use creative approaches and formats at stakeholder events that help to make complex data and findings accessible to non-academic audiences, including at the Annual Scientific Meeting (ASM).

Complete: The list of synthesis products was compiled and sent to DFID in May 2018. This was reviewed in Management Committee Meetings as well as the IAB in November 2018 in Nepal. It is now part of the milestones for the 2019 extension. The Nepal IAB resolved to institute a peer review process for some of the products and to ensure that thematic areas are matched with existing expertise within What Works. For component 1, 12 evidence briefs and 2 thematic evidence briefs on disability and education have been produced, disseminated and are accessible through the website.

3. Working with the Evaluation Team and DFID, components should strengthen tracking and reporting on the impact of stakeholder engagement and RU activities by:

Reporting on RU activities against the RU Strategy, and including insights about assumptions/revisions to the RU Theory of Change;

Carrying out, and reporting on, post-engagement follow-up (the results of stakeholder engagement: did engagement lead to action?), by capturing as far as possible both the number of engagements and any outcomes from these engagements.

Creating templates for simpler RU monitoring in quarterly reports to show better balance between planned/opportunistic engagements, and to simplify reporting.

Partially met: Reporting on the results of stakeholder engagement remains a priority and will be important for the Programme Completion Report to ensure strong evidence of impact. This is reiterated through a new recommendation in this Annual Review.

4. As recommended by the IAB in July 2017, it is important to achieve a balance between allowing enough time for analysing and quality assuring data to ensure credible release and identifying findings that are strategic to release at the earliest possible stage. C1 should identify and proactively pursue a small number of thematic priorities in 2018 where there is real opportunity for influence. Examples include violence in schools, given the focus on this in DFID’s new education policy, and VAWG and disability, in light of the Global Disability Summit being hosted by the UK in July 2018.

Complete: In 2018, C1 focused strategically on producing a brief and video for the Global Disability Summit and making VAWG and education the focus of the 16 Days of Action research uptake activities.

5. As recommended by the Mid-Term Review in 2017, the What Works Secretariat should make more aggressive and concerted use of ‘cost neutral’ communications channels, such as the website and social media, and use these to better market its knowledge and evidence to priority audiences. The recent effort to reorient the newsletter towards disseminating research findings is a positive example.

Complete: The WW Website and Newsletter have been reshaped to reflect the latest evidence emerging from the programme. By December 2018, the website has 76,198 visits and 49,238 unique visits. Overall, there is an increasing on-line presence via 13 online press articles. A link to excel spreadsheet of related online media hits can be found here .  

26

Annex 1: Glossary

ADDRF African Doctoral Dissertation Research Fellowship scheme (run by APHRC)APHRC African Population and Health Research Centre (Nairobi)ARID Advocates for Research In Development (Uganda)ASM Annual Scientific MeetingBSR Business for Social ResponsibilityCDC Center for Disease Control (US)CHASE (DFID) Conflict, Humanitarian and Security DepartmentCIUK CARE International UKCoP community of practiceCSO civil society organisationCSW (UN) Commission on the Status of WomenDRC Democratic Republic of CongoEQuALS Evaluation Quality Assurance and Learning ServicesERD Economic Recovery and Development (IRC)FCO Foreign and Commonwealth Office (UK)

formative research

Research designed to help researchers design or adapt effective interventions (including appropriate communication strategies), by collecting data to better understand the characteristics (interests, capacities and needs) of the population that the intervention is intended to help, the nature of the problem that the programme is intended to help, and the institutional environment within which the population and the intervention are located.

GAPS Gender Action for Peace and Security (UK NGO network)GBV gender-based violenceGCRF (UK) Global Challenges Research FundGCSD Governance, Conflict and Social Development Team (in DFID RED)GWI Global Women's Institute (at George Washington University)GW George Washington UniversityHTAC Help the Afghan Children (Afghanistan)IAB (VAWG) International Advisory BoardICAI (UK) Independent Commission on Aid ImpactICRW International Centre for Research on WomenIDRC (Canadian) International Development Research CentreIE impact evaluationIG Innovation GrantIPV Intimate partner violenceIRB Institutional Review BoardIRC International Rescue CommitteeIWDA International Women's Development AgencyKHPT Kenya Humanitarian Partnership Team LIC low income countryLSE London School of Economics and Political ScienceLSHTM London School of Hygiene and Tropical MedicineM&E monitoring and evaluationMIC Middle Income CountryMIGEPROF Ministry of Gender and Family Promotion (Rwanda)MOFALD Ministry of Federal Affairs and Local Development (Nepal)MOGSW Ministry of Gender, Children and Social Welfare (South Sudan)MTE Mid-Term Evaluation

27

NAP National Action Plan (for implementation of UNSCR 1325)NBS National Bureau of Statistics (South Sudan)NGO non-governmental organisationNUI National University of IrelandOPT Occupied Palestinian TerritoriesPI principal investigatorPLOS Public Library of Science (non-profit open access science, technology and medicine publisher)POC protection of civilians (South Sudan)PRM Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration (US)RCT randomised control trialRCW Refugee Community WorkersRDT Research Design TeamRED (DFID) Research and Evidence DivisionREL Research, Evaluation and Learning (IRC)RME research, monitoring and evaluationRU research uptakeSAMRC South Africa Medical Research CouncilSBPB State-building / peace-buildingSDA (dfid) social development advisorSDD Social Development DirectSDG Sustainable Development GoalsSRO (DFID) Senior Responsible OfficerSVRI Sexual Violence Research InitiativeTA technical advisorsTAG Technical Advisory GroupToC theory of changeToR terms of referenceUNDP United Nations Development ProgrammeUNFPA United Nations Population FundUNHCR United Nations High Commission for RefugeesUNICEF United Nations Children's FundUNMISS United Nations Mission in South SudanUNSCR United Nations Security Council ResolutionVAC violence against childrenVAMB violence against men and boysVAWG violence against women and girls VFM value for moneyVPRU Violence Prevention and Response Unit (IRC)VSLA Village Savings and Loans AssociationsVSO Voluntary Service Overseas (UK)WEE women's economic empowermentWfWI Women for Women International (NGO)WHO World Health OrganisationWPS Women, Peace and SecurityWRO Women’s Rights OrganisationWhat Works What Works to Prevent Violence against Women and Girls

28

Annex 2: Cumulative publications and communication materials (April 2018-March 2019)

Component 1: Research outputs in 2018-19 (Output 1.1)

Component 1 Peer reviewed articles in journals

* denotes Southern author

Component 1 Peer-reviewed Journal articles Published (n=24)

1. *Stern, E., Martins, S., Stefanik, L., Uwimpuhwe, S., & Yaker, R. (2018). Lessons learned from implementing Indashyikirwa in Rwanda-an adaptation of the SASA! approach to prevent and respond to intimate partner violence. Evaluation and program planning, 71, 58-67.

2. Stern, E., Heise, L., & McLean, L. (2018). The doing and undoing of male household decision-making and economic authority in Rwanda and its implications for gender transformative programming. Culture, health & sexuality, 20(9), 976-991.

3. Stern, E. & Heise, L. (2018). Sexual Coercion, Consent, and Negotiation: Processes of change amongst couples participating in the Indashyikirwa Programme in Rwanda

4. *Alangea, D. O., Addo-Lartey, A. A., Sikweyiya, Y., Chirwa, E. D., Coker-Appiah, D., Jewkes, R., & Adanu, R. M. K. (2018). Prevalence and risk factors of intimate partner violence among women in four districts of the central region of Ghana: Baseline findings from a cluster randomised controlled trial. PloS one, 13(7), e0200874.

5. *Jewkes, R., Corboz, J., & Gibbs, A. (2018). Trauma exposure and IPV experienced by Afghan women: Analysis of the baseline of a randomised controlled trial. PLoS one, 13(10), e0201974.

6. *Gibbs, A., Jewkes, R., Willan, S., & Washington, L. (2018). Associations between poverty, mental health and substance use, gender power, and intimate partner violence amongst young (18-30) women and men in urban informal settlements in South Africa: A cross-sectional study and structural equation model. PLoS one, 13(10), e0204956.

7. *Hatcher, A. M., Gibbs, A., Jewkes, R., McBride, R., Peacock, D., & Christofides, N. (2019). Effect of Childhood Poverty and Trauma on Adult Depressive Symptoms Among Young Men in Peri-Urban South African Settlements. Journal of Adolescent Health. 64, 79-85

8. *Naved, R. T., Al Mamun, M., Parvin, K., Willan, S., Gibbs, A., Yu, M., & Jewkes, R. (2018). Magnitude and correlates of intimate partner violence against female garment workers from selected factories in Bangladesh. PloS one, 13(11), e0204725.

9. *Gupta, J., Cardoso, L. F., Ferguson, G., Shrestha, B., Shrestha, P. N., Harris, C., & Clark, C. J. (2018). Disability status, intimate partner violence and perceived social support among married women in three districts of the Terai region of Nepal. BMJ Global Health, 3(5), e000934.

10. *Gibbs, A., Dunkle, K., Willan, S., Jama-Shai, N., Washington, L., & Jewkes, R. (2018). Are women’s experiences of emotional and economic intimate partner violence associated with HIV-risk behaviour? A cross-sectional analysis of young women in informal settlements in South Africa. AIDS Care, 1-8.

11. *Cardoso, L. F., Clark, C. J., Rivers, K., Ferguson, G., Shrestha, B., & Gupta, J. (2019). Menstrual restriction prevalence and association with intimate partner violence among Nepali women. BMJ Sex Reprod Health, 45(1), 38-43.

12. *Khuwaja, H. M. A., Karmaliani, R., McFarlane, J., Somani, R., Gulzar, S., Ali, T. S., ... & Jewkes, R. (2018). The intersection of school corporal punishment and associated factors: Baseline results from a randomized controlled trial in Pakistan. PLoS one, 13(10), e0206032.

13. *Parvin, K., Al Mamun, M., Gibbs, A., Jewkes, R., & Naved, R. T. (2018). The pathways between female garment workers’ experience of violence and development of depressive symptoms. PLoS one, 13(11), e0207485.

14. *Kane, J. C., Vinikoor, M. J., Haroz, E. E., Al-Yasiri, M., Bogdanov, S., Mayeya, J., & Murray, L. K. (2018). Mental health comorbidity in low-income and middle-income countries: a call for improved measurement and treatment. The Lancet Psychiatry, 5(11), 864-866.

15.*Gibbs, A., Corboz, J., & Jewkes, R. (2018). Factors associated with recent intimate partner violence experience amongst currently married women in Afghanistan and health impacts of IPV: a cross sectional study. BMC Public Health, 18(1), 593.

29

16.*Gibbs A, Dunkle K, Jewkes R (2018) Emotional and economic intimate partner violence as key drivers of depression and suicidal ideation: A cross-sectional study among young women in informal settlements in South Africa. PLoS ONE 13 (4): e0194885. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0194885

17. *Bhattacharjee, P., Campbell, L., Thalinja, R., Nair, S., Doddamane, M., Ramanaik, S., ... & Beattie, T. S. (2018). Understanding the Relationship Between Female Sex Workers and Their Intimate Partners: Lessons and Initial Findings From Participatory Research in North Karnataka, South India. Health education & behavior, 1090198118763934.

18. *Mamun, M., Parvin, K., Yu, M., Wan, J., Willan, S., Gibbs, A.,& Naved, R. T. (2018). The HERrespect intervention to address violence against female garment workers in Bangladesh: study protocol for a Al quasi-experimental trial. BMC public health, 18(1), 512.

19. *Gibbs, A., Dunkle, K., Washington, L., Willan, S., Shai, N., & Jewkes, R. (2018). Childhood traumas as a risk factor for HIV-risk behaviours amongst young women and men living in urban informal settlements in South Africa: A cross-sectional study. PloS one, 13(4), e0195369.

20. *Blanchard, A. K., Nair, S. G., Bruce, S. G., Ramanaik, S., Thalinja, R., Murthy, S., ... & Isac, S. (2018). A community-based qualitative study on the experience and understandings of intimate partner violence and HIV vulnerability from the perspectives of female sex workers and male intimate partners in North Karnataka state, India. BMC women's health, 18(1), 66.

21. *Willan, S., Ntini, N., Gibbs, A., Jewkes, R (2019) Exploring young women’s constructions of love and strategies to navigate violent relationships in South African informal settlements. Culture, Health, and Sexuality. DOI:10.1080/13691058.2018.1554189

22. *Clark, C. J., Ferguson, G., Shrestha, B., Shrestha, P. N., Batayeh, B., Bergenfeld, I., & McGhee, S. (2019). Mixed methods assessment of women’s risk of intimate partner violence in Nepal. BMC women's health, 19(1), 20.

23.*Jewkes R, Corboz J, Gibbs A (2019) Violence against Afghan women by husbands and mothers-in-law: risk markers and health consequences in an analysis of the baseline of a randomised controlled trial, under review at PLoS One

24. Christofides, N. J., Hatcher, A. M., Pino, A., Rebombo, D., McBride, R. S., Anderson, A., & Peacock, D. (2018). A cluster randomised controlled trial to determine the effect of community mobilisation and advocacy on men’s use of violence in peri-urban South Africa: study protocol. BMJ Open, 8(3), e017579.

Component 1 Publications that are currently in press (n=3)

1. *Hatcher A, Stockl H, McBride R, Khumalo M, Christofides N (in press). Pathways from food insecurity to men's use of intimate partner violence in a peri-urban settlement in South Africa. American Journal of Preventive Medicine.

2. *Closson, K., Hatcher, A., Sikweyiya, Y., Washington, L., Mkhwanazi, S. , Jewkes, R., Dunkle, K. Gibbs, A. Gender role conflict and sexual health and relationship practices amongst young men living in urban informal settlements in South Africa, (in press), Culture, Health and Sexuality.

3. *Gibbs, A.; Hatcher, A.; Jewkes, R.; Sikweyiya, Y.; Washington, L.; Dunkle, K.; Magni, S.; Peacock. D.; Khumalo, M.; Christofides, N. Associations between lifetime traumatic experiences and HIV-risk behaviours amongst young men living in informal settlements in South Africa: A cross-sectional analysis and structural equation model. JAIDS

Component 1 Publications that are currently in peer review (n=27):

1. *Shai, N.; Pradhan G.D.; Chirwa, E.; Shrestha, R.; Adhikari, A.; Kerr, A. Factors associated with IPV victimization and perpetration by men in migrant communities of Nepal (article submitted to Plos One).

2. *Sarnquist, C.; Kang, J.L.; Amuyunzu-Nyamongo, M.; Oguda, G. Otieno, D.; Mboya, B.; Kipkirui, D.; Omondi, N.& Baiocchi, M. (2017). A cluster-randomized controlled trial testing an empowerment intervention to prevent sexual assault in upper primary school adolescents in the informal settlements of Nairobi, Kenya” (Revised and re-submitted to BMC Public Health).

3. *Javalkar;P.; Platt; L.; Prakash, R.; Beattie, R.; Bhattacharjee, P.; Thalinja, R,; DL; Mudhol,CATMS.; Ramanaik, S.; Collumbien, M.; Davey, C.; Moses, S.; Jewkes, R.; Isac, S. & Heise L. (2017). What determines violence

30

among female sex workers in an intimate partner relationship? Findings from north Karnataka, South India, submitted to BMC Public Health.

4. *Dako-Gyeke, P.; Addo-LarteyAA.; Alangea,DO.; Sikweyiya, Y.; Chirwa, E.; Coker-Appiah, D. et al. “Small small quarrels bring about happiness or love in the relationships’: Community perceptions and gendered norms driving male perpetrated intimate partner violence in the Central Region of Ghana'. Submitted to PONE-D-18-31356.

5. *Sikweyiya,Y.; Addo-LarteyAA.; Alangea,DO.; Dako-Gyeke, P.; Chirwa, E.;Coker-Appiah,D.; Adanu,R.& Jewkes, R. ‘Patriarchy and gender-inequitable attitudes as drivers of intimate partner violence against women in the Central Region of Ghana’. Submitted tPONE-D-18-32969

6. *Stern, E., Gibbs, A., Willan, S., Dunkle, K. & Jewkes, R. When you talk to someone in a bad way or always put her under pressure, it is actually worse than beating her’: Conceptions and experiences of emotional intimate partner violence in Rwanda and South Africa, submitted Journal of Interpersonal Violence, Revise and resubmit

7. *Karmaliani, R. et al. "Peer Victimization among School Age Children with Disabilities in Pakistan and Afghanistan” Revise and resubmit to International Journal of Disability, Development and Education.

8. *Corboz, J., Gibbs, A., Jewkes, R. Factors associated with Bocha Posh, Revise and resubmit at Culture, Health and Society,

9. *Gibbs, A., Said, N., Corboz, J., Jewkes, R. Factors associated with ‘honour killing’ in Afghanistan and the Occupied Palestinian Territories: Two cross-sectional studies. Revise and resubmit at PLoS One

10. *Clark,C.J.; McGhee,S.; Ferguson,G.; Shrestha,B.; Shrestha,P.N.; Oakes,M.; Gupta,J. Change Starts at Home: Baseline report of a mixed methods trial to prevent intimate partner violence among married couples in Nepal, (submitted) to Prevention Science.

11. *Cislaghi, B; Denny, E.K.; Cissé,M. ; Gueye, P.; Shrestha,B.; Shrestha,P.N.;Ferguson,G.; Hughes, C.; Clark, C.J. Changing social norms: the importance of “organized diffusion” for scaling up community health promotion interventions, (submitted) to Social Science & Medicine

12. *Nwokolo, C.A.; Shrestha,P.N.; Ferguson,G; Shrestha,B.& Clark,C.J. Contextual attributes of the family and community that encourage or hinder the practice of intimate partner violence in Nepal. (submitted) to Plos One)

13. *McGhee, S.; Shrestha,B.; Ferguson,G.; Shrestha,P.N.& Clark, C.J.Change really does need to start from home’: Midline impact of an intimate partner violence prevention strategy among married couples in Nepal, (submitted) to Journal of Interpersonal Violence.

14. *Stern, E., and Carlson, K. Indashyikirwa safe spaces: Response mechanisms for survivors of IPV within a Rwandan prevention programme. (submitted) to Health Care for Women International in September 2018.

15. *Stern, E., Ferguson, G., McGhee, S., and Clark, C. Intimate partner violence prevention programming with couples: Comparing processes of change in Nepal and Rwanda. (submitted) to Journal of Social and Person Relationships in September 2018.

16. *Gibbs, Washington, Myrttinen, Sikweyiya, Jewkes. Constructing, reproducing and challenging masculinities in a participatory intervention in urban informal settlements in South Africa. Revise and resubmit. Culture Health and Sexuality

17. *Willan, SW.; Kerr-Wilson, A. et al. Supporting capacity development to prevent violence against women and girls, case study. Revise and resubmit to Development in Practice.

18.*Le Roux, E. Corboz, J; Scott, N.; Sandilands, M.;Lele; UB.;Bezzolato, E.& Jewkes, R. Engaging with faith groups to prevent VAWG in conflict-affected communities: results from two community surveys in the DRC submitted to BMC Public Health

19. *Gibbs, A.; Jewkes, R.; Willan, S.; Mamun, MA.; Parvin. K.; Yu,M. & Naved, R. Revise and resubmit. Workplace violence experienced by female garment workers and perpetrated by supervisors and managers in Bangladesh. Social Science and Medicine

20. *Corboz J, Hemat O, Siddiq W, Jewkes, R.; What Works to Prevent Violence Against Children in Afghanistan? Findings of an interrupted time series evaluation of a school-based peace education and community social norms change intervention in Afghanistan. Plos One (revise and resubmit)

21. *Javalkar, P.; Platt, L.; Prakash, R.; Beattie T.; Collumbien,; M.; Gafos, M.; Ramanaik, S.; Davey C, Jewkes R, Watts C, Bhattacharjee P, Thalinja R, Kavitha D L, Isac S, Heise L. The effectiveness of a multi-level

31

intervention to reduce violence and increase condom use in intimate partnerships among sex workers in Karnataka: findings from a clustered randomised controlled trial. Lancet Global Health (submitted)

22. *Karmaliani R.; McFarlane, J.; Maqbool Ahmed Khuwaja, H; Shehzad Bhamani S.;, Saeed Ali T.;, Somani, Y; Asad, N.; Chirwa, E.D. & Jewkes R (submitted) Right to play’s Intervention to Reduce Peer Violence among Children in Public Schools in Pakistan: A Cluster-Randomized Controlled Trial Evaluation. The Lancet (submitted)

23. *Mastonshoeva S.; Shonasimova, S.; Gulyamova P.; Jewkes R.; Shai, N.; Chirwa, E.D. & Myrttinen, H (submitted) Mixed methods evaluation of Zindagii Shoista (Living with dignity) Intervention to Prevent Violence Against Women in Tajikistan. Plos One (submitted)

24. *Murray, L. et al. Effectiveness of the Common Elements Treatment Approach (CETA) in reducing intimate partner violence and hazardous alcohol use in Zambia (VATU): a randomised controlled trial. The Lancet (submitted)

25. Stern, E., van der Heijden, I., and Dunkle, K. (2019). How people with disabilities experience programmes to prevent intimate partner violence across four countries. Submitted to Health Promotion International

26. Stern, E., Heise, L., and Cislaghi, B. (2019). Lessons learned from engaging opinion leaders to address intimate partner violence in Rwanda. Submitted to Health Promotion International

27. McLean, L.; Stern, E.; Heise, L. (2019). Transforming gender inequities and challenging social norms in intimate partnerships? The Indashyikirwa couples programme in Rwanda, Submitted to Culture, Health and Society.

Component 1 Self-Published Reports (n=4)

1. *Siddiq W, Hemat O, & Corboz J (2018) What Works to Prevent Violence Against Children in Afghanistan. Kabul: Help the Afghan Children.

2. *Gulyamova, P. Mastonshoeva, S. & Shonasimova, S. (2018). Zindagii Shoista: Living with Dignity: Evidence-based intervention on prevention of violence against women and girls in rural Tajikistan.

3. *Palm, S., Le Roux, E., Bezzolato, E., Deepan, P., Corboz, J. Lele, U., O’Sullivan, V & Jewkes, R. (2018) Rethinking Relationships: Moving from Violence to Equality. What works to prevent violence against women and girls in the DRC. (finalisation in Feb 2019)

4. *Dunkle,K.; Stern, E.; Chatterji, S.; & Heise, L. also on behalf of the Indashyikirwa team. Indashyikirwa program to reduce intimate partner violence in Rwanda: Report of findings from a cluster randomized control trial (embargoed).

Component 1 Project specific Evidence briefs n= (12)

1. Stepping stones and creating futures: An evidence-based intervention to prevent violence against women and improve livelihoods, https://whatworks.co.za/documents/publications/242-stepping-stones-web/file

2. How Business Can Make a Difference on Violence against Women and Girls, Baseline brief Bangladesh: https://whatworks.co.za/documents/publications/264-herrespect-program-summary-nov2018/file

3. Laura Murray, Jeremy Kane, Stephanie Skavenski van Wyk, Flor Melendez (2018) Randomized Controlled Trial of a Multi-pronged Intervention to Address Prevention of Violence in Zambia (being revised and reformatted).

4. Erin Stern, Lori Heise, Lyndsay Maclean (2018). Working with couples to prevent IPV: Indashyikirwa in Rwanda.

5. Erin Stern, Lori Heise, Lyndsay Maclean (2018). Engaging opinion leaders in an IPV-prevention programme: Lessons from Indashyikirwa in Rwanda.

6. Erin Stern, Lori Heise, Lyndsay Maclean (2018). Community activism with couples engaged in an intimate partner violence prevention programme: Lessons from Indashyikirwa in Rwanda

7. Erin Stern, Lori Heise, Lyndsay Maclean (2018). Indashyikirwa - Women’s SAFE SPACES for IPV in Rwanda.

8. Dilorom Abdulhaeva, Subhiya Mastonshoeva, Shahribonu Shonasimova, Henri Myrttinen (International Alert), Rachel Jewkes (SAMRC), Nwabisa Shai (et al 2018). Working with the whole family to prevent violence against Women and Girls in Tajikistan.

9. Khuwaja, MH, Karmaliani, R. Muhammad, A.S, et al. Preventing violence among and against children in schools in Hyderabad, Pakistan

32

10. Siddiq W, Hemat O, & Corboz J (2018) What Works to Prevent Violence Against Children in Afghanistan. Kabul: Help the Afghan Children, Kabul, Afghanistan.

11. Coker-Appiah, D; Nuvor, E.; Annan,P. Darko -Mensah, E.; Dufie, R. & Asare, N. (2018) COMBAT: Rural Response to Preventing Violence against Women and Girls (VAWG)

12. Shai, N. A family-centred intervention to prevent Violence Against Women and Girls in migrant communities of Baglung District, Nepal

Component 1 Synthesis reports (n=2)

1. Kristin Dunkle, Ingrid van der Heijden, Erin Stern and Esnat Chirwa (2018). Disability and Violence against Women and Girls Emerging Evidence from the What Works to Prevent Violence against Women and Girls Global Programme.

2. Fraser, E. and Jewkes, R. (2019). Violence against women and girls and Education Evidence Review. Component 2: Research outputs in 2018-19 counting towards Output indicator 3.1

Self-published reports (3)

1. CARE, Global Women’s Institute and International Rescue Committee. (2018). Intersections of violence against women and girls with state-building and peace-building: Lessons from Nepal, Sierra Leone and South Sudan: Washington DC: George University and London: IRC and CARE.

2. CARE, Global Women’s Institute and International Rescue Committee. (2018). Analytical Framework. Intersections of violence against women and girls with state-building and peace-building: Lessons from Nepal, Sierra Leone and South Sudan. Washington DC: George University and London: IRC and CARE.

3. Global Women’s Institute and Gender and Adolescence Global Evidence. “Violence against adolescent girls, trends and lessons for East Africa”. (2018). Washington DC: George University and London GAG

Journal articles submitted, accepted or published this reporting year (6)

1. Muuo S., Muthur S., Mutua M., McAlpine A., Bacchus L. (2018). “Barriers and facilitators to care-seeking among survivors of gender-based violence in the Dabaab refugee complex” (Published in Journal of BMC Women’s Health)

2. Murphy M., Bingheimer J., Ovince J., Ellsberg, M., Contreras-Urbina, M. (2019). “The Effects of Conflict and Displacement on Violence against Adolescent Girls in South Sudan”. (Submitted to the Journal Reproductive Health Matters)

3. Contreras-Urbina M., Blackwell A., Murphy M., Ellsberg M. (2019). “Researching VAWG in South Sudan: Ethical and safety considerations and strategies.” (Submitted to Journal of Conflict and Health)

4. Contreras, M. et al. (2019). “Gender-based Violence in South Sudan from a Male’s Perspective, Barriers to Services for Survivors of Violence against Women and Girls in South Sudan, and Harmful Practices in South Sudan.” (Journal to be confirmed).

5. Falb K., Blackwell A., Annan J. (2019). “Exploring the role of IPV, food insecurity, and perceived needs and their associations with depression among married women.” (Submitted to the Journal of Global Mental Health).

6. Falb K., Blackwell A., Annan J. (2019). Conducting ethical and rigorous evaluation research in acute settings is possible: an example of a cash transfer evaluation in Raqqa Governorate. (Submitted to BMJ Global health).

Component 2: Research outputs in 2018-19 counting towards Output indicator 5.3

Briefs (2)

33

1. CARE, Global Women’s Institute and International Rescue Committee. (2018). Policy Brief. (2018). Intersections of violence against women and girls with state-building and peace-building: Lessons from Nepal, Sierra Leone and South Sudan. Washington DC: George University and London: IRC and CARE

2. Global Women’s Institute and Gender and Adolescence Global Evidence. Policy Brief. “Violence against adolescent girls, trends and lessons for East Africa (2018). Washington DC: George University and London GAGE

Component 2: Journal articles reported in 2018 Annual Review, published in this reporting period (2)

7. Izugbara, C., S. Muthuri, S. Muuo, C. Egesa, G. Franchi, A. Mcalpine, L. Bacchus and M. Hossain (2018) ‘They Say Our Work Is Not Halal’: Experiences and Challenges of Refugee Community Workers Involved in Gender based Violence Prevention and Care in Dadaab, Kenya. Journal of Refugee Studies. October 2018

8. Swaine A., M. Spearing, M. Murphy and M. Contreras-Urbina (2019) “ Exploring the i ntersection of v iolence a gainst w omen and g irls w ith p ost- c onflict s tate-building and p eace-building p rocesses: a n ew a nalytical f ramework . ” Journal of Peacebuilding and Development Volume 14 Issue 1, pp 3-21.

Component 3

Peer reviewed journal articles/books chapters published this year (n=1):1. Alvarado, et. al. 2018. "The Health-Related Impacts and Costs of Violence against Women and Girls on

Survivors, Households, and Communities in Ghana". Journal of Public Health in Africa. https://www.publichealthinafrica.org/index.php/jphia/article/view/860

Peer reviewed journal articles/books chapters in Press (n=1):1. Alvardo, G., Mueller, J., O’Brien-Milne, L., Ghaus, K., Duvvury, N., and Scriver, S. The social costs of

violence against women and girls on survivors, their families and communities in Pakistan . Pakistan Journal of Women’s Studies.

Peer reviewed journal articles/books chapters under review (n=1):1. Duvvury, N., Vara-Horna, A., and Chadha, M. Determining the economic impact of intimate partner

violence in companies: psychometric properties of lost days of labour productivity scales. Submitted to PLOS One. (This is a methodological paper validating the scale used to measure lost productivity in the project. The journal is open access).

Self-published (n=1):1. Duvvury, N. and Scriver, S. (in press). Violence against Women and Economic Participation.

Understanding Society: Putting people in the picture.

Three country reports (3 Summary and 3 Technical reports) for Ghana, Pakistan, South Sudan

Component 3: Synthesis and communication materials in 2018-19 (n=1)

1. Infographic 5: Economic and Social Costs of Violence against Women in Ghana. https://whatworks.co.za/resources/evidence-in-infographics/item/574-economic-and-social-costs-of-violence-against-women-and-girls-in-ghana

34

Annex 3: Programme Risk Register

Risk Description Risk Category

Likelihood Impact Gross Risk

Mitigation Strategy Residual Risk

Difficulty of translating high quality evidence into more effective policy and programming, especially if policy makers are not receptive to engaging with and learning from the new evidence base.

Delivery Likely Major Major Ensure research is user-driven and invest proportionately in research uptake. Actions taken: i) development of a research uptake (RU) ToC, strategy and work plan ii) recruitment of a RU manager iii) ongoing capacity building of project partners on RU iv) making RU the focus of the independent evaluation with six-monthly check-ins on RU from September 2017 v) approval of a programme extension to extend time available for RU at end of programme vi) draw on expertise of policy and programme specialists within the consortia when developing products vii) support partners/country offices and TAG/NABs to conduct ongoing discussions and dissemination at the local level with key stakeholders and through closed donor meetings ; viii) share all policy and comms products with DFID for review and sign off.

Moderate

Poor understanding of the effectiveness of social norms interventions, especially those using edutainment (TV, radio, social media etc.), could result in negative media attention and the perception of poor value for money for aid spending.

Reputational Possible Major Major All delivery partners are equipped and taking ongoing action to manage reputational risks, including those associated with using edutainment and norm change approaches, through: new guidance for TAs and downstream partners on reputational risk; comms protocol developed with risk guidance; capacity building of TAs and downstream partners on managing reputational risk; reputational risks associated with comms activities raised in monthly meetings with DFID; all policy outputs are revewed and signed-of by DFID; positive findings from endlines provide evidence of the impact of the programme.

Moderate

35

Funds are paid out to institutions or organisations that do not have sound financial management e.g. through sub-contracting by consortia and funds routed via long delivery chains.

Fiduciary Possible Major Major Contracting procedures ensure lead contractors are held accountable for financial management of all sub-contracted funds and have strong financial management expertise. Lead contractors have undertaken due diligence with all partner organisations and closely monitor financial reports on a monthy basis. SAMRC (responsible for innovation and impact evaluation grantees) provides support to strengthen grantee's financial management capacity as well as conducting compliance checks and balances, including in-country due diigence visits: programme finances are subjected to rigorous checks involving a chain that includes the Director, WW Accountant and Programme Manager. The WW Secretariat has also developed a portfolio tracker to review grantee financial performance. Where concerns with financial management are identified, swift action has been taken to terminate the contractual relationship. Delivery chain mapping has been conducted for all components with a focus on downstream risk to improve supply chain transparency. Most payments to downstream partners have now been made (for C1 and 3), reducing risk.

Moderate

The programme produces poor quality research.

Delivery Unlikely Severe Major This has been mitigated through strong assessment criteria for bids and ongoing quality assurance mechanisms including DFID engagement on the Management Committee, oversight by an independent advisory board and national advisory boards, an independent mid-term and final evaluation, and strong peer review mechanisms including peer review of publications. Intensive capacity building to grantees also helps ensure high-quality and rigorous research.

Moderate

36

Sensitivities around interventions that haven’t demonstrated an impact on reducing violence (including possible refutation of results by implementing partners) makes it difficult to capture and publish full learning on what doesn't work and creates potential reputational risks where research quality or methodology is blamed for null results

Delivery and Reputational

Likely Major Major C1 has invested in workshops that bring together research and intervention teams for each project to analyse findings and explore ambiguities collectively to build confidence in findings and develop joint messaging that all partners are comfortable with. Following advice from the IAB in Kathmandu, it was agreed that national dissemination and standalone products may not always be appropriate for these studies, but that the learning and conclusions should be captured in synthesis products and peer reviewed journal articles. Where results have been challenged, the Secretariat has investigated concerns raised including through additional data analysis.

Moderate

Participants in projects are put at risk by failure to follow guidelines for best practice in research on VAWG; research sites and their residents are stigmatised by insensitive reporting; and messaging in interventions is stigmatising or otherwise incites harm against groups in the community.

Delivery Possible Severe Severe All projects have ethics approval and training on ethics and safety is on-going; 'do no harm' is part of the risk registers of all projects. Research activities are linked/integrated within quality VAWG programmes and services (where possible) to ensure both participants and researchers can access professional support; and also to enable programme specialists and service providers working within a given context to assess and mitigate risk.

Moderate

Project beneficiaries, staff, subcontractors and volunteers are put at risk by a failure to implement a robust framework on ethical behaviour, social responsibility and human rights, including prevention of modern

Safeguarding

Possible Major Severe Grantees and partners have signed letters of assurance/agreed to contractual obligations on safeguarding policies; grantees have reviewed internal organisational policies, whistle blowing and other reporting mechanisms, and orientated staff to these policies; grantees know to report cases to the SAMRC and DFID immediately (within 72 hours); training led by SD Direct has been provided for consortium partners and grantees through a Community of Practice (CoP) (April 2018); safeguarding minimum standards have

Moderate

37

been developed by the Secretariat and disseminated to partners and grantees. SAMRC is currently reviewing its sexual harassment policy and staff will sign acknowledgement forms each year; all field staff have undergone training in sensitive issues that included information on vicarious trauma and how to use support services available to them; Fieldworkers work in teams with information relayed to the office about where they were working on any given day or time; A risk assessment of regions carried out prior to sample selection and areas considered to be too risky are excluded. In South Sudan, in order to ensure the safety of researchers, qualitative research was not completed (for C3).

Slippage of timetable resulting in delays in availability of final research results and constrained time for producing products from end-lines and for research uptake.

Delivery Likely Moderate

Moderate

This is less of a risk now that a 12 month extension to lengthen time available for research uptake has been approved by DFID and most research is now complete. However, workplans and timelines will form part of the discussion in every monthly meeting with partners to ensure all potential delays are flagged early and that additional resource is secured where needed/available. A programme-wide RU work plan has been developed to assist with monitoring progress and will be reviewed at each quarterly Management Meeting.

Minor

Lack of coherence across the programme due to implementation of the three components by different contractors. This could lead to duplication and difficulties synthesising and aggregating findings and lessons across the programme, as well as methodological differences / inconsistencies in data in countries where more than one component is operating

Delivery Possible Moderate

Moderate

i) Coherence with the overall programme is written into the ToRs of all contractors and each component has budget for cross-programme learning ii) the contractor for component 1 is responsible for leading co-ordination and synthesis across the components including coordinating synthesis products and annual meetings between lead partners to facilitate cross-learning; iii) the Independent Advisory

Minor

38

(e.g. South Sudan) Board and Management Committee provides advice and direction across the Programme; iv) DFID technical staff promote cross learning and synergies through their on-going monitoring processes; v) a joint RU work plan has been developed including agreement on cross-component synthesis products. In countries where more than one component is operating, national advisory boards are in place to promote coherence.

Risk of misappropriation of grants, particularly in research studies where there are financial incentives to participate.

(Risk now closed)

Fiduciary Possible Major Major Lead contractors undertake due diligence with all their partner organisations to ensure funds are properly spent and accounted for. The contractor checks audited accounts and provides management reports, as well as specific financial and narrative report on each particular grant. DFID contracts with lead suppliers set out comprehensive provisions on prevention of fraud and bribery. C1 has developed guidance on protecting against fraud in research, which were shared with all C1 grantees through a CoP session and dissemination. Most payments to downstream partners have now been made and only 2 endline studies are still to commence. For one of these (Afghnistan) additional measures incuding independent monitoring have been put in place for the endline. See the other measures listed above (at No. 4).

Minor

Non-delivery or delay in outputs or elements of the programme due to difficulties of working in an unstable/conflict affected/emergency environments.

(Risk now closed)

Operational Possible Moderate

Moderate

The political situation in all WW countries is closely monitored by component leads with regular updates provided to DFID via monthly calls and quarterly management meetings. Decisions are taken if necessary to suspend the relevant outputs or activities for a period of time, re-allocate funding, or revise budgets and workplans to allow for this delay. Putting in place

Minor

39

remote support structures and using local staff as much as possible reduces the risk of non-delivery or delay where access and security are concerns.

Blurred lines of accountability between ISD and RED and/or ineffective internal management given the complexity of programme design and management and two separate SROs and programme managers

Delivery Possible Moderate

Moderate

This will be mitigated throigh on-going monthly and quarterly meetings to discuss management issues and ensure any emerging issues are dealt with speedily. Programme managers will meet on a regular basis.

Minor

40

41

Smart GuideThe Annual Review is part of a continuous process of review and improvement and a formal control point in DFID’s programme cycle. At each formal review, the performance and ongoing relevance of the programme are assessed and the spending team needs to decide whether the programme should continue, be restructured or stopped. Teams should refer to the section on annual reviews in the Smart Rules and may also like to look at relevant Smart Guides e.g on Reviewing and Scoring Projects. When planning a review, re-read the 10 Delivery Questions in the Smart Rules and when writing the findings reflect anything relevant related to them.

The Annual Review includes specific, time-bound recommendations for action, consistent with the key findings. These actions – which in the case of poor performance will include improvement measures – are elaborated in further detail in internal delivery plans.

The Annual Review assesses and rates outputs using the following rating scale. The Aid Management Platform (AMP) and the separate programme scoring calculation sheet will calculate the overall output score taking

account of the weightings and individual output scores

Description ScaleOutputs substantially exceeded expectation A++Outputs moderately exceeded expectation A+Outputs met expectation AOutputs moderately did not meet expectation BOutputs substantially did not meet expectation C

Teams should refer to the considerations below when completing this template. Suggested section lengths are indicative. Teams can delete spaces between sections on the template as needed, but the headings and sub-headings must not be altered or removed unless otherwise indicated in the template. Some reviews may need to be longer and others can be shorter (eg first year of a programme which has largely focused on mobilisation activities) – it is for the SRO and Head of Department to decide. All text needs to be suitable for publication. Bullets rather than full narrative may make sense for some sections.

A: Summary and OverviewProgramme Code is the AMP I.D. number (same on Devtracker) Enter risk rating (Minor, Moderate, Major or Severe) at the time of the review, taken from AMPDescribe the programme in 1-2 paras including what it is aiming to achieve. You might want to include headline points on changes in the operating context, partner performance, DFID management of the programme or other points relevant to the 10 Delivery Questions in the Smart Rules. Describe –without repeating detail from Section B- progress in the past year and why the programme has scored as it has against the output indicators. Capture the key recommendations for the year ahead factoring in all the text from the report. You don’t need to include the detail of all lessons and recommendations from each output.

B: Detailed Output ScoringOutput Title, Number, Weighting, Indicators and milestonesUse the wording exactly as is from the current logframe. This will need to be entered on AMP as part of loading the Annual Review for approval. Indicate (Yes or No) if the impact weighting has been revised since last Annual Review and if Yes in which direction (up or down). Input progress against the milestone for this review

Output Score Enter the rating (using the scale A++ to C) exactly as generated on the programme scoring calculation sheet

Provide a brief description of the output (unless obvious from the information in the box above) and supporting narrative for the score

Lessons and recommendations linked to this output. Some of these may inform or need to be included in the summary of recommendations on page 1. For anything that can’t be published please use the Delivery Plan

Repeat above for each Output in the logframe and add new sub-sections for additional outputs.

Smart Guide (version February 2018)i

C: Theory of change and progress towards outcomesTheory of Change (ToC). You might want to use a diagram to summarise it. You should flag any major changes in the past year. You should consider if the steps to achieving outcome and impact are still valid e.g. are the ToC logic, supporting evidence and assumptions holding up against implementation experience? Is there any new evidence which challenges the programme design or rationale? If relevant you might also want to flag any major changes since the programme started rather than just over the year in question.

Is the programme on track to contribute to the expected outcomes and impact? Review this in view of the overall programme score; but it is possible that outputs are being delivered but the envisaged outcomes or impact may not be achieved – or vice versa – and consider reasons for this. It is not unusual for programmes to be off track against at least some of the expected outcomes or impact: just set out what you plan to do about it. You should refer to the indicators in the logframe. Are there any unexpected outcomes emerging? Have there been any significant changes in the planned timetable for delivery of the programme? Are there any changes to expected outcomes or impact on gender equality compared to what was described in the approved Business Case?Logframe. Describe major changes in the past year –including when they were made and why- and what their implications are for the programme. Ideally changes should not be made to any targets or indicators less than six months before they are being reviewed unless agreed with the Head of Department. All changes should be recorded as part of the programme’s documentation (there is a ‘change frame’ tab on the logframe template). If relevant you might also want to flag any major changes since the programme started. Flag any planned changes (impact, outcome, output etc) as a result of the review and once agreed at the approporiate level record them in the change frame tab.

D: Value for Money VfM assessment compared to the proposition in the business case You should refer to VfM measures and metrics from the Business Case and/or previous annual review. Changes in cost drivers (e.g costs of major inputs) and the theory of change may be relevant. The assessment should encompass the 4 E’s of DFID’s value for money framework – economy, efficiency, effectiveness and equity, including gender equality (referring back to the relevant text in the approved Business Case’s Strategic Case may be relevant), disability and leaving no one behind.

Explain whether it makes sense to continue with the programme from a VfM perspective Based on the above analysis of outcome and output attainment, theory of change, VfM and evidence analysis, is there sufficient evidence for the programme to continue, or should it be restructured or closed down?You should also consider the programme as part of the wider portfolio in your department (e.g Business Plan) and if relevant for this document, DFID as a whole (e.g. Single Departmental Plan) or HMG as a whole

E: Risk

Provide an overview of the programme’s risk (noting the rating from page 1) and mitigationNote the overall risk rating now as captured in AMP and on p1. Flag any changes to the overall risk environment/ context and how they impact on the programme, along with key risks that affect the successful delivery of the expected results. Use DFID’s standard risk terminology where possible eg categories of risk and risk appetite. Are there any different or new mitigating actions that will be required to address these risks and whether the existing mitigating actions are directly addressing the identifiable risks? Remember to take account of any relevant recommendations from Due Diligence Assessments on implementing partners. Some relevant information may not be suitable for publication but ensure the risk register on AMP and Delivery Plan are updated as necessary following this review

Update on Partnership Principles.For programmes for where it has been decided (when the programme was approved or at the last Annual Review) to use the PPs for management and monitoring, provide details on:

a. Were there any concerns about the four PPs over the past year, including on human rights?

b. If yes, what were they?

Smart Guide (version February 2018)ii

c. Did you notify the government of our concerns?

d. If Yes, what was the government response? Did it take remedial actions? If yes, explain how.

e. If No, was disbursement suspended during the review period? Date suspended (dd/mm/yyyy)

f. What were the consequences?

For all programmes, you should make a judgement on what role, if any, the Partnership Principles should play in the management and monitoring of the programme going forward. This applies even if when the BC was approved for this programme the PPs were not intended to play a role. Your decision may depend on the extent to which the delivery mechanism used by the programme works with the partner government and uses their systems.

F: Delivery, Commercial and Financial PerformanceIssues to consider for both the implementing partner(s) and DFID include: quality and timeliness of narrative reporting and audited financial statements; proactive dialogue on risks and updating of delivery chain maps; quality of financial management eg accuracy of forecasting; monitoring of assets. Consider also how DFID could be a more effective partner to help deliver the programme.

If there is a contract involved, set out:- Delivery against contract KPIs (and Terms and Conditions)- Compliance with the Supply Partner Code, where applicable, drawing on advice from PCD.- Compliance with the new cost and transparency requirements, where applicable (i.e. highlighting any

profit variance and challenge and use of Open Book Accounting)- Performance of Partners. Where applicable, an annual summary of the new SRM scorecard assessment

for each delivery partner involved in delivering this programme.

G: Monitoring, Evidence and LearningMonitoring. Summarise monitoring activities throughout the review period (field visits, reviews, engagement with stakeholders including beneficiary feedback) and how these have informed programming decisions. Where there is an external M&E supplier, how are they engaging with the programme implementer(s) and DFID. Briefly describe the Annual Review process itself including any inputs from outside the programme team (within or beyond DFID).

Evidence Describe any changes in evidence and implications for the programme. Any relevant comments on the quality/breadth of the evidence.Monitoring data, evidence and learning should consider the ‘Leave no one Behind’ agenda and as far as possible disaggregate information by age, sex, disability, geography (update geocoding information on AMP as needed) and other relevant variables.Where an evaluation is planned set out what progress has been made.

LearningWhat learning processes have been used over the past year to capture and share lessons, new evidence and know-how? What are the key lessons identified over the past year for (i) this programme (ii) wider DFID and development work? Any specific implications of that learning for this programme and priorities for follow-up in the year ahead may be best captured in the recommendations part of Section ADo you have any learning aims for the programme for the coming year?

Progress on recommendations from previous review(s)It is important to keep track of this. Some may not be publishable and feature in the Delivery Plan. But a brief update on progress against any recommendations from previous ARs (unless this is the first) should be provided

Smart Guide (version February 2018)iii

Smart Guide (version February 2018)iv

i UN (2006) The Secretary General’s In Depth Study on all forms of VAWG; UN Women (2012) Fast Facts: Statistics on Violence Against Women and Girls. Both accessed 31 May 2012.

ii IMC (2017) What works to prevent violence Research and Innovation Programme: Mid-Term Evaluation. January 25th 2017.

iii Research Uptake Progress Report, April 2019, p6iv Research Uptake Progress Report, October 2018, pXv Topics are: VAWG and economic empowerment; social norm change; mental health; disability; drivers of

VAWG; mapping of interventions and their outcomes; and synthesis on what works to prevent violence. vi Research Uptake Progress Report, October 2018, p4vii Research Uptake Progress Report, April 2019, p3viii The new methodological tools developed by C1 are: 1) Set of three scales to measure relationships

between a wife and husband, and daughter-in-law and mother-in-law, for use in settings where in-law violence is prevalent (Tajikistan, Afghanistan, and Nepal); 2) Gender attitudes scale for OPT with additional questions on honour killings in the family; 3) Gender attitudes scale for Pakistan & Afghanistan (reported in the 2016 Annual Review); 4) Peer violence perpetration scale (reported in the 2016 Annual Review); 5) The impact diary (reported in the 2015 Annual Review); 6) Standard IPV outcome measure (reported in the 2015 Annual Review).

ix Gibbs A, Dunkle K, Jewkes R (2018) Emotional and economic intimate partner violence as key drivers of depression and suicidal ideation: A cross-sectional study among young women in informal settlements in South Africa. PLoS ONE 13 (4): e0194885. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0194885 ; and Andrew Gibbs, Kristin Dunkle, Samantha Willan, Nwabisa Jama-Shai, Laura Washington & Rachel Jewkes (2019) Are women’s experiences of emotional and economic intimate partner violence associated with HIV-risk behaviour? A cross-sectional analysis of young women in informal settlements in South Africa, AIDS Care, 31:6, 667-674, DOI: 10.1080/09540121.2018.1533230

x Mahfuz AM, Parvin K, Yu M, Wan J, Willan S, Gibbs A, Jewkes R, Tabassum Naved R. (2018) The HERrespect intervention to address violence against female garment workers in Bangladesh: study protocol for a quasi-experimental trial. BMC Public Health 18:512. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-018-5442-5 ; Gibbs A, Jewkes R, Willan S, Mamun M, Parvin K, Yu M, Naved R. Workplace violence experienced by female garment workers and perpetrated by supervisors and managers in Bangladesh. Social Science and Medicine.

xi The other partner organisation sin the IRC-led Component 2 are CARE International UK, the Global Women’s Institute (GWI) at George Washington University, LSHTM, Africa Population and Health Research Centre (APHRC), John Hopkins public health, and Forcier Consulting.

xii In-country dissemination of the South Sudan prevalence report in July 2018 included a roundtable event co-hosted with DFID South Sudan to disseminate findings to the donor community in Juba.

xiii In October 2018, IRC’s Chief Policy Advisor on Economic Programmes presented primary findings from the cash transfers study at the 2018 ‘Cash Week: Networking, Learning, and Visioning Event’ hosted by the Cash Learning Partnership (CaLP) in London to discuss priorities and next steps in ensuring gender provisions are mainstreamed in humanitarian cash and voucher assistance.

xiv C1 has produced six project-specific evidence briefs summarising the interventions and their quantitative findings for studies in Tajikistan, Afghanistan, DRC, Pakistan, Nepal (VSO), and South Africa (Stepping Stones/Creating Futures), as well as three briefs on qualitative findings from Rwanda. It has been agreed not to produce evidence briefs for some interventions that did not demonstrate reductions in violence because of the sensitivities entailed; instead the focus will be on peer reviewed journal article publication and integrating lessons into portfolio-wide synthesis products. Finalising project-specific evidence briefs for Zambia, Nepal (Equal Access), Afghanistan (WfWI), Ghana and Rwanda is a priority for the next few months and should be completed by no later than start of September.

C2 has published three briefs in the past year: a policy brief and an analytical framework brief for the SBPB study and a policy brief on the South Sudan “Violence against Adolescent Girls” report. The SBPB documents were launched at the global launch in September and shared at subsequent launch events and meetings.

xv C3 participated in 4 scientific exchanges in the year under review, including an inter-disciplinary international conference on Costs of Gender-Based Violence, hosted by Canada’s International Development Research Centre and the Urban Institute. At the National Level, C3 engaged with the

Punjab Commission on the Status of Women to ensure a dedicated panel on the costs of VAWG in Pakistan at their international conference on “The Social Economy of Gender” in November 2018. Other exchanges included the “Protection Against Harassment of Women at Workplace” seminar organized by the Provincial Ombudsman in Sindh, Karachi, and a session on the ‘Protection from Violence Against Women in Pakistan’ at an International Development Research Centre and Thailand Development Research Institute Conference on Sustainable Organizations for Sustainable Development.

xvi Six monthly RUPR, October 2017, p 6.xvii Six-monthly RUPR, August 2018xviii Izugbara, C., S. Muthuri, S. Muuo, C. Egesa, G. Franchi, A. Mcalpine,  L. Bacchus and M. Hossain

(2018) ‘They Say Our Work Is Not Halal’: Experiences and Challenges of Refugee Community Workers Involved in Gender based Violence Prevention and Care in Dadaab, Kenya. Journal of Refugee Studies. October 2018.

xix In Nepal, Dr Martin Bangha from APHRC co-authored a presentation on the Kenya Dadaab camps and Bisika Thapa, who leads CARE Nepal’s VAWG programmes at national level, co-authored a presentation disseminating findings from the SBPB study alongside GWI’s Manuel Contreras in both the the ASM and the cross-component presentation hosted at the offices of DFID Nepal.

xx DFID (2013) Business Case: Violence Against Women and Girls Research and Innovation Fund. 19th

February 2013 p. 29. This programme-level ToC can be seen as a subset of a broader theory of change for what is needed to reduce the global burden of VAWG, laid out in a 2012 DFID Guidance Note (DFID (2012) A theory of change for tackling violence against women and girls. Violence against women and girls CHASE Guidance Note Series Number 1. May 2012). However, the 2012 Note emphasises a number of other barriers to progress, in addition to a lack of knowledge on what works

xxi IMC (2017) What works to prevent violence Research and Innovation Programme: Mid-Term Evaluation. January 25th 2017; pp. 16, 26-35.

xxii In emphasising the importance of partnerships, the revised Theory of Change explicitly addresses partnerships between researchers and practitioners, within and between Components, and between the programme and potential users.

xxiii August 2018 RU Progress report, p18xxiv For component 1, these What Works influences on new programming include the intervention developed

after formative research in Tajikistan (Zindagii Shoista), which is now also being implemented in Nepal and used by International Alert and CESVI to apply for funding for further work in Tajikistan and Kyrgystan; formative research in Bangladesh which was used to shape development of the HERespect violence prevention programme, and now informs programming in India; and the interventions of Equal Access in Nepal and of Tear Fund in DRC were developed as part of the programme, based on strong evidence-based theories of change and the learning generated is influencing the design of the organisations’ other programmes.

xxv August 2018 RU Progress reportxxvi An example is the possible incorporation of What Works research findings and learning into the Gender

Based Violence Area of Responsibility’s (GBV AoR) forthcoming GBV Minimum Standards. With UNFPA leading development, these documents are intended to provide the humanitarian field with a set of inter-agency standards that can be applied to core areas of humanitarian VAWG programming.

xxvii The three Component 2 milestones carried over from year four to year five (the year beginning November 2018) were: the last two milestones related to the cash transfer study (the data analysis was later completed in Y5 Q1, allowing dissemination and uptake activities in the latter part of Q2) and the milestone relating to a peer reviewed journal article to be submitted for publication.