USAID Peru Baseline Report

QUARTERLY PERFORMANCE REPORT FY2017, THIRD QUARTER REPORT APRIL – JUNE 2017

USAID/UGANDA PERFORMANCE AND IMPACT EVALUATION FOR LITERACY ACHIEVEMENT AND RETENTION ACTIVITY (LARA)

Contract No. AID-617-C-16-00003 This publication was produced for review by the United States Agency for International Development. It was prepared by NORC at the University of Chicago. The authors’ views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for International Development or the United States Government.

AID/UGANDA PERFORMANCE AND IMPACT EVALUATION FOR LITERACY ACHIEVEMENT AND RETENTION ACTIVITY (LARA)

QUARTERLY PERFORMANCE REPORT FY2017, THIRD QUARTER REPORT APRIL – JUNE 2017

Prepared under Contract No.: AID-617-C-16-00003

July 31, 2017 (Revised October 12, 2017)

Submitted to: USAID/Uganda Submitted by: NORC at the University of Chicago Attention: Ritu Nayyar-Stone [email protected] Phone:+1-301-634-9538

DISCLAIMER The authors’ views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for International Development or the United States Government. Uganda LARA – AID Contract No. AID-617-C-16-00003

TABLE OF CONTENTS

USAID/UGANDA PERFORMANCE AND IMPACT EVALUATION FOR LITERACY ACHIEVEMENT AND RETENTION ACTIVITY (LARA) ...... 0 AID/UGANDA PERFORMANCE AND IMPACT EVALUATION FOR LITERACY ACHIEVEMENT AND RETENTION ACTIVITY (LARA) ...... 0 QUARTERLY PERFORMANCE REPORT ...... 0 FY2017, THIRD QUARTER REPORT ...... 0 APRIL – JUNE 2017 ...... 0 Table of Contents ...... i ACRONYMS ...... ii INTRODUCTION ...... 3 IMPACT EVALUATION ACTIVITIES ...... 4 UPDATE ON IMPACT EVALUATION ACTIVITIES ...... 4 MAJOR ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND CHALLENGES OF PAST QUARTER ...... 7 MAJOR ISSUES THAT NEED TO BE RESOLVED ...... 8 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION ACTIVITIES ...... 9 UPDATE ON PERFORMANCE EVALUATION ACTIVITIES ...... 9 MAJOR ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND CHALLENGES OF PAST QUARTER ...... 9 MAJOR ISSUES THAT NEED TO BE RESOLVED ...... 9 P&IE PLANNED ACTIVITIES FOR NEXT quarter ...... 9

ANNEX A: BASELINE DATA COLLECTION ANNEX B: Memo Update on LARA Performance & Impact Evaluation Child Referral Procedures and Initial Feedback from District Child Protection Officials ANNEX C: BASELINE DATA COLLECTION ENUMERATOR TRAINING PLAN

QUARTERLY PERFORMANCE REPORT 2017 QPR 3 i Uganda LARA – AID Contract No. AID-617-C-16-00003

ACRONYMS

CDO Community Development Officer CSR Center for Social Research EGR Early Grade Reading EGRA Early Grade Reading Assessment FGDs Focal Group Discussions FY Fiscal Year IE Impact Evaluation IP Implementing Partner IRB Institutional Review Board KIIs Key Informant Interviews MoES Ministry of Education and Sports NORC NORC at the University of Chicago NCST National Council for Science and Technology P&IE Performance and Impact Evaluation PE Performance Evaluation RTI Research Triangle Institute RWI Research World International SRGBV School-Related Gender-Based Violence STS School-to-School TASO The AIDS Support Organization ToT Training of Trainers USAID United State Agency for International Development

QUARTERLY PERFORMANCE REPORT 2017 QPR 3 ii Uganda LARA – AID Contract No. AID-617-C-16-00003

INTRODUCTION

NORC at the University of Chicago (NORC), in partnership with subcontractor Panagora Group, is pleased to submit this Quarterly Performance Report covering the period April - June 2017 under the USAID/Uganda Performance and Impact Evaluation (P&IE) of the 5-year Literacy Achievement and Retention Activity (LARA) in Uganda.

LARA is a 5-year (April 7, 2015 to April 6, 2020) USAID-funded initiative to improve reading skills for 1.3 million learners in 28 districts throughout Uganda. The project, which is being implemented by Research Triangle Institute (RTI) International is designed to support the Ministry of Education and Sports (MoES) - Uganda, in its efforts to improve early grade reading (EGR) and retention. LARA has two main objectives:

 Result 1 (R1) focuses on strengthening the capacity of MOES and other educational stakeholders to deliver EGR. To this end, the activity focuses on improved reading skills in three local languages (Luganda, Runyoro-Rutooro, and Runyankore-Rukiga) and English for early primary grade learners P1-4.

 Result 2 (R2) focuses on promoting a safer primary school learning environment to prevent and reduce incidents of school-related gender based violence (SRGBV).

The activity hypothesizes that reducing SRGBV will increase learners' retention because they will be able to focus on their lessons and feel secure in their learning environment, thereby improving their ability to learn to read. To realize these objectives, the activity focuses its efforts on systemic capacity building of the education system, school-level support, and community- and household-level support and participation.

The Uganda LARA P&IE activity(April 2016 - April 2021) has two objectives: (1) to assess the impact of LARA on learners’ literacy skills and retention rates; and (2) to assess the performance of LARA in terms of project management, learning, design, implementation, results, and sustainability. During this quarter LARA P&IE undertook the following key activities.

QUARTERLY PERFORMANCE REPORT 2017 QTR 3 | 3 Uganda LARA – AID Contract No. AID-617-C-16-00003

IMPACT EVALUATION ACTIVITIES

UPDATE ON IMPACT EVALUATION ACTIVITIES

Data Collection for SRGBV

Field work related to the SRGBV component of the evaluation was completed by the local data collection firm, Centre for Social Research (CSR), between April 3rd and April 19th 2017. The survey field teams visited 80 schools in 11 districts. The focus group discussion teams visited 4 schools. Officials from The AIDS Support Organization (TASO) institutional review board visited the CSR team on April 12-13th, 2017 to observe data collection procedures.

The number of completed interviews is outlined in the report submitted for baseline data collection (deliverable 6; see appendix A) on May 23, 2017.

Since data was collected via tablets it enabled daily uploads of collected data, quick verification and analysis of issues/problem solving in real time while in the field. Following data collection CSR required a short time to undertake data quality review, before transmission to NORC for further quality review and then analysis.

The data verification process included cross-checking the interview caseload numbers as reported by the field team through paper tracking sheets to the caseload numbers found in the Nfield data management server. NORC and CSR found some discrepancies between the two sets of reported caseload numbers, such as cases reported by the tracking sheets that were not found in the data and interview cases that were only partially complete. Each discrepancy was followed up with by the data manager at CSR to the field team, to investigate the issue. Some solutions found for these issues included re-syncing of tablets to recover cases not yet sent to the Nfield data server and noting reasons for partial completes such as respondent illness or fatigue.

Data Cleaning and Analysis of EGR Data

Research World International (RWI) completed data collection for EGR by March 29th 2017 and therefore the first half of the previous quarter focused on data quality review and analysis of the EGR data.

The data quality review process conducted by School-to-School International (EGRA and learner survey) and NORC (teacher and head teacher surveys) included investigating any cases of missing data for critical values and any values considered to be out-of-range, as well as reading comments left by the enumerator informing of

QUARTERLY PERFORMANCE REPORT 2017 QTR 3 | 4 Uganda LARA – AID Contract No. AID-617-C-16-00003 unusual situations that affected the data collection. Some cases found minor malfunctions of the Tangerine software resulting in a skipped section or mis-entry of an enumerator resulting in inconsistent data points.

Child Protection Referral Follow-up and Reporting

Twenty-four male and female psychosocial counselors accompanied the data collection teams during baseline data collection from April 3 to April 9, 2017, to be available to provide counseling to children who disclosed SRGBV victimization, conduct a rapid safety status, mental and physical health needs assessment for each child referred to them by a data collector, and to fill out referral forms for submission to the sub-county community development officers (CDOs) before leaving the district. The sub-county CDOs had been previously identified during a P&IE child protection government mechanism and response services mapping completed prior to baseline data collection. P&IE counselors documented and communicated in writing all child protection case referrals to child protection officials of the government mechanism at the sub-county level during baseline data collection.

Feedback from CSR during the first week of data collection revealed that the situation on the ground with respect to the government’s ability and capability to follow up on child protection case referrals is very limited. CSR noted that according to the Community Development Officers: (i) they are all willing to follow up cases but unfortunately have no resources to do so; (ii) there is little funding at the district level but there are other commitments that absorb all the money; (iii) the Children Affairs component also does not have money for following up cases; and (iv) the district also has cases to follow up but they don’t have reliable transport facilities to do this work.

In a memo submitted to USAID on April 9th, 2017, NORC provided more details of the initial situation as well as NORC’s preparation for and development of the child protection referral protocols. Memo is provided in Appendix B of this report.

From mid-April through mid-June 2017, Seraphine Awacango, Panagora’s local SRGBV expert consultant, made follow-up calls to officers, for a total of 4 consecutive weeks of calls starting April 21 (data collection was completed on April19) through May 19 2017, plus one additional week of call in June. Since Term 1 in schools ended May 5 and Term 2 started May 29, the NORC team decided to wait 2 weeks after the start of Term 2 and do one final week of referral follow ups the week of June 12. The calls involved asking questions to CDOs and District Social Welfare and Probation Officers (DPSWOs) about the number and type of actions taken or not taken at each referral level.

QUARTERLY PERFORMANCE REPORT 2017 QTR 3 | 5 Uganda LARA – AID Contract No. AID-617-C-16-00003

Ms. Awacango tracked all communication on a Referral Follow-Up Tracking Form spreadsheet to document the results of the referral system and follow-up monitoring for final analysis reporting, and learning. Panagora’s Research Analyst provided extensive oversight and support to Ms. Awacango throughout the referral follow-up process.

In the next quarter NORC will share with USAID an analysis of the child protection case referrals and a Referral Outcomes Report with findings and recommendations.

Submission of Project Deliverables

Training Plan and Training Report

NORC submitted to USAID the EGR and SRGBV training plans on May 1, 2017 and the training report for both EGR and SRGBV data collection on May 3, 2017 (revised and finalized June 7, 2017). The submission of the revised training report included zipped files for EGR and SRGBV that included all the instruments, training presentations, training manuals and exercises. NORC was also asked to provide more detail on the implications for LARA P&IE EGRA data’s comparability to LARA EGRA data, due to decisions about the assessment’s standard marking conventions.

The training plans and reports are in Appendix C.

Annual Report YR1 and Work Plan Y2

NORC sent a draft of the Annual Report/Work Plan to USAID on May 31, 2017 for comments. The report included a snapshot of Year 1 activities, lessons learned in Year 1, and a work plan for upcoming Year 2 activities. Final approval of this deliverable is forthcoming.

Baseline Descriptive Data Report

On June 30, 2017, NORC submitted a first draft of a joint baseline descriptive report on EGR and SRGBV. On completion of the EGR and SRGBV data collection by April 19 2017, NORC initiated data quality review, coding of the focus group discussions, and analysis of both quantitative and qualitative data.

The report displayed basic descriptive findings for EGR and SRGBV data components, and presented results of multivariate regression models predicting key EGR and SRGBV outcomes. Revisions are forthcoming.

A few key preliminary findings are:

QUARTERLY PERFORMANCE REPORT 2017 QTR 3 | 6 Uganda LARA – AID Contract No. AID-617-C-16-00003

 EGR assessments show low levels of competence in early literacy and reading skills among learners. This is not surprising as learners were just starting P1 at the time of data collection and in general very few of them have attended pre- school.  In general, learners practice some reading at home and parents are aware of the importance of education and of reading as a fundamental building block. However, student absenteeism is an important issue which gets reinforced by teacher’s absenteeism.  LARA’s approach to teaching reading is well received and according to teachers take-up is high. Teachers in LARA schools like the training they received and, in general, the materials provided if they already have it. most teachers report that their lessons plans are reviewed and that their lessons are observed by a supervisor.  The SRGBV data shows that strong gender inequitable attitudes prevail in school.  Both girl and boy learners feel safer in school compared to on the way to school; at school safety concerns were highest around latrines, with girls reporting additional concerns around sexual violence in latrines.  Learners are more comfortable reporting incidents of physical violence; sexual violence is reported to a lesser extent due to fear of retaliation.  Even though teachers and caregivers have a low opinion of the overall effectiveness of corporal punishment as a disciplinary method, its use is widespread. In addition, learners are subjected to other physical violence in the form of doing chores and tasks for teachers.

MAJOR ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND CHALLENGES OF PAST QUARTER The major accomplishments of this past quarter were completing SRGBV qualitative and survey data collection, and submitting the joint EGR and SRGBV baseline data descriptive report. Additionally, the Child Protection Protocol and referral system developed by the LARA P&IE team was referred to by a lead member of an ethics body and staff of TASO, as a “model” set of procedures and practices to be learned from and adopted by other research and evaluation initiatives collecting data on violence against children and adolescents in Uganda.

The LARA P&IE team feels the success of the procedures and practices are due to: (1) the rapid yet comprehensive needs assessment of child safety and mental and physical health, (2) the design effort to keep the identifying information of child survivors confidential, through using unique de-identified case numbers on all reporting forms, (3) the legal consultation of a local Ugandan human rights lawyer, and (4) the extensive

QUARTERLY PERFORMANCE REPORT 2017 QTR 3 | 7 Uganda LARA – AID Contract No. AID-617-C-16-00003 training of the child counselors that included topics on psychosocial counseling of child survivors of SRGBV and the referral system and forms designed. A challenge of the last quarter involved the CDO’s inaction on child protection referral cases. The field teams with CSR faced challenges in the field when handling urgent cases of child abuse. The LARA P&IE team faced considerable limitations in tracking referral outcomes due to frequent unavailability of government child protection officers for monitoring calls. While Ms. Awacango continued to make monitoring calls despite certain CDOs' unresponsiveness, a lack of CDO follow-up actions indicated a higher- level need for improvement of and investment in strengthening the government child protection mechanism, as well as its oversight and accountability. The P&IE team did not engage other stakeholders for this effort, as it was outside the purview of the independent evaluation team.

In response to this challenge, the LARA P&IE team will submit to USAID a report on the child protection referral outcomes in order to document in detail the current status of the government’s case referral system, as experienced by our team, and share insights from phone conversations with CDOs that shed light on the resource limitations. Some preliminary recommendations include:  DPSWOs and CDOs need training and mentorship on child-centered, victim- centered knowledge, attitudes, skills and practices for responding to cases of SRGBV (Do no harm, privacy and confidentiality, working with child survivors of sexual abuse, psychological first aid)  CDOs job descriptions need to be clarified to make explicit their primary responsibilities for child protection case follow up, management, tracking and accountability  DPSWOs need to support and supervise CDOs actively in referrals, follow up actions and accountability.  CDOs need budget allocated for fuel and transportation to travel over rough, hilly terrain and long distances within a sub-county to follow up on child protection cases  CDOs should create pathways for locating children and following up with them that do not involve always going through the head teacher of the school a child attends. This creates a barrier as head teachers can act as gatekeepers. It also increases children’s risks of not being assisted and of retaliation.

MAJOR ISSUES THAT NEED TO BE RESOLVED None.

QUARTERLY PERFORMANCE REPORT 2017 QTR 3 | 8 Uganda LARA – AID Contract No. AID-617-C-16-00003

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION ACTIVITIES

UPDATE ON PERFORMANCE EVALUATION ACTIVITIES Since the final performance evaluation will take place in March/April 2020, no activities have been initiated for this component. NORC intends to use mid line findings of the IE (Oct 2019) to inform the PE (Feb 2020) in such matters as the locations of schools to select for field visits and the questions asked during the KII. The baseline is an indication of current status and NORC expects that a lot may change between the baseline and the midline data collection.

MAJOR ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND CHALLENGES OF PAST QUARTER None.

MAJOR ISSUES THAT NEED TO BE RESOLVED None.

P&IE PLANNED ACTIVITIES FOR NEXT QUARTER

Training and fieldwork to collect Term 2 retention and attendance data

 NORC’s local data collection firm partner, Research World International, will conduct R&A data collection in 24 schools for a total sample of 4320 learners currently in P1 and P4 over the course of two weeks in July.

 RWI will perform a refresher data collection training (all enumerators participated in R&A data collection at baseline) prior to data collection to re-orient the enumerator to the instrument, which has been revised since last round of R&A data collection completed four months ago.

Submission of revised baseline data descriptive report

 NORC has acknowledged receipt of USAID’s feedback on the first draft and is working to address the comments and concerns.

Submission of child protection referral outcomes report

 NORC will submit the above report which will include an overview of child protection case referrals during SRGBV data collection, follow up of the case and recommendations for improvement of government child protection mechanisms.

QUARTERLY PERFORMANCE REPORT 2017 QTR 3 | 9 Uganda LARA – AID Contract No. AID-617-C-16-00003

Submit the draft classroom observation instrument and incorporate comments and revisions

 NORC is completing the onboarding process for the EGR Classroom Observation Expert Consultant, whose first task will be to draft and submit to NORC the observational instrument by August 4, 2017. Training and data collection of classroom observations will take place in the last quarter of FY2017.

Present results of the Baseline Descriptive Report in Kampala

 Ritu Nayyar-Stone and Alicia Menendez will travel to Kampala to present the results of the Baseline Descriptive Report. Dates of the trip and presentation are still to be determined, but will likely take place in end August/early September.

QUARTERLY PERFORMANCE REPORT 2017 QTR 3 | 10 Uganda LARA – AID Contract No. AID-617-C-16-00003

ANNEX A: BASELINE DATA COLLECTION

BASELINE DATA COLLECTION

USAID/UGANDA PERFORMANCE AND IMPACT EVALUATION FOR LITERACY ACHIEVEMENT AND RETENTION ACTIVITY (LARA)

May 22, 2017

AID/UGANDA PERFORMANCE AND IMPACT EVALUATION FOR LITERACY ACHIEVEMENT AND RETENTION ACTIVITY (LARA)

BASELINE DATA COLLECTION (May 22, 2017)

Prepared under Contract No.: AID-617-C-16-00003

Submitted to: USAID/Uganda Submitted by: NORC at the University of Chicago Attention: Ritu Nayyar-Stone Bethesda, MD 20814 Tel: 301- 634-9538; E-mail: [email protected]

DISCLAIMER The authors’ views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for International Development or the United States Government.

The following tables are preliminary estimates of the number of interviews obtained during baseline data collection of the LARA P&IE. Estimates may differ slightly from figures used in the final baseline data descriptive report since outliers may be dropped after data cleaning.

Table 1 and table 2 summarize the results of early grade reading fieldwork. Table 3 and table 4 present results of the retention and attendance fieldwork. Tables 5 through 7 display number of interviews completed during the school-related gender- based violence fieldwork. All figures are presented at the district level, language region (Luganda or Runyankole-Rukiga), and overall. The response rates are different from targets due to several factors including: (i) poor student attendance on the day of data collection due to the rains, (ii) refusal of children to do the learner survey, or (iii) parents changing their mind regarding giving consent. More details regarding this will be included in the baseline descriptive report in the evaluation methodology section.

Table 1: Early Grade Reading Data Collection, Learner Survey Luganda Languge Region District # of # of Percent # of # of Percent schools schools achieved learners learners achieved targeted achieved targeted achieved Bukomansimbi 22 22 100% 440 412 93.6% Kalangala 7 7 100% 140 136 97.1% Kalungu 23 23 100% 460 415 90.2% Lyantonde 9 9 100% 180 180 100.0% Masaka 15 15 100% 300 231 77.0% Mityana 19 19 100% 380 293 77.1% Sembabule 37 37 100% 740 677 91.5% Total 132 132 100% 2640 2,344 88. 8% Runyankole-Rukiga Languge Region District # of # of Percent # of # of Percent schools schools achieved learners learners achieved targeted achieved targeted achieved Buhweju 11 11 100% 220 219 99.5% Isingiro 30 30 100% 600 560 93.3% Kanungu 28 28 100% 560 539 96.3% Ntungamo 38 38 100% 760 733 96.4% Rukungiri 25 25 100% 500 484 96.8% Total 132 132 100% 2640 2,535 96.0%

Grand Total 264 264 0 5,280 4,879 92.4%

Table 2: Early Grade Reading Data Collection, Teacher and Head Teacher Survey Luganda Languge Region District # of # of HT # Teacher Total Percent schools Interviews Interviews achieved targeted Bukomansimbi 22 21 22 43 97.7% Kalangala 7 7 7 14 100.0% Kalungu 23 22 21 43 93.5% Lyantonde 9 7 8 15 83.3% Masaka 15 15 11 26 86.7% Mityana 19 18 18 36 94.7% Sembabule 37 34 33 67 90.5% Total 132 124 120 244 92.4% Runyankole-Rukiga Languge Region District # of # of HT # Teacher Total Percent schools Interviews Interviews achieved targeted Buhweju 11 11 11 22 100.0% Isingiro 30 29 23 52 86.7% Kanungu 28 28 27 55 98.2% Ntungamo 38 38 30 68 89.5% Rukungiri 25 25 24 49 98.0% Total 132 131 115 246 93.2%

Grand Total 264 255 235 4901 92.8% Note: 1Target was 528.

Table 3: Retention and Attendence Data Collection, Primary 1 Learners Luganda Languge Region District # of # of Percent # of P1 # of P1 Percent schools schools achieved learners learners achieved targeted achieved targeted achieved Bukomansimbi 7 7 100% 210 243 116% Kalangala 1 1 100% 30 32 107% Kalungu 5 4 80% 150 169 113% Lyantonde 4 4 100% 120 213 178% Masaka 3 3 100% 90 89 99% Mityana 5 5 100% 150 149 99% Sembabule 11 11 100% 330 319 97% Total 36 35 97% 1,080 1,214 112% Runyankole-Rukiga Languge Region District # of # of Percent # of P1 # of P1 Percent schools schools achieved learners learners achieved targeted achieved targeted achieved Buhweju 3 3 100% 90 198 220% Isingiro 9 9 100% 270 545 202% Kanungu 8 8 100% 240 298 124% Ntungamo 10 10 100% 300 460 153% Rukungiri 6 6 100% 180 246 137% Total 36 36 100% 1,080 1,747 162%

Grand Total 72 71 99% 2,160 2,961 137%

Table 4: Retention and Attendence Data Collection, Primary 4 Learners Luganda Languge Region District # of # of Percent # of P4 # of P4 Percent schools schools achieved learners learners achieved targeted achieved targeted achieved Bukomansimbi 7 7 100% 210 334 159% Kalangala 1 1 100% 30 32 107% Kalungu 5 4 80% 150 216 144% Lyantonde 4 4 100% 120 229 191% Masaka 3 3 100% 90 92 102% Mityana 5 5 100% 150 226 151% Sembabule 11 11 100% 330 262 79% Total 36 35 97% 1,080 1,391 129% Runyankole-Rukiga Languge Region District # of # of Percent # of P4 # of P4 Percent schools schools achieved learners learners achieved targeted achieved targeted achieved Buhweju 3 3 100% 90 151 168% Isingiro 9 9 100% 270 412 153% Kanungu 8 8 100% 240 409 170% Ntungamo 10 10 100% 300 496 165% Rukungiri 6 6 100% 180 283 157% Total 36 36 100% 1,080 1,751 162%

Grand Total 72 71 99% 2,160 3,142 145%

Table 5: School Related Gender Based Violence Data Collection, Learner Survey Luganda Languge Region District # of # of boy # girl Learner Percent schools interviews interviews total achieved targeted Bukomansimbi 10 205 225 430 72% Kalangala 2 36 37 73 61% Kalungu 0 0 0 0 N/A Lyantonde 6 162 168 330 92% Masaka 6 104 138 242 67% Mityana 2 39 33 72 60% Sembabule 14 267 298 565 67% Total 40 813 899 1,712 71% Runyankole-Rukiga Languge Region District # of # of boy # girl Learner Percent schools interviews interviews total achieved targeted Buhweju 4 105 106 211 88% Isingiro 11 239 289 528 80% Kanungu 4 119 114 233 97% Ntungamo 10 240 276 516 86% Rukungiri 11 308 338 646 98% Total 40 1,011 1,123 2,134 89%

Grand Total 80 1,824 2,022 3,8461 80% Note: 1 Target was 4800

Table 6: School Related Gender Based Violence Data Collection, Caregiver and Teacher Survey Luganda Languge Region District # of # of # of Total Percent schools caregiver teacher achieved targeted interviews interviews Bukomansimbi 10 109 28 137 91% Kalangala 2 22 4 26 87% Kalungu 0 0 0 0 N/A Lyantonde 6 72 18 90 100% Masaka 6 71 16 87 97% Mityana 2 23 6 29 97% Sembabule 14 165 38 203 97% Total 40 462 110 572 95% Runyankole-Rukiga Languge Region District # of # of # of Total Percent schools caregiver teacher achieved targeted interviews interviews Buhweju 4 48 12 60 100% Isingiro 11 131 30 161 98% Kanungu 4 48 12 60 100% Ntungamo 10 121 29 150 100% Rukungiri 11 132 32 164 99% Total 40 480 115 595 99%

Grand Total 80 9421 2252 1,167 97% Notes: 1 Target was 960 2 Target was 240

Table 7: School Related Gender Based Violence Data Collection, Head Teacher and School Safety Survey Luganda Languge Region District # of # of head # of school Total Percent schools teacher checklists achieved targeted interviews Bukomansimbi 10 10 10 20 100% Kalangala 2 2 2 4 100% Kalungu 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! Lyantonde 6 6 5 11 92% Masaka 6 6 6 12 100% Mityana 2 2 1 3 75% Sembabule 14 13 13 26 93% Total 40 39 37 76 95% Runyankole-Rukiga Languge Region District # of # of head # of school Total Percent schools teacher checklists achieved targeted interviews Buhweju 4 4 4 8 100% Isingiro 11 11 10 21 95% Kanungu 4 4 2 6 75% Ntungamo 10 10 10 20 100% Rukungiri 11 10 10 20 91% Total 40 39 36 75 94%

Grand Total 80 78 73 151 94%

Uganda LARA – AID Contract No. AID-617-C-16-00003

ANNEX B: MEMO UPDATE ON LARA PERFORMANCE & IMPACT EVALUATION CHILD REFERRAL PROCEDURES AND INITIAL FEEDBACK FROM DISTRICT CHILD PROTECTION OFFICIALS

Memorandum

To: Kay Leherr, Fiona Waata, Katharina Erxleben

From: Ritu Nayyar-Stone, Evaluation Team Leader

Re: Update on LARA Performance & Impact Evaluation Child Referral Procedures and Initial Feedback from District Child Protection Officials

Date: 9/6/2017

During NORC’s recent trip to Kampala (March 22 – April 1 2017) for the training and pilot of the School Related Gender Based Violence (SRGBV) baseline data collection we met with Nicholas Opiyo, Esq., Executive Director, Chapter Four Uganda. The purpose of the meeting was to clarify LARA P&IE procedures for child protection and referrals during the baseline data collection and the process of referral follow-up after the data collection period. NORC had been consulting with Mr. Opiyo for several months prior to the trip and based on (i) his suggestions, and (ii) the fact that we are not implementers but rather external evaluators, decided to use existing Ugandan government structures that are supposed to protect children against GBV.

In November 2016 and January 2017, NORC mapped existing child protection resources in each of the 11 districts that are part of the sample for Early Grade Reading (EGR) and SRGBV. In each district we met with the Community Development Officer (CDO) and District Probation and Social Welfare Officer (DPSWO). Both were informed about the period of data collection for SRGBV and both confirmed their support and availability for child referrals during this period. NORC prepared district specific child referral information sheets for each of the 11 districts which includes phone numbers for: - The district community development officer (DCDO) - District probation and social welfare officer (DPSWO) - Community development officers (CDOs) at all sub-counties that included schools as part of the sample - Sub-county chief; sometimes also the assistant chief administration officer - Local council III officer In some cases the information sheets also included phone numbers for sub-county health centers, para-legal officers and the district chief administration officer (CAO).

NORC met with Mr. Nicolas Opiyo on March 22nd at his office. The meeting clarified and resulted in the following:

1. A four-point referral system based on the severity and recent episode of violence as follows A. Referral level 1: Recent abuse that required immediate action (abuse occurred within the last month) B. Referral level 2: Recent abuse that may require action (abuse occurred within the last month)

Memorandum

C. Referral level 3: Not recent abuse that may require action (abuse occurred within the past year) D. Referral Level 4: Not recent abuse that may require action (abuse occurred more than one year ago) E. Referral Level 0: Defined as “voluntary notification” where the child requests counseling for psychological, physical or sexual violence.

2. Finalization of a Child Safety Information and Referral Form. This form includes parts A through D as follows: A. Child safety assessment B. Child physical health needs assessment C. Child psychosocial needs assessment D. Case referral review These forms are filled by counselors during data collection when learners disclose they have been abused and are therefore referred to counselors accompanying the data collection team. Each data collection team includes one male and one female counselor.

3. Finalization of a cross-walk sheet which links four elements: (i) the EMIS code of the school, (ii) the unique ID on each child safety information and referral form, (iii) the learners name, and (iv) the referral level.

4. Development of a cover letter which notes that the Center for Social Research submits a certain total number and enclosed child protection referral forms; and the office accepting the form acknowledges receipt of the child protection referral forms with a name, title, phone number and stamp of the office.

5. Mr. Opiyo also clarified that NORC should only follow up the referrals for a one month rather than a two-month period. Follow-up can also be quite general with NORC only calling up the office that received the forms (36 sets of referral forms will be dropped up at the sub-county level; 16 sub- counties in Luganda sample districts, and 19 sub-counties in Runyankore/Rukiga sample districts), and asking what had happened with the referrals, if any action had been taken, referrals resolved or referrals dropped. Mr. Opiyo advised that NORC would not be able to do more and could not insist that government officials inform case-by-case the referral outcome.

6. Finally Mr. Opiyo shared with us the amendment to the Penal Code in 2007 and amendment to the Children’s Act on May 20, 2016. Both amendments state clearly that violence against children is a criminal offence punishable by imprisonment. NORC showed these amendments to all trainees they are also attached along with this memo.

Based on the above consultation and further discussion with our data collection partners CSR, NORC prepared forms and trained all enumerators, counselors and supervisors on the child protection and referral system. Feedback from CSR during the first week of data collection has revealed that the situation on the ground with respect to the government’s ability and capability to follow up on referrals is very limited. CSR

Memorandum

notes that according to the CDOs: (i) they are all willing to follow up cases but unfortunately they have no resources to do so; (ii) there is little funding at the district level but there are other commitments that absorb all the money; (iii) the Children Affairs component also does not have money for following up cases; and (iv) the district also has cases to follow up but they don’t have reliable transport facilities to do this work. In essence very few of LARA P&IE cases will be followed up without the provision of resources which by USAID regulation we are not allowed to do (payment cannot be given to government officials to undertaken actions that are part of their regular job descriptions.). NORC will follow up on child referral forms deposited at the 36 sub-county offices, but it is likely we will not get much feedback on action taken.

Uganda LARA – AID Contract No. AID-617-C-16-00003

ANNEX C: BASELINE DATA COLLECTION ENUMERATOR TRAINING PLAN

BASELINE DATA COLLECTION ENUMERATOR TRAINING PLAN

USAID/UGANDA PERFORMANCE AND IMPACT EVALUATION FOR LITERACY ACHIEVEMENT AND RETENTION ACTIVITY (LARA)

APRIL 28, 2017

AID/UGANDA PERFORMANCE AND IMPACT EVALUATION FOR LITERACY ACHIEVEMENT AND RETENTION ACTIVITY (LARA)

BASELINE DATA COLLECTION ENUMERATOR TRAINING PLAN (APRIL 28, 2017)

Prepared under Contract No.: AID-617-C-16-00003

Submitted to: USAID/Uganda Submitted by: NORC at the University of Chicago Attention: Ritu Nayyar-Stone Bethesda, MD 20814 Tel: 301- 634-9538; E-mail: [email protected]

DISCLAIMER The authors’ views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for International Development or the United States Government.

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. PERFORMANCE AND IMPACT EVALUATION OF LITERACY ACHIEVEMENT AND RETENTION ACTIVITY (LARA) ...... 1 2. EARLY GRADE READING AND RETENTION AND ATTENDENCE ...... 3 2.1 Recruitment ...... 3 2.2 Training Schedule ...... 4 2.3 Pilot Exercise...... 8 2.4 Training Materials ...... 8 2.5 Assessment and Selection of Team ...... 9 3. ADVANCED VISITS TO SCHOOLS PARTICIPATING IN SCHOOL- RELATED GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE SURVEYS AND FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS ...... 10 3.2 Training Schedule ...... 10 3.3 Training Materials ...... 11 4. SCHOOL-RELATED GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE AND FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS ...... 12 4.1 Recruitment ...... 12 4.2 Training Schedule ...... 13 4.3 Pilot Exercise...... 17 4.4 Training Materials ...... 17 4.5 Assessment and Selection of Team ...... 19

ACRONYMS EGR Early Grade Reading EGRA Early Grade Reading Assessment NORC National Opinion Research Center P&IE Performance and Impact Evaluation SRGBV School-Related Gender-Based Violence USAID United State Agency for International Development

TABLE OF TABLES Table 1: Data Collection for the LARA Performance and Impact Evaluation ...... 1 Table 2: LARA P&IE Baseline EGRA Training Agenda ...... 4 Table 3: Materials drafted for LARA P&IE Baseline EGRA Training ...... 8 Table 4: LARA P&IE Baseline Advance Visit Training Agenda ...... 10 Table 5: Materials drafted for LARA P&IE Baseline Advance Visit Training ...... 11 Table 6: Category of quantitative field staff to be recruited for SRGBV baseline data collection ...... 13 Table 7: Category of qualitative field staff to be recruited for baseline data collection ...... 13 Table 8: LARA P&IE Baseline SRGBV and FGD Training Agenda ...... 15 Table 9: LARA P&IE SRGBV Baseline Data Collection Pilot Schools ...... 17 Table 10: Materials drafted for LARA P&IE SRGBV and FGD Baseline Data Collection ...... 17

iii

1. PERFORMANCE AND IMPACT EVALUATION OF LITERACY ACHIEVEMENT AND RETENTION ACTIVITY (LARA)

NORC at the University of Chicago (NORC) is pleased to submit this Baseline Data Collection Enumerator Training Plan to USAID/Uganda for the Performance and Impact Evaluation (P&IE) of the 5 year Literacy Achievement and Retention Activity (LARA) in Uganda.

LARA aims to improve the reading skills of primary-grade learners in government schools through: (1) early grade reading (EGR) interventions, such as teacher trainings, development of instructional materials and monitoring support supervision to improve reading skills in English and three local languages (Result 1) and (2) a school-related gender based violence (SRGBV) reduction intervention involving teacher, parent and community trainings to improve retention of primary grade students by fostering safe school environments (Result 2).

For this evaluation NORCs team will be conducting a baseline (Feb 2017), midline (October 2019) and endline (October 2020) impact evaluation (IE); and one final performance evaluation (PE) in March 2020. NORC is responsible for all data collection for the evaluation and therefore has recruited two local data collection firms. Research World International will collect all data related to early grade reading, including retention and attendance in schools. Centre for Social Research will collect all data related to SRGBV, and will also do all the focus group discussions (FGDs). Table 1 below shows NORCs data collection for the LARA P&IE.

Table 1: Data Collection for the LARA Performance and Impact Evaluation Result 1 Data Collection, EGR Result 2 Data Collection, SRGBV Quantitative Data: (used for IE and PE) Quantitative Data: (used for IE and PE) EGRA from 5280 learners Survey of 4800 learners Survey of 264 head teachers Survey of 240 teachers Survey of 264 teachers Survey of 80 head teachers Survey of 5280 learners Survey of 960 parents Classroom Observations from 24 schools School inventories for all 80 schools

Retention/Attendance data from: 4320 learners 144 teachers Qualitative Data, FGDs: (used for IE and Qualitative Data, FGDs: (used for IE and PE) PE) 6 FGDs with parents 8 FGDs with learners 8 FGDs with teachers 8 FGDs with parents Qualitative Data, KIIs (done for the final PE only for R1 and R2; approximate number; visit to T1+T2 schools only) 15 – 20 KIIs with LARA implementing staff, ministry staff, LARA partner staff

6 – 8 KIIs with head teachers 18 teachers 6 – 8 district officials/staff 6 – 8 CBOs staff (grant recipients of LARA)

This plan includes details of the preparations for training of baseline data collection staff. The report first outlines the work put forth to organize the training for EGR and R&A data collection; the second section details preparations for the training of the teams coarrying out the advanced visits to schools; the third section shares preparations regarding the SRGBV and FGD training sessions.

Report details comprise the recruitment efforts undertaken to fill the required staff positions for training, the planned daily agenda and dates of the training, the work in identifying and securing appropriate locations for the pilot exercise to be carried out, and the training documents and materials in preparation.

2. EARLY GRADE READING AND RETENTION AND ATTENDENCE

The training and field work for the data collection of early grade reading assessments and retention and attendance data will be conducted alongside each other. Both data collection efforts will be carried out with the assistance of the local firm, Research World International (RWI). Additionally, School-to-School International (STS) will assist NORC in the enumerator training for EGRA.

All data will be collected via tablets. The EGRA and learner context survey are programed in Tangarine – the software for EGRA. The head teacher and teacher survey as well as the retention and attendance data have been programed into Nfield, and the data will be uploaded directly onto the NORC secure server.

2.1 RECRUITMENT Team recruitment: Due to the magnitude of the assignment, a team of 50 research assistants were recruited. This pool included the supervisors, quality controllers and interviewers. For actual deployment, a team of 44 altogether were needed; the extra 6 allow management to select the best performing as well as having backup in case any of the selected interviewers were unable to work due to illness or withdrawals. Recruitment of the teams started early January and was finalized by 4th February prior to the training.

The recruitment process: The recruitment process started with setting the selection criteria, which include:  Education with a minimum of a secondary school degree.  Experience in research.  Experience in mobile data collection (preference for Tangerine)  Experience in conducting EGRA (preference for Tangerine users)  Fluency in speaking the local languages i.e. Runyankole/Rukiga and Luganda  Ability to fluently read the local languages i.e. Runyankole/Rukiga and Luganda  Good communication and interviewing skills.  Willingness to travel and work outside Kampala for the whole project period of approx. 38 days (weekends inclusive).

The teams were selected from the RWI database giving priority to those that have prior experience with EGRA. Due to the large number of staff required, the local data collection firm used local networks to secure other interviewers that had completed EGRA elsewhere. After compiling an initial list of 75 interviewers, RWI shortened the list to 50 interviewers that were needed for training. All interviewers were called in advance and briefed about the project period and the start of the training. Those that confirmed availability were added to the final list.

2.2 TRAINING SCHEDULE Training responsibilities will be shared between NORC, STS and RWI. All three organizations worked to finalize the training schedule and agenda. The training will take place February 7th to 18th, 2017 lasting a total of 10 days. The whole team will train together in a centralized hall for 7 days and complete 2 days of pilot tests. In addition to the full team training, supervisors and quality controllers will also participate in one day of instructions on supervisory and QC duties.

Table 2: LARA P&IE Baseline EGRA Training Agenda

Day 1 - Tuesday February 7th, 2017 Time Luganda Enumerators Runyankole Enumerators 8:00 - 8:30 Arrival and registration of participants

8:30 - 9:00 Introduction of participants and objectives of the training Overview of the enumerators’ manual, principles of data 9:00 - 10:30 collection 10:30 - 10:45 Tea Break 10:45 - 13:00 TASO - Research ethics 13:00 - 14:00 Lunch What is EGRA? Importance of quality education, Why early 14:00 - 15:00 grades, why reading? 15:00 - 15:45 Student questionnaire 15:45 - 16:00 Tea Break 16:00 - 16:45 Student questionnaire - practice 16:45 - 17:00 Closure

Day 2 - Wednesday February 8th, 2017 Time Luganda Enumerators Runyankole Enumerators 8:00 - 8:30 Arrival and registration of participants Recap of day 1 8:30 - 9:00 Day 2 Agenda 9:00 - 10:30 Head Teacher questionanire 10:30 - 10:45 Tea Break 10:45 - 12:00 Teacher questionnaire 12:00 - 13:00 R&A protocol 13:00 - 14:00 Lunch 14:00 - 15:00 R&A protocol EGRA administration principles 15:00 - 15:45 LARA EGRA Sub tasks 15:45 - 16:00 Tea Break

Tablets Verbal Assent (EN) 16:00 - 16:45 Biographical info 16:45 - 17:00 Closure

Day 3 - Thursday February 9th, 2017 Time Luganda Enumerators Runyankole Enumerators 8:00 - 8:30 Arrival and registration of participants Recap of day 3 Day 4 Agenda 8:30 - 9:00 Verbal Assent - practice in Verbal Assent - Practice in pairs pairs EGRA MT – Subtask 1 EGRA MT – Subtask 1 9:00 - 10:30 Orientation to print Orientation to print 10:30 - 10:45 Tea Break EGRA MT – Subtask 2 Letter EGRA MT – Subtask 2 Letter 10:45 - 11:45 sounds sounds EGRA MT - Subtask 3 - EGRA MT - Subtask 3 - 11:45 - 13:00 Segmenting Segmenting 13:00 - 14:00 Lunch EGRA MT – subtask 4 Non EGRA MT – subtask 4 Non 14:00 - 15:00 word decoding word decoding EGRA MT – subtask 5 ORF EGRA MT – subtask 5 ORF and 15:00 - 15:45 and comprehension comprehension 15:45 - 16:00 Tea Break EGRA MT – subtask 6 – EGRA MT – subtask 6 – 16:00 - 16:45 listening comprehension listening comprehension 16:45 - 17:00 Closure

EGRA EN -Practice in pairs, small groups and modelling Practice in pairs, small groups 15:00 - 15:45 in plenary and modelling in plenary 15:45 - 16:00 Tea Break EGRA EN -Practice in pairs, EGRA EN -Practice in pairs, small groups and modelling small groups and modelling in 16:00 - 16:45 in plenary plenary 16:45 - 17:00 Closure

Day 5- Monday February 13th, 2017 Time Luganda Enumerators Runyankole Enumerators Recap of Day 4 8:30 - 9:00 Day 5 agenda 9:00 - 9:30 Practice of letter sounds EGRA Practice EN +MT in EGRA Practice EN +MT in pairs pairs and plenary modeling and plenary modeling 9:30 - 10:30 10:30 - 10:45 Tea Break IRR 1 EGRA Practice EN +MT in pairs 10:45 - 11:45 and plenary modeling EGRA Practice EN +MT in 11:45 - 13:00 pairs and plenary modeling IRR 1 13:00 - 14:00 Lunch 14:00 - 15:00 preparation for school 15:00 - 15:45 practice 15:45 - 16:00 Tea Break Travel to R-R Schools

Day 6 - Tuesday February 14th, 2017 Time Luganda Enumerators Runyankole Enumerators

School Visit 1 School Visit 1 07:00 - 13:00 EGRA Only EGRA Only

13:00 - 14:00 Lunch Feedback from practice (in the 14:00 - 15:30 Feedback from practice field) 15:30 - 16:15 feedback from IRR

Day 7 - Wednesday February 15th, 2017 Time Luganda Enumerators Runyankole Enumerators 7:00 - 13:00 School visit 2 DAY OFF 8:00 - 8:30

Full protocol (interviews & 8:30 - 9:00 R&A) 9:00 - 10:30 10:30 - 10:45 10:45 - 13:00 13:00 - 14:00

14:00 - 15:00 Feedback from practice Travel to Kampala

Day 8 – Thursday February 16th, 2017 Time Luganda Enumerators Runyankole Enumerators Arrival and registration of 8:00 - 8:30 participants Practice in pairs and 8:30 - 9:00 modeling in plenary (EGRA 9:00 - 10:30 EN+MT) DAY OFF 10:30 - 10:45 Tea Break 10:45 - 13:00 IRR 2 13:00 - 14:00 Lunch

14:00 - 15:00 Tangerine troubleshooting TBD

Day 9 - Friday February 17th, 2017 Time Luganda Enumerators Runyankole Enumerators Arrival and registration of 8:00 - 8:30 participants 8:30 - 9:00 7:00 - 13:00 School visit 2 Day 8 Agenda 9:00 - 10:30 EGRA practice Full protocol 10:30 - 10:45 Tea Break

10:45 - 11:45 IRR (EN +MT) 2 11:45 - 13:00 Tangerine Troubleshooting 13:00 - 14:00 Lunch 14:00 - 15:00 Feedback from practice 15:00 - 15:45 QUIZ 15:45 - 16:00 Tea Break Review of IRRs 16:00 - 16:45 TEAMS AND LOGISTICS 16:45 - 17:00 Closure

Day 10 - Friday Saturday 18th, 2017 - Supervisors & selected enumerators Time Luganda Enumerators Runyankole Enumerators 8:00 - 8:30 Arrival and registration of participants 8:30 - 10:30 EGRA Paper (selected enumerators) 10:30 - 10:45 Tea Break

Roles of supervisors during data collection 10:45 - 13:00 How to provide feedback to enumerators (if relevant) 13:00 - 14:00 Lunch

2.3 PILOT EXERCISE Four schools (two for each day of school practice) were pre-selected by RWI. Schools were selected based on having characteristics that were similar to the schools that were to be visited during the actual data collection. Consideration was given to schools in a rural setting, where most pupils speak the respective local language (Luganda and Runyankole/Rukiga). For the Luganda pilot, we selected schools in Buikwe and Mukono districts (over 30 km. from Kampala). For the Runyankole/Rukiga Pilot, we selected schools in Mbarara District (about 300km from Kampala). The pilot will be carried out in two separate days in each of the regions.

2.4 TRAINING MATERIALS The following list of materials have been or will be drafted for distribution during the training period. Responsibilities for developing the materials was split between NORC and STS with review and comments by RWI. Number of copies was clearly specified for the local data collection team.

Table 3: Materials drafted for LARA P&IE Baseline EGRA Training

Responsible for Document Drafting For Enumerator Training Participant Agenda STS Pledge of Confidentiality NORC Participant User Agreement NORC

EGRA protocol (English) NORC EGRA protocol (Luganda) NORC EGRA protocol (Run/Ruk) NORC

EGRA Content view Luganda (from Tangerine) STS EGRA content vie in Run/ruk (from Tangerine) STS Learner Context Questionnaire (Luganda) NORC Learner Context Questionnaire (Run/Ruk) NORC Teacher Questionnaire NORC Head Teacher Questionnaire NORC Retention and Attendance Protocol NORC Retention and Attendance Instrument NORC Learner Context Questionnaire QxQ NORC Teacher Questionnaire QxQ NORC Head Teacher Questionnaire QxQ NORC Tangerine Reference Guide STS Enumerator Training Manual NORC EGRA Cheat Sheet STS Letter sound Cheat Sheet STS Stimuli (Show cards) STS Observation Checklist STS "Ready for the Field" Enumerator Checklist STS Laminated number cards for EGRA sampling STS Assets picture cards for Learner Context Survey NORC Team Contact Information (ON SITE) NORC Quiz (ON SITE) STS/NORC

2.5 ASSESSMENT AND SELECTION OF TEAM A total of 11 supervisors and 33 enumerators will be selected from among trainees to complete the field work. Several additional researchers will be invited to and will participate in the full training, allowing the NORC and RWI management team to choose the best performing trainees for the fieldwork teams. This also safeguards against issues of possible attrition (those who are unable to participate in the full training).

In order to assess the trainees’ performances, three inter-rater reliability (IRR) exercises will be conducted during the training to determine the participant’s IRR abilities. Additionally, a quiz is scheduled on day eight of the training in order to assess enumerators’ knowledge of the topics covered.

The scores from the IRR and quiz, alongside observations made during the training and pilot exercise, will help determine the final set of enumerators and supervisors. Trainers will pay particular attention to observing trainees’ ability to interview children in a sensitive manner.

3. ADVANCED VISITS TO SCHOOLS PARTICIPATING IN SCHOOL-RELATED GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE SURVEYS AND FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS

A one-day training will take place to train a team of 16 researchers to conduct advanced visits to the 80 schools chosen to participate in the SRGBV survey and the focus group discussions. The purposes of the advanced visits are:

(1) Inform the school of the research effort, (2) Select the learners who will participate in the research, (3) Gather informed written consent from parents or guardians (“primary caregivers”) to interview their children (4) Invite selected primary caregivers to return to school on the day of the survey team’s visit to the school so they can participate in the primary caregiver survey or primary caregiver focus group discussion, and (5) Pay courtesy visits to District and Sub-County and get phone numbers from Chief Administrative Officer and District Community Development Officers (at the district level) as well from the Sub County Chief and Local Council Three Chairperson (at the sub- county level) as alternative contacts to reach, in the event that the District Probation Officer and CDO are not available during data collection to attend to urgent cases of abuse disclosure.

3.2 TRAINING SCHEDULE

Table 4: LARA P&IE Baseline Advance Visit Training Agenda Friday, March 10th 2017 Time 8:00 - 8:30 Arrival and registration of participants Introduction of participants and objectives of the 8:30 - 9:00 training Overview of the training manual and LARA, 9:00 - 10:30 principles of data collection 10:30 - 10:45 Tea Break 10:45 - 11:30 LARA Research Methodology 11.30- 1.00pm Sampling process 13:00 - 14:00 Lunch

14:00 - 15:00 Gaining Informed Consent 15:00 - 15:45 Student questionnaire overview 15:45 - 16:00 Tea Break 16:00 - 16:45 Scheduling and Logistics 16:45 - 17:00 Closure

3.3 TRAINING MATERIALS The following list of materials have been or will be drafted for distribution during the training period. Responsibilities for developing the materials was split between NORC and CSR. Number of copies was clearly specified for the local data collection team.

Table 5: Materials drafted for LARA P&IE Baseline Advance Visit Training

Document Responsible for Drafting

Pledge of Confidentiality NORC Enumerator Training Manual NORC Laminated number cards for learner sampling CSR Team Contact Information (ON SITE) CSR 1L. Notice to Caregivers, Info Session (L) NORC 1R. Notice to Caregivers, Info Session (RR) NORC 2L. Informed Consent Form for Primary Caregivers, for Learner Participation in SRGBV Survey (L) NORC 2R. Informed Consent Form for Primary Caregivers, for Learner Participation in SRGBV Survey (RR) NORC 3L. Informed Consent Form for Caregivers, for Learner Participation in SRGBV FGDs (L) NORC 3R. Informed Consent Form for Caregivers, for Learner Participation in SRGBV FGDs (RR) NORC 4L. Notice to Primary Caregivers, Primary Caregiver Research Participation (L) NORC 4R. Notice to Primary Caregivers, Primary Caregiver Research Participation (RR) NORC 5. Notice to Senior Teachers, FGD Participation NORC 1.1L Learner 6-10 GIRL questionnaire (L) NORC

1.1R Learner 6-10 GIRL questionnaire (RR) NORC 1.3L Learner 11+ GIRL questionnaire (L) NORC 1.3R Learner 11+ GIRL questionnaire (RR) CSR 6. Survey Field Work Field Plan CSR 7. Focus Group Discussion Field Plan CSR 8. Advance Visit Field Plan CSR 9. Sub-country and District HQ Contact List Martin 10. AV Tracking Sheet (Per School) NORC 11.AV Tracking Sheet - FGDS (Per School) NORC

4. SCHOOL-RELATED GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE AND FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS

The training and field work for the data collection of SRGBV survey data and focus group discussions will be conducted alongside each other. Both data collection efforts will be carried out with the assistance of the local firm, Centre for Social Research (CSR). NORC and CSR along with an international SRGBV specialist from Panagora will organize and carry out the training.

All survey data will be collected via tablets. The surveys have been programed into Nfield in English, Luganda and Runyankore/Rukiga lanuages, and the data will be uploaded directly onto NORC’s secure server.

4.1 RECRUITMENT Although CSR has a large pool of quantitative and qualitative researchers, all positions for the LARA team will be widely advertised to ensure that the best candidates are recruited to participate in the study. All prospective field staff (including those based at CSR) will be interviewed before being recruited to join the training team. The interviews will mainly focus on research ethics, experience in collecting similar data (sensitive topics with young children), and fluency in the two targeted local languages. Those shortlisted for interviews will be those with relevant qualifications and experience in collecting SRGBV related data.

A total of 50 research assistants and 10 supervisors (with child counseling experience) will be recruited, trained and deployed to collect all the required quantitative data in the sampled regions. A total of 8 qualitative researchers will be recruited to act as focus group moderators and notetakers.

Additionally, 14 counselors (qualified in child protection and counseling) will be recruited to ensure that children that need to be counseled are attended to. The counselors’ academic documents will be reviewed and verified by the core research team. Since the number of girls and boys targeted is the same, the number of male and female field staff

12 will be equal. Since the counselors may be need to handle some tools (teacher and head teacher interviews, and only on completion of all learner surveys and the need for child counseling sessions), they will be required to have a research background.

Field enumerators will be recruited on basis of their research experience, particularly in conducting structured face-to-face interviews on SRGBV or related studies. To ensure that we benefit from experiences with collecting similar SRGBV data, CSR has already recalled its senior field staff that supported Research Triangle Institute International to collect SRGBV baseline data. More so, all field personnel will be selected on basis of their fluency in the two targeted local languages (Luganda and Runyankole-Rukiga). To avoid attrition of trained field staff, recruitment will take place a few days before the training begins.

Table 6: Category of quantitative field staff to be recruited for SRGBV baseline data collection

Gender Category of quantitative field staff Male Female Field enumerators 25 25 Fieldwork supervisors 5 5 Counselors 5 5

Table 7: Category of qualitative field staff to be recruited for baseline data collection

Category of qualitative field staff Male Female Moderators 2 2 Note takers 2 2 Counselors 2 2

4.2 TRAINING SCHEDULE All field staff will be trained in one central location in Kampala to ensure that they all have a common understanding and interpretation of the research questions and study objectives. They will be trained on: ethical research guidelines, particularly ensuring privacy and confidentiality, the objectives of the study, SRGBV concepts, data collection tools, and electronic data collection techniques required to guarantee that the data collected is reliable, accurate and complete.

The training will take 9 days during which they will carry out simulated interviews through role-plays. The role-plays will initially be conducted in English for the entire

13 field team to observe and critique them. They will then be divided into smaller groups to practice in their respective local language groups (Luganda and Runyankole-Rukiga). This will be followed by a debrief exercise for the entire team to collectively review possible challenges and agree on the best way to address them.

The focus group discussion training for the field team will focus on the key steps in conducting a successful FGD. These include, but not limited to:  Determining what types and number of groups needed  Explaining the purpose of each of the FGD  Engaging the group on each question in the moderator guide  Tips for the facilitator and note taker/recorder

Table 8: LARA P&IE Baseline SRGBV and FGD Training Agenda

Time Survey Training FGD Training Counselors Joint Day 1 (Thursday, March 23) Sessions

AM Introduction, Overview and Sampling, TASO Same Same PM Gender and Violence Concepts Same Same Day 2 (Friday, March 24) AM Gender and Violence Concepts Same Same PM Child Protection Protocol Same Same Day 3 (Saturday, March 25) AM Informed Consent/Assent Same Same PM Paper Surveys, Learner & Caregiver Best Practices for FGDs In survey or FGD training Day 4 (Monday, March 27) AM Introduction to Tablets Learner FGD Training In survey or FGD training PM All Group Role Plays, English Caregiver SRGBV FGD Training In survey or FGD training Day 5 (Tuesday, March 28) AM All Group Role Plays, By Language Teacher FGD Training Counselor Training Session PM Small Group Role Plays Caregiver EGR FGD Training Counselor Training Session Day 6 (Wednesday, March 29) AM Small Group Role Plays xxxxx No Session xxxxx Counselor Training Session *Teacher, Head Teacher, School Infrastructure PM1 Surveys xxxxx No Session xxxxx In survey or FGD training PM2 Ready for field pre-test Same Same Day 7 (Thursday, March 30) AM Pilot Same Same PM Pilot Same Same Day 8 (Friday, March 31)

AM Debrief Debrief Debrief PM Final Role Plays Debrief Debrief Day 9 (Saturday, March 31) In survey training or Not in AM Supervisor Training xxxxx No Session xxxxx session PM xxxxx No Session xxxxx xxxxx No Session xxxxx xxxxx No Session xxxxx *Only some enumerators will be trained on each instrument

4.3 PILOT EXERCISE The pilot will take place in districts near the central training venue (Kampala). While Luganda tools will be piloted in Mukono district, Runyankole-Rukiga tools will be piloted in Mbarara district.

Table 9: LARA P&IE SRGBV Baseline Data Collection Pilot Schools School Name Type of Researchers Runyankore –Rukiga (Mbarara District) Nkokonjeru COU Primary Survey school Nyakayojo Primary FGD and Survey Luganda (Mukono District) Bishop East Survey school Seeta COU FGD and Survey

4.4 TRAINING MATERIALS The following list of materials have been or will be drafted for distribution during the training period. Responsibilities for developing the materials was split between NORC, Panagora, and CSR. Number of copies was clearly specified for the local data collection team.

Table 10: Materials drafted for LARA P&IE SRGBV and FGD Baseline Data Collection

Responsible for Document Drafting General Pledge of Confidentiality NORC Training Agendas NORC Gender and Violence Presentation Slides Panagora SRGBV Case story Panagora Child Protection Protocol Presentation Slides Panagora Packet B with Figures 5 and 6 of CPP and Interviewer Strategies for Confidentiality Panagora Packet C with Psychological First Aid and Vicarious Trauma Panagora Full Team Phone Number Sheet CSR Sign-In Sheets CSR For Enumerator Training Enumerator Training Manual NORC 1.1 Learner 6-10 GIRL questionnaire, English-Luganda

Responsible for Document Drafting 1.1 Learner 6-10 GIRL questionnaire, English-RR 1.3 Learner 11+ GIRL questionnaire, English-Luganda 1.3 Learner 11+ GIRL questionnaire, English-RR 1.5 Primary Caregiver questionnaire, English-Luganda 1.5 Primary Caregiver questionnaire, English-RR 1.10 Survey Info and consent form for adults, English- Luganda 1.10 Survey Info and consent form for adults, English-RR 1.6 Teacher questionnaire 1.7 Head Teacher questionnaire 1.8 School safety observation tool 1.10 Survey Info and consent form for adults, Luganda 1.10 Survey Info and consent form for adults, R-R GBV Envelope Method (Happy/Sad face) NORC

For Focus Group Discussion Training FGD Training Manual NORC 2.1 EGRA FGD informed primary caregiver consent, English-Luganda 2.1 EGRA FGD informed primary caregiver consent, English-R/R 2.2 EGRA FGD guide caregivers, English-Luganda 2.2 EGRA FGD guide caregivers, English-R/R 2.3 SRGBV FGD guide teachers 2.4 SRGBV FDG guide primary caregivers, English-Luganda 2.4 SRGBV FDG guide primary caregivers, English-R/R 2.5 SRGBV FGD Info and consent sheet for adults, English- Luganda 2.5 SRGBV FGD Info and consent sheet for adults, English- R/R 2.7 SRGBV FGD guide learners 11+, English-Luganda 2.7 SRGBV FGD guide learners 11+, English-R/R

For Counselor Training Child Safety and Referral Forms Panagora Referral Information Sheet Example Panagora Consent to Release Information Form Panagora

Responsible for Document Drafting For Supervisor Training Supervisor Responsibility List Martin Sample Tracking Sheet (Per School) Martin

4.5 ASSESSMENT AND SELECTION OF TEAM To ensure that there is competition among all field staff during the training, 4 additional field enumerators will be trained as replacements in case of drop out/attrition of data collectors. Consequently, the best 50 field enumerators will be selected for participation in data collection.

To test the capability of the field staff, a quiz (focusing on the content delivered by the trainers) will be conducted every evening and the results presented the following morning, to ensure that all trainees grasp the information delivered each day. Their scores will then be combined at the end of the training; along with observations of performance during classroom and pilot exercise days, NORC, Panagora, and CSR will determine the final list of field staff.

Due to the sensitivity of the survey topic and focus group disucssions, trainers will pay particular attention to enumerators’ and moderators’abilities to demonstrate child- sensitive interviewing approaches.

BASELINE DATA COLLECTION ENUMERATOR TRAINING REPORT

USAID/UGANDA PERFORMANCE AND IMPACT EVALUATION FOR LITERACY ACHIEVEMENT AND RETENTION ACTIVITY (LARA)

May 3, 2017; Revised June 7, 2017

AID/UGANDA PERFORMANCE AND IMPACT EVALUATION FOR LITERACY ACHIEVEMENT AND RETENTION ACTIVITY (LARA)

BASELINE DATA COLLECTION ENUMERATOR TRAINING REPORT (May 3, 2017)

Prepared under Contract No.: AID-617-C-16-00003

Submitted to: USAID/Uganda Submitted by: NORC at the University of Chicago Attention: Ritu Nayyar-Stone Bethesda, MD 20814 Tel: 301- 634-9538; E-mail: [email protected]

DISCLAIMER The authors’ views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for International Development or the United States Government.

Table of Contents 1. PERFORMANCE AND IMPACT EVALUATION OF LITERACY ACHIEVEMENT AND RETENTION ACTIVITY (LARA) ...... 4 2. EARLY GRADE READING AND RETENTION AND ATTENDENCE ...... 6 2.1 Training topics ...... 7 2.2 Training on research ethics ...... 7 2.3 Pilot Exercise...... 8 2.4 Assessments of training participants ...... 9 2.5 Revisions to instruments ...... 10 2.6 Plan for fieldwork deployment ...... 11 3. SCHOOL-RELATED GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE AND FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS ...... 12 3.1 Training topics ...... 13 4.2 Training on research ethics ...... 17 4.3 Pilot Exercise...... 18 4.4 Assessments of training participants ...... 20 4.5 Revisions to instruments ...... 21 4.5 Plan for fieldwork deployments ...... 22 APPENDIX I: LARA P&IE Training Agenda...... 23 APPENDIX II: Baseline Data Collection Fieldwork Schedule ...... 35 APPENDIX III: Modifications of School-Related Gender-Based Violence Learner Instruments……………………… ...... 42

ACRONYMS CSR Council for Social Research EGR Early Grade Reading EGRA Early Grade Reading Assessment LARA Literacy Achievement and Retention Activity NORC National Opinion Research Center P&IE Performance and Impact Evaluation RWI Research World International SRGBV School-Related Gender-Based Violence USAID United State Agency for International Development

LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Norc Data Collection for the LARA Performance and Impact Evaluation...... 4 Table 2: EGRA and R&A Training Presenters ...... 6 Table 3: Pilot Exercise Schools, EGRA Baseline Training ...... 8 Table 4: LARA P&IE Baseline Training Presenters, SRGBV and FGD ...... 12 Table 5: Pilot Exercise Schools, SRGBV and FGD Baseline Training ...... 18

iii

1. PERFORMANCE AND IMPACT EVALUATION OF LITERACY ACHIEVEMENT AND RETENTION ACTIVITY (LARA)

NORC at the University of Chicago (NORC) is pleased to submit this Baseline Data Collection Enumerator Training Report to USAID/Uganda for the Performance and Impact Evaluation (P&IE) of the 5 year Literacy Achievement and Retention Activity (LARA) in Uganda.

For this evaluation NORCs team will be conducting a baseline (March 2017), midline (October 2019) and endline (October 2020) impact evaluation (IE); and one final performance evaluation (PE) in March 2020. NORC is responsible for all data collection for the evaluation and therefore has recruited two local data collection firms. Research World International (RWI) will collect all data related to early grade reading, including retention and attendance (R&A) in schools. Centre for Social Research (CSR) will collect all data related to SRGBV, and also do all the focus group discussions (FGDs). Table 1 below shows NORCs data collection for the LARA P&IE.

Table 1: Norc Data Collection for the LARA Performance and Impact Evaluation Result 1 Data Collection, EGR Result 2 Data Collection, SRGBV Quantitative Data: (used for IE and PE) Quantitative Data: (used for IE and PE) EGRA from 5280 learners Survey of 4800 learners Survey of 264 head teachers Survey of 240 teachers Survey of 264 teachers Survey of 80 head teachers Survey of 5280 learners Survey of 960 parents Classroom Observations from 24 schools School inventories for all 80 schools

6 – 8 KIIs with head teachers 18 teachers 6 – 8 district officials/staff 6 – 8 CBOs staff (grant recipients of LARA)

This report includes details of the training of baseline data collection enumerators. The report first details the work from the training for EGR and R&A data collection; the second section shares details regarding the SRGBV and FGD training sessions.

Report details comprise the training agenda and list of trainers; summary of training topics covered; research ethics presentations; results of the pilot exercises; assessments of trainees; adjustments to instruments based on training discussions; and plans for deployment of teams to the schools.

2. EARLY GRADE READING AND RETENTION AND ATTENDENCE

The trainings for the data collection of early grade reading assessments (EGRA) and retention and attendance (R&A) data were conducted alongside each other over the period, February 7-18, 2017 in Kampala. Both data collection efforts were to be carried out with the assistance of the local firm, Research World International (RWI).

Additionally, School-to-School International (STS) assisted NORC in the enumerator training for EGRA. A representative from one of Uganda’s Institional Review Boards, The AIDS Support Organization (TASO), was also present to train participants for one day. See table 2 for a full list of trainers, their organization and their training role.

Table 2: EGRA and R&A Training Presenters Name Organization Role Alicia Menendez NORC LARA P&IE Evaluation Specialist Russel Owen NORC LARA P&IE Data Analyst Martin Opolot NORC LARA P&IE Local Evaluation Manager Alice Michelazzi STS EGRA Training Specialist Kayla Nachtsteim STS EGRA Data Capture Specialist Moses Gitau Consultant Nfield Application Specialist Patrick Wakida RWI Local Research Manager Arnold Byamukama RWI Field Manager Andrew Mijumbi TASO Research Ethics Committee Administrator

Fifty qualified candidates were invited to attend the full training. The recruitment process started with setting the selection criteria, which included:  Education with a minimum of a secondary school degree.  Experience in research.  Experience in mobile data collection (preference for Tangerine)  Experience in conducting EGRA (preference for Tangerine users)  Fluency in speaking the local languages i.e. Runyankole/Rukiga and Luganda  Ability to fluently read the local languages i.e. Runyankole/Rukiga and Luganda  Good communication and interviewing skills.  Willingness to travel and work outside Kampala for the whole project period of approx. 38 days (weekends inclusive).

A total of 46 trainees participated in and completed 8 days of training, which included 7 days of classroom training and one day of pilot exercises at schools in two regions of Uganda; an additional day of training for selected team members and field supervisors was carried out the last day. Four trainees did not attend or did not complete the training for various personal reasons. Details of the training topics and pilot exercise follow.

2.1 TRAINING TOPICS Introduction: Training participants began with an introduction to these topics:

 The LARA program and its key organizations and stakeholders involved in the evaluation (USAID, RTI International, NORC, STS, and RWI)  NORC’s planned evaluation research methodology  The baseline data collection team structure with roles and responsibilities  General interviewing techniques and key concepts

All material was included in the enumerator training manual.

Instrument training and practice: In the following days, enumerators were instructed in how to administer the EGRA instrument, student questionnaires, teacher and head teacher questionnaires, and sampling procedures. For the EGRA subtasks, goals and rules were presented in English, and then practice was conducted in the local languages (Luganda and Runyankore-Rukiga). Presentation of the questionnaires included a question-by-question review, highlighting and discussing all key concepts or definitions. Local language groups reviewed the translations for accuracy and consensus of language used.

Practice of EGRA and the questionnaires continued throughout the week including demonstrations of each subtask with immediate review in order for the interviewers to familiarize themselves with the instruments. Participants had the opportunity to review the instruments as a whole group, in smaller language-specific groups, and in pairs.

Technology training: Administering EGRA and the questionnaires involved working in two tablet applications, Tangerine and Nfield. Trainees received instruction on navigating and troubleshooting within the two tablet applications.

The full schedule of the training agenda is avaialbe in Appendix I.

2.2 TRAINING ON RESEARCH ETHICS NORC and TASO presented ethical research guidelines to the training participants the first day, and the importance of assuring privacy and maintaining confidentiality was stressed throughout the training days. All participants were required, as all NORC collaborators are, to sign a pledge of confidentiality.

Andrew Mijumbi, a representative from the Research Ethics Committee of TASO discussed broad research ethics topics in a two-hour presentation that included history and reasons for establishing Institutional Review Boards (IRBs), and key concepts such as informed consent and confidentiality.

More specifically, NORC gave instructions and procedures for ensuring ethical guidelines are maintained, pertaining to the following topics: - Handling electronic data during interviews - Not refering to other respondents while conducting interviews - Keeping survey materials secure when not in the field - Keeping survey data from members of family and friends

2.3 PILOT EXERCISE For the Luganda pilot exercise, RWI selected schools in Buikwe and Mukono districts (30 km. from Kampala). For the Runyankole/Rukiga Pilot, they selected schools in Mbarara District (300km from Kampala). The pilot was carried out on two separate days in each of the regions.

Selected schools had characteristics that were similar to the schools that were to be visited during the actual data collection. Consideration was given to schools in a rural setting, where most pupils speak the respective local language (Luganda and Runyankore/Rukiga).

Two days of school practice allowed enumerators to gain hands-on experience with EGRA administration with P1 pupils. It also allowed for in-depth debriefing and troubleshooting. On day one, enumerators worked in pairs and provided feedback to each other, allowing individuals with considerable EGRA experience and individuals who were administering the EGRA for the first time to share experiences. The second day of practice allowed enumerators to hone their skills for data collection. On the second day, a pool of potential supervisors was identified. This pool was able to then practice questionnaires and protocols in a real school setting.

Table 3: Pilot Exercise Schools, EGRA Baseline Training Luganda Team Runyankore/Rukiga Team Pilot Exercise 1 Buzama Primary school, Rutooma Model Primary school, Buikwe district Mbarara district Pilot Exercise 2 Nakanyoyi Primary school, Rubindi Boys Primary school, Mukono district Mbarara district

Day 1 of Pilot Team members worked in pairs. Each team member played the role of an interviewer and observer multiple times during the day. The observer would sit-in with the interviewer (guided by the observation checklist) and he or she would note feedback

8 which was shared immediately at the end of each interview with their partner. After the first interview, the teams exchanged roles i.e. the observer became the interviewer and vice versa. After all teams had switched roles and shared feedback, pairs were reassigned to expose participants to feedback from multiple team members.

Both the Luganda and Runyankole teams had their first school visit or pilot exercise on February 14th, 2017. The Luganda team had their first visit at Buzama Primary school in Buikwe district. The school had about 125 pupils in P1, each interviewer did at least 4 interviews after which the team returned to the hotel for a feedback session.

The Runyankole/Rukiga team had their first visit at Rutooma Model Primary school in Mbarara district. The school had about 30 pupils in P1 present. Therefore, the pilot also included learners from the P2 class. Each interviewer did at least 3 interviews after which the team returned to the hotel for a feedback session.

Day 2 of Pilot Based on performance during classroom training and the first day of pilot, there was a preliminary selection of supervisors. For the second day of school visits, the selected supervisors were exposed to supervision roles (i.e. handling the sampling process, conducting the teacher survey, head teacher survey, conducting the retention and attendance survey in P4 and supervising the teams using the observation sheets) while the interviewers continued to focus on EGRA and questionnaire administration.

The Luganda teams had their second school visit on 17th February 17th, 2017 at Nakanyoyi Primary school in Mukono district. Each interviewer did about 4 interviews with P1 pupils and 2 interviews with P4 pupils, after which the team returned to the hotel for a feedback session.

The Runyankole/Rukiga team had their second visit at Rubindi Boys Primary school in Mbarara district on February 15th, 2017. Each interviewer did at least 5 interviews, after which the team returned to the hotel for a feedback session.

2.4 ASSESSMENTS OF TRAINING PARTICIPANTS Those trainees showing the greatest understanding of the instruments and demonstrating good general interviewing techniques and aptitude for leadership and logistics management were selected for supervisory roles. Trainees with a good understanding of the instruments and general interviewing techniques and demonstrating an ability to work independently without much supervision were selected to be quality controllers.

In order to assess the trainees’ performance, three inter-rater reliability (IRR) exercises and a quiz were conducted during the training. IRR exercises test the level of agreement among trainees on administration of EGRA. IRR exercises can be used to test the validity of the instrument itself, but as this EGRA was a previously validated tool, the IRR was not conducted for this purpose. A mock interview is conducted while all trainees key in the responses from the mock respondent. The data from each

9 enumerator’s tablet is downloaded and compared that same evening. Scores from the third and final IRR are available for 48 trainees in appendix IV. Additionally, a team- based, jeopardy-style quiz was held on day 8 of the training in order to assess enumerators’ knowledge of the topics covered.

The scores from the IRR and general performance during the quiz,1 alongside observations made during the training and pilot exercise, helped the set of traininers determine the final set of enumerators, supervisors, and quality controllers. A total of 10 supervisors, 30 enumerators, and 4 quality controllers were selected from among the 46 trainees to complete the field work. Trainers paid particular attention to observing trainees’ ability to interview children in a sensitive manner.

2.5 COMMON UNDERSTANDING FOR SCORING/MARKING EGRA No revisions were made to the EGRA instrument during the training period. The EGRA was developed by the RTI/LARA Implementation team, and used during the baseline data collection in 2016 on Cluster 1 schools. In consultation with USAID/Uganda, we modified the EGRA in the local languages (Luganda and Runyankore/Rukiga) to include 7 subtasks in the local language and 4 subtasks in English.

Originally, marking training for the baseline EGRA was structured to match conventions established during previous rounds of LARA EGRA. However, at the advice of NORC’s experts, STS determined that NORC’s scope of work for the evaluation did not include comparing the impact evaluation results with results from previous rounds of LARA data collection. Furthermore, as the specific marking conventions used during data collection at Cluster 1 schools were not known, the LARA P&IE baseline team reached a decision on marking conventions based on global best practices and local contextual knowledge. Therefore, the following marking conventions were adopted during the training:  In the nonword reading subtask, enumerators will consider segmented words as incorrect. The same does not apply to the oral reading fluency subtask, where segmented words were considered as correct if read within three seconds.  In the oral reading comprehension and listening comprehension subtasks, enumerators will consider answers given in English or the local language as correct. In the reading comprehension subtask, only answers in English were considered correct (responses in other languages will be probed for English translation, and otherwise, considered incorrect).  For comprehension questions, enumerators will consider answers provided between brackets as well as answers deemed similar to the ones in brackets as correct. Examples of multiple correct answers were provided during training.  In the English letter sound subtask, enumerators will consider multiple sounds for the letters C and G (C as in “cat” and as in “city”; G as in “good” and as in “giant”) as correct. For vowels, only short vowel letter sounds will be considered acceptable.

1 Scores were team-based and not retained after the training and selection of final enumerators.

2.6 PLAN FOR FIELDWORK DEPLOYMENT Prior to deployment, RWI created a route schedule with target dates of visit for each of the schools. While generating the schedule, the focus was to have teams work in clusters to facilitate greater oversight from management. Teams were assigned a district at a time. Within each district, teams were assigned schools in close proximity to each other.

Introductory phone calls were made prior to the start of field work to schedule and confirm appointments with the head teachers at the sampled schools. NORC provided a database which contained location information and the phone contacts of the head teachers. Supervisors were tasked with informing the schools about the LARA P&IE and the date that the team planned to visit the school. Confirmation was obtained from all the 264 target schools.

A full schedule of the field deployment plan is in Appendix II.

3. SCHOOL-RELATED GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE AND FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS

Trainings for the data collection of SRGBV survey data and focus group discussions were conducted over the period of March 23 to April 1, 2017 in Kampala. The training aimed to prepare researchers for their work collecting quantitative and qualitative data, much of it being highly sensitive information. Both data collection efforts are to be carried out with the assistance of the local firm, Centre for Social Research (CSR). NORC and CSR along with an international SRGBV specialist from Panagora Group organized and carried out the training. A representative from one of Uganda’s Institional Review Boards, the AIDS Support Organization (TASO), was also present to train participants for one day. A full list of trainers is detailed in table 4.

Table 4: LARA P&IE Baseline Training Presenters, SRGBV and FGD Name Organization Role Ritu Nayyar-Stone NORC LARA P&IE Evaluation Team Leader Stacy Pancratz NORC LARA P&IE Data Analyst Martin Opolot NORC LARA P&IE Local Evaluation Manager Jennifer Schulte Panagora SRGBV Specialist Seraphine Awacango Parangora Local SRGBV Specialist Moses Gitau Consultant Nfield Application Specialist Wilson Asiimwe CSR Local Research Manager Richard Kibombo CSR Local Data Manager Saudah Mwagale CSR Local IT Manager Andrew Mijumbi TASO Research Ethics Committee Administrator

To avoid attrition of trained field staff, recruitment will take place a few days before the training begins. Although CSR has a large pool of quantitative and qualitative researchers, all positions for the LARA P&IE team were widely advertised to ensure that the best candidates were recruited to participate in the study. All prospective field staff (including those based at CSR) were interviewed before being recruited to join the training team. The interviews mainly focused on research ethics, experience in collecting similar data (sensitive topics with young children), and fluency in the two targeted local languages. Those shortlisted for interviews were those with relevant qualifications and experience in collecting SRGBV related data.

Field enumerators were recruited on basis of their research experience, particularly in conducting structured face-to-face interviews on SRGBV or related studies. To ensure that we benefit from experiences with collecting similar SRGBV data, CSR has already recalled its senior field staff that supported RTI International to collect SRGBV baseline data. Additionally, child counselors (qualified in child protection and counseling) were recruited to ensure that children that need to be counseled are attended to. The counselors’ academic documents were reviewed and verified by the core research team. Since the counselors may be need to handle some tools (teacher and head

12 teacher interviews, and only on completion of all learner surveys and the need for child counseling sessions), they were required to have a research background.

A total of 87 trainees participated in and completed 8 days of training, which included 7 days of classroom training and one day of pilot exercises at schools in two regions of Uganda; an additional day of training for field supervisors was carried out the last day.

The 87 trainees were divided as follows:  55 research assistants (50 total were needed for fieldwork; 5 extra to handle attrition)  10 survey team supervisors (previously recruited for advance visits to schools)  8 qualitative researchers  14 counselors

Details of the training topics and pilot exercise follow.

3.1 TRAINING TOPICS The main sessions completed by all participants included presentations on: - Introduction to the the LARA program and the evaluation - Concepts of gender-based violence - Child protection protocol - Management of stress and trauma - Research ethics - Informed consent/assent

After the main sessions, the groups broke out into three conference halls to discuss the specifics of their duties for data collection or child counseling. The three groups included survey enumerators, counselors, and moderators/notetakers.

Introduction: The training began with an overview of the LARA program, where implementation will occur, and its interventions related to Result 1 and Result 2. There was a presentation on the program evaluation methodology including sampling procedures, sample sizes, and the several types of qualitative and quantitative instruments.

There was some general discussion of team composition and dates of fieldwork. All material covered was provided in the enumerator and moderator training manuals.

Gender and violence: Over two training days, the SRGBV Specialist led sessions with all enumerators, moderators and counselors on: 1) Gender and violence key concepts and technical background necessary for understanding and carrying out research on SRGBV effectively 2) An overview of the Child Protection Protocol

Five goals guided the “Gender and Violence” and “Child Protection Protocol” sessions:

1) To align trainee understanding with international definitions of “school-related gender-based violence” 2) To sensitize teams to issues of gender and violence against children and adolescents 3) To instruct teams in the use of the Child Protection Protocol and communication techniques for engaging with child SRGBV survivors during a referral process 4) To prepare to pilot test the survey instruments, focus group protocols and Child Protection Protocol using child-friendly, SRGBV-sensitive and trauma preventative attitudes and practices 5) To build a cohesive team spirit that motivated field data collection team members, counselors and supervisors

Presentations and participatory exercises with trainees worked through the categories of SRGBV (psychosocial/emotional; physical; sexual) and specific types of SRGBV within and across these categories, and included presentation and discussion of the immediate and long-term physical and mental health effects in girls’ and boys’ transitions to adulthood and over adult life course. Training content covered common features of child sexual abuse (i.e., physical force may not be used; perpetrator is often known and trusted; can occur as repeated episodes becoming more invasive over time; and that children tell the truth—it’s adults that have difficulty believing them sometimes). The presentation included relevant global prevalence statistics and results from existing studies from Uganda on violence against women and violence against children.

The Panagora Group local SRGBV Specialist, Seraphine Awacango, helped to facilitate participatory training activities on the “Myths and Truths About Violence” to encourage participants to think through different kinds of acts that can constitute gender-based violence and to recognize that violence can be physical, verbal, emotional and sexual. Exercises explored degrees of consensus and dissent among training participants, helping to identify and disqualify a few trainees who showed themselves to hold severely discriminatory beliefs unsuitable to the task of child-friendly, survivor-centered, trauma-sensitive SRGBV data collection with children and implementation of Child Protection Protocol referrals.

Sessions also covered “Core Child-Friendly Attitudes” showing how attitudes and beliefs affect behavior toward children, and emphasized that non-discriminatory child-friendly attitudes at every step are a core part of being a good enumerator, moderator, counselor or supervisor. Sessions further engaged participants in discussion of the causes of gender-based violence to identify issues at the level of an individual and a school that perpetuate gender-based violence against children, and examined the consequences of violence, not only for victims, but also families, schools, communities, and the nation.

Additionally, sessions worked with trainees to develop their awareness of the reasons that girls and boys stay silent about abusive relationships in and around school and the barriers that they face in seeking help. Participants learned what a child SRGBV survivor’s needs might include, that children have a right to give input to decisions that

14 affect them, and how children can be resilient. Participatory exercises further developed trainee knowledge and skills in engaging and communicating with child survivors of SRGBV, including severe sexual abuse cases. Finally, “Gender and Violence” training sessions covered the risks of what happens when children are interviewed using “bad” practices, such as that a child will stop talking, may deny abuse, will feel worse and suffer more, and may be re-traumatized.

Child Protection Protocol: The child protection protocol (CPP) and referral mechanism training sessions instructed trainees in:  Strategies to maintain privacy and confidentiality in the school setting  Informed consent and informed child assent concerning the SRGBV interview  Techniques for building rapport and making children feel comfortable  Strategies for and the importance of remaining non-judgmental  Focused practice sessions for how to handle disclosures of severe violence against children in a non-discriminatory manner  Practice and role playing on scripted interview final language for children who disclosed severe violence  Role-plays to practice CPP steps referring a child to local child protection point persons in the government referral mechanism.

Overall results of the sessions led by the Panagora Group international and local SRGBV Specialists included demonstrated trainee knowledge, sensitivity and skills for delivering non-discriminatory, child-friendly, survivor-centered SRGBV data collection and counseling for the baseline data collection effort. Enumerators, moderators, counselors and supervisors were made clearly aware of the strengths and limitations of their roles and the requirements of doing their part to implement the carefully articulated Child Protection Protocol and referral process.

Managing stress and trauma: Enumerator, moderator, counselor and supervisor trainees also received training in “Managing Trauma and Stress”—of child SRGBV survivors, of oneself and of colleagues. Knowledge and skills that the session worked to build included key elements of a survivor-centered approach to SRGBV response for promoting ethical and safety standards, as well as practical tips for “Psychological First Aid” and how to prevent secondary or vicarious trauma as a researcher or counselor on SRGBV.

Survey Review and Practice: Survey enumerator training began with a presentation of general good practices and basic concepts for survey interviewing. Topics included avoiding biasing respondent answers with verbal or non-verbal cues, several types of general response probes, types of questions (numeric, field-coded, pre-coded, verbatim), and question font conventions (e.g. read aloud all BLOCK letters).

Next, enumerators were instructed in how to administer the learner, caregiver, teacher, and head teacher questionnaires, and how to fill out the school safety observational checklist. Presentation of the questionnaires included a question-by-question review in English with hard copies of the instruments, highlighting and discussing all key concepts

15 or definitions. Afterwards, local language groups reviewed the translations for accuracy and consensus of language used.

Practice of administering the questionnaires continued throughout the week. Participants had the opportunity to review the instruments as a whole group, in smaller language-specific groups, and in pairs.

Focus group discussion protocol training: The focus group discussion (FGD) sessions included presentations on:  General good practices for FGDs  Preparations for FGDs  Identifying FGD participants only by numbers (no use of names for confidentiality)  Administering the consent form for both teachers and caregivers and the assent language for children  Setting ground rules  Engaging every participant

Trainees were then guided through the FGD protocols question-by-question in English as a group, discussing the purpose of each question and the data that needed to be captured. The teams by language reviewed the translation of each moderator guide, discussing and reaching a consensus on English terms particularly difficult to convey correctly in the local language. The trainees were then divided into two groups to conduct mock FGDs. This was followed by debriefing sessions to discuss challenges faced and how to deal with them as well as clarify any concepts or issues. Counselors: Two days of training were dedicated for counselors and supervisors to receive instruction on basic counseling techniques for working with children disclosing incidences of abuse during the data collection. While all counselors recruited for the study held prior experience with child protection and counseling the topics and contexts of their experiences varied (for example some had previous experience working with juviniles or children with HIV). The SRGBV expert covered basic counseling techniques in order to ensure a standard platform of care for all children receiving counseling services from the LARA P&IE team. Training topics covered were:  Mind-body techniques for calming a traumatized person’s “fight, flight or freeze” response  Healing statements to say to child survivors  Steps for beginning a counseling session with a child  How to use body language to help a child feel safe and comfortable  How to find out how a child is feeling  How to explain to a child the “Information Sheet” with referral service provider information  How to explain a child protection referral to a child  Differences between talking with older versus younger child survivors of violence  What to do if a child refuses to talk with a counselor

 Examples of how to respect a child’s views, beliefs and opinions when talking with them  Role-plays for counseling sessions using different case studies of child SRGBV survivors, using communication and engagement techniques and practicing forms completion (Child Safety Information and Referral Form).

Supervisors: An exclusive session was organized for team supervisors to prepare them for handling the daily logistic and administration tasks required of them in the field. CSR management along with NORC trainers prepared a list of supervisory responsibilities. The group read and discussed each responsibility, clarifying how, when, and how often each task must be executed.

The responsibilities were divided into tasks for “before the school visit,” “on arrival or during the school visit,” and “after the school visit.” Priority tasks included coordinating with school administration and district probation and social welfare officers ahead of team’s arrival, setting up the team’s at each school and making sure to adhere to privacy protocols, observing and giving feedback to enumerators regarding their interviewing approach, and carefully tracking the progress of interviews until all work has been completed.

The supervisors and trainers reviewed and suggested improvements to two forms that would be used in the field for tracking the number of completed interviews. Supervisors would need to compile on a daily basis the number of interviews completed at a school and share the information with the data manager. Any discrepancies between the counts in the data and the counts reported by the supervisor had to be reconcilied as soon as possible.

The full training agendas for the quantitative SRGBV team, the FGD team, and the counseling team are available in Appendix I.

4.2 TRAINING ON RESEARCH ETHICS

Discussion of research ethics was threaded throughout the entire training program, however three sessions were particularly devoted to the topic: the NORC pledge of confidentiality, the discussion led by TASO’s representative, and the informed consent/assent process.

Every person involved in data collection, data entry and data analysis is required by NORC to sign a pledge of confidentiality. During the first day of training, the team read through the pledge together. The trainees were asked to review the language overnight and their signatures would be collected the next morning. NORC trainers stated that those who did not sign the pledge of confidentiality would be unable to participate in data collection activities for this project.

Andrew Mijumbi, the Research Ethics Committee Administrator from TASO, gave a two- hour presentation on general concepts of ethical research. In a participatory manner, he

17 conveyed the definition of research and the need for ethics in research. The group discussed the concept of informed consent, emphasizing that it is a continuous process from the start to end of the research period and that it must be considered at the community and individual level. As an important focal point of this data collection effort, Mr Mijumbi spent considerable time helping the team understand when it is required to break confidentiality of the respondent.

The quantitative and qualitative teams divided into two rooms to review and practice the informed consent and assent process for their specific interviews. The groups spent time reading the informed consent language in English, and then reviewing the translations to local languages. Afterwards, two trainees performed a role-play of the consent process while the rest of the group watched. The full group then debriefed on what the mock interviewer did well and could improve on.

4.3 PILOT EXERCISE The two language groups visited four schools (two in each region) to pilot the learner and caregiver surveys and FGDs, with the aim of preparing the researchers as well as testing the tools that were going to be employed to collect the SRGBV baseline data. The Runyankore-Rukiga group travelled to Mbarara district, and the Luganda team went to Mukono district. The names of the schools visited are listed in table 5. One school in each district hosted quantitative and qualitative teams while the second school only had quantitative teams. All four schools were outside the sample targeted for field work. As discovered by speaking with the LARA office, these schools were in Cluster 1 target areas.

Table 5: Pilot Exercise Schools, SRGBV and FGD Baseline Training School Name Type of Researchers Runyankore –Rukiga (Mbarara District) Nkokonjeru COU Primary Survey only Nyakayojo Primary FGD and Survey Luganda (Mukono District) Bishop East Survey only Seeta COU FGD and Survey

An advance team of supervisors was sent to each district to sample and mobilize caregivers ahead of the full research team. The management teams from CSR, NORC, and Panagora Group spread out among the four school locations to observe the teams on the day of the exercise. Each of the enumerators was required to conduct two learner interviews—one with a P2 student (administering the 6-10 year old instrument) and one with a P6 student (administering the 11+ year old instrument)—and one interview with a caregiver. This exercise served as a rough indicator of the amount of time the enumerators would take administering these tools during the actual fieldwork. This was vital for deployment purposes. On average, it took enumerators between 30- 55 minutes to interview each of the learners.

As was planned, female enumerators interviewed female respondents and male enumerators interviwed male respondents. More so, each of the teams was accompanied by two counselors (male and female respectively).

The teams shared comments during the joint debrief session conducted the day following the pilot. Most comments fell into several categories: issues with the questionnaire or guide, issues with respondents, issues with the interview setting.

Issues with the questionnaire  Regarding referrals, most of the learners’ responses triggered the red flag for a mandatory referral because most children reported that they had received corporal punishment (hit with a cane). It was decided that reporting corporal punishment, or caning, should not trigger a mandatory referral (this was one question in the 6-10 year old instrument), but enumerators should still be careful to look for physical signs of abuse on the child and require a mandatory referral for any child found to have injuries.

In place of the reg flag, the enumerator tracking sheet (which the enumerator fills out each day as a summary of all interviews completed) was adjusted to include a section where the enumerator notes if he or she interviewed learners that had reported corporal punishment. The supervisors will make note of those schools where the team found corporal punishment to be widespread and share this information with the community development officer, or whoever received the school’s referral forms.

This solution was found to be a good compromise, in that the team counselors will not be overwhelmed with children to attend to, but still the CDO or other local authority would be made aware generally of these abuse cases.

 The follow up questions about each type of incidence of SRGBV repeat themselves for as many disclosures as there are. The teams needed clarification on why these questions appeared multiple times.  In the caregiver questionnaire, an additional response option for the level of education needed to be added: No formal education.  Concerning the SRGBV stories, the name “John” appeared in too many stories for the boys, so it was suggested that different names were used to avoid confusion.  The information sheet should be given out to all the learners and caregivers regardless of referral status.

NORC and the Nfield programing consultant took notes of these issues and made changes before deployment. Issues with respondents

 The enumerators should be aware of the time when approaching the lunch break hour because the students do not concentrate well once the break starts. Enumerators should make certain they can finish the interview before the break is schedule to begin.  Some uninvited caregivers came to schools in order to benefit from the transport refund that was promised prior to the visit. Only those sampled during the advance survey were interviewed. The team also requested caregivers to present their invitation letters as a method for objectively identifying participating caregivers.  There were caregivers who came to school in replacement to the caregiver originally chosen for the student. The most important thing to note when determining if the substitution is valid is that the replacement caregiver should be a person who provides significant care to the student.

Issues with the interview setting

 The space for the FGD should always be organized by the supervisors and the head teacher to avoid any interruption.  The supervisors should ensure that the interviewing sessions are in an environment which isn’t interrupted by break time and lunch time.  There should be total privacy for the learner to feel comfortable during the interview sessions. No one else should be able to hear the conversation, although the place of interview should be able to be seen by others.  Some of the schools didn’t have ample space to conduct as many interviews as was required for the pilot. Teams will be smaller for actual fieldwork.

Other issues or lessons learned

 The survey team should always start interviews with the P2 learners first before the caregivers because the students in P2 leave for home by 1pm.  Tablets with weak batteries were noted and will be replaced by new ones. CSR also purchased battery packs to re-charge tablets in the field during lunch hour breaks.

4.4 ASSESSMENTS OF TRAINING PARTICIPANTS To ensure that there was high levels of participation and attention among all field staff during the training, a total of 5 field enumerators were trained and the best-performing trainees were invited to participate in the fieldwork. The extra participants also served as replacements in case of drop out/attrition of data collectors. Consequently, the best 50 field enumerators available for the work were selected for participation in data collection.

To keep the group fully engaged in the classroom presentations each day and to test comprehension of the material, a quiz focusing on the day’s content was conducted each afternoon on days 1 through 4 of the training and the results were presented the

20 following morning. The quizzes consisted of 5-7 multiple choice, true-false, or short answer questions.The scores of the participants over the four days were combined at the end of the training; along with observations of performance during classroom and pilot exercise days, NORC, Panagora, and CSR determined the final list of field staff.2

Due to the sensitivity of the survey topic and focus group disucssions, trainers paid particular attention to enumerators’ and moderators’ attitudes surrounding gender- based violence and their abilities to demonstrate child-sensitive interviewing approaches. An inter-rater reliability (IRR) exercise was not conducted during this training for evaluation purposes.

A set of survey team supervisors completed advance visits to the 80 SRGBV sampled schools the week prior to training. CSR notified these supervisors that pending a good performance during training, they would become team supervisor for the baseline data collection. All ten supervisors were deemed appropriate fits for their roles during the training period and led a team of enumerators during field work. As for the 8 qualitative researchers and the 14 child counselors, the trainers (the NORC evaluation team leader and the SRGBV expert) were able to informally assess the trainees in small group sessions during the training days specifically for qualitative data collection or child counsleing.

4.5 REVISIONS TO INSTRUMENTS NORC received approval from USAID to revise the learner instruments prior to the commencement of fieldwork. CSR had conducted several pre-tests of the learner instruments, finding that the two instruments took significantly longer to administer than the previously budgeted time of 20-30 minutes. The revisions reduced the length of time that the average interview would take without any reduction in the ability to detect or explain key evaluation indicators. The modifications to the two learner instruments are as followed:

 Remove questions about family members the learner lives with; but keep the question about non-related women or men the learner lives with.  Remove e question about child’s religion  Remove questions about the extent of difficulty / disability  Change the response options for all agree-disagree statements in the Perceptions of School Climate and Gender Norms sections o Before: Agree, Somewhat agree, Disagree o Change to: Agree, Disagree, Not sure  Reduce the number of words in the stories in the SRGBV incidence section. This included the emotional violence, physical violence, and sexual violence sections.  Add a random number generator that randomly divides approximately half of all students to complete all sections of the questionnaire, and half to skip the Perceptions of School Climate and Gender Norms section.

2 Where available/saved, questions asked to participants have been included in the training slides.

A full explanation of the instrument modifications with rationale is shown in Appendix III.

4.5 PLAN FOR FIELDWORK DEPLOYMENTS Prior to deployment, CSR developed a schedule with target dates of visit for each of the schools. Before the final dates of data collection were determined, the schedule included 10 days for completing all field work. After setting the start date to April 3rd, 2017, CSR re-configured the schedule to 9 days; the tenth day, April 14th, is a school holiday (Good Friday) and fieldwork could not happen on that date. Re-configuring the schedule meant that additional teams of enumerators were trained and the full team worked fewer days.

Introductory phone calls were made prior to the start of field work to schedule and confirm appointments with the head teachers at the sampled schools. NORC provided a database which contained location information and the phone contacts of the head teachers. Supervisors were tasked with informing the schools about the LARA P&IE project and the date that the team planned to visit the school.

A full schedule of the field deployment plan is in appendix II.

APPENDIX I: LARA P&IE TRAINING AGENDA

NORC Uganda LARA P&IE Training on Early Grade Reading and Retention & Attendence Data Collection February 7 - 18th 2017 Kampala, Uganda

Day 1 - Tuesday February 7th, 2017 Time Luganda Enumerators Runyankole Enumerators 8:00 - 8:30 Arrival and registration of participants

Day 4- Friday February 10th, 2017 Time Luganda Enumerators Runyankole Enumerators Recap of Day 3 8:30 - 9:00 Day 4 agenda 9:00 - 9:30 Differences between EGRA EN and EGRA MT 9:30 - 10:00 English letter sounds - Accepted sounds EGRA EN – Subtask 1 Letter EGRA EN – Subtask 1 Letter 10:00 - 10:30 sounds - practice sounds - practice 10:30 - 10:45 Tea Break EGRA EN – Subtask 2 ORF EGRA EN – Subtask 2 ORF and 10:45 - 13:00 and comprehension comprehension 13:00 - 14:00 Lunch EGRA EN – Subtask 3 EGRA EN – Subtask 3 14:00 - 15:00 Vocabulary Vocabulary EGRA EN -Practice in pairs, small groups and modelling Practice in pairs, small groups 15:00 - 15:45 in plenary and modelling in plenary 15:45 - 16:00 Tea Break EGRA EN -Practice in pairs, EGRA EN -Practice in pairs, small groups and modelling small groups and modelling in 16:00 - 16:45 in plenary plenary 16:45 - 17:00 Closure

Day 6 - Tuesday February 14th, 2017 Time Luganda Enumerators Runyankole Enumerators

School Visit 1 School Visit 1 07:00 - 13:00 EGRA Only EGRA Only

13:00 - 14:00 Lunch Feedback from practice (in the 14:00 - 15:30 Feedback from practice field) 15:30 - 16:15 feedback from IRR

Day 7 - Wednesday February 15th, 2017 Time Luganda Enumerators Runyankole Enumerators

8:00 - 8:30

7:00 - 13:00 School visit 2 8:30 - 9:00

9:00 - 10:30 DAY OFF Full protocol (interviews & R&A) 10:30 - 10:45 10:45 - 13:00 13:00 - 14:00

14:00 - 15:00 Feedback from practice

Travel to Kampala

14:00 - 15:00 Tangerine troubleshooting TBD

10:30 - 10:45 Tea Break

Roles of supervisors during data collection 10:45 - 13:00 How to provide feedback to enumerators (if relevant) 13:00 - 14:00 Lunch

SRGBV Quantitative Survey Enumerator Training Agenda Time Activity Lead Trainer(s) Materials Needed Day 1 (Thursday, March 23) 8:00-8:30 Arrival and Registration Sign-in sheet 8:30-9:00 Climate setting, Expectations Wilson 9:30-10:00 Background to LARA study Ritu/Stacy Training Manual 10:00-10:30 Tea Break 10:00-12:00 TASO Presentation TASO Rep 12:00-1:00 Background to LARA study Ritu/Stacy Training Manual, Confidentiality Pledge 1:00-2:00 Lunch 2:00-4:00 Gender and violence Jennifer Gender and Violence Slides, Packet A 4:00-4:30 Recap of the day Volunteer 4:30-5:00 Quiz Wilson, Stacy Day 2 (Friday, March 24) 8:00-8:30 Arrival and Registration Sign-in sheet 8:30-9:00 Recap of day 1 Volunteer 9:30-10:00 Gender and violence Jennifer Gender and Violence Slides, Packet A 10:00-10:30 Tea Break 10:00-1:00 Gender and violence Jennifer Gender and Violence Slides, Packet A 1:00-2:00 Lunch 2:00-4:00 Child Protection Protocol Jennifer CPP Slides, Packet B 4:00-4:30 Recap of the day Volunteer 4:30-5:00 Quiz Wilson, Jennifer Day 3 (Saturday, March 25) 8:00-8:30 Arrival and Registration Sign-in sheet 8:30-9:00 Recap of day 2 Violunteer 9:30-10:00 Informed Consent Process Stacy Informed consent for adults (1.10, 2.1, 2.5) 10:00-10:30 Tea Break 10:00-11:00 Informed Consent Role Plays Stacy Informed consent for adults (1.10, 2.1, 2.5) 11:00-1:00 Paper Tool Review (English) Stacy Paper questionnaires (learner, caregiver)

Time Activity Lead Trainer(s) Materials Needed 1:00-2:00 Lunch 2:00-4:00 Paper Tool Review (English) Stacy Paper questionnaires (learner, caregiver) 4:00-4:30 Recap of the day Volunteer 4:30-5:00 Quiz Wilson, Stacy Day 4 (Monday, March 27) 8:00-8:30 Arrival and Registration Sign-in sheet 8:30-9:00 Recap of day 3 Volunteer 9:30-10:00 Tablet and Nfield Introduction Moses/Richard Tablets (loaded with latest version of instruments) 10:00-10:30 Tea Break 10:00-11:00 All Group Role Plays (English), Learner 6-10 Moses/Stacy 11:00-12:00 All Group Role Plays (English), Learner 11+ Moses/Stacy 12:00-1:00 All Group Role Plays (English), Caregiver Moses/Stacy 1:00-2:00 Lunch 2:00-4:00 Group Role Plays (By local language) Moses/Stacy 4:00-4:30 Recap of the day Volunteer 4:30-5:00 Quiz Wilson, Stacy Day 5 (Tuesday, March 28) 8:00-8:30 Arrival and Registration Sign-in sheet 8:30-9:00 Recap of day 4 Volunteer 9:30-10:00 Group Role Plays (By local language) Wilson/Moses/Stacy Tablets (loaded with latest version of instruments) 10:00-10:30 Tea Break 10:00-11:00 All Group Debrief of Role Plays Wilson/Moses/Stacy Role play in pairs (local language), Learner 11:00-12:00 6-10 Wilson/Moses/Stacy Role play in pairs (local language), Learner 12:00-1:00 11+ Wilson/Moses/Stacy 1:00-2:00 Lunch 2:00-3:00 Role play in pairs (local language),Caregiver Wilson/Moses/Stacy

Time Activity Lead Trainer(s) Materials Needed 3:00-4:00 All Group Debrief of Role Plays Wilson/Moses/Stacy 4:00-4:30 Recap of the day Volunteer 4:30-5:00 Quiz Wilson, Stacy Day 6 (Wednesday, March 29) 8:00-8:30 Arrival and Registration Sign-in sheet 8:30-9:00 Recap of day 5 Volunteer Tablets (loaded with latest version of instruments) 9:30-10:00 Reliability Test, Learner 11+ Stacy Prepared response sheet 10:00-10:30 Tea Break 10:00-11:00 Reliability Test, Caregiver Stacy Prepared response sheet 11:00-12:00 Teacher survey Stacy 12:00-1:00 Head Teacher OR School Obs. List, 2 groups Stacy, Wilson 1:00-2:00 Lunch 2:00-3:00 Stress and Trauma Management training Jennifer Packet C 3:00-3:30 Pilot do's and don'ts Wilson 3:00-4:00 Deployment plan for pilot Wilson Day 7 (Thursday, March 30) 7:00-7:30 Arrival and Registration Tablets (loaded with latest version of instruments) 7:30-10:00 Travel to Field Pilot of learner, caregiver, teacher, head 10:00-1:00 teacher, school obs. List 1:00-2:00 Lunch 2:00-5:00 Travel back to Kampala Day 8 (Friday, March 31) 9:00-9:30 Arrival and Registration Sign-in sheet 9:30-10:30 Pilot Debrief Wilson, Stacy 10:30-11:00 Tea Break 11:00-1:00 Pilot Debrief Wilson, Stacy 1:00-2:00 Lunch 2:00-4:00 Pilot Debrief Wilson, Stacy

Time Activity Lead Trainer(s) Materials Needed 4:00-5:00 Deployment Plan for field work Wilson Day 9 (Saturday, March 31) 9:00-1:00 Supervisor Training Stacy, Wilson

Focus Group Discussion Moderator and Notetaker Training Agenda Time Activity Lead Trainer(s) Materials Needed Day 1 (Thursday, March 23) 8:00-8:30 Arrival and Registration Sign-in sheet 8:30-9:00 Climate setting, Expectations Wilson 9:30-10:00 Background to LARA study Ritu/Stacy Training Manual 10:00- 10:30 Tea Break 10:00- 12:00 TASO Presentation TASO Rep 12:00-1:00 Background to LARA study Ritu/Stacy Training Manual, Confidentiality Pledge 1:00-2:00 Lunch 2:00-4:00 Gender and violence Jennifer Gender and Violence Slides, Packet A 4:00-4:30 Recap of the day Volunteer 4:30-5:00 Quiz Wilson, Stacy Day 2 (Friday, March 24) 8:00-8:30 Arrival and Registration Sign-in sheet 8:30-9:00 Recap of day 1 Volunteer 9:30-10:00 Gender and violence Jennifer Gender and Violence Slides, Packet A 10:00- 10:30 Tea Break 10:00-1:00 Gender and violence Jennifer Gender and Violence Slides, Packet A 1:00-2:00 Lunch 2:00-4:00 Child Protection Protocol Jennifer CPP Slides, Packet B 4:00-4:30 Recap of the day Volunteer

Time Activity Lead Trainer(s) Materials Needed 4:30-5:00 Quiz Wilson, Jennifer Day 3 (Saturday, March 25) 8:00-8:30 Arrival and Registration Sign-in sheet 8:30-9:00 Recap of day 2 Violunteer 9:30-10:00 Informed Consent Process Stacy Informed consent for adults (1.10, 2.1, 2.5) 10:00- 10:30 Tea Break 10:00- 11:00 Informed Consent Role Plays Stacy Informed consent for adults (1.10, 2.1, 2.5) 11:00-1:00 FGD Best Practices Ritu FGD Manual 1:00-2:00 Lunch 2:00-4:00 FGD Best Practices Ritu FGD Manual 4:00-4:30 Recap of the day Volunteer 4:30-5:00 Quiz Day 4 (Monday, March 27) 8:00-8:30 Arrival and Registration Sign-in sheet 8:30-9:00 Recap of day 3 Volunteer 9:30-10:00 Learner FGD Ritu, Jennifer 2.7 SRGBV FGD guide learners 11+ 10:00- 10:30 Tea Break 10:00-1:00 Learner FGD Ritu, Jennifer 2.7 SRGBV FGD guide learners 11+ 1:00-2:00 Lunch 2:00-4:30 Caregiver SRGBV FGD Ritu, Jennifer 2.4 SRGBV FDG guide primary caregivers 4:30-5:00 Recap of the day Volunteer Day 5 (Tuesday, March 28) 8:00-8:30 Arrival and Registration Sign-in sheet 8:30-9:00 Recap of day 4 Volunteer 9:30-10:00 Teacher FGD Ritu 2.3 SRGBV FGD guide teachers 10:00- 10:30 Tea Break

Time Activity Lead Trainer(s) Materials Needed 10:00-1:00 Teacher FGD Ritu 1:00-2:00 Lunch 2:00-4:30 Caregiver EGR FGD Ritu 2.2 EGRA FGD guide caregiver 4:30-5:00 Recap of the day Volunteer Day 6 (Wednesday, March 29) No Morning Session Sign-in sheet 2:00-3:00 Stress and Trauma Management training Jennifer Packet C 3:00-3:30 Pilot do's and don'ts Wilson 3:00-4:00 Deployment plan for pilot Wilson Day 7 (Thursday, March 30) 7:00-7:30 Arrival and Registration 7:30-10:00 Travel to Field 10:00-1:00 Pilot of learner FGD 1:00-2:00 Lunch 2:00-5:00 Travel back to Kampala Day 8 (Friday, March 31) 9:00-9:30 Arrival and Registration Sign-in sheet 9:30-10:30 Pilot Debrief Ritu 10:30- 11:00 Tea Break 11:00-1:00 Pilot Debrief Ritu 1:00-2:00 Lunch 2:00-4:00 Pilot Debrief Ritu 4:00-5:00 Deployment Plan for field work Wilson Day 9 (Saturday, March 31) No Session

Counselor Training Agenda Time Activity Lead Trainer(s) Materials Needed Day 5 (Tuesday, March 28) 8:00-10:00 Survey or FGD Session 10:00- 10:30 Tea Break 10:00- 11:00 Introduction and SRGBV Knowledge Areas Jennifer Flipchart paper (3-4 pads), colored markers 11:00- 12:00 Core Child Friendly Attitudes Jennifer Post-It notes in three colors 12:00-1:00 Guiding Principles and Key Issues Jennifer 1:00-2:00 Lunch 2:00-3:00 Communication Best Practices with Child Survivors Jennifer 3:00-4:00 Communication Techniques Role Play Jennifer 4:00-5:00 Recap of the day Volunteer Day 6 (Wednesday, March 29) 8:00-8:30 Arrival and Registration Sign-in sheet 8:30-9:00 Recap of day 5 Volunteer Child Safety Information and Referral Form 9:30-10:00 Completion Jennifer Referral Forms, Consent to Release Info Form 10:00- 10:30 Tea Break 10:00- 11:00 Post-training evaluation Jennifer 11:00- 12:00 Survey training or Free Session 12:00-1:00 Survey training or Free Session 1:00-2:00 Lunch 2:00-3:00 Stress and Trauma Management training Jennifer Packet C 3:00-3:30 Pilot do's and don'ts Wilson 3:00-4:00 Deployment plan for pilot Wilson

APPENDIX II: BASELINE DATA COLLECTION FIELDWORK SCHEDULE

Early Grade Reading and Retention and Attendence Data Collection County School Name Language of Date of Visit Instruction (LOI) Busujju Kitebere COU P.S. Luganda 20-Feb Busujju Kitebere R.C. P.S. Luganda 20-Feb St Charles Lwanga kkande RC Primary 20-Feb Busujju School Luganda Busujju ST. KIZITO BULUMA P.S. Luganda 20-Feb Busujju Kiggwa COU P.S. Luganda 20-Feb Busujju BBANDA R.C. P.S. Luganda 21-Feb Busujju BBANDA COU P.S. Luganda 21-Feb Busujju BUZIBAZZI P.S. Luganda 21-Feb Busujju LUSARILA P.S. Luganda 21-Feb Busujju Ndiraweru PS luganda 21-Feb Busujju Nsoga P.S Luganda 22-Feb Busujju Bukola St.Annes P.S. Luganda 22-Feb Busujju ST. NOAH KIMULI P.S. Luganda 22-Feb Busujju Nfumbye S.D.A P.S. Luganda 22-Feb Busujju GGULWE P.S Luganda 22-Feb Mityana North KIBANDA P.S. Luganda 23-Feb Mityana North ST. NOA. KABULAMULIRO P.S Luganda 23-Feb Mityana North BUKALAMULI P.S. Luganda 23-Feb Mityana North NAKWAYA P.S Luganda 23-Feb Bukoto Central BUGERE P.S. Luganda 24-Feb Bukoto Central Kamulegu Primary school. Luganda 24-Feb Bukoto Central KATIKAMU P/S Luganda 24-Feb Bukoto Central KYESIIGA P.S. Luganda 24-Feb Bukoto Central KITUNGA CHURCH OF UGANDA P.S. Luganda 24-Feb Bukoto Central KAMUZINDA Luganda 27-Feb Bukoto Central BUWUNDE P.S. Luganda 27-Feb Bukoto Central ZZIMWE COPE Luganda 27-Feb Bukoto Central KIZIBA P.S. Luganda 27-Feb Bukoto East Kikonda primary School LUganda 27-Feb Bukoto East St. Francis Lukodde primary school. LUganda 28-Feb Bukoto East Lwannunda P.S. Luganda 28-Feb Bukoto East Kijonjo P.S. Luganda 28-Feb Bukoto East Kyamula Primary School LUganda 28-Feb Bukoto East St.Lawrence Kkindu primary school LUganda 28-Feb Bujumba KASEKULO P.S. Luganda 1-Mar Bujumba ST. KIZITO BBETA P.7 SCHOOL Luganda 1-Mar Bujumba KAGULUBE P.S. Luganda 1-Mar Bujumba BUMANGI P.S. Luganda 1-Mar Bujumba KIBAALE P.S. Luganda 1-Mar Bujumba BWENDERO P.S. Luganda 2-Mar

County School Name Language of Date of Visit Instruction (LOI) Bujumba ST. VICTOR MULABANA P.S. Luganda 2-Mar Kalungu West KALUNGU MIXED P.S. Luganda 2-Mar KALUNGU KABUKUNGE DEM Luganda 2-Mar KALUNGU Kalungu boys Luganda 2-Mar Kalungu West BULAWULA P.S. Luganda 3-Mar Kalungu West KYABAKUUMA P.S. Luganda 3-Mar KALUNGU KABUKUNGE DEM Luganda 3-Mar Kalungu West KABUNGO P.S. Luganda 3-Mar Kalungu West ST. FRANCIS BBAALA P.S. Luganda 3-Mar Kalungu West KALONGO P.S. Luganda 6-Mar Kalungu West LUGEYE MOSLEM P/S Luganda 6-Mar Kalungu West ST. CECILIA VILLA Luganda 6-Mar Kalungu West MIREMBE R/C P.S Luganda 6-Mar Kalungu West KITEMBO P.S. Luganda 6-Mar KALUNGU BULWADDA LUganda 7-Mar Kalungu West KITOSI MIXED P.S. Luganda 7-Mar Kalungu West NALUNYA P.S. Luganda 7-Mar Kalungu West ST. CHARLES BUTAWATA P.S Luganda 7-Mar Kalungu West ST. JOSEPH KITABYAMA Luganda 7-Mar Kalungu West LWANUME P.S. Luganda 9-Mar Kalungu West KYAMULIBWA MIXED P.S. Luganda 9-Mar Kalungu West KIGASA BAPTIST Luganda 9-Mar Kalungu West KYAMULIBWA BAPTIST Luganda 9-Mar Kalungu West KASAKA CU. P.S Luganda 9-Mar Bukomansimbi KITEMI P.S. Luganda 10-Mar Bukomansimbi Gganda primary school Luganda 10-Mar Bukomansimbi KAYUNGA MOSLEM P.S. Luganda 10-Mar Bukomansimbi BIGASA MUSLIM P.S. Luganda 10-Mar Bukomansimbi BIGASA R.C P.S. Luganda 10-Mar Bukomansimbi KAWOKO MUSLIM P.S. Luganda 13-Mar Bukomansimbi KAGOYEGOYE P.S Luganda 13-Mar Bukomansimbi LWENKUMBA Luganda 13-Mar Bukomansimbi MEERU P.S. Luganda 13-Mar Bukomansimbi KAKUKULU MAKOOMI P.S Luganda 13-Mar Bukomansimbi KYAKATEBE P.S. Luganda 14-Mar Bukomansimbi KASOTA P.S. Luganda 14-Mar Bukomansimbi BUTAYUNJA P.S. Luganda 14-Mar Bukomansimbi MISANVU DEMO. SCHOOL Luganda 14-Mar Bukomansimbi KISOJO P.S. Luganda 14-Mar Bukomansimbi Ntuuma Kigungumika Moslem PS Luganda 15-Mar Bukomansimbi KASSEBWAVU P.S. Luganda 15-Mar Bukomansimbi KYAMABAALE P.S. Luganda 15-Mar Bukomansimbi BUNYEENYA P.S. Luganda 15-Mar Bukomansimbi Kalubanda P.S. Luganda 15-Mar Bukomansimbi ST. MATIA.M.BUDDA Luganda 16-Mar Bukomansimbi MBAALE ST. MARTIN P.S Luganda 16-Mar Lwemiyaga Kyatuba p/s Luganda 16-Mar Mawogola KYAMABOGO C.O.U P.S. Luganda 16-Mar

County School Name Language of Date of Visit Instruction (LOI) Mawogola LUTUNKU-KAGUTA Luganda 16-Mar Lwemiyaga KIRAMA P.S Luganda 17-Mar Lwemiyaga NTUUSI P.S Luganda 17-Mar Lwemiyaga SAGAZI P.S. Luganda 17-Mar Lwemiyaga MEERUMEERU P.S. Luganda 17-Mar Lwemiyaga LUKOMA C.O.U P.S Luganda 17-Mar Mawogola MPUMUDDE P.S. Luganda 20-Mar Mawogola KENZIGA P.S. Luganda 20-Mar Mawogola KITEREDDE P.S. Luganda 20-Mar Mawogola KIREBE MUSLIM P.S. Luganda 20-Mar Mawogola SENYANGE P.S. Luganda 20-Mar Mawogola NABISEKE P.S. Luganda 21-Mar Mawogola GANSAWO P.S. Luganda 21-Mar Mawogola KYABWAMBA P.S Luganda 21-Mar Mawogola VVUNZA COU P.S Luganda 21-Mar Mawogola SEMBABULE COU P.S. Luganda 21-Mar Mawogola KALUBUBBU P.S. Luganda 22-Mar Mawogola KITAGABANA P.S. Luganda 22-Mar Mawogola BUKULULA MAWOGOLA P.S. Luganda 22-Mar Mawogola ST. KIZITO LUUMA P.S Luganda 22-Mar Mawogola ST. PETERS MATEETE P.S. Luganda 22-Mar Mawogola ST. HERMAN KASAANA P.S. Luganda 23-Mar Mawogola MATEETE MOSLEM P.S. Luganda 23-Mar Mawogola MISOJJO P.S. Luganda 23-Mar Mawogola MANYAMA P.S C.O.U Luganda 23-Mar Mawogola KASAMBYA MUSLIM P.S Luganda 23-Mar Mawogola KINYANSI P.S Luganda 24-Mar Mawogola KINONI ISLAMIC P.S Luganda 24-Mar Mawogola ST. KIZITO NANSEKO P.S. Luganda 24-Mar Mawogola LWABAANA Luganda 24-Mar Mawogola KYAMAYIBA Luganda 24-Mar Mawogola KYANIKA P.S Luganda 27-Mar Mawogola ST. JUDE BUSHEKA P.S Luganda 27-Mar Mawogola NABUSAJJA P.S Luganda 27-Mar Mawogola LUGUSULU COMMUNITY P.S Luganda 27-Mar Kabula KABATEMA P.S. Luganda 28-Mar Kabula KALIIRO P.S Luganda 28-Mar Kabula Nakaseeta P.S. Luganda 28-Mar Kabula ST. LAWRENCE KALAMBI P/S Luganda 28-Mar Kabula Bamunanika p/s Luganda 28-Mar Kabula Kawungu P.S Luganda 29-Mar Kabula KIBISI - LUSOZI P.S Luganda 29-Mar Kabula ST. ANTHONY LWENTONDO Luganda 29-Mar Kisaluwoko Building Tomorrow Academy 29-Mar Kabula p/s Luganda

School-Related Gender-Based Violence Survey and Focus Group Disucssion Data Collection Fieldwork Schedule

Ranyankore-Rukiga Teams Date. District Sub county Coordinating School Name Centre Day1 - Rukungiri Nyakagyeme NYAMIFURA KYAMURARI P.S. April 3, Rukungiri Nyakishenyi NYAKISOROZA NANGARA P.S. 2017 Rukungiri Nyakishenyi NYAKISOROZA MARASHANIRO Rukungiri Nyakagyeme NYAMIFURA NYAKAGYEME P.S. Day2 - Rukungiri Nyakishenyi NYAKISOROZA MURAMA P.S. April 4, Rukungiri Nyakagyeme NYAMIFURA NYABURONDO P.S. 2017 Rukungiri Nyakagyeme NYAMIFURA RWERERE P.S. Rukungiri Bugangari BWAMBARA BUGANGARI P.S. Day3 - Rukungiri Bugangari BWAMBARA NYAKARIRO P.S. April 5 , Rukungiri Bugangari BWAMBARA KAZINDIRO P.S. 2017 Rukungiri Bugangari BWAMBARA KYABURERE P.S. Kanungu Mpungu KAYONZA KANYASHOGI P.S. Day4 - Kanungu Kayonza KAYONZA KANYASHANDE P.S. April 6, Kanungu Mpungu KAYONZA KARAMBI P.S. 2017 Kanungu Mpungu KAYONZA BUREMBA C/S P.S Ntungamo Nyabihoko KATOOMA KABUMBA P.S Day5 - Ntungamo Nyabihoko KATOOMA Nkongoro P.S. April 7, Ntungamo Nyabihoko KATOOMA Rukanga P.S. 2017 Ntungamo Ntungamo KYAMATE KIZAARA P.S Ntungamo Western Division KYAMATE MAATO P.S Day6 - Ntungamo Ntungamo KYAMATE MUTANOGA PARENTS P.S April Ntungamo NTUNGAMO SC MURIISA KABIRA PS 10, 2017 Ntungamo Ntungamo MURIISA Nyarubare Ntungamo Rweikiniro RWERA KABUNGO II P.S Day7 - Ntungamo Rweikiniro RWERA KAYENJE P.S April Buhweju Bihanga Bihanga NYAKAZIBA P.S. 11, 2017 Buhweju Bihanga Bihanga RUKIRI P.S. Buhweju Bitsya Bisya KANKARA P.S Day8 - Buhweju Bitsya Bisya MUSHASHA P.S April Isingiro Endiinzi ENDIINZI Rwanjogyera P.S. 12, 2017 Isingiro Rushasha ENDIINZI KARUNGA P.S. Isingiro Kashumba KIYENGE KASHESHE P.S Day9 - Isingiro Kashumba KIYENGE KIGARAGARA P.S April Isingiro Ngarama NGARAMA Rukonje P.S. 13, 2017 Isingiro Ngarama NGARAMA KAYENZE P.S Isingiro Ngarama NGARAMA NGARAMA COU P.S.

Luganda Teams Date District Sub county Coordinating School Name Centre Day1 - April Mityana Kikandwa KABONGEZE ST. NOA. KABULAMULIRO 3, 2017 P.S Mityana Kikandwa KABONGEZE BUKALAMULI P.S. Sembabule Lwebitakuli NTETE MPUMUDDE P.S. Sembabule Lwebitakuli NTETE NABISEKE P.S. Day2 - April Sembabule Mateete NTETE KALUBUBBU P.S. 4, 2017 Sembabule Mateete NTETE KITAGABANA P.S. Sembabule Mateete NTETE ST. KIZITO LUUMA P.S Sembabule Mateete NTETE MISOJJO P.S. Day3 - April Sembabule Mateete NTETE KASAMBYA MUSLIM P.S 5 , 2017 Sembabule Lwebitakuli NTETE KYABWAMBA P.S Sembabule Lwebitakuli NTETE VVUNZA COU P.S Sembabule Lugusulu SEMBABULE KYAMABOGO C.O.U P.S. Day4 - April Sembabule Mijwala SEMBABULE KINONI ISLAMIC P.S 6, 2017 Sembabule Mijwala SEMBABULE KYANIKA P.S Sembabule Sembabule SEMBABULE SEMBABULE COU P.S. T.C. Sembabule Mijwala SEMBABULE Lwabaana Ps Day5 - April Lyantonde Kaliiro KALIIRO KABATEMA P.S. 7, 2017 Lyantonde Kaliiro KALIIRO KALIIRO P.S Lyantonde Kaliiro KALIIRO ST. LAWRENCE KALAMBI P/S Lyantonde Kaliiro KALIIRO Bamunanika p/s Day6 - April Lyantonde Kinuuka KALIIRO Kawungu P.S 10, 2017 Lyantonde Kaliiro KALIIRO KIBISI - LUSOZI P.S Bukomansimbi Bigasa KAGOLOGOLO KITEMI P.S. Bukomansimbi Bigasa KAGOLOGOLO Gganda primary school Day7 - April Bukomansimbi Bigasa KAGOLOGOLO BIGASA MUSLIM P.S. 11, 2017 Bukomansimbi Butenga KAGOLOGOLO MEERU P.S. Bukomansimbi Butenga KISOJO KAWOKO MUSLIM P.S. Bukomansimbi Kibinge KISOJO KASOTA P.S. Day8 - April Bukomansimbi Kibinge KISOJO BUTAYUNJA P.S. 12, 2017 Bukomansimbi Kibinge KISOJO Kalubanda P.S. Bukomansimbi Kibinge KISOJO ST. MATIA.M.BUDDA Bukomansimbi Butenga KISOJO KAGOYEGOYE P.S Day9 - April Masaka Kyesiiga KYANTALE BUGERE P.S. 13, 2017 Masaka Kyanamukaaka KYANTALE St.Lawrence Kkindu primary school Masaka Kyesiiga KYANTALE KATIKAMU P/S Masaka kyesiyiga KYANTALE Kikonda primary School

Qualitative data collection Date Activity District Sub- Parish Coordinating School Name county Centre Luganda 3-Apr-17 FGDs for Parents Bukomansimb Buteng Kabigi KAGOLOG MEERU P.S. (SRGBV and i a OLO EGR) 4-Apr-17 FGDS for Learners (P6) and teachers (S/Men and S/women) 5-Apr-17 FGDs for Parents Bukomansimb Kibing Butayu KISOJO BUTAYUNJA (SRGBV and i e nja P.S. EGR) 6-Apr-17 FGDS for Learners(P6) and teachers(S/Men and S/women) Runyankore-Rukiga 3-Apr-17 FGDs for Parents Rukungiri Bugang Kashay BWAMBAR NYAKARIRO (SRGBV and ari o A P.S. EGR) 4-Apr-17 FGDS for Learners (P6) and teachers (S/Men and S/women) 5-Apr-17 FGDs for Parents Rukungiri Nyakag Rwerer NYAMIFUR RWERERE P.S. (SRGBV and yeme e A EGR) 6-Apr-17 FGDS for Learners (P6) and teachers (S/Men and S/women)

Deployment plan for schools that were supposed to collect data on Good Friday Date RR schools that were supposed to be done on Good Friday (Mathew) 4/4/2017 Isingiro Bukanga RUBONDO P.S. 5/4/2007 Isingiro Bukanga KEMPARA P.S 6/4/2017 Isingiro Bukanga KEIRUNGU P.S 7/4/2007 Isingiro Bukanga KENDOBO P.S LL Schools with were supposed to be done on Good Friday (Jordan) 4/4/2017 Masaka Bukoto Central KYESIIGA P.S. 5/4/2007 Masaka Bukoto Central KITUNGA CHURCH OF UGANDA P.S. 6/4/2017 Kalangala Bujumba BWENDERO P.S.

7/4/2007 Kalangala Bujumba ST. VICTOR MULABANA P.S.

APPENDIX III: MODIFICATIONS OF SCHOOL-RELATED GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE LEARNER INSTRUMENTS

Original Instrument Question Modification Comments / Rational Who else do you live with? (Note to enumerator: Read Do you live with either: We propose deleting each option aloud and the child should say yes or no. Woman/women who are not related to you? questions about other Check yes or no for each.) Yes ☐ No ☐ Man/men who are not related family members the to you? Yes ☐ No ☐ learner lives with; but Grandfather Yes ☐ No ☐ Grandmother Yes ☐ No ☐ keeping the question Sister(s) Yes ☐ No ☐ Brother(s) Yes ☐ No ☐ about non-related women or men the learner lives Other relative(s) Yes ☐ No ☐ Woman/women who with. are not related to me Yes ☐ No ☐ Man/men who are not related to me Yes ☐ No ☐ The reason: having non- related family members at home increases the risk factor of GBV victimization.

Do you belong to any religion or religious group? Delete entirely There is no prior evidence A. Yes or knowledge that B. No considers a learners religion to be the cause of If yes, what religion or religious group do you SRGBV belong to? in the context where we A. Catholic are working B. Protestant C. Moslem D. Other – (Specify______)

Original Instrument Question Modification Comments / Rational The next questions ask about difficulties you may have Delete: Deleting the extent of doing certain activities in your daily life. [IF YES TO PREVIOUS QUESTION, ASK] difficulty / disability is not Do you have some difficulty, a lot of difficulty, or critical to the analysis. We Do you have difficulty seeing, even if wearing glasses? you cannot see at all? will be including dummy Yes A. some difficulty variables on type of No B. a lot of difficulty disability, but will not C. Cannot do at all examine extent of disability in determining [IF YES TO PREVIOUS QUESTION, ASK] the SRGBV. Do you have some difficulty, a lot of difficulty, or you cannot Learners with severe see at all? disabilities usually do not A. some difficulty attend regular schools B. a lot of difficulty C. Cannot do at all

Attitudes towards gender norms: (15 statements; Change response options: The pre-test revealed that following is just one example) Boys are usually more intelligent than girls. respondents do not fully Boys are usually more intelligent than girls. A. Agree understand the term A. Agree B. Disagree “somewhat agree.” The B. Somewhat agree C. Not sure terms “agree”, “disagree”, C. Do not agree and “not sure” are more logical and uniform

Original Instrument Question Modification Comments / Rational Emotional Violence Scenario: Learner 6-10 and 11+ Mary and Rachel are good friends. Rachel The pre-test showed that Mary and Rachel are good friends because they live in just started P4. At first, Rachel liked her new adding the scenarios to the same village. Rachel just started P4. At first, class but now she doesn’t like school very the questionnaire Rachel liked her new class and told her friend Mary much. Every day Rachel tells Mary how mean increases the length of the how happy she was to be in P4. Now Rachel does not the girls in her class are. Learners in Rachel’s Incidence of SRGBV like school very much. Every day after school when the class sometimes call her mean names such section substantially. With two friends walk home together, Rachel tells Mary how as “stupid” and “ugly” or grab at her school the scenarios only the mean the girls in her class are. Learners in Rachel’s bag on the playground. Today, Rachel told Incidence of SRGBV class sometimes call her mean names such as “stupid” Mary that the other girls will not let her play section increases to 30 and “ugly.” Sometimes, children on the playground with them at break and just ignore her. min length. grab at her school bag. Today, Rachel told Mary that Rachel cried when she told her friend Mary the other girls will not let her play with them at break. about this. Our original length of the She said to Mary, “If I try to play with them, they just entire questionnaire was ignore me.” Rachel cried when she told her friend Mary 20-30 min. about this. We have cut back the length of the scenarios without changing the meaning or key message of the story with the aim of decreasing the questionnaire length.

Additionally, enumerators needed to go over the story several time due to the details; which added to the length of the questionnaire and created confusion among younger learners.

Original Instrument Question Modification Comments / Rational Physical Violence Scenario: Learners 6-10 and 11+ Jane has just joined P4. One day in her new Same rational as in the Jane has just joined P4. Jane loves school and makes class, Jane's classmate John answered a preceding row high marks. Jane knew that she would please her new question incorrectlyand the teacher, hit John teacher in school, Mr. Paul. One day in her new class, on the head with his hand. This made Jane Jane's classmate John raised his hand to answer a afraid of her teacher. The next day, John and question. John’s answer was incorrect and Mr. Paul Jane were working together and the teacher walked over to John and hit him on the head with his heard them talking. The teacher shouted at hand. This made Jane afraid of her teacher. The next them and told them to stand in the corner for day, John and Jane were working together and Mr. the rest of the day without any break. Jane Paul heard them talking. Mr. Paul shouted at both of was embarrassed to stand in the corner in them and told them to stand in the corner. They had to front of her new classmates in school. The stand in the corner the rest of the day and were not next day Jane gave the wrong answer to a allowed to go for break. Jane was embarrassed to question. As punishment she was required to stand in the corner in front of her new classmates in carry heavy buckets of water from the school school. The next day Jane gave the wrong answer to a to the teacher’s house every day for two question. As punishment she was required to carry weeks. Jane is no longer happy to go to heavy buckets of water from the school to Mr. Paul’s school. house every day for two weeks. Jane is no longer happy to go to school.

Sexual Violence Scenarios: Learners 6-10 Helen walks to school every day with other Same rational as in the Helen walks to school every day with other girls in the girls.Sometimes boys yell unpleasant things preceding row village. Boys walk to school also but not with the girls. at the girls. One day one of the boys came up Sometimes the boys yell unpleasant things at the girls. to Helen and grabbed her blouse and pinched One day one of the boys named John came up to her bottom and ran back to the group of boys Helen in the group and grabbed her blouse and who all laughed. From then on, Helen tried to pinched her bottom and ran back to the group of boys hide when she saw that boy on the way to who all laughed. From then on, Helen tried to hide school, but he still picked on her. when she saw John on the way to school, but he still picked on her. One day he pulled her blouse up, exposing her breasts. Helen’s friend Gladys went over to the boys and told John to leave Helen alone and said she was going to report him to the teacher if he didn’t stop bothering Helen.

Original Instrument Question Modification Comments / Rational Sexual Violence Scenario: Learners 11+ Helen walks to school every day with other Same rational as in the Helen walks to school every day with other girls in the girls. Sometimes the boys yell things at the preceding row. village. Boys walk to school also but not with the girls. girls like, “hey beautiful, will you marry me?” Sometimes the boys yell things at the girls like, “hey All the boys laugh and sometimes the girls beautiful, will you marry me?” All the boys laugh and laugh too. One day one of the boys came up sometimes the girls laugh too. One day one of the to Helen and grabbed her blouse and pinched boys named John came up to Helen in the group and her bottom. All the boys laughed. From then grabbed her blouse and pinched her bottom and ran on, Helen tried to hide when she saw that back to the group of boys who all laughed. From then boy, but he still picked on her and often on, Helen tried to hide when she saw John on the way shouted at her, saying things like “sexy girl,” to school, but he still picked on her and often shouted or “come home with me Helen” in front of the at her, saying things like “sexy girl,” “marry me Helen,” other boys who always got a good laugh. or “come home with me Helen” in front of the other One day he pulled her blouse up, exposing boys who always got a good laugh. One day he pulled her breasts. Helen’s friend went over to the her blouse up, exposing her breasts. Helen’s friend boys and told the boys to leave Helen alone Gladys went over to the boys and told John to leave Helen alone and said she was going to report him to the teacher if he didn’t stop bothering Helen.

Original Instrument Question Modification Comments / Rational Learner’s questionnaire includes several sections: Decrease the length of the questionnaire and the While attitudes and beliefs -Learner characteristics time taken to complete each survey by the provide some context and -Disability/functional impairment following: information on change in -Attitudes towards gender norms norms towards SRGBV -Perceptions of school climate a. Half the learners do all the sections of the the literature review -Experience with SRGBV survey: learner characteristics, showed that attitudes and disability/functional impairment, gender norms, beliefs CANNOT be taken perceptions of school climate and experience of as proxies for incidence or SRGBV experience with SRGBV.

b. Half the learners skip the gender norms and In addition to seeing the perceptions of school climate, but complete all effect of R1 and R2 on other sections. reading outcomes and retention we are also required to measure the effect of SRGBV interventions on reducing the incidence of SRGBV. We have the full sample respond to the section on experience with SRGBV; thus we do not compromise the key research questions in any way. Getting information from half the learner sample on attitudes and beliefs is sufficient to understand the context of incidence of SRGBV.

APPENDIX IV: EGRA TRAINING INTER-RATER RELIABILITY SCORES, BY LANGUAGE GROUP

Runyankole-Rukiga, IRR Results

Luganda, IRR Results

LARA P&IE EGRA Marking Conventions at Baseline and Implications

No revisions were made to the EGRA instrument during the training period. The EGRA was developed by the RTI/LARA Implementation team, and used during the baseline data collection in 2016 on Cluster 1 schools. In consultation with USAID/Uganda, we modified the EGRA in the local languages (Luganda and Runyankore/Rukiga) to include 7 subtasks in the local language and 4 subtasks in English.

It is not likely that the potential departures in marking methodology between EGRA data for LARA P&IE and those collected for LARA lead to major differences in the analytic data sets—it is therefore likely that the EGRA scores across projects could be comparable. NORC is not aware of the marking conventions adopted during LARA data collection, and without this information, it is not known with certainty what data are comparable and which are not.