LOVE SHOULDN’T HURT CAMPAIGN – PROJECT ENDLINE EVALUATION SURVEY. : Population Solutions for Health

Job Summary

Population Solutions for Health seeks the service of a reputable Research Consultancy to conduct Project Endline Evaluation Survey on “Love Shouldn’t Hurt Campaign”.

Background:
Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) has been chosen as a key entry point for the reduction of GBV in Zimbabwe, as it is the most prevalent form of GBV across the country. IPV is experienced similarly by women with varying educational and wealth levels, as well as religion (ZIMSTAT 2019). According to both the Zimbabwe Demographic Health Survey (ZDHS 2018) and Multiple Indicator Custer Survey (MICS,2019), approximately 1 in 2 women aged 15-49 years reported having ever experienced emotional, physical, or sexual abuse from a current or former husband/partner, with more women reported having ever experienced violence in 2019 than in 2015. Furthermore, 85% of the cases of sexual violence experienced by married persons were committed by current or former husband/partner (ZIMSTAT 2019). For those not married, the main perpetrators are current or former boyfriends (41%). Further, findings from secondary analysis of a national baseline survey of the life experiences of adolescents in Zimbabwe suggests that 87% of first sexual violence experiences are reported to be perpetrated by boyfriends or husbands (Fry 2016). This clearly indicates that the most dangerous place for women in Zimbabwe is their home.
Against this background, Population Services International (PSI) and Population Solutions for Health (PSH) with funding from the Swedish Embassy, developed a national campaign against IPV dubbed The Love Shouldn’t Hurt (LSH) campaign. The LSH campaign is a national branded campaign, that focuses on engaging men as perpetrators of Gender-based Violence (GBV). The campaign aimed to change behaviors and attitudes to reduce violence among partners, engage male peers to act as inherent change makers, and increase the number of men and women who believe GBV, with special focus on Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) should not be tolerated in their communities.
The campaign was developed based on an extensive Human Centered Design (HCD) process conducted with men (including perpetrators and reformed perpetrators), community influencers and survivors of IPV in 6 districts (Mangwe, Makokoba, Bindura and Mbare). The HCD process aimed to understand the triggers and drivers of IPV among couples, insights from which led to the development of the campaign. The main insights were that at times men perpetrate violence without realizing the pain they cause their partners, rather violence is seen as a sign of love and or discipline. The campaign thus aims to reframe, in a very simple way, what love is and what love isn’t, without vilifying perpetrators.

Duties And Responsibilities

1.1 Love Shouldn’t Hurt Campaign Architecture
The LSH Campaign is delivered through two broad intervention packages:

1.1.1 National-level education campaign
A national campaign in Zimbabwe that targets perpetrators as the primary target audience focusing on communicating what perpetrators stand to lose by engaging in gender-based violence. The campaign also reached the secondary target audience (adults and young people) to deliver targeted educational messages that promote change in attitudes and behaviours that harm women and girls. The intervention is using the following channels for the nation-wide campaign.
• Community and National Radios.
• National Television.
• Digital and Mid- Media (IEC materials, Billboards).
• Social Media (Facebook, Twitter, WhatsApp, You Tube, Google Display Ads and Instagram).

1.1.2 Community-level IPV prevention and response interventions
The community level interventions were conducted in Bindura, Mbare, Makokoba and Mangwe. The intervention included community dialogues, guy talks, and peer education programs, to change harmful attitudes and behaviors towards women and girls. The IPC cadres worked with IPV service providers and communities to improve attitudes towards IPV, particularly violence in the domestic sphere, expand awareness of IPV services and improve referral systems to increase survivor access to services.

1.2 Expected Project Impact, Objectives, Outcomes and Outputs
1.2.1 Expected impact.
Impact/Goal: Reduced Incidence of gender-based violence in Zimbabwe by 2021.

1.2.2 Project Objectives and Outcomes
The project aimed to achieve the following key outcomes:
• Strategic Objective 1: To prevent GBV, including corporal punishment and child-marriages.
• Strategic Objective 2: To change behaviors and attitudes in order to enhance positive
parenting and reduce violence in homes, schools and at workplaces.
• Strategic Objective 3: To use innovative approaches and methods to engage different
stakeholders and influencers nationwide.

1.2.3 Project Outcomes
• Reduced tolerance of most severe types of GBV including corporal punishment and child marriages in Zimbabwe by 2021.
• Increased positive attitude toward and practice of gender equality in Zimbabwe

• Increased knowledge of the most affordable and scalable approaches to prevent and
  respond to GBV.

1.2.4 Project Outputs
Listed below are the project outputs:
• Increased knowledge and actions to prevent GBV among stakeholders, influencers and beneficiaries.
• Increased knowledge and actions against gender inequality norms by stakeholders,
influencers, and beneficiaries.
• Evidenced-based GBV programming enhanced through documentation and sharing of
lessons learned promoted.

1.2.5 Key Project Indicators
• Proportion of women, girls and boys reporting that they feel safe in their communities
(Homes, workplace, or schools).
• Proportion of people reporting reduced tolerance of GBV in their communities, homes,
workplaces or schools.
• Proportion of people who consider wife beating an acceptable way for a husband to
discipline his wife for any reason, at a specified period.
• Proportion of people who believe that corporal punishment for children is acceptable.
• Proportion of young people experiencing equal opportunities between boys and girls in
their families.
• Number of innovative stakeholder and influencer engagement approaches scaled up to prevent and respond to GBV.
• National-level commitment to change GBV prevention-related policies and strategies as a result of evidence generated by the project.
• Proportion of engaged stakeholders and/or influencers acting against GBV.
• Number of stakeholders and influencers engaged to champion GBV prevention.
• Number of non-unique persons reached with GBV prevention messages through various methods and approaches.
• Number of stakeholders and influencers engaged to champion gender equality.
• Proportion of engaged stakeholders and/or influencers acting against gender inequality norms.

2. Project Evaluation Overview
   2.1 Purpose and Specific Objectives
   The purpose of this evaluation is to assess the achievements of the aforementioned project against planned results, challenges in implementation, and generate lessons learned.

Specific Evaluation Objectives
• Evaluate the entire project in terms of effectiveness, relevance, efficiency, sustainability, coherence, and impact with a focus on assessing the results at all levels.
• Assess the effectiveness of each model/strategy used to deliver the campaign.
• Assess the flexibility of the project to adapt and respond to changes in operational
environment posed by humanitarian crisis such as COVID-19.
• Generate key lessons, identify promising practices for learning and propose potential actions which may be developed to amplify the project effects.
• Provide recommendations and best practices that may be used in current and future similar interventions.

2.2 Methodology
The evaluation is expected to use a mix of quantitative and qualitative methods including desk review, structured interviews with beneficiaries countrywide including individuals reached through mass media platforms (social media, TV, radio, and outdoor banners) and communities where below the line activities were implemented, key informant interviews with key stakeholder (eg Ministry of Women Affairs Gender and Community Development, Ministry of Primary and Secondary Education, GBV Ambassadors), focus group discussions, testimonies of beneficiaries among others.
The evaluator will design detailed methodology including evaluation tools to ensure all evaluation questions can be answered. The evaluation should also provide an implementation plan detailing how the proposed methodology will be operationalized. The key evaluation questions will guide the overall assessment. Sub-questions and specific methodological approaches will be further elaborated in an evaluation matrix by the evaluation team in order to answer main evaluation questions.

2.2.1 Study Design
As part of the quantitative methods this evaluation is expected to conduct a case control study among adults 18 to 64 years, given that no baseline survey was carried out for this project. The case-control study is intended to measure the effectiveness of the intervention by measuring the afore-mentioned indicators in the intervention district and control district cross-sectionally.

2.2 Evaluation Criteria and Key Evaluation Questions
The evaluation will be carried out using the relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, sustainability, and impact criteria. Below are some guiding questions for each criterion:
a) Relevance – Assess design and focus of the project.
• Was the campaign theme relevant?
• Did the campaign do the right things?
• To what extent did the campaign the project address the needs of the target population?
• Were the key elements of the approaches used to implement interventions relevant to the objectives of the project?
• To what extent has the campaign objectives and design responded to beneficiaries’ needs and priorities?
• To what extent has lessons learned from what works well and less well been used to improve and adjust project/programme implementation?

1. b) Effectiveness:
   Were the results achieved against planned results?
   • To what extent has the intervention achieved, or is expected to achieve, its objectives, and its results, including any differential results across groups?
   • What factors contributed to the achievement or non-achievement of the results?
   • What implementation strategies/approaches including campaign channels were effective or ineffective?
   • What changes were experienced as a result of the campaign?
   • What unintended results were achieved and why?
2. c) Efficiency
   What resources were used in implementing the project?
   • Were the costs of interventions funded under the grant accurately projected and effectively tracked?
   • Did the results (outputs/outcomes) of the grant justify the cost incurred?
   • Were the resources effectively utilized?
   • Are there alternative ways and means of delivering the same or better results (outputs and outcomes) at the same cost?
3. d) Impact
   What intended change did the project bring about at individual and community level and has the change solved the described problems?
   • To what extent has the project or programme generated, or is expected to generate,
   significant positive or negative, intended or unintended, high-level effects?
   • What unintended effects or change can be attributed to the project intervention?
   • To what extent did the project change the lives of the target beneficiaries?
4. e) Sustainability
   To what extent will the benefits of the intervention continue, or are likely to continue?
   • What measures (resources and capacities) did the LSH project put in place to sustain
   achievements/gains?
   • What measures can be taken to improve prospects of sustainability of project outcomes and the potential for replication of the approach?

2.4 Lessons learned and recommendation.
Learning under this project is based on reflection of outputs, processes, outcomes and experiences to inform future programming (both problems and opportunities). Some issues to be assessed include but are not limited to:
• Which implementation strategies/approaches were effective or infective? Explain
• Was there variation on project results by population group and/or geography? What could be the attributes for the noted comparative differences?
• What were the key learnings from working with each of the project’s primary target groups as well as key project stakeholders?
Regarding recommendations, the consultant is expected to proffer actionable recommendations for each evaluation criteria based on evaluation findings.

Qualifications And Experience

3. Deliverables and Timelines

The following deliverables are expected.
a) An inception report: An inception report shall be submitted after 5 days of commencing the consultancy. The inception report should detail the evaluators’ understanding of what is being evaluated and why; showing how each evaluation question will be answered by way of methods, sources of data, data collection. The inception report should include a proposed schedule of tasks, activities, and deliverables. The inception report will be approved before the evaluation can commence. The assignment is expected to commence on second week of February 2023 and all field work be concluded by mid of March 2023. A draft comprehensive report: This report should provide findings for the evaluation as well as lessons and recommendations for future or current similar interventions. The PSH and PSI teams will review the draft evaluation report to ensure that the evaluation meets the required quality criteria. The format of the report will be agreed on at the inception of the evaluation. Comments will be provided within 7 days after the reception of the Draft Report.

1. b) The Final Report: The final report shall incorporate the comments on the draft report. The report should be submitted 5 days after receiving review comments.
2. Evaluation Consultant(s):
   PSH seeks the services of consultant (s) with a minimum of Masters’ level training in social sciences, public health, economics, monitoring and evaluation or any relevant degree, with at least 8 years of experience in conducting similar evaluations for international donors supporting SRHR/HIV SRH/GBV services in Zimbabwe. He/she must have experience in monitoring and evaluation (M&E). In addition, the consultant should have strong analytical skills and strategic thinking abilities, and experience in conducting population-based surveys to measure impact of mass media campaigns.