End Line Evaluation of GARIMA Project in Uttar …...in Uttar Pradesh (2013–2016) SUBMITTED TO:...

Endline Evaluation of GARIMA Project in Uttar Pradesh (UP): Evaluation Report

End Line Evaluation of GARIMA Project

in Uttar Pradesh

(2013–2016)

SUBMITTED TO:

UNICEF 73, Lodi Estate,

New Delhi 110003

Evaluation Report

Volume II

July 2018


Table of Contents Annex 1: Engaging with Stakeholders ................................................................................................. 3

Annex 2: Evaluation Approach ............................................................................................................. 5

Annex 3: Evaluation Matrix .................................................................................................................. 6

Annex 4: Demographics ...................................................................................................................... 10

Annex 5: Exposure to the Project ....................................................................................................... 12

Annex 6: Tables: ‘Effectiveness’ ......................................................................................................... 20

a) Adequate MHM ........................................................................................................................ 20

b) Knowledge ............................................................................................................................... 22

c) Attitudes ................................................................................................................................... 29

d) Social Support .......................................................................................................................... 30

e) Social Network Map ................................................................................................................ 31

f) Interpersonal Communication ............................................................................................... 45

g) Social Norms ............................................................................................................................ 51

Annex 7: Case Studies (Effect of GARIMA Project on Cross-Cutting Issues) .................................. 58

Annex 8: Strategies for Assessing Impact of the Project .................................................................. 59

Annex 9: Details on Efficiency ............................................................................................................ 62

Annex 10: Terms of Reference ........................................................................................................... 79

Annex 11: Sample Size Covered ......................................................................................................... 94

Annex 12: List of Villages covered (Qualitative Component) .......................................................... 96

Annex 13: MHHM Scale and its Measurement .................................................................................. 99

Annex 14: Agenda for Training of Enumerators and Supervisors GARIMA Evaluation .............. 101

Annex 15: Listing Protocol ............................................................................................................... 104

Annex 16: Quality Assurance Protocol ............................................................................................ 122

Annex 17: Ethical Norms: NRMC Internal Ethics Committee ....................................................... 123

Annex 18: IRB Approval Certificates ............................................................................................... 124

Annex 19: List of People Met (Scoping Visit and KIIs) ................................................................... 127


3

Annex 1: Engaging with Stakeholders Engagement with Stakeholders: Activities and Desired Outcomes

The GARIMA project intervened with each stakeholder in unique ways to bring about envisaged

behavioural changes in adolescent girls.

Primary stakeholders

The adolescent girls and their mothers were exposed to communication packages and films

centered on MHM. Monthly thematic AGG meetings of about 15–20 adolescent girls, with a focus

on girls from marginalized areas and geographically remote hamlets, were conducted at the

village level. Broad thematic areas concerning gender, education and WASH were discussed using a life skill-based approach during these meetings. PEs, active adolescent girls from the community

itself, were volunteers to facilitate the AGG meetings with support from ASHAs and AWWs.

Formal training sessions were conducted for the PEs who along with the FFs and FLWs organized

and regulated the meetings and group discussions in the village during the implementation of the

GARIMA project.

Apart from the AGG meetings, monthly mothers’ group meetings with similar messaging were

primarily focused on the following:

a) Improving mothers’ knowledge on physiology of menstruation and hygiene management

during menstruation

b) Addressing misconceptions around menstruation and challenging restrictions on girls’

mobility and daily activities

c) Enabling mothers to provide a conducive environment for their daughters to practice

adequate MHM

d) Helping them prepare pre-menarche girls for menarche

For this, the project envisioned utilizing existing women’s collectives in the community that

ranged from self-help groups to maatri samitis formed under the Integrated Child Development

Services (ICDS) or any similar platforms available in the village. However, during the course of its

implementation, the project could not absorb these collectives and mothers’ groups were

separately formed under the project. As mentioned earlier, what initially started out as monthly

group meetings was conducted once in two months later on.

Secondary stakeholders

Fathers’ involvement in the GARIMA project was important for:

a) Making available required resources to enable girls to manage their menstruation

hygienically

b) Addressing misconceptions related to menstruation and lowering restrictions placed on

girls’ mobility and routine activities

c) Allowing daughters to take part in project meetings and activities

Like the mothers’ groups, it was envisioned that existing men’s groups, ranging from farmers’

clubs, trade unions to child protection committees or any similar platform available in the village,

would be leveraged for intervention under the GARIMA project. The focus of the fathers’ group

meetings was to augment their “role as fathers” in creating an enabling environment through

building toilets and private spaces in the household for the adolescent girls to practice adequate

MHM.


4

Meetings conducted with fathers were however sporadic in nature and did not always include

fathers of the adolescent girls who were part of the intervention. Further, the meetings lacked a

regular composition of members. Intervention with the fathers largely encompassed intermittent

sensitization sessions around aspects covering nutrition, WASH and education. As dialogue

around menstrual hygiene management per se could not be initiated due to the nature of the

subject.

In the baseline study conducted in the three project districts, it was found that adolescent girls

did not feel comfortable talking about menstruation related issues with the FLWs. Moreover, the

FLWs lacked complete knowledge of the subject and the skills to take up the issue with the girls.

Capacity building of FLWs and teachers was carried out to enhance their knowledge and

understanding of menstrual health and hygiene related issues. Training sessions with FLWs were

also conducted to enable them to organize group meetings with the girls, mothers and other older

women in the households.

FLWs including the ASHAs and AWWs were intervened with through quarterly thematic

orientations, incorporated as incremental sessions during their block level meetings. However,

the first round of concurrent monitoring revealed that this strategy did not work. Subsequently

the plan was revoked to also include refresher trainings for the FLWs along with the sector

meetings at least once every quarter.


5

Annex 2: Evaluation Approach

Figure 1: Socio-ecological model for evaluation


6

Annex 3: Evaluation Matrix

Evaluation Questions

Key Information Areas (Indicative)

Data Collection

Method

Target Groups/Sources

Relevance

Are the activities and outputs of the GARIMA project consistent with the overall goal and the attainment of its objectives?

Mapping of project’s inputs, activities and outputs with goals and objectives

Assessing linkage of activities with the outcomes

Secondary review of project documents

KIIs with UNICEF project staff

Structured interviews with partner NGOs and FFs

Project documents (Theory of Change)

UNICEF project staff, NGO partners

To what extent is the GARIMA project suited to the needs of adolescent girls in UP?

Demographic, social and cultural context of the project districts

Prevalent issues and concerns of adolescent girls with respect to MHM; existing gender bias; taboo associated with MHM discussions; availability and access to toilet facilities and disposal facilities in school and at home

What are the key issues tackled by the project vis-à-vis issues of adolescent girls?

Reach of the project to poor and vulnerable groups highlighting inclusion and equity

How does the design address key concerns and needs of adolescent girls (in light of capacity building, interpersonal communication and continued dialogue on MHM)?

Secondary review (project documents, literature review)

KIIs with UNICEF project staff and partner NGOs

KIIs with government officials

Structured interviews and IDIs with program implementers (FFs and PEs) and key influencers (FLWs and teachers)

National Family Health Survey and District Level Health Survey data of UP and the 3 districts

Project documents (Theory of Change, formative research, baseline reports, concurrent monitoring reports)

UNICEF project staff

Adolescent girls, FLWs and teachers, project implementers

NGO partners

How relevant or aligned is the project with GoI’s priorities and strategies with respect to MHM as well as its alignment with UNICEF’s India strategy?

Policy and project context of GoI and state level projects

Alignment with national guidelines on MHM; SDGs

Alignment with UNICEF’s country strategy

Relevance of the design in addressing other sectors: WASH, education, health, gender issues

Mapping objectives and outcomes with GoI’s priorities and projects

Secondary review (project documents and literature review)

KII with UNICEF project staff

KII with Government officials

National guidelines on MHM (MDWS)

RKSK guidelines UNICEF’S

country strategy Project

documents

Effectiveness

Direct:adolescent girls Adolescent girls


7

How does the project directly influence adequate MHM behaviors?

How does the project indirectly influence adequate MHM behaviors among adolescent girls mediated by knowledge, attitudes, interpersonal communication, social norms and restrictions?

How does the intervention directly and indirectly influence mothers’, fathers’, frontline workers’ and teachers’ knowledge, attitudes, interpersonal communication, social support, social norms and restrictions related to adequate MHM among adolescent girls?

Changes in knowledge, attitude and behavior with respect to adequate MHM

What is the change brought about by the project in increase of information and improved dialogue among adolescent girls and women regarding MHM practices?

Length and dose of exposure; examination of baseline and end line data in both intervention and comparison areas

Are girls prepared for menstruation? Support from family, peers, community, and society?

Myths and misconceptions around MHM

Indirect:adolescent girls Are girls able to voice their

concerns to school teachers, ASHAs/AWWs, parents, peers?

Are there trained sources of support for girls regarding issues around menstruation? What about informal sources of support (mothers)?

Impact of menstruation on education of adolescent girls.

Are WASH facilities in schools adequate?

Do girls have access to adequate toilet facilities or private space at home? Have they been able to negotiate for a toilet?

Are behavior, knowledge, attitude different for adolescent girls from poor or vulnerable groups (including disabled) or hard to reach areas?

Direct and Indirect: family, community and society Level of awareness about

menstruation among the community (key influencers such as ASHAs, AWWs and female school teachers) and family

Perception of menstruation among community (key influencers such as ASHAs, AWWs and female school teachers) and family

Are WASH facilities in school and at home adequate?

Structured interviews (analysis of baseline and end line data to measure change and extent)

FGDs to examine perceptions governing social norms

Concurrent monitoring data (exposure)

Project documents; cases and supporting field evidence

Mothers and fathers

FLWs PEs FFs School teachers District level

government functionaries (Department of Drinking Water and Sanitation, Department of Women and Child Development, Department of Education)


8

Social norms and barriers that govern behavior toward menstruation

Are there discussions happening around different aspects of menstruation, MHM behaviors, and menstruation related norms and restrictions among community and family?

Social support for MHM

Efficiency To what extent has the project used resources optimally to achieve its objectives? Adequacy of

resources Appropriate

allocation of resources

Best practices established in implementation

Bottlenecks faced and their resolution.

Expenditure tracking Choice of resources (human,

financial, infrastructure, time) Direct project costs (training,

capacity building, human resources, IEC material and other activities)

Descriptive analysis at partner NGO level to assess good practices and low-cost alternatives with similar or better results

Sufficiency of resources Best practices in implementation Challenges faced and their

resolution

KIIs with UNICEF project staff and implementing partner NGO

Financial data for the project across the intervention areas

Data from NGO partners for intervention areas

UNICEF project staff and documents

Project functionaries

NGO partners Budget data

Impact What are the positive or negative, intended or unintended consequences of the project? How many people have been affected? Impact of intervention on education, WASH, nutrition and gender?

Change in MHM practices from baseline to end line

Difference in MHM practices compared over intervention and comparison areas

Difference in attitude, beliefs and practices regarding MHM from baseline to end line; comparison between intervention and comparison areas

Impact of menstruation on education among adolescent girls; dietary changes at home during menstruation for adolescent girls; attitude amongst family and community (key influencers such as ASHAs, AWWs, school teachers) with respect to gender-based discrimination; access to WASH facilities (toilets, changing spaces) at home and in school

Reach of intervention Creation of any social capital

Structured interviews (analysis of baseline and end line data to measure change and extent)

FGDs to examine reasons, perceptions, governing social norms

Concurrent monitoring data (exposure and dose)

Adolescent girls Mothers and

fathers FLWs PEs FFs School teachers

Sustainability


9

Which components of the project are sustainable? What actions will be required for the outcomes to be sustained? What are the key influence factors for integration with GoI projects for adolescent girls, especially RKSK? Good practices for replication and up-scaling? What did not work well? Factors that need to be in place before scaling up?

Which activities or outcomes have persisted without the project’s support? For example, improved capacities of AWWs ensure better information for adolescent girls.

Evidence of best practices that can be included in the government projects on adolescent girls

Capacity building requirements for FFs, PEs and FLWs for further scaling up/replication

Aspects of the project that align with GoI’s priorities, especially RKSK

Advocacy with the government during project period

Letters/orders of district or state government indicating influence on policy

Commitment of district/state officials to take forward or adopt best practices or innovations from the project

Critical factors for replication in other districts or states; external social and cultural environment for implementation; clarity of objectives and processes; documented success stories

Review of project documents

KIIs with UNICEF Project staff and partner NGOs

KIIs with government officials

Structured interviews

UNICEF project staff and NGOs

State and district department officials

Adolescent girls FLWs PEs FFs


10

Annex 4: Demographics

The following table provides a brief description of the socio-demographic profile of the

participants who participated in the structured interviews during the evaluation.

Table A. 1: Demographics

AG PE Mothers Fathers ASHA AWW FF Teacher I

(%)

C (%

)

I (

%)

C I (%

)

C (%

)

I (%)

C (%

)

I (%

)

C (%

)

I (

%)

C (

%)

I (

%)

C (

%)

I (%

)

C (%

)

District 1248

1192

107

564

598

477 581

69 86 88 96 13 38 32

Jaunpur 37.5

35.6

35.5

37.5

36. 40.4

36.8

30.4

37.2

44.3

37.5

15.3

34.2

21.8

Sonbhadra 2.4*

31.8*

31.7

27.8

30.9

18* 31.6*

30.4

33.7

31.8

30.2

23 28.9*

3.1*

Mirzapur 34 32.4

32.7

34.5

32.7

41.5*

31.5*

39.1

29 23.8

32.2

61.5

36.8*

75*

Age (Mean) 15.9

15.9

17.8

40.6

41.2

44.9

46 36.5

36.5

40.5

41 29.3

39.3

38.19

Religion Non-Hindu 3.2 2.4 4.

6 3.5 3.1 4.4 2.9 2.9 0 1 1 7.

6 0 0

Hindu 96.7

97.5

95.3

96.4

96.8

95.6

97%

97.1

100

98.9

98.9

92.3

100

100

Caste General Caste

9.8 9.4 8.4

9.9 9.5 8.6 6.8 27.5*

12.7*

27.2

23.9

38.4

34.2

18.7

Scheduled Caste /Scheduled Tribe

53.1*

46.9*

42.9

51.6*

44.4*

52.2

48.1

30.4

30.6

29 22.9

30.7

10.5

21.8

Other Backward Caste

37.0*

43.7*

48.6

38.4*

45.9*

39.2%

44.9

42.0

42 43 53.1

30.7

55.2

59.3

Educational Qualification Illiterate/never attended school

1.3 1.5 0 14.3*

3.6*

1.2 1.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Primary School

25.3*

29.2*

5.6

24.1

28.9

20.5*

32.5*

0 2.3 1.1

0 0 0 0

High School 65.7

63.5

63.5

55.5*

61.3*

68.5*

59*

78.2

82.5

60.2

47.9

23 44.7*

12.5*

Post High School

7.5 5.7 30.8

6 6 9.6 7.2 21.7

15.1

38.6

52 76.9

55.2*

87.5*

Mother’s Occupation Homemaker

62.1

64.5

57.9

50.8*

58.3*

Farm/ animal husbandar

22.6

19.8

12.1

29.4

25.0


11

AG PE Mothers Fathers ASHA AWW FF Teacher Non agricultural labour/shopkeeper

6.8 7.6 7.4

12.7

13.7

Service, Teacher, ASHA, AWW

4.1 3.7 14 4.26

2.3

Other 4 4.1 8.4

2.6*

0.5*

Father’s occupation Farm/Animal Husbandar

34.4

33.8

34.5

42.7*

50*

Non-agriculture labour

15.9

16.5

12.1

22.6

25.9

Artisan/Skilled worker

19.2

22.1

22.4

13.2*

8*

Shopkeeper 8.8 9.5 5.6

6 7.5

Service 10.7

9.3 14.9

4.4 3.4

Other 10.8

8.5 10.2

10.9*

4.8*

Type of house Kuchha 51.

6* 42.8*

40.1

47.3

41.6

43.4

38.9

Semi-pucca 23.2

25.4

30.8

27.8

26.2

25.5

26.3

Pucca 25.1*

31.7*

28.9

24.8*

32.1*

31 34.7

Marital status Married 0.8 0.6 5.

6 95.

6 93 87

.5 86.4

10 89.4

90.6

Unmarried 98.9

98.9

94.3

1.4 5.8 7.9

4.1

0 7.8 3.1

Other 0.1 0.3 0 2.9 1.1 4.5

9.3

0 2.6 6.2

Total (N) 2440 107 1162 1058 155 184 13 70


12

Annex 5: Exposure to the Project

Table A. 2: Frequency of AGG meetings in GARIMA (AG)

Respondents AG Overall

I (%) I (%)

N 1248 1248

Twice a month 30.0 30.0

Once a month 64.7 64.7

Once in two months 2.7 2.7

Table A. 3: Frequency of AGG meetings in GARIMA (Project implementers)

Respondents FLW Teachers FF PE Overall

I (%) I (%) I (%) I (%) I (%)

N 157 38 13 107 315 Twice a month

31.8 13.2 30.8 30.8 29.2

Once a month 59.9 63.2 61.5 65.4 62.2

Once in two months

6.4 2.6 7.7 3.7 5.1

Table A. 4: Frequency of AGG meetings in GARIMA (AG-District wise)

Respondents/ Districts

Jaunpur Mirzapur Sonbhadra

AG AG AG

I (%) I (%) I (%)

N 468 425 355

Twice a month 32.3 27.1 30.7

Once a month 65.2 66.6 62.0

Once in two months 0.9 3.8 3.9


13

Table A. 5: Frequency of AGG meetings in GARIMA (Project implementers- District wise)



FLW Teachers FF PE Total FLW Teachers FF PE Total FLW Teachers FF PE Total

I (%) I (%) I (%) I (%) I (%) I (%) I (%) I (%) I (%) I (%) I (%) I (%) I (%) I (%) I (%)

N 60 13 2 38 113 48 14 8 35 105 49 11 3 34 97

Twice a month

33.3 0.0 0.0 13.2 22.1 41.7 21.4 50.0 54.3 43.8 20.4 18.2 0.0 26.5 21.6

Once a month 63.3 92.3 100.0 84.2 74.3 47.9 35.7 37.5 40.0 42.9 67.3 63.6 100.0 70.6 69.1

Once in two months

1.7 0.0 0.0 2.6 1.8 6.3 7.1 12.5 5.7 6.7 12.2 0.0 0.0 2.9 7.2

Table A. 6: Regularity of attending GARIMA meetings (Project participants)

Respondents AG Mothers Overall

I (%) I (%) I (%)

N 1248 564 1812

Regularly (9-12 meetings in a year) 30.0 22.3 36.5

Sometimes (5-8 meetings in a year) 64.7 36.0 34.9

Rarely (Less than 5 meetings in a year) 2.7 31.9 24.1

Table A. 7: Regularity of attending GARIMA meetings (Project implementers)


I (%) I (%) I (%) I (%) I (%)

N 157 38 13 107 315

Regularly (9-12 meetings in a year)

52.9 0.0 100.0 90.7 61.3


14

Sometimes (5-8 meetings in a year)

28.0 23.7 0.0 8.4 19.7

Rarely (Less than 5 meetings in a year)

16.6 57.9 0.0 0.9 15.6

Table A. 8: Regularity of attending GARIMA meetings (Project participants- District wise)



AG Mothers Overall AG Mothers Overall AG Mothers Overall

I (%) I (%) I (%) I (%) I (%) I (%) I (%) I (%) I (%)

N 468 212 680 425 195 620 355 157 512


47.0 24.1 39.9 41.6 16.4 33.7 39.2 27.4 35.5


35.5 38.2 36.3 33.4 30.8 32.6 34.4 39.5 35.9

Rarely (Less than 5 meetings in a year)

16.2 25.9 19.3 22.4 43.6 29.0 23.9 25.5 24.4

Table A. 9: Regularity of attending GARIMA meetings (Project implementers- District wise)



FLW Teachers FF PE Overall FLW Teachers FF PE Overall FLW Teachers FF PE Overall


N 60 13 2 38 113 48 14 8 35 105 49 11 3 34 97


60.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 67.3 47.9 0.0 100.0 88.6 59.0 49.0 0.0 100.0 82.4 56.7


26.7 15.4 0.0 0.0 15.9 33.3 28.6 0.0 11.4 22.9 24.5 27.3 0.0 14.7 20.6

Rarely (Less than 5

11.7 76.9 0.0 0.0 15.0 12.5 35.7 0.0 0.0 10.5 26.5 63.6 0.0 2.9 21.6


15

meetings in a year)

Rank-1

Rank-2

Rank-3

Rank-4

Rank-5

Table A. 10: Top five activities conducted during sessions (Project participants)

Respondents AG Mothers Overall

I (%) I (%) I (%)

N 1248 563 1811

Playing games 61.7 29.7 51.7

Story telling 51.3 25.4 43.2

Prayer/ Motivational song 41.8 31.1 38.5

Recap of MHM process using the apron 34.8 22.2 30.9

Watch Paheli ki Saheli film 33.9 17.8 28.9

Reading Paheli ki Saheli 29.6 22.9 27.5

Home visits to adolescent girls other than group members 25.6 23.1 24.8

Table A. 11: Top five activities conducted during sessions (Project implementers)

Respondents PE FLW FF Teachers Overall

I (%) I (%) I (%) I (%) I (%)

N 107 157 13 38 315


16

Playing games 68.2 56.7 69.2 21.1 56.8

Story telling 44.9 44.6 46.2 23.7 42.2

Prayer/ Motivational song 66.4 57.3 92.3 31.6 58.7

Recap of MHM process using the apron 39.3 35.0 38.5 31.6 36.2

Watch Paheli ki Saheli film 30.8 30.6 53.8 5.3 28.6

Welcomes 55.1 35.7 46.2 23.7 41.3

Home visits to adolescent girls other than group members

41.1 33.8 46.2 18.4 34.9

Discussing iron rich food-recipes- 30.8 38.9 53.8 31.6 35.9

Question answer session 26.2 26.1 46.2 26.3 27.0

Introduction of topics 29.0 24.2 30.8 23.7 26.0

Discussing key points of last meeting 30.8 16.6 61.5 23.7 24.1

Activities on topics 15.9 9.6 53.8 15.8 14.3

Watch FFL videos (Hero Number one) 13.1 8.3 53.8 2.6 11.1

Fix the date for the next meeting 15.9 10.8 53.8 10.5 14.3

Table A. 12: Top five materials used in the meetings (Project participants)

Respondents AG Mothers Fathers Overall

I (%) I (%) I (%) I (%)

N 1247 563 474 2284

Paheli ki Saheli book 52.4 42.5 22.8 43.8

Paheli ki Saheli film 51.3 30.6 41.6 44.2

Apron 46.1 22.7 8.9 32.6

Leaflet- mahwari: jankari Samasyaien evam nistaran 30.7 24.5 23.2 27.6

Paheli ki Saheli Diary 33.2 21.7 11.4 25.8

Poster - Chup mat raho khul kar kaho 25.5 14.4 22.2 22.1


17

Watch FFL videos (Sayani Sudha) 21.7 16.5 34.0 23.0

Ammaji kehti hai videos 22.2 25.4 7.6 20.0

Watch FFL videos (Hero Number one) 6.9 2.7 15.0 7.5

Table A. 13: Top five materials used in the meetings (Project implementers)

Respondents PE FLW FF Teachers Overall

I (%) I (%) I (%) I (%) I (%)

N 107 157 13 38 315

Paheli ki Saheli book 56.1 54.1 53.8 42.1 53.3

Paheli ki Saheli film 41.1 43.9 69.2 18.4 41.0

Apron 69.2 64.3 100.0 42.1 64.8

Leaflet- mahwari: jankari Samasyaien evam nistaran

39.3 35.0 38.5 36.8 36.8

Paheli ki Saheli Diary 43.0 35.7 46.2 36.8 38.7

Poster - Chup mat raho khul kar kaho 46.7 46.5 100.0 36.8 47.6

Watch FFL videos (Sayani Sudha) 29.9 32.5 38.5 13.2 29.5

Ammaji kehti hai videos 21.5 19.7 38.5 21.1 21.3

Watch FFL videos (Hero Number one) 16.8 7.6 46.2 5.3 12.1

Table A. 14: Facilitation of meetings (Project participants)

Respondents AG Mothers Fathers Overall

I (%) I (%) I (%) I (%)

N 1248 556 471 2275

Field Facilitator 85.4 78.1 55.0 77.3

Peer Educator/PE 42.7 39.2 44.2 42.2

AWW 18.3 22.8 45.9 25.1

ASHA 12.3 18.9 32.5 18.1


18

Teachers 1.5 1.8 3.2 1.9

Table A. 15: Facilitation of meetings (Project implementers)


I (%) I (%) I (%) I (%) I (%)

N 157 38 13 107 315

Field Facilitator 90.4 68.4 92.3 92.5 88.6

Peer Educator/PE 32.5 39.5 92.3 36.4 37.1

AWW 38.2 31.6 53.8 25.2 33.7

ASHA 29.9 28.9 38.5 23.4 27.9

Teachers 6.4 7.9 7.7 0.9 4.8

Table A. 16: Facilitation of meetings (Project participants- District wise)



AG Mothers Fathers Overall AG Mothers Fathers Overall AG Mothers Fathers Overall

I (%) I (%) I (%) I (%) I (%) I (%) I (%) I (%) I (%)

N 468 209 191 868 425 195 197 817 355 152 83 590

Field Facilitator 83.5 77.0 54.5 75.6 85.6 70.3 55.8 74.8 87.6 89.5 54.2 83.4

Peer Educator/PE 40.8 39.2 38.2 39.9 48.9 43.1 52.8 48.5 37.7 34.2 37.3 36.8

AWW 20.7 23.9 46.1 27.1 20.5 21.5 42.1 25.9 12.7 23.0 54.2 21.2

ASHA 12.0 14.8 29.8 16.6 16.9 19.0 32.5 21.2 7.0 24.3 38.6 15.9

Teachers 0.6 1.0 4.2 1.5 2.8 3.1 2.5 2.8 1.1 1.3 2.4 1.4


19

Table A. 17: Facilitation of meetings (Project implementers- District wise)



FLW Teachers FF PE Overall FLW Teachers FF PE Overall FLW Teachers FF PE Overall


N 60 13 2 38 113 48 14 8 35 105 49 11 3 34 97

Field Facilitator 88.3 53.8 100.0 94.7 86.7 91.7 64.3 100.0 88.6 87.6 91.8 90.9 66.7 94.1 91.8

Peer Educator/PE

35.0 46.2 100.0 34.2 37.2 27.1 28.6 100.0 31.4 34.3 34.7 45.5 66.7 44.1 40.2

AWW 35.0 23.1 100.0 21.1 30.1 39.6 35.7 50.0 28.6 36.2 40.8 36.4 33.3 26.5 35.1

ASHA 31.7 30.8 100.0 21.1 29.2 29.2 21.4 25.0 31.4 28.6 28.6 36.4 33.3 17.6 25.8

Teachers 8.3 7.7 0.0 0.0 5.3 4.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.9 6.1 18.2 33.3 2.9 7.2


20

Annex 6: Tables: ‘Effectiveness’ a) Adequate MHM

Table A. 18: Adequate MHM

Respondents AG M F PE FLW FF T Total among Beneficiaries

N 1132 1080 511 530 106 1643 1610 I C I C I C I C I C I C I C I C

Type of absorbent New cotton cloth

20.7 15.1# 17.6 13.8 13.2 19.7 14.7*

Old cotton cloth

73.6 77.1 75.3 78.3 68.9 73.1 77.5*

Sanitary Napkin/ Pad

51.5 61.5# 50.7 55.7 78.3 51.3 59.6*

Adequate Storage Store the absorbent in a safe & clean place

70.4 50.2# 69.1 44.2# 86.8 70.0 48.2*

Adequate Disposal Disposing by burning, taking it to the school incinerator or burying in a pit.

48.9 31.8# 38.4 26.4# 73.6 45.7 30.0 *

Adequate frequency of changing Changing the

absorbent

three or

more times a

day

79.2 47.6# 65.2 46.0# 93.4 74.9 47.1*

Adequate place to change absorbent Changing the

absorbent in

a private

bath area or

toilet

58.3 47.7# 44.6 40.8 59.4 54.1 45.4*

# Significant difference by Respondents, * Significant difference by I & C

Table A. 19: Adequate MHM among participants who use Old Cotton Cloth


N 833 833 385 415 73 1218 1248 I C I C I C I C I C I C I C I C

Adequate Washing of menstrual Cloth Soap and

Water or

with

disinfectant

after soap &

water

79.8 57.0# 74.8 43.6# 72.6 78.2 52.6*

Correct Drying of Old Menstrual Cloth


21

In the

sunlight

outside

65.8 36.1# 51.7 28.9# 28.8 61.3 33.7*

# Significant difference by Respondents, * Significant difference by I & C

Table A. 20: Adequate MHM- Personal hygiene


N 1132 1080 511 530 106 1643 1610 I C I C I C I C I C I C I C I C Personal Hygiene Use the

bathing area

during

menstruation

66.3 54.4# 64.0 51.9# 79.3 65.6 53.5*

Take bath

with soap &

water daily

during

menstruation

98.6 95.7# 96.5 94.9 100 97.9 95.4*

Always wash

hands with

soap & water

after

changing the

absorbent

95.6 97.8# 90.6 91.3 96.2 94.0 95.7*

# Significant by Respondents, * Significant difference by I & C

Table A. 21: Management of pain and discomfort

Respondents AG M F PE FLW FF T Total among

Beneficiaries

N 1132 1080 511 530 106 1643 1610

I C I C I C I C I C I C I C I C

Management of pain and discomfort

Medical 29.7 27.5 31.3 28.1 42.5 30.2 27.7

Non-Medical 31.7 6.7# 29.2 5.7# 54.7 30.9 6.3*

Nothing and No

pain

49.7 68.2# 48.9 65.9# 7.6 49.4 67.4*

# Significant by Respondents, * Significant difference by I & C

Table A. 22: Adequate MHM data from FGDs

I C

N= Number of FGDs 36 36

Storage of Napkin

Safe and clean place 66.7 88.9

Storage of Cloth

Safe and clean place 77.8 77.8

Frequency of changing Pad (In #)

Less than 3 times 22.2 50.0

3 or more times 77.8 50.0

Frequency of changing Cloth (In #)


22

b) Knowledge Table A. 23: Knowledge about changes during puberty among project participants

AG Mothers Total

Intervention (%) Control (%) Intervention (%) Control (%) I (%) C (%)

N 1248 1192 564 598 1812 1790

Low 57.29* 88.34* 68.79* 86.79* 63.04* 87.56*

Medium 35.50* 10.40* 28.72* 12.71* 32.11* 11.56*

High 7.21* 1.26* 2.48* 0.50* 4.85* 0.88*

*- Denotes significant difference between Intervention and comparison at 95% confidence level

Table A. 24: Knowledge about changes during puberty among project implementers


Less than 3 times 27.8 50.0

3 or more times 72.2 50.0

Reuse of Material

Reuse cloth 94.4 72.2

Cleaning & Drying of Cloth

Washing with soap and water and drying in the sun 83.3 61.1

Washing in bathroom/home and drying in sun/courtyard 83.3 61.1

Disposal of Pad

Burning 16.7 11.1

Taking to a school incinerator 0 0

Burying in a pit 55.6 27.8

Disposal of Cloth

Burning 5.6 22.2

Taking to a school incinerator 0 0

Burying in a pit 55.6 38.9

FLW Teachers FF PE Total

Interventi

on (%)

Control

(%)

Interventio

n (%)

Contro

l (%)

Interventio

n (%)

Interventio

n (%)

I (%) C

(%)

N 157 180 38 32 13 107 315 212

Low 15.29* 61.67* 13.16* 43.75* 0 19.63 12.02* 52.71

*

Mediu

m

41.40* 29.44* 47.37 40.63 38.46 28.97 39.05 35.03

High 43.31* 8.89* 39.47* 15.63* 61.54 51.40 48.93* 12.26

*


23

Table A. 25: Inter-district comparison for knowledge about changes during puberty (project participants)

1. Jaunpur 2. Mirzapur 3. Sonbhadra

AG Mothers AG Mothers AG Mothers Total

I (%) C (%) I (%) C (%) I (%) C (%) I (%) C (%) I (%) C (%) I (%) C (%) I (%) C (%)

N 468 425 212 217 425 387 195 196 355 380 157 185 1812 1790

Low 50.43*#^ 87.53* 66.04* 84.79* 61.65*# 89.92* 73.33* 90.31* 61.13*^ 87.63* 66.88* 85.41* 63.24* 87.60*

Medium 40.17*# 10.12* 32.08* 13.82* 32.0*# 9.30* 23.59* 9.69* 33.52* 11.84* 30.57* 14.59* 31.99* 11.56*

High 9.40*^ 2.35* 1.89 1.38 6.35* 0.78* 3.08* 0.00* 5.35*^ 0.53* 2.55* 0.00* 4.77* 0.84*

*- Denotes significant difference between Intervention and comparison at 95% confidence level; #- Denotes significant difference between Intervention values for Jaunpur and Mirzapur; $-

Denotes significant difference between Intervention values for Mirzapur and Sonbhadra; and ^- Denotes significant difference between Intervention values for Sonbhadra and Jaunpur

Table A. 26: Inter-district comparison for knowledge about changes during puberty (project implementers)


FLW Teachers FF PE FLW Teachers FF PE FLW Teachers FF PE Total

I

(%)

C

(%)

I

(%)

C

(%)

I

(%)

I

(%)

I

(%)

C

(%)

I

(%)

C

(%)

I

(%)

I (%) I

(%)

C

(%)

I

(%)

C

(%)

I

(%)

I (%) I

(%)

C

(%)

N 60 68 13 7 2 38 48 56 14 24 8 35 49 56 11 1 3 34 315 212

Low 15* 58.8* 15.4 42.9 0 18.4 20.8* 57.1* 7.1 45.8 0.00 25.7# 10.2* 69.6* 18.2 0 0 14.7# 12.1* 45.7*

Medium 35 22.1 46.2 42.9 50 31.6 39.6 37.5 50 37.5 25 28.6 51.0* 30.4* 45.4 100 66.7 26.4 41.3 45.1

High 50* 19.1* 38.5 14.3 50 50 39.6* 5.4* 42.9 16.7 75 45.7 38.8* 0.00* 36.4 0 33.3 58.8 46.6* 9.3*




24

Table A. 27: Knowledge about body parts among project participants

AG Mothers Total


N 1248 1192 564 598 1812 1790

Low 47.68* 86.07* 64.01* 88.3* 55.8* 87.2*

Medium 21.23* 7.05* 13.65* 6.7* 17.4* 6.9*

High 31.09* 6.88* 22.34* 5.02* 26.7* 6*


Table A. 28: Knowledge about body parts among project implementers


Intervention (%) Control (%) Intervention (%) Control (%) Intervention (%) Intervention (%) I (%) C (%)

N 157 180 38 32 13 107 315 212

Low 9.5* 53.3* 13.2* 40.6* 7.7 11.2 10.4* 47*

Medium 33.1 25.6 26.3 18.8 15.4 25.2 25 22.2

High 57.3* 21.1* 60.5 40.6 76.9 63.5 64.6* 30.9*



25

Table A. 29: Inter-district comparison for knowledge about body parts (project participants)



I (%) C (%) I (%) C (%) I (%) C (%) I (%) C (%) I (%) C (%) I (%) C (%) I (%) C (%)

N 468 425 212 217 425 387 195 196 355 380 157 185 1812 1790

Low 42.3*^ 82.4* 63.7* 84.3* 48.7* 89.7* 61* 90.3* 53.5*^ 86.6* 68.1* 90.8* 56.2* 87.4*

Medium 23.3* 9.4* 13.2 8.8 21.4* 6.0* 17* 7.1* 18.3* 5.5* 10.2 3.8* 17.2* 6.8*

High 34.4* 8.2* 23.1* 6.9* 29.9* 4.3* 22* 2.6* 28.1* 7.9* 21.7 5.4* 26.5* 5.9*



Table A. 30: Inter-district comparison for knowledge about body parts (project implementers)



I (%) C

(%)

I

(%)

C

(%)

I

(%)

I

(%)

I (%) C

(%)

I

(%)

C

(%)

I (%) I

(%)

I (%) C

(%)

I (%) C

(%)

I

(%)

I

(%)

I (%) C

(%)

N 60 68 13 7 2 38 48 56 14 24 8 35 49 56 11 1 3 34 315 212

Low 10* 48.5* 7.7 42.9 0 7.9 4.2* 51.8* 0*$ 41.7* 12.5 20 14.3* 60.7* 36.4$ 0 0 5.9 9.9* 40.9*

Medium 31.7 19.1 15.3 0 0 26.3 31.6 35.7 35.7 25 25 22.9 36.7 23.2 27.3 0 0 26.4 23.2 17.2

High 58.3* 32.4* 77^ 57.1 100 65.8 64.6* 12.5* 64.3 33.3 62.5$ 57.1 49* 16.1* 36.4^ 100 100$ 67.5 66.9* 41.9*




26

Table A. 31: Knowledge about absorbents among project participants

AG Mothers Total


N 1248 1192 564 598 1812 1790

Low 7.6* 19.6* 11 14.9 9.3* 17.2*

Medium 65.3* 76.1* 73.6* 82.4* 69.4* 79.2*

High 27* 4.4* 15.4* 2.7* 21.2* 3.6*


Table A. 32: Knowledge about absorbents among project implementers


Intervention (%)

Control (%)

Intervention (%)

Control (%)

Intervention (%)

Intervention (%)

I (%)

C (%)

N 157 180 38 32 13 107 315 212 Low 0.6* 6.1* 2.6 2.6 0 0 0.8* 4.4*

Medium 31.9* 85.6* 34.2 34.2 0 30.8 24.2* 59.9*

High 67.5* 8.3* 63.2 63.2 100 69.2 75* 35.8*


Table A. 33: Inter-district comparison for knowledge about absorbents (project participants)



I

(%)

C

(%)

I

(%)

C

(%)

I

(%)

C

(%)

I

(%)

C

(%)

I

(%)

C

(%)

I

(%)

C

(%)

I (%) C

(%)

N 468 425 212 217 425 387 195 196 355 380 157 185 1812 1790

Low 9*^ 17.6* 12.7 10.6 7.5* 25.6* 10.8* 19.4* 5.9*^ 15.5* 8.9* 15.1* 9.1* 17.3*

Medium 64.1* 78.6* 73.6* 88* 67.1 71.1 70.8 77 65.1* 78.4* 77.1 81.6 69.6* 79.1*

High 27* 3,8* 13.7* 1.4* 25.4* 3.4* 18.5* 3.6* 29* 6.1* 14* 3.2* 21.3* 3.6*

*- Denotes significant difference between Intervention and comparison at 95% confidence level; #- Denotes significant

difference between Intervention values for Jaunpur and Mirzapur; $- Denotes significant difference between Intervention

values for Mirzapur and Sonbhadra; and ^- Denotes significant difference between Intervention values for Sonbhadra

and Jaunpur


27

Table A. 34: Inter-district comparison for knowledge about absorbents (project implementers)



I

(%)

C

(%)

I

(%)

C

(%)

I

(%)

I

(%)

I

(%)

C

(%)

I

(%)

C

(%)

I

(%)

I

(%)

I

(%)

C

(%)

I

(%)

C

(%)

I

(%)

I

(%)

N 60 68 13 7 2 38 48 56 14 24 8 35 49 56 11 1 3 34 315 212

Low 1.7 7.3 7.7 0 0 0 0 3.6 0 0 0 0 0* 7.1* 0 0 0 0 0.8 3

Medium 26.7* 88.2* 15.4* 71.4* 0 26.3 35.4* 83.9* 42.9 66.7 0 37.1 34.7* 83.9* 45.4 100 0 29.4 24.4* 82.4*

High 71.7* 4.4* 76.9* 28.6* 100 73.7 64.6* 12.5* 57.1 33.3 100 62.9 65.3* 9* 54.5 0 100 70.6 74.8* 14.6*



Table A. 35: Knowledge about managing pain and discomfort among project participants

AG Mothers Total

Intervention

(%)

Control (%) Intervention

(%)

Control (%) I (%) C (%)

N 1248 1192 564 598 1812 1790

Low 37.2* 46.7* 15.8* 24.6* 26.5* 35.7*

Medium 47.5 49.6 63.4 67.9 55.5 58.8

High 15.3* 3.7* 20.7* 7.5* 18* 5.6*



28

Table A. 36: Knowledge about managing pain and discomfort among project implementers


Intervention

(%)

Control

(%)

Intervention

(%)

Control

(%)

Intervention

(%)

Intervention

(%)

I

(%)

C

(%)

N 157 180 38 32 13 107 315 212

Low 3.8* 11.1* 7.9 6.2 0 5.6 4.3 8.7

Medium 43.3 47.8 31.6 46.9 15.4 36.4 31.7* 47.4*

High 52.9* 41.1* 60.5 46.9 84.6 58 64* 44*


Table A. 37: Inter-district comparison for knowledge about managing pain and discomfort (project participants)



I (%) C

(%)

I

(%)

C

(%)

I (%) C

(%)

I (%) C

(%)

I (%) C

(%)

I (%) C

(%)

I (%) C

(%)

N 468 425 212 217 425 387 195 196 355 380 157 185 1812 1790

Low 37.4* 45.2* 18.9 25.4 37.4* 48.8* 13.9* 23* 36.6* 46.3* 14* 25.4* 26.4* 35.7*

Medium 45.3 51.5 58.5 67.3 49.4 46.6 66.1 67.3 48.2 50.5 66.9 69.2 55.7 58.7

High 17.3* 3.3* 22.6 7.3 13.2* 4.6* 20* 9.7* 15.2* 3.2* 19.1* 5.4* 17.9* 5.6*




and Jaunpur


29

Table A. 38: Inter-district comparison for knowledge about managing pain and discomfort (project implementers)



I

(%)

C

(%)

I

(%)

C

(%)

I

(%)

I

(%)

I

(%)

C

(%)

I (%) C

(%)

I

(%)

I

(%)

I

(%)

C

(%)

I

(%)

C

(%)

I

(%)

I

(%)

I (%) C

(%)

N 60 68 13 7 2 38 48 56 14 24 8 35 49 56 11 1 3 34 315 212

Low 5 10.3 15.3 14.3 0 7.9 6.3 14.2 0 4.2 0 2.9 0* 9* 9.1 0 0 5.9 4.4 8.7

Medium 38.3 45.6 38.5 28.6 0 39.4 39.5 42.9 21.4* 54.2* 12.5 31.4 53 55.3 36.4 0 33.3 38.2 31.8 37.8

High 56.7 44.1 46.2 57.1 100 52.6 54.2 42.9 78.6* 41.6* 87.5 65.7 47 35.7 54.5 100 66.7 55.9 63.8* 53.6*



c) Attitudes Table A. 39: Menstruation is....(Programme Participants)

Respondents AG M F Total

I C I C I C I C

N 1248 1192 564 598 1812 1790

Pain 57.0 59.1 47.2 58.9* 53.9 59.1*

Physical symptoms 40.3 35.1* 31.7 35.0 37.6 35.0

Negative emotions 32.9 18.7* 26.8 12.4* 31.0 16.6*

Preparedness 17.0 17.8 18.1 17.9 17.3 17.8

Social Restrictions 16.3 18.1 16.3 20.4 16.3 18.9*

Hygiene 15.0 14.4 24.3 17.1* 17.9 15.3*

*denotes significant difference between I & C


30

Table A. 40: Menstruation is… (Programme Implementers)

Respondents PE FF FLW Teachers Total

I C I C I C I C I C

N 107 13 157 180 38 32 315 212

Pain 58.9 76.9 65.6 62.2 50.0 37.5 61.9 58.5

Physical symptoms 45.8 38.5 45.9 35.6 31.6 28.1 43.8 34.4*

Negative emotions 43.9 0 31.9 21.7* 42.1 25.0 35.9 22.2*

Preparedness 19.6 61.5 28.7 36.1 10.5 43.8* 24.8 37.3*

Social Restrictions 29.0 30.8 14.0 22.8* 31.6 37.5 21.9 25.0

Hygiene 10.3 15.4 22.9 25.6 13.1 25.0 17.1 25.5*

*denotes significant difference between I & C

d) Social Support Table A. 41: Support received by adolescent girls for menstruation from different stakeholders- Intervention

Support received by adolescent girls for menstruation from different

stakeholders- Intervention (as reported by the girls, N=1344)

Mothers FLW PE

Information on MHM 12%* 10%* 14%*

Support in managing menstrual hygiene 57%* 29%* 33%*

Support in chores 24% 2%* 2%*

Support related to restrictions 13%* 7%* 8%*

Support related to nutrition 14%* 5%* 5%*

No support 26%* 60%* 55%*


31


Table A. 42: Support received by adolescent girls for menstruation from different stakeholders- Comparison

Support received by adolescent girls for menstruation from

different stakeholders- Comparison (as reported by the girls,

N=1192)

Mothers FLW

Information on MHM 16%* 2%*

Support in managing menstrual hygiene 51%* 7%*

Support in chores 24% 1%*

Support related to restrictions 9%* 1%*

Support related to nutrition 6%* 0%*

No support 30%* 83%*


e) Social Network Map Table A. 43: Who do you talk to- Family

Who do you talk to- Family

1. Jaunpur 2. Mirzapur 3. Sonbhadra Total

I (%) C (%) I (%) C (%) I (%) C (%) I (%) C (%)

N 6 6 6 6 6 6 18 18

Mother 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%


32

Sister-in-law 83% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 94% 100%

Chachi 100% 100% 100% 100% 83% 100% 94% 100%

Sister 100% 100% 100% 83% 100% 100% 100% 94%

Daadi 83% 67% 33% 83% 50%* 100%* 56% 83%

Father 17% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 6% 0%

Brother 17% 0% 0% 17% 0% 0% 6% 6%

Bua 67% 50% 33% 50% 83% 67% 61% 56%

Maami 17% 50% 0%* 50%* 0%* 67%* 6%* 56%*

Mausi 50%* 0%* 17% 67% 50% 83% 39% 50%

Naani 33% 33% 0%*$ 50%* 50%$ 33% 28% 39%

Badi Mummy 50%# 50% 0%# 33% 17% 0% 22% 28%



Table A. 44: Most comfortable- Family

Most comfortable- Family


I (%) C (%) I (%) C (%) I (%) C (%) I (%) C (%)

N 6 6 6 6 6 6 18 18

Mother 67% 100% 33%* 100%* 83% 83% 61%* 94%*

Sister-in-law 83% 50% 83% 67% 100% 83% 89% 67%


33

Chachi 83%#^ 50% 0%# 17% 17%^ 33% 33% 33%

Sister 100% 83% 67% 67% 83% 100% 83% 83%

Daadi 17% 0% 0% 17% 0% 17% 6% 11%

Bua 17% 17% 0% 0% 0% 17% 6% 11%

Maami 0% 0% 0% 17% 0% 0% 0% 6%

Mausi 17% 17% 0% 0% 0% 0% 6% 6%




34

Table A. 45: Least comfortable- Family

Least Comfortable- Family


I (%) C (%) I (%) C (%) I (%) C (%) I (%) C (%)

N 6 6 6 6 6 6 18 18

Mother 33% 0% 67%* 0%* 17% 17% 39%* 6%*

Sister-in-law 0%* 50%* 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 17%

Chachi 17% 33% 50%* 0%* 17% 50% 28% 28%

Sister 0% 17% 0% 0% 17% 0% 6% 6%

Daadi 67% 67% 33% 67% 50% 67% 50% 67%

Father 17% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 6% 0%

Brother 17% 0% 0% 17% 0% 0% 6% 6%

Bua 33% 17% 0% 17% 0% 33% 11% 22%

Maami 17% 50% 0% 33% 0% 33% 6%* 39%*

Mausi 17% 0% 0%$ 33% 50%$ 17% 22% 17%

Naani 33% 17% 0%*$ 50%* 50%$ 33% 28% 33%

Badi Mummy 17% 17% 0% 17% 0% 0% 6% 11%



values for Mirzapur and Sonbhadra; and ^- Denotes significant difference between Intervention values for Sonbhadra and

Jaunpur

Table A. 46: Who do you talk to- Peers

Who do you talk to- peers


I (%) C (%) I (%) C (%) I (%) C (%) I (%) C (%)

N 6 6 6 6 6 6 18 18

School/college friend 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Neighbour 100% 100% 83% 100% 83% 100% 89% 100%

AGG friends 17% 0% 0% 0% 17% 0% 11% 0%

PE 83%* 0%* 83%* 0%* 100% 0% 89%* 0%

Cousin/relative friend 0% 17% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 6%

FF 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0%


35




and Jaunpur

Table A. 47: Most comfortable- Peers

Most comfortable member- Peers


I (%) C (%) I (%) C (%) I (%) C (%) I (%) C (%)

N 6 6 6 6 6 6 18 18

School/college friend 67% 67% 33%* 100%* 50% 50% 50% 72%

Neighbour 50% 33% 67% 17% 50% 67% 56% 39%

AGG friends 17% 0% 0% 0% 17% 0% 11% 0%

PE 50%* 0%* 17% 0% 33% 0% 33%* 0%*

FF 50%*# 0%* 0%# 0% 17% 0% 22%* 0%*




and Jaunpur

Table A. 48: Least comfortable- Peers

Least comfortable member- Peers


I (%) C (%) I (%) C (%) I (%) C (%) I (%) C (%)

N 6 6 6 6 6 6 18 18


Neighbour 50%# 67% 0%*# 67%* 33% 33% 28% 56%

PE 0% 0% 33% 0% 0% 0% 11% 0%

Cousin/relative friend 0% 17% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 6%

FF 17% 0% 17% 0% 33% 0% 22%* 0%*




and Jaunpur

Table A. 49: Was PE prompted yes?

PE prompted



36

I (%) C (%) I (%) C (%) I (%) C (%) I (%) C (%)

N 6 6 6 6 6 6 18 18

Yes 83%* 0%* 67%* 0%* 83%* 0%* 78%* 0%*

No 0% 0% 17% 0% 17% 0% 11% 0%

N/A 17%* 100%* 17%* 100%* 0% 100% 11%* 100%*




and Jaunpur

Table A. 50: Was FF prompted yes?

FF prompted


I (%) C (%) I (%) C (%) I (%) C (%) I (%) C (%)

N 6 6 6 6 6 6 18 18

Yes 100% 0% 83%* 0%* 100% 0% 94%* 0%*

No 0% 0% 17% 0% 0% 0% 6% 0%

N/A 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100%




and Jaunpur

Table A. 51: Who do you talk to- Community

Who do you talk to- community


I (%) C (%) I (%) C (%) I (%) C (%) I (%) C (%)

N 6 6 6 6 6 6 18 18

AWW 83%# 100% 17%#$ 67% 100%$ 83% 67% 83%

ASHA 83% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 94% 100%

ANM 50% 33% 17% 17% 33% 0% 33% 17%

Teacher 100% 83% 67% 83% 67% 100% 78% 89%

Doctor 17% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 6% 0%

Females of community 0% 0% 0% 0% 17% 0% 6% 0%

Village Head 0%^ 0% 17% 0% 50%*^ 0%* 22%* 0%*

Aanganwadi Sahayika 17% 17% 50%$ 17% 0%$ 0% 22% 11%


37

School helper/ Dai 50% 83% 33% 50% 50% 83% 44% 72%

Male teacher 17% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 6% 0%

Coaching teacher 17% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 6% 0%




and Jaunpur

Table A. 52: Most comfortable- Community

Most comfortable member- community


I (%) C (%) I (%) C (%) I (%) C (%) I (%) C (%)

N 6 6 6 6 6 6 18 18

AWW 33% 33% 33% 50% 67% 33% 44% 39%

ASHA 83% 50% 67% 33% 67% 83% 72% 56%

ANM 17% 17% 0% 0% 0% 0% 6% 6%

Teacher 50% 83% 17% 67% 33% 67% 33%* 72%*

Doctor 17% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 6% 0%

School helper/ Dai 0%* 50%* 0% 17% 17% 33% 6%* 33%*




and Jaunpur

Table A. 53: Least comfortable community

Least comfortable member- community


I (%) C (%) I (%) C (%) I (%) C (%) I (%) C (%)

N 6 6 6 6 6 6 18 18

ASHA 0%* 50%* 0% 33% 0% 17% 0%* 33%*

ANM 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 0% 17% 11%

Teacher 50% 17% 50% 33% 33% 17% 44% 22%

Females of community 0% 0% 0% 0% 17% 0% 6% 0%

Village Head 0% 0% 17% 0% 33% 0% 17% 0%

Aanganwadi Sahayika 0% 17% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 6%

School helper/ Dai 33% 33% 0% 33% 17% 33% 17% 33%


38

Male teacher 17% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 6% 0%

Coaching teacher 17% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 6% 0%




and Jaunpur

Table A. 54: Were teachers prompted yes?

Teachers prompted


I (%) C (%) I (%) C (%) I (%) C (%) I (%) C (%)

N 6 6 6 6 6 6 18 18

Yes 17% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 6% 0%

No 83% 100% 67% 100% 83% 100% 78%* 100%*

N/A 0% 0% 33% 0% 17% 0% 17% 0%




and Jaunpur

Table A. 55: Was ASHA prompted yes?

ASHA prompted


I (%) C (%) I (%) C (%) I (%) C (%) I (%) C (%)

N 6 6 6 6 6 6 18 18

Yes 0% 0% 17% 0% 17% 0% 11% 0%

No 83% 100% 83% 100% 83% 100% 83% 100%

N/A 17% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 6% 0%




Jaunpur

Table A. 56: Was AWW prompted yes?

AWW prompted


I (%) C (%) I (%) C (%) I (%) C (%) I (%) C (%)

N 6 6 6 6 6 6 18 18


39

Yes 0% 0% 17% 0% 17% 0% 11% 0%

No 100%# 100% 50%*# 100%* 83% 100% 78%* 100%*

N/A 0% 0% 33% 0% 0% 0% 11% 0%




and Jaunpur

Table A. 57: Who do adolescent girls first talk to about menstruation?

First talk to- MHM


I (%) C (%) I (%) C (%) I (%) C (%) I (%) C (%)

N 6 6 6 6 6 6 18 18

Mother 67% 67% 50%* 100%* 33% 67% 50% 78%

Sister-in-law 33% 33% 17% 0% 50% 33% 33% 22%

Sister 0% 0% 33% 0% 17% 0% 17% 0%




and Jaunpur

Table A. 58: Other sources of information for MHM

Other sources of Information (MHM)


I (%) C (%) I (%) C (%) I (%) C (%) I (%) C (%)

N 6 6 6 6 6 6 18 18

Radio 67% 100% 50% 67% 50% 67% 56% 78%

TV 83% 100% 67% 100% 67% 100% 72%* 100%*

Mobile 67% 50% 33% 33% 33%* 100%* 44% 61%

Books 50% 67% 17% 17% 33% 17% 33% 33%

Posters 0% 17% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 6%

Newspaper/ magazine 33% 50% 50% 50% 50% 33% 44% 44%

Health centre 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 17% 0% 6%

School 17% 0% 0% 0% 17% 0% 11% 0%

None 17% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 6% 0%


40

Paheli ki Saheli book 0% 0% 17% 0% 0% 0% 6% 0%

Internet 17%* 83%* 17% 33% 33% 17% 22% 44%

PKS Diary 0% 0% 0% 0% 17% 0% 6% 0%

Laptop 17% 17% 0% 0% 0% 17% 6% 11%

School plays 0% 0% 17% 17% 0% 0% 6% 6%

Meetings 33% 0% 0% 0% 33% 0% 22%* 0%*




and Jaunpur


41

Table A. 59: Topics of discussion for MHM


I (%) C (%) I (%) C (%) I (%) C

(%)

I (%) C

(%)

N 6 6 6 6 6 6 18 18

Pain/discomfort/weakness

experienced during

menstruation- reasons and

remedies

100% 183% 117

%

117% 133% 133% 117% 144%

Use of absorbents- procuring,

washing, drying, disposing,

storage and type of absorbent to

be used

100% 50% 117

%

67% 50% 33% 89% 50%

About menstruation- physiology,

process, duration

50% 67% 17% 0% 17% 67% 28% 44%

Restrictions related to

menstruation

0% 17% 0% 17% 33% 0% 11% 11%

Other topics 50% 50% 17% 0% 83% 0% 50% 17%




and Jaunpur

Table A. 60: Who do you talk to- Family (Sexual harassment)

Who do you talk to- Family (Sexual harassment)


I (%) C (%) I (%) C (%) I (%) C (%) I (%) C (%)

N 6 6 6 6 6 6 18 18

Mother 67% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 89% 100%

Sister-in-law 50%* 100%* 67% 83% 83% 83% 67% 89%

Chachi 100%# 67% 50%# 83% 67% 67% 72% 72%

Sister 100% 83% 67% 100% 100% 83% 89% 89%

Daadi 67% 33% 0% 17% 33% 50% 33% 33%

Father 67% 100% 100% 83% 100% 100% 89% 94%

Brother 67% 100% 100% 83% 100% 83% 89% 89%

Uncle 67% 67% 83% 83% 67% 83% 72% 78%

Bua 17% 50% 17% 0% 50% 33% 28% 28%


42

Maami 17% 33% 0% 17% 33% 33% 17% 28%

Mausi 0% 0% 0% 17% 17% 0% 6% 6%

Naani 17% 0% 0% 33% 0% 33% 6% 22%

Badi Mummy 33% 0% 17% 17% 0% 17% 17% 11%




and Jaunpur

Table A. 61: Who do you talk to- Peers (Sexual harassment)

Who do you talk to- Peers (Sexual harassment)


I (%) C (%) I (%) C (%) I (%) C (%) I (%) C (%)

N 6 6 6 6 6 6 18 18


Neighbour 83% 100% 83% 100% 83% 100% 83% 100%

AGG friends 0% 0% 17% 0% 0% 0% 6% 0%

PE 83%* 0%* 83%* 0%* 83%* 0%* 83%* 0%*

FF 83%* 0%* 83%* 0%* 100% 0% 89%* 0%*




and Jaunpur

Table A. 62: Was PE prompted yes? (Sexual harassment)

PE prompted


I (%) C (%) I (%) C (%) I (%) C (%) I (%) C (%)

N 6 6 6 6 6 6 18 18

Yes 83%* 0%* 50%* 0%* 66%* 0%* 66%* 0%*

No 0% 0% 33% 0% 17% 0% 17% 0%

N/A 17%* 100%* 17%* 100%* 17%* 100%* 17%* 100%*




and Jaunpur


43

Table A. 63: Was FF prompted yes? (Sexual harassment)

FF prompted


I (%) C (%) I (%) C (%) I (%) C (%) I (%) C (%)

N 6 6 6 6 6 6 18 18

Yes 83%* 0%* 83%* 0%* 100% 0% 89%* 0%*

No 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

N/A 17%* 100%* 17%* 100%* 0% 100% 11%* 100%*




Jaunpur

Table A. 64: Who do you talk to- Community (Sexual harassment)

Who do you talk to- Community (Sexual harassment)


I (%) C (%) I (%) C (%) I (%) C (%) I (%) C (%)

N 6 6 6 6 6 6 18 18

AWW 83% 100% 67% 100% 83% 100% 78%* 100%*

ASHA 83% 100% 83% 100% 83% 100% 83% 100%

ANM 33% 17% 0% 17% 17% 0% 17% 11%

Teacher 83% 100% 83% 100% 100% 100% 89% 100%

Village Head 67% 100% 67% 83% 83% 100% 72% 94%

Aanganwadi Sahayika 0% 0% 33% 33% 0% 0% 11% 11%

School helper/ Dai 33% 33% 17% 67% 33% 83% 28%* 61%*

Community leader 0% 17% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 6%

Male teacher 50%# 67% 0%# 0% 17% 17% 22% 28%

Whoever is present nearby 17% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 6% 0%

Police 0% 0% 0% 0% 17% 0% 6% 0%

1090 helpline 17% 0% 17% 0% 17% 0% 17% 0%

School principal 0% 33% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 11%

Neighbourhood brother 0% 0% 33% 0% 0% 0% 11% 0%

Gramin Prerak 0% 0% 17% 0% 0% 0% 6% 0%


44




and Jaunpur

Table A. 65: Were teachers prompted yes? (Sexual harassment)

Teachers prompted


I (%) C (%) I (%) C (%) I (%) C (%) I (%) C (%)

N 6 6 6 6 6 6 18 18

Yes 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

No 83% 100% 67% 100% 100% 100% 83% 100%

N/A 17% 0% 33% 0% 0% 0% 17% 0%




and Jaunpur

Table A. 66: Was ASHA prompted yes? (Sexual harassment)

ASHA prompted

1. Jaunpur 2. Mirzapur 3.

Sonbhadra

Total

I (%) C (%) I (%) C (%) I (%) C (%) I (%) C (%)

N 6 6 6 6 6 6 18 18

Yes 0% 0% 17% 0% 0% 0% 6% 0%

No 83% 100% 66% 100% 83% 100% 77%* 100%*

N/A 17% 0% 17% 0% 17% 0% 17% 0%




and Jaunpur

Table A. 67: Was AWW prompted yes? (Sexual harassment)

AWW prompted

1. Jaunpur 2. Mirzapur 3.

Sonbhadra

Total

I (%) C (%) I (%) C (%) I (%) C (%) I (%) C (%)

N 6 6 6 6 6 6 18 18

Yes 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%


45

No 83% 100% 67% 100% 83% 100% 78%* 100%*

N/A 17% 0% 33% 0% 17% 0% 22%* 0%*




and Jaunpur

Table A. 68: Other sources of information (Sexual harassment)

Other sources of information (Sexual harassment)


I (%) C (%) I (%) C (%) I (%) C (%) I (%) C (%)

N 6 6 6 6 6 6 18 18

Radio 67% 83% 67% 83% 67% 83% 67% 83%

TV 83% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 94% 100%

Mobile 83% 83% 67% 17% 33% 83% 61% 61%

Newspaper/magazine 67% 100% 67% 100% 100% 100% 78%* 100%*

None 17% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 6% 0%

Paheli ki Saheli book 17% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 6% 0%

Internet 17% 67% 0%$ 17% 50%$ 50% 22% 44%

Laptop 33% 0% 17% 0% 0% 17% 17% 6%

Facebook 17% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 6% 0%

Police 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 17% 0% 6%

1090 helpline 0% 0% 0% 0% 17% 0% 6% 0%




and Jaunpur

f) Interpersonal Communication Table A. 69: IPC around menstruation (by exposure)

Category Total no. of topics

in each

category

Mean no. of topics per respondent (AG) in which

discussion happened

% cases discussion self-

initiated

% cases respondent

comfortable while discussing

Intervent

ion Contr

ol Intervent

ion Contr

ol Intervent

ion Contr

ol N 1132 1080 2958 2181 2958 2181

About absorbents- procurement, use,

drying and disposal

5 2.6* 2* 60.1* 68.4* 86.7* 84.5*

N 1132 1080 1824 1327 1824 1327


46

Other aspects related to menstruation such as

household chores, restrictions, nutrition, WASH and education

4 1.6* 1.2* 69.6* 80.2* 87.9 86.2

*- Denotes significant difference between Intervention and comparison at 95% confidence level using t-test


47

Table A. 70: Most common partner for discussion on absorbents for AG (Intervention)

Percentage

Mother 62.7

Field Facilitator 30.6

Sister 29.9

Girls in my school 20.6

Sister-in-law 14.6

Peer Educator 13.9

Adolescent girls in the group 13.4

Friends who are in the group 10.5

AWW 7.4

Girls not in my school 6.4

Aunt 6.0

ASHA 6.0

Adolescent girls not in the group 4.5

Friends who are not in the group 3.8

Female School Teacher 2.5

ANM 2.3

Grandmother 1.8

Other Field facilitators 1.8

Other AWW 1.2

Others 28.3

N 2958


48

Table A. 71: Most common partner for discussions on absorbents for AG (Comparison)

Percentage

1. Mother 67.8

3. Sister 24.6

15. Sister-in-law 10.1

22. Girls in my school 10.1

7. Aunt 4.6

99. Any other (specify) 3.0

23. Girls not in my school 2.2

27. Female School Teacher 2.1

6. Grandmother 0.9

26. AWW 0.6

21. Friends who are not in the

group

0.5

29. Peer Educator 0.4

24. ASHA 0.4

31. Adolescent girls not in the

group

0.3

30. Adolescent girls in the group 0.2

38. Other Teachers 0.2

4. Brother 0.1

16. Sister-in-law 0.1

17. Brother-in-law 0.1

2. Father 0.1

N 2181.0


49

Table A. 72: Most common partner for discussion on aspects related to household chores, education, nutrition and WASH for AG (Intervention)

Percentage

Mother 58.7

Field Facilitator 21.0

Sister 18.4

Father 18.3

Girls in my school 13.4

Peer Educator 9.4

Adolescent girls in the group 7.1

Sister-in-law 7.0

Friends who are in the group 6.5

AWW 5.4

Girls not in my school 4.7

ASHA 4.2

Aunt 3.6

Female School Teacher 3.1

Brother 2.6

Adolescent girls not in the group 2.4

Friends who are not in the group 2.1

ANM 2.0

Any other (specify) 1.7

N 1824


50

Table A. 73: Most common partner for discussion on aspects related to household chores, education, nutrition and WASH for AG (Comparison)

Percentage

1. Mother 75.1

2. Father 15.8

3. Sister 15.8

22. Girls in my school 7.9

15. Sister

End Line Evaluation of GARIMA Project in Uttar …...in Uttar Pradesh (2013–2016) SUBMITTED TO:...

Documents

Transcript of End Line Evaluation of GARIMA Project in Uttar …...in Uttar Pradesh (2013–2016) SUBMITTED TO:...