Issuu

2025

WE-Talk Mid Term Review FINAL REPORT COORE DESAI, RUTHERFORD, GREY, ALLISON

September 30, 2025

Acronyms BCC BGA CariMAN CAT4GJO CBO CSO DV FGD GAC GBA Plus GBV GROOTS IDI IPV MEAL MTR OCA PAR PMF ToC VPA WE-Talk WEBS WMW WRO WROC

Behaviour-change campaigns Bureau of Gender Affairs Caribbean Male Action Network Capacity Assessment Tool for Gender-Just Organizations Community-Based Organization Civil Society Organization Domestic Violence Focus Group Discussion Global Affairs Canada Gender Based Analysis Plus Gender Based Violence Grassroots Organization organizing together (Jamaica Chapter) In-depth Interview Intimate Partner Violence Monitoring, Evaluation, Accountability, and Learning Mid-term Review Oxfam Canada Participatory Action Research Performance Measurement Framework Theory of Change Violence Prevention Alliance Wo-Man Talk for the Reduction of Gender-Based Violence Women’s Empowerment Benevolent Society Previously: Women’s Media Watch Jamaica Women’s Rights Organizations Women’s Resource & Outreach Centre

Contents Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................... 4 1.

Introduction .................................................................................................................... 5

Project Overview ............................................................................................................. 7 2.1 Feminist and Behavioural Change Approach ..................................................................... 7 Pillar 1 – Shifting Social Norms .......................................................................................... 8 Pillar 2 – Strengthening Civil Society Capacity .................................................................... 9

Mid Term Review Purpose, Objective and Scope ............................................................... 11 3.1 Purpose of the Midterm Review (MTR) ............................................................................ 11 3.2 Objectives ................................................................................................................... 11 3.4 MTR Learning Questions ............................................................................................... 11 3.5 Scope of the MTR ......................................................................................................... 12

MTR Method .................................................................................................................. 14 4.1 MTR Approach ............................................................................................................. 14 4.2 MTR Design .................................................................................................................. 14 4.3 Data Collection ............................................................................................................ 14 Data Collection Period.................................................................................................... 14 Sampling ...................................................................................................................... 14 Participant Recruitment ................................................................................................. 15 Data Collection Methods................................................................................................. 15 Instruments .................................................................................................................. 17 Data Collection Procedures............................................................................................. 18 4.4.Data Analysis Plan ........................................................................................................ 18 Qualitative Analysis ........................................................................................................ 18 Quantitative Analysis ..................................................................................................... 19 4.5.Ethical Considerations ................................................................................................ 20

Main Findings................................................................................................................ 21 5.2.1. Effectiveness ...................................................................................................... 21 5.2.2. Relevance ........................................................................................................... 32 5.2.3. Sustainability ...................................................................................................... 39

Conclusions & Recommendations ................................................................................ 46 6.1. Main Conclusions ...................................................................................................... 46 6.2. Recommendations and Strategic Priorities for the Second Half of the Project (2025–2027) ........................................................................................................................................ 47 6.2.1 Effectiveness ........................................................................................................ 47 2

6.2.2 Relevance ............................................................................................................ 48 6.2.3 Sustainability ....................................................................................................... 49 6.2.4 Monitoring, Evaluation, Accountability and Learning (MEAL) ................................... 50 6.3. A final note ................................................................................................................ 50 Appendix A – Consent Form Templates & Instruments ........................................................... 51 Appendix B – List of Documents Reviewed .............................................................................. 91

Acknowledgements The research team gratefully acknowledges Oxfam Canada (OCA) and the Technical Oversight Committee (comprised of the Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning leads from WMW Jamaica, VPA and OCA) for their guidance, commitment, and support throughout the Mid-term Review process. We also extend sincere thanks to local partner organizations – WMW Jamaica and the Violence Prevention Alliance (VPA) – for their collaboration in guiding data collection and facilitating session observations. Appreciation is due to research assistants Careka Smith-McLean, Chellae Simmonds, Lori-Ann Smith, Gina-Anne Cameron-Turner and Kajamba Fitz-Henley for their dedication and support. Finally, we thank all participants who generously shared their time and experiences, and whose openness and candor are central to this review.

1. Introduction Jamaica has experienced a long-standing crisis of gender-based violence (GBV), particularly against women and girls, rooted in patriarchal social norms and systemic inequalities. While the country has made strides in policy and legislative reform – such as the Domestic Violence Act (1996, amended 2004 & 2023), the National Strategic Action Plan to Eliminate GBV (2017–2027), and recent moves to criminalize marital rape – GBV remains prevalent. Jamaica faces an epidemic level of GBV, with the country recording the second highest femicide rate in the world in 2017 – 11 murders per 100,000 women, surpassing the World Health Organization’s epidemic threshold of 10 per 100,000.1 In addition, the 2016 Jamaica Women’s Health Survey revealed that approximately 1 in 4 women had experienced physical or sexual violence by a partner, with emotional and economic abuse also widespread.2 Women, especially younger women, face additional risks of sexual violence and abuse.3 Despite increased government efforts and international support, challenges remain in shifting deeply entrenched gender norms and ensuring access to support services. Pervasive patriarchal attitudes normalize male dominance and justify violence. Survey data4 shows that nearly one-third of Jamaican women believe a wife should obey her husband regardless of disagreement, and many hold beliefs that can perpetuate GBV, including victim-blaming and regarding domestic violence as a private matter. Structural drivers such as economic dependence, limited access to justice and support systems, and underreporting further compound the issue. While Jamaica has expanded its support infrastructure (such as shelters and hotlines) and introduced public campaigns and school-based education on healthy relationships, social tolerance for violence and inadequate service delivery persists, especially in rural areas. The Wo-Man Talk for the Reduction of Gender-Based Violence (WE-Talk) project responds to these ongoing gaps by targeting harmful norms, empowering community leaders and influencers, and building the capacity of women’s rights and civil society organizations (CSOs) to drive social change. The project’s baseline study revealed significant knowledge gaps in understanding GBV laws, rights, and available support services, particularly among the elderly (men and women) and men. It also highlighted low levels of agency among women, especially young women, and deep mistrust in authorities, which deters survivors from seeking help. These findings underscore the urgency and relevance of WE-Talk’s dual focus: raising community awareness and strengthening the capacity of CSOs and Women’s Rights Organizations (WROs) to combat GBV and foster long-term transformation. This report details the method and findings from the Midterm Review (MTR) of the WE-Talk project. Funded by Global Affairs Canada (GAC) and implemented by Oxfam Canada (OCA) in partnership with WMW Jamaica and the Violence Prevention Alliance (VPA), WE-Talk is a five-year initiative (2022–2027) aimed at preventing GBV by addressing harmful social norms and strengthening individual, community, and institutional responses across Jamaica. 1 UNFPA Caribbean. (2019, December 11). UNFPA Jamaica collaborates with government and CSOs to address GBV and family violence at

scale through HFLE programme. United Nations Population Fund. https://caribbean.unfpa.org/en/news/unfpa-jamaica-collaboratesgovernment-and-csos-address-gbv-and-family-violence-scale-hfle-0 2 Statistical Institute of Jamaica (STATIN), Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), & UN Women. (2018). Women’s Health Survey 2016 – Jamaica (C. Watson Williams, Author). Kingston: STATIN. 3 Ibid. 4 Ibid.

The purpose of the MTR was to assess the project’s progress toward its intended outcomes, identify strengths and areas for improvement, and generate actionable insights to guide implementation during the remaining project period. The review also aimed to uncover lessons that can inform broader efforts to create inclusive, survivor-centred, and transformative GBV prevention strategies for Jamaica. The report has seven sections. Following this introduction, section two provides an overview of the project. Section three details the purpose, objectives and scope of the MTR including the evaluation questions. Section four outlines the MTR method including the overall approach, data collection methods and ethical considerations. The fifth and sixth sections contain the findings of the MTR and recommendations for the project moving forward respectively. The final section contains the Appendices including consent form templates, data collection instruments and interim reports.

2. Project Overview The Wo-Man Talk for the Reduction of Gender-Based Violence (WE-Talk) project is a five-year initiative (March 2022 – June 2027) in Jamaica, funded by Global Affairs Canada (GAC) and implemented by Oxfam Canada (OCA). With a total budget of CAD $5,130,263, WE-Talk aims to contribute to the reduction of GBV against women, girls, boys, and other disadvantaged groups in Jamaica.5 The project is implemented through a partnership model – OCA provides overall management, while local partner organizations carry out on-the-ground activities. Initially, two Jamaican gender justice organizations, WMW Jamaica and the Caribbean Male Action Network (CariMAN), spearheaded implementation. However, in 2024, CariMAN Jamaica withdrew from the project and was replaced by the Violence Prevention Alliance (VPA), an NGO focused on violence prevention and men’s engagement.6 This adjustment ensured continuity of activities targeting men and boys. WE-Talk operates nationwide, engaging both rural and urban communities through seven regional clusters of parishes.7 The project has a primary focus on adult women (30+) and young women (15 – 29) as those most affected by GBV. Key target groups also include youth of all genders and other marginalized populations, reflecting the project’s commitment to inclusion. A national steering committee including government representatives from the Bureau of Gender Affairs (BGA) and the National Commission on Violence Prevention, provides oversight and alignment with public sector efforts.8 Overall, WE-Talk’s structure leverages OCA’s technical support and accountability mechanisms alongside local partners’ contextual expertise and experience working on GBV to ensure the project remains relevant and grounded in Jamaican communities.

2.1 Feminist and Behavioural Change Approach WE-Talk employs a feminist, rights-based and behaviour-change approach to tackle the root causes of GBV. The project is explicitly gender-transformative, seeking to shift harmful gender norms and power imbalances as a pathway to reducing violence.9 An intersectional lens is applied to ensure that activities are inclusive of marginalized groups. WE-Talk emphasizes participatory and feminist principles10 in its implementation and monitoring. These are reinforced through continuous reflection, and a commitment to local knowledge and context-driven solutions.11 Importantly, the project’s approach to social norm change integrates evidence-based communication strategies, community engagement, advocacy, and capacity development. This approach is grounded in OCA’s feminist principles and is implemented in a culturally sensitive manner that includes all genders. It aims to promote equity, challenge harmful social norms, dismantle patriarchal power structures, and enable individuals to access their full rights while helping communities reach their full potential.12

5 Oxfam Canada (2022). We-Talk For the reduction of Gender-based violence: Project Implementation Plan 2022 – 2027. 6 Oxfam Canada (2024). We-Talk For the reduction of Gender-based violence: Semi-annual operations report. 7 Oxfam Canada (2022). We-Talk For the reduction of Gender-based violence: Project Implementation Plan 2022 – 2027. 8 Oxfam Canada (2024). We-Talk For the reduction of Gender-based violence: Semi-annual operations report. 9

Oxfam Canada (2022). We-Talk For the reduction of Gender-based violence: Project Implementation Plan 2022 – 2027.

10 https://www.oxfam.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Oxfam-Canada-Feminist-MEAL-Guidance-Note-English.pdf;

https://www.oxfam.ca/publication/oxfam-canadas-feminist-principles/ 11 Oxfam Canada (2024). We-Talk For the reduction of Gender-based violence: Annual Report FY 2023 – 2024. 12 Oxfam Canada (2022). We-Talk For the reduction of Gender-based violence: Project Implementation Plan 2022 – 2027.

The project’s Theory of Change (ToC) posits that: IF there is increased adoption of positive behaviours by adolescent girls, boys, women and men that promote GBV prevention and response in Jamaica (Intermediate Outcome 1100), AND there is enhanced collective action of local WROs, CSOs, youth organizations and feminist collectives to promote and advocate for policy and practice changes that underpin GBV (Intermediate Outcome 1200),THEN GBV will be reduced among women, girls, boys, and other disadvantaged groups in Jamaica (Ultimate Outcome 1000).

These efforts are organized under two interrelated thematic pillars:

Pillar 1 – Shifting Social Norms This pillar focuses on increasing individual and community awareness of harmful gender norms, practices, and myths that contribute to GBV. It also involves engaging local influencers (such as youth leaders, faith leaders, and community figures) as champions of change. Key strategies include: •

Conducting participatory social research to identify cultural, situational, and systemic drivers of gender inequality (Output 1111).

•

Using data specialists and media analysis to examine GBV in digital ecosystems and guide audience engagement strategies (Output 1112).

•

Public awareness campaigns, capacity-building workshops, and peer-led engagement activities conducted with men and boys across target communities, schools, and civil society groups (Output 1113).

•

Disseminating information about gender-transformative services based on service quality assessments adapted for the Jamaican context (Output 1114).

•

Training men and boys as influencers to raise awareness about social norms that lead to GBV, and championing positive masculine behaviours within their sphere of influence (Output 1122)

Under this pillar, the project facilitates open dialogue about gender roles and violence, runs behaviour-change communication (BCC) campaigns, and supports community-led initiatives that challenge the normalization of GBV. Influencer engagement is a core aspect of this work. Women and youth in communities receive training in rights awareness, leadership, and advocacy skills to build confidence and influence others. Strategic influencers, particularly male role models such as pastors and entertainers, are mobilized to promote positive masculinities (Output 1122). These efforts are aimed at achieving two immediate outcomes: •

Immediate Outcome 1110: Increased awareness of harmful norms and practices and pervasive myths that lead to the prevalence of GBV. 8

•

Immediate Outcome 1120: Increased engagement by influencers in championing positive social norms in support of women’s rights.

Pillar 2 – Strengthening Civil Society Capacity This pillar focuses on enhancing the capacity of local CSOs, WROs, youth organizations, and feminist collectives to lead GBV prevention efforts and advocate for improved systems of support and accountability. A core objective is that these organizations are better equipped to deliver genderresponsive programmes and services (such as survivor support, public education, and advocacy) and to influence policies related to GBV.13 Key strategies include: •

Conducting organizational capacity assessments using the Capacity Assessment Tool for Gender-Just Organizations (CAT4GJO) tool (Output 1211).

•

Providing mentorship, technical support, and resources for capacity strengthening (Output 1212).

•

Supporting the integration of gender-transformative care approaches that address unpaid care work burdens (Output 1213).

Advocacy efforts are informed by policy and programme reviews that identify gaps in GBV response systems. Community-driven accountability mechanisms are supported through training and collaboration with duty-bearers, including government actors and service providers (Output 1221). Learning and sustainability sessions promote commitments to gender-transformative services and practices (Output 1222). These initiatives aim to achieve two immediate outcomes: •

Immediate Outcome 1210: Strengthened capacity of CSOs, WROs, youth organizations and feminist collectives to deliver gender-transformative programming and services on GBV.

•

Immediate Outcome 1220: Strengthened actions and commitments taken by duty-bearers and local leaders to address GBV and provide gender-transformative services for survivors.

Together, these two pillars reflect WE-Talk’s integrated Theory of Change. By facilitating the transformation of social attitudes and norms around gender and violence (Pillar 1) and the empowerment of civil society to lead and sustain these changes (Pillar 2), the project aims to reduce the prevalence of GBV in Jamaica. This dual approach aligns with Canada’s Feminist International Assistance Policy and frames behaviour change not simply as an outcome, but as an ongoing, participatory process. To achieve this, WE-Talk utilizes creative, inclusive strategies such as media campaigns, artivism (community art-based activism), and safe-space workshops to invite reflection and challenge entrenched gender roles. These initiatives are reinforced by strong advocacy networks and institutional capacity-building, ensuring that shifting attitudes are supported by resilient community structures. This comprehensive and locally rooted strategy is considered innovative in

Oxfam Canada (2022). We-Talk For the reduction of Gender-based violence: Project Implementation Plan 2022 – 2027.

the Jamaican context and directly confronts the patriarchal norms and systemic inequalities that sustain GBV.14

Oxfam Canada (2022). We-Talk For the reduction of Gender-based violence: Project Implementation Plan 2022 – 2027.

3. Mid Term Review Purpose, Objective and Scope 3.1 Purpose of the Midterm Review (MTR) The MTR of the WE-Talk project was designed as an independent, learning-oriented exercise that provided a formative assessment of the project's progress at its midpoint. Its primary purpose was to identify what had been working effectively, what challenges persisted, and where strategic adjustments could be made to strengthen the project’s outcomes and impact in reducing GBV in Jamaica. The review offers evidence-based recommendations aimed at improving implementation, informing adaptive management, and enhancing the project's contribution to gender equality and social norm transformation over its remaining duration.

3.2 Objectives The main objectives of the MTR were to: 1. Assess progress toward project immediate and intermediate outcomes as outlined in the Performance Measurement Framework (PMF). 2. Evaluate the extent to which project implementation is contributing to meaningful change in the lives of target populations, particularly those most affected by GBV and inequality. 3. Identify strategic recommendations and propose a timeline for any necessary adaptations to enhance the project’s effectiveness, relevance, and sustainability during its remaining implementation period.

3.4 MTR Learning Questions The MTR focused on three key evaluation criteria: Effectiveness, Relevance, and Sustainability. The focus and scope of the MTR aligned with WE-Talk’s two pillars. The following learning questions guided the review: Effectiveness • • • • •

What progress has been made towards achieving outcome targets specifically with the groups the partners are working with? Are project strategies effectively reaching and engaging target groups (women, elders, young people)? Are project activities (training, advocacy, media campaigns) effective in increasing GBV knowledge, awareness and prevention? Which aspects are really attractive to participants? What factors motivate participants to engage in project activities? Will and are targeted audiences using and applying the knowledge from project activities/interventions?

Relevance •

How well does the project align with the needs and priorities of participants and partner organizations?

• • • • • •

Has WE-Talk changed the approach based on changing needs of partner organizations and/or participants? Is the project contributing towards short- and long-term sustainability of the partner organizations? What can OCA do to better support partner organizations? How effectively does the project integrate Jamaican cultural perspectives and lived experiences into its approach to GBV prevention and response? To what extent do participants feel that WE-Talk's interventions reflect their specific needs, including accessibility, language, and socio-economic realities? What improvements can be made to enhance the project’s gender-transformative impact?

Sustainability • • • •

What is the likelihood of sustaining project outcomes given project design/approach? What elements of the project are likely to be sustained beyond its lifespan? What recommendations/strategies can be adopted for a more lasting impact? How can OCA better support partner organizations in maintaining momentum post-project?

3.5 Scope of the MTR Timeframe: The review covered all project activities implemented between the project’s inception in 2022 and June 2025. It did not assess planned future activities unless they were directly relevant to learning or course correction. Geographic Scope: The geographic scope of the MTR specifically focused on parishes where project events and activities had already taken place (see Data Sources and Coverage for specific parishes). Data collection and analysis reflected urban and rural differences in context, with attention to regional variations in GBV-related issues and social norms. Thematic Focus: The review assessed project strategies and outcomes in the following thematic areas: •

GBV prevention and response

•

Social norm transformation

•

Gender equality and empowerment

•

Capacity building of civil society organizations and stakeholders

•

Community engagement and awareness-raising

Population Groups: The MTR applied an intersectional lens to analyse how different population groups (i.e., women, girls, men, boys, youth, elderly) had been affected by or engaged in the project. Equity and Inclusion: Consistent with the project’s feminist approach, the MTR integrated intersectional analysis throughout, emphasizing the differential experiences and outcomes of diverse stakeholders. It ensured that the voices of marginalized groups were reflected in the findings and recommendations. Data Sources and Coverage: Qualitative data were collected from participants residing in the parishes of Kingston and St. Andrew, St. Mary, St. Ann, and St. Catherine. These data were primarily gathered through focus group discussions (FGDs) and interviews aimed at capturing in-depth perspectives on GBV, social norms, and community-level changes associated with the WE-Talk 12

project. Complementing the qualitative findings, survey data were collected from a broader geographic spread. Respondents were located in the parishes of Portland, St. Ann, Hanover, Clarendon, Trelawny, Kingston and St. Andrew, and St. Mary. The survey aimed to assess knowledge, attitudes, behaviours, and awareness related to GBV and support services. This mix of urban and rural locations ensured that the review reflected diverse regional experiences and contextual variations across Jamaica.

4. MTR Method 4.1 MTR Approach The Mid-Term Review employed a comprehensive, participatory, and feminist-informed methodology, intentionally designed to assess the effectiveness, relevance, and sustainability of WE-Talk project interventions. To evaluate progress and impact, the review combined qualitative and quantitative methods, structured to produce practical insights and actionable recommendations.

4.2 MTR Design The MTR followed a non-experimental, theory-based evaluation design with a strong emphasis on qualitative methods. The review was anchored in the project’s ToC to explore how and why specific outcomes had been achieved. The evaluation focused on three key criteria: •

Effectiveness examined the extent to which WE-Talk interventions had influenced knowledge, attitudes, behaviours, and institutional responses to GBV.

•

Relevance assessed whether the project remained aligned with the evolving needs and priorities of target groups, particularly women, youth, and community influencers.

•

Sustainability considered the likelihood that positive outcomes – such as shifts in social norms and strengthened local capacities – would be maintained beyond the project’s lifespan.

The MTR supported learning by providing insights to guide adaptive management and improve programming. It also promoted accountability through evidence-informed reporting to donors. Findings related to community-level change were shared with local stakeholders to support reflection and dialogue, while higher-level outcomes informed strategic decision-making and donor engagement.

4.3 Data Collection Data Collection Period Data collection took place between May and September 2025. This included FGDs with implementers and participants, in-depth interviews (IDIs) with key informants, a two-part storytelling workshop and surveys.

Sampling For the MTR, the sample was intentionally drawn from individuals who had directly participated in WE-Talk activities, rather than the general population as was the case in the baseline. This focus reflects the formative nature of the MTR, which sought to capture the perspectives and experiences of those most engaged with the project in order to assess emerging change and lessons for adaptation.

Qualitative: The sample for focus groups and in-depth interviews was selected to ensure diverse representation across key stakeholder groups, including the implementer, local partner organizations, CSOs, community members, and programme participants. Each of the local partner organizations provided either a list of participants and/or provided opportunities to engage with participants at workshop events. In the case of the young men’s FGD, VPA assisted the MTR team with contacting schools and selecting the participants for this group discussion. Quantitative: WMW Jamaica provided the MTR team with an initial list of some of the individuals who had participated in WE-Talk workshops prior to the start of data collection. The team made efforts to contact all individuals on this list to participate in the survey. However, the team was able to survey only 70% of participants (n=102) from this initial list. In August 2025, WMW Jamaica provided an additional listing of participants who could be contacted for the survey. This was done to increase the overall number of survey participants. Through this additional data collection exercise, the MTR team surveyed 51 more participants. Overall, the participants reflected a diverse cross-section of the project’s target groups, representing various age cohorts and genders (see Table 1 below) and geographic locations across multiple parishes (for further details see Annex 1 Survey Data Analysis Report). This approach aimed to ensure inclusivity and demographic representation in the quantitative analysis. Table 1: Age classification of survey respondents by gender

Valid Responses = 153 Age Group Youths (18 – 24 years) Adults (25 – 59 years) Elderly (60+ years) Total

Women 7 58 60 125

Men 3 8 17 28

Totals 10 66 77 153

Participant Recruitment Participants were recruited in collaboration with OCA, WMW Jamaica, and VPA. Collaboration with Community-Based Organizations (CBOs) and local networks facilitated inclusive recruitment and mitigated potential barriers to participation. Efforts were made to ensure representation from both urban and rural contexts, aligning closely with the Feminist Monitoring, Evaluation, Accountability and Learning Foundations applied in the project.15

Data Collection Methods Desk Review: A comprehensive desk review was conducted, drawing on key project documents including annual and semi-annual reports, monitoring and evaluation records, baseline data, and other relevant materials. This review provided critical insights into WE-Talk’s core approach, planned implementation strategies, challenges encountered, and adaptations made over time. It also enabled an assessment of implementation progress and performance relative to the original objectives and timeline up to June 2025. In-depth Interviews (IDI): Twelve structured interviews were conducted with a cross-section of key stakeholders, including representatives from OCA (3 people), WMW Jamaica (5 people), VPA (2 people), and two adolescent mothers who had participated in project workshops. The selection of 15

https://www.oxfam.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Oxfam-Canada-Feminist-MEAL-Guidance-Note-English.pdf

interviewees aimed to ensure diverse perspectives, including young participants, senior leadership, programme staff, administrative personnel, and board members. Interviews ranged in length from 16 minutes (with an adolescent participant) to 1 hour and 31 minutes (with a staff member from a local partner organization); the interviews were conducted via Zoom, face-to-face or telephone. The interviews explored project implementation experiences, achievements, challenges, and sustainability considerations. All interviews were conducted by the Lead Consultant. Gender-Sensitive FGDs: Although FGDs were originally intended to be conducted separately by gender and age group (women, men, youth, elders) to foster safe and inclusive dialogue, logistical constraints necessitated some flexibility. Two of the six FGDs included a single male participant in otherwise female groups. The six FGDs comprised: one mixed-gender group with VPA staff; one allfemale group from WMW Jamaica; one with young men; two with rural adult and elderly women (one of which included a male participant); and one with urban adult and elderly women (also with one male). In total, 36 individuals participated, with group sizes ranging from 5 to 7 participants. Sessions lasted between 43 minutes and 1 hour 42 minutes and were conducted both in person and online. Discussions focused on participants’ perceptions of the project’s relevance, effectiveness, and barriers to implementation. This approach facilitated open dialogue around GBV, empowerment, and community engagement, while helping to identify differences in experience across demographic groups. All focus groups were facilitated by the Lead Consultant with support from a Research Assistant. Storytelling (PhotoVoice): A participatory storytelling method was used to explore the personal and community-level impacts of the WE-Talk project. Six participants (five women and one man), representing youth, women, and men, were recruited in collaboration with the local partner organizations to serve as co-researchers. Participants took part in two in-person sessions, each lasting approximately three hours. During the first session, the MTR team introduced ethical photography and storytelling principles and clarified that participants could choose to express themselves through other creative means if they preferred. The session also included a participatory co-design process to shape the storytelling framework. The MTR team shared a PhotoVoice example and facilitated discussion on what support participants might need. In the second session, participants shared images, titles, and narratives reflecting their experiences and evolving attitudes related to GBV and support systems. Trauma-informed group discussions enabled participants to reflect on and analyze key themes together. Verbal storytelling was optional. This participant-led thematic reflection aligned with feminist research principles and added depth to the overall MTR. Storytelling findings were integrated with other data sources to provide rich, context-specific insights. (See draft protocol in Appendix A) Both Storytelling sessions were facilitated by the Lead Consultant. For further details see Annex 2 – WE-Talk Storytelling Report. Process Mapping: Process mapping was conducted with implementation staff during IDIs to analyze decision-making processes, stakeholder interactions, and project delivery mechanisms. This exercise helped to surface key assumptions, identify bottlenecks, and document best practices. It also supported reflection on how project activities were executed, challenges navigated, and adaptations made. Conducted with staff from OCA, WMW Jamaica, and VPA, the process mapping contributed to understanding alignment with the project’s feminist and gender-transformative goals, while informing recommendations for improved coordination and implementation in the final project phase.

Quantitative Surveys: A total of 153 surveys were completed with WE-Talk participants16 across target parishes, including Portland, St. Ann, Hanover, Westmoreland, Clarendon, St. Elizabeth, Trelawny, Kingston and St. Andrew, St. Catherine and St. Mary. The surveys assessed progress against key indicators from the project’s PMF, including decision-making agency, willingness to report intimate partner violence (IPV), and awareness of available GBV support services. While outreach was made to all eligible participants from a list provided by WMW Jamaica, 18 individuals declined to participate, and contact could not be made with 42 others due to unavailable or incorrect phone numbers and failed email attempts. Nine additional participants initially agreed to participate at a later time but did not follow through.

Instruments All data collection tools were reviewed and approved by the project team comprised of OCA, VPA, and WMW Jamaica. The tools were tailored to address the MTR learning questions related to effectiveness, relevance, and sustainability. Emphasis was placed on cultural and linguistic appropriateness, with adaptations made to ensure that both the phrasing of questions and response options aligned with Jamaican English and local communication norms. All final tools are included in Appendix A, with descriptions as follows: Consent/Assent Forms: These forms ensured informed consent or assent across all data collection activities. They clearly outlined participant rights, confidentiality, voluntary participation, and the right to withdraw without consequence. Both paper and electronic versions were used, and forms included signature sections for adults and parental permission for minors. IDI Questions and Guide: This tool included tailored questions for key stakeholders such as implementing partners and community representatives. Questions aligned with the core MTR criteria, and accompanying guidance notes addressed ethical considerations, probing techniques, and interview facilitation tips. FGD Questions and Guide: Designed to support structured group discussions with various participant groups, this guide provided topic-specific questions linked to MTR objectives. It also included strategies for managing group dynamics, promoting equitable participation, and ethically navigating sensitive discussions. Storytelling (PhotoVoice) Protocol: The protocol (and complementary tools) supported storytelling through photography and reflection. It detailed the co-design process, roles of participants and facilitators, orientation procedures, and steps for conducting trauma-informed thematic analysis in group sessions. Survey Questionnaire: Adapted from the project’s baseline instrument, this structured tool captured quantitative data related to participants’ demographics, experiences, attitudes, and behaviours regarding GBV. The survey was administered remotely by trained enumerators. List of Resources for Children and Families: A referral sheet distributed during data collection, this list included up-to-date contact information for support services offering psychosocial, legal, and child protection assistance. It served as an immediate reference for participants requiring support.

16 Unlike the baseline, which surveyed the general population, the MTR sample was intentionally limited to WE-Talk participants to capture

learning from those most directly engaged with the project.

Child Safeguarding and Referral Protocol: This protocol guided ethical engagement with adolescent participants (ages 15–17). It outlined clear procedures for identifying and responding to child protection concerns, provided referral mechanisms, and detailed the mandatory safeguarding training required for all MTR team members.

Data Collection Procedures Before the MTR team engaged participants, local implementing partners conducted sensitization activities using simplified scripts to explain the purpose of the MTR, emphasize the voluntary nature of participation, and clarify participants’ rights. These messages were delivered through culturally appropriate channels such as WhatsApp, voice calls, email, or in-person contact, aligning with the project’s feminist and participatory approach. All data collection instruments – including surveys, interview guides, and FGD protocols – were reviewed and approved prior to use. Tools were pilot tested with a small sample to ensure clarity, cultural relevance, and appropriateness for discussing GBV-related issues. Written consent or assent was obtained before each FGD, IDI, and storytelling session, and verbal consent was reaffirmed at the start of each activity. For surveys, consent was obtained verbally over the phone after a clear explanation of the process. Six interviewers were trained to support survey data collection. They participated in two structured training sessions (each lasting two hours), which covered the purpose of the MTR, research ethics, mandatory reporting protocols, referral pathways, and the survey instrument. Interviewers were also trained in the use of data management tools such as Kobo Toolbox and the custom interview tracking platform developed by the MTR Data Analyst. After the initial sessions, interviewers practiced administering the questionnaire and returned with questions for clarification and feedback. Data were collected using both remote and in-person methods, with all sessions facilitated by trained personnel sensitive to working with vulnerable populations. Psychosocial support resources were made available, and confidentiality and participant safety were prioritized throughout the process.

4.4. Data Analysis Plan Qualitative Analysis The analysis of qualitative data was guided by feminist principles aimed at amplifying diverse participant voices and capturing nuanced experiences in the implementation of WE-Talk. Multiple methods were employed to ensure a rigorous and contextually grounded interpretation of the data. •

Alignment with MTR Framework: All qualitative data were organized and analysed in accordance with the MTRs evaluation criteria and corresponding learning questions. This ensured that the synthesis directly addressed the core objectives of the MTR and contributed to evidence-based reflections and actionable recommendations.

•

Thematic Coding: Key themes related to experiences with WE-Talk implementation/interventions, GBV awareness, attitudes, and behavioural shifts were identified through deductive coding. This approach was guided by the MTR framework and 18

the project's learning questions, which served as a predefined structure for organizing the data. Qualitative data from interviews, focus groups, and storytelling workshops were coded using categories (e.g. “relevance”, “barriers to participation”) to uncover recurring patterns and insights based on the MTR framework and learning questions. •

Narrative Analysis: The lived experiences of participants were explored through narrative analysis, allowing for a deeper understanding of personal and collective journeys. This approach was particularly useful in highlighting how WE-Talk interventions influenced shifts in perception, behaviour, and community engagement around GBV.

•

Disaggregated Analysis: Where appropriate, potential variations in outcomes and engagement across different groups (age, gender, location) were explored. While this analysis did not seek to make definitive claims about intersecting identities, it allowed for the identification of unique challenges and opportunities among sub-populations.

•

Triangulation: Findings from qualitative data were triangulated with quantitative indicators and desk review materials to enhance the credibility and comprehensiveness of the analysis. This cross-validation helped surface both converging evidence and areas of divergence, contributing to a more robust assessment of programme outcomes.

Quantitative Analysis The quantitative component of the MTR assessed progress toward WE-Talk’s performance indicators, using a structured survey instrument aligned with the project’s PMF. A total of 153 participants across multiple parishes completed the survey. •

Data Collection and Processing: Responses were cleaned and coded in line with baseline procedures to ensure consistency and comparability.

•

Demographic Breakdown: Results were disaggregated by gender, age group, and other key characteristics (e.g., education, caregiving responsibilities).

•

Indicator Analysis: Each PMF indicator was calculated using clearly defined logic, binary scoring, and aligned numerators and denominators.

•

Confidence Intervals: Given the modest sample size, 95% confidence intervals were calculated to assess the reliability of results.

•

Recoding and Thematic Grouping: Responses to open-ended and multi-select questions were grouped under thematic categories such as “gender inequality.”

•

Comparison with Targets: Midterm values were benchmarked against Year 3 targets to identify gaps and areas for improvement.

A detailed explanation of the quantitative methodology, including data cleaning procedures, indicator logic, and statistical analysis, is available in the Survey Data Analysis Report (Annex 1).

4.5. Ethical Considerations The MTR adhered to rigorous ethical standards, integrating a trauma-informed and survivor-centred approach across all methods. Participants were sensitized prior to engagement, and informed consent or assent was obtained before all data collection activities. Written consent was secured for qualitative methods, while verbal consent was obtained for surveys after a clear phone-based explanation. All tools and protocols were reviewed and approved in advance. The Lead Consultant served as the Ethical Focal Point, guiding the team on matters of participant safety, confidentiality, and mandatory reporting. All research personnel were trained on ethical protocols, including referral procedures and handling power dynamics. Data collection prioritized privacy, with anonymized data, secure storage, and strict confidentiality procedures. No identifying information was included in reporting or shared datasets. Special care was taken to minimize harm, particularly when addressing sensitive topics such as GBV. Interviewers were trained to manage distress, and referral pathways were activated when needed. Ethical considerations were extended to remote sessions, using secure platforms and privacy measures. Participants were not compensated monetarily but were acknowledged through small tokens of appreciation (i.e., pens, candy, refreshments, travel and lunch stipends). Efforts were made to include diverse voices and ensure that participation was voluntary, respectful, and did not interfere with daily responsibilities. Participants also received contact details for follow-up (see Appendix A for Consent Form Templates and List of Resources), and key findings were shared in accessible formats to promote transparency and learning.

5. Main Findings The findings are organized according to the three main evaluation criteria: Effectiveness, Relevance, and Sustainability. Each section responds to a set of learning questions, drawing on data from FGDs, IDIs, desk review, surveys and storytelling workshops. For each question, key themes are identified and illustrated with direct quotes from participants and project staff, with clear attribution to the data source (e.g. FGD or IDI). This structure reflects both individual experiences and broader patterns across stakeholder groups, while grounding the analysis in the voices of those most closely engaged with the project. The approach also supports a clear connection between participant perspectives and the core questions guiding the MTR.

5.2.1. Effectiveness Overall, the WE-Talk project has demonstrated notable effectiveness, particularly in reaching its target groups and increasing awareness of GBV. Community-based workshops facilitated by both WMW Jamaica and VPA have been widely praised by participants and observed by the MTR team as highly engaging, relevant, and empowering. Participants have not only gained knowledge on their rights, GBV-related issues, and available support services, but have also responded positively to the participatory methods, safe spaces, and respectful tone of the sessions. Many described the experience as transformative and expressed a desire to share what they learned with others, with some already becoming involved in advocacy and peer education efforts. The desk review confirmed this impact. Project reports revealed that on-the-ground community engagement accelerated in Year 3 of WE-Talk. Participatory rights-awareness workshops, facilitated with traumainformed approaches, created dynamic, inclusive environments where participants actively explore gender equality, human rights, and the realities of GBV. Feedback has been overwhelmingly positive, with individuals reporting increased understanding and a sense of empowerment to act as community advocates. These activities are directly contributing to project outcomes on awarenessraising and community mobilization. Despite these successes, delays in implementation have limited progress in certain areas of the project (see section on “Challenges and Constraints” below). In particular, planned work with influencers and technical support to women’s rights organizations, civil society groups, youth organizations, and feminist collectives has not yet been fully realized. These components remain important for extending the project’s reach and embedding its principles across sectors. There is also a recognized need to deepen engagement with younger age groups. While adult participants have shown clear signs of learning and behaviour change, sustained impact over time will depend on reaching adolescents and young adults with content that is age-appropriate and accessible. Strengthening this aspect of the project will be key to ensuring long-term shifts in norms and attitudes across generations. More detailed descriptions of findings under each of the Effectiveness Learning Questions are presented below. Learning Question 1: What progress has been made towards achieving outcome targets specifically with the groups the project is working with? Across workshops, interviews, storytelling sessions, and FGDs, the WE-Talk project is showing meaningful progress toward achieving its outcome targets with core participant groups. Participants are demonstrating increased awareness, a shift in attitudes, and greater confidence in speaking out about GBV. The evidence points to change happening at multiple levels, including the emergence of 21

community advocates, individual empowerment, and a growing confidence in sharing knowledge with others. These gains reflect a steady movement toward WE-Talk’s broader goal of reducing GBV through community-led, transformative approaches. Emergence of Community Advocates and Change Agents One of the clearest signs of progress is the number of participants who are stepping into roles as local “We have power too” advocates. Participants across several workshops (Participant, Anti-GBV described a growing sense of responsibility to speak up, intervene when necessary, and support others. At a WMW Workshop, St. Mary) Jamaica workshop in St Mary, for example, a participant stated, “I am resolved… to take a stand whenever I see anything happening,” while another added, “I do take a stand… knowing there is support now.” This transition from awareness to advocacy was also reflected in discussions with facilitators and implementing staff. A WMW Jamaica team member observed, “I have seen women who never thought they could talk in public or had a voice, come forward and lead conversations about GBV in their communities.” Another WMW Jamaica facilitator described the shift as subtle but powerful, saying, “The conversations became real… The men were opening up too, even if it was just two of them talking. That in itself is progress.” Focus group participants also spoke about taking what they learned and using it to engage their peers. One group described being motivated to be a part of the change in their respective communities (FGD, St. Catherine). In both rural and urban settings, participants are beginning to see themselves as leaders, not just learners, and are using their voices to challenge harmful norms in their families, churches, and communities. These changes are aligned with observations shared in project reports, which noted a strong interest from participants in becoming advocates and in spreading WE-Talk messages through informal networks and community-led initiatives. Personal Empowerment and Individual Transformation Participants repeatedly spoke about the impact the workshops had on them at a personal level. Many described the sessions as spaces where they could reflect on their own experiences and begin to question long-held beliefs and behaviours. A participant in one FGD said, “If you can change one person then that’s good” (FGD, St. Catherine). In several workshop settings17, particularly with women’s groups, the sessions created space for disclosure and healing. The Women’s Resource & Outreach Centre (WROC) women’s group, for instance, expressed a desire to set up a GBV community first-response system following their engagement in WE-Talk activities. Facilitators noted that participants became more vocal and confident in asking questions, challenging stereotypes, and building solidarity with others in the group. The midterm survey reinforces qualitative accounts of personal empowerment by showing clear gains in women’s ability to exercise agency over their own well-being. Overall, 80% of women reported decision-making power across key areas of life, surpassing the Year 3 target of 69%. Both 17

WMW Jamaica Anti-GBV Workshops

elderly (82%) and adult women (81%) exceeded their respective targets, pointing to strengthened confidence and autonomy among older cohorts. Young women also surpassed their Year 3 target (57% compared to 49%), though they continue to show the lowest absolute levels of agency, suggesting persistent barriers linked to age, economic dependence, and social norms. These results support qualitative evidence that WE-Talk’s workshops and advocacy are contributing to shifts in self-perception and control. Confidence in Sharing Knowledge and Spreading Awareness

“I share the information [from the workshop] with community members and they [community members] look forward to the new information” (Participant, FGD, St. Catherine)

A key sign of progress is the number of participants who now feel confident enough to share what they’ve learned with others. Many spoke about passing on information to their families, friends, and neighbours, and some even described engaging with strangers in community spaces.

This confidence in knowledge-sharing is especially important because it reflects the project’s intention to spark wider social change through peer influence and local leadership. Challenges and Constraints While there has been strong progress, implementers (i.e. OCA, WMW Jamaica and VPA) also shared a number of challenges. These included delayed start-up18, difficulty engaging some of the target groups, and the impact of external disruptions like Hurricane Beryl. They also noted that implementing a project of this size and nature has come with a steep learning curve. For local partner organizations, meeting donor requirements for monitoring, evaluation, financial reporting, and documentation has been demanding, especially with small teams and limited administrative support. High turnover within the OCA team also created some delays and and temporary gaps in technical support. Despite these constraints, both WMW Jamaica and VPA have delivered impactful programming and created meaningful spaces for participants. The positive response of participants suggests that workshops have built trust with community members and laid a solid foundation for continued engagement. WE-Talk has made clear and measurable progress in building awareness, shifting attitudes, and fostering a sense of empowerment among its core participant groups. The emergence of community advocates, increased confidence in speaking out, and willingness to share knowledge all point to the early stages of a broader movement. These signs of change, while still in development, reflect strong alignment with the project’s ToC. With continued support, the project is well placed to deepen these gains and further embed gender-transformative norms in the target communities. Learning Question 2: Are project strategies effectively reaching and engaging target groups (women, elders, young people)? The WE-Talk project has demonstrated meaningful success in reaching and engaging adult women and elders, particularly through trusted grassroots networks and culturally relevant facilitation. 18

See WE-Talk Annual Narrative reports for details.

WMW Jamaica, by partnering with CBOs such as GROOTS and WROC/WEBS, has situated the project in spaces where trust already exists. These partnerships have been especially effective in engaging women and older adults (men and women) who are active in community/civic associations, parenting groups and faith-based communities. Facilitators from WMW Jamaica and VPA described the importance of using participatory and nonjudgmental methods, including small group discussions, role plays, visual tools, and open dialogue. These approaches have helped create inclusive and dynamic learning environments. Sessions are intentionally designed to allow for multiple forms of participation, whether verbal or non-verbal. As one facilitator noted: “That is what I look through in terms of coming from a facilitator’s lens…if people are engaged. Because you can see if someone is with you, even if they’re not talking” (IDI, WMW Jamaica). Flexibility in Delivery and Barriers to Participation Facilitators have shown strong adaptability in scheduling workshops to accommodate participants’ availability, often aligning sessions with existing community meetings or holding them on weekends. While this approach improved attendance, there continued to be limited accessibility for working adults. Many participants observed by the MTR team (especially at weekday sessions) were either self-employed, retired, or unemployed, suggesting that workshop timing may unintentionally exclude those with more rigid work commitments. Additional barriers to participation were noted for caregivers. Although the workshops offer a supportive space for adults, they are not always designed with children in mind. “We need to start thinking about how This can discourage parents, especially to make the workshops more family mothers, from attending. Facilitators at one WMW Jamaica workshop debrief friendly. Even having a separate space meeting suggested offering parallel child- with colouring books or crayons could friendly activities such as colouring make a difference” (IDI, WMW pages, art supplies, or a designated play Jamaica staff member). area to make workshops more accessible for those with children. Engaging Young People and Men: Gaps and Opportunities While adult women and elders have been successfully engaged, reaching young people remains a challenge. One local partner organization acknowledged that youth who are not already connected to schools or structured programmes are more difficult to reach, especially young men (IDI, VPA). However, several promising approaches were identified for future outreach. One participant remarked, “It’s hard to reach youth who are not in school or already in a programme. But the football field or a corner reasoning19? That’s where you find them” (FGD, St. Ann). Others agreed that more direct and informal approaches would be necessary. As a WMW Jamaica staff member observed, “I don’t think the young people are being left out… but we may need to think more about how to reach them directly.” (IDI, WMW Jamaica)

19 Corner Reasoning refers to an informal, often spontaneous discussion among a small group of people gathered in a public or semi-public

space like a street corner, barbershop, shop front, or roadside.

Suggestions included hosting dialogues in informal spaces such as barbershops, football fields, and street-side gatherings, where young men feel comfortable and are more likely to engage in conversation. These community-led, culturally grounded settings may help bridge the gap between youth and the formal structures of the project. The MTR survey findings also suggested that WE-Talk strategies are currently most effective with women, while engagement with men and some youth is still emerging due to delays in this area. With VPA only recently taking on responsibility for men and boys’ engagement following CariMan’s departure, progress in this area is expected to accelerate. At the same time, women, particularly adults and elders, continue to demonstrate strong results. Young women also engaged positively, with most indicators on or above target. Young men and adult men, however, remain less likely to act despite holding progressive attitudes. Service awareness among them is high, yet some actions and rights knowledge are notably low. These patterns suggest that tailored approaches are still needed to translate men’s and boys’ awareness into action and to strengthen legal literacy across all groups. However, it is important to interpret results for men and boys with caution, as their lower engagement in the project to date has also meant lower levels of participation in the MTR. Creating Safe and Reflective Learning Environments One of the most consistently praised aspects of the WE-Talk project (including its approach and workshop content, methodology and facilitators) has been its ability to create safe, respectful spaces for reflection and dialogue. As one young adolescent “It was a great participant put it:

environment, actually we got to express ourselves. We got to ask any question we wanted to ask. We get to learn about things we weren’t sure about. And everybody helped us to feel great.” (IDI, Adolescent Female)

“It was a great environment, actually we got to express ourselves. We got to ask any question we wanted to ask. We get to learn about things we weren’t sure about. And everybody helped us to feel great. Like, they never let us feel bad. They never let me feel bad per se. And I was always one that attend…so I'm sure that nobody else would feel bad.” (IDI, Adolescent Female) Facilitators also observed that once participants entered the workshop space, they were often fully engaged and open to learning. The inclusive tone and relevance of the materials contributed to this sense of comfort and psychological safety. “I find that what we are presenting…people get it. And they’re learning and looking at things a different way” (IDI, WMW Jamaica).

Another facilitator emphasized, “We’ve created a safe space where people can reflect, be honest, and feel supported” (IDI, VPA). These experiences highlight not just the reach of WE-Talk, but the depth of participant engagement. Overall, the WE-Talk project has made important strides in reaching and engaging its primary target groups, particularly adult women and elders, by rooting its activities in local networks or institutions and prioritizing respectful, participatory learning. Further effort is needed to reach underrepresented groups such as working adults, young people, and men. Addressing scheduling barriers, providing child-friendly support during sessions, and expanding into more informal community spaces will be key to strengthening the project’s inclusivity and extending its impact. 25

Learning Question 3: Are project activities (training, advocacy, media campaigns) effective in increasing GBV knowledge, awareness and prevention? The baseline and participatory action research (PAR) studies conducted prior to the implementation of WE-Talk activities revealed important gaps in GBV awareness and understanding (see Desk Review in WE-Talk Inception Report). Although there was general awareness of GBV, much of this was narrowly framed around physical violence. Emotional, economic, and sexual abuse were often overlooked, and only about a quarter of respondents could accurately identify the causes and consequences of GBV. Misconceptions were more prevalent among older populations and in some rural parishes, while youth (particularly young women) showed greater conceptual awareness but limited familiarity with support services. Across all groups, mistrust in authorities and fear of reprisal hindered reporting. The PAR study further underscored the influence of rigid gender roles, harmful masculinity norms, and limited emotional literacy in perpetuating cycles of violence. It also pointed to community norms that treated GBV as a private matter and identified weak enforcement of laws and systemic barriers to accessing support. By the time of the MTR, the survey findings20 revealed a mixed level of achievement against Year 3 targets.21 Notably: •

•

Understanding of GBV causes and consequences (1110b): At baseline only 23% of respondents demonstrated accurate knowledge.22 The Year 3 target for accurate knowledge of GBV causes and consequences was set at 31%. The midterm data shows that 21.6% of respondents have an understanding of GBV causes and consequences. Adult women (24.1%) and elderly women (23.3%) reported the highest level of knowledge, while men, especially elderly men (5.9%), recorded the lowest. Positive attitudes toward women’s and girls’ rights (1110c): The Year 3 target for the number of individuals who demonstrate positive attitudes toward women’s and girls’ rights, particularly in relation to gender roles and rejection of harmful norms was 65%. At midterm, 96.6% of respondents exhibited positive attitudes, surpassing the target suggesting strong receptiveness to programme messaging.

•

Awareness of support services (1120a): At baseline, 66% could name a valid support service. The Year 3 target was 70%. By midterm, 98.7% of respondents showed awareness of support services indicating that WE-Talk’s campaigns and outreach may have contributed to improved access to information.

•

Willingness to report intimate partner violence (1100b): At baseline, 61% of those surveyed expressed willingness to report IPV. The Year 3 target was 65%. At midterm, 73.9% of participants expressed willingness to report IPV. These results suggest growing openness across most demographics to engage with authorities when IPV occurs, likely influenced by community awareness efforts and increasing trust in available services.

For a full description of the MTR Quantitative Data Collection, Analyses and Results please see the WE-Talk Survey Data Analysis Report in Annex 1. 21 Targets for Year 3 were determined on the basis of baseline data and in consultation with project partners regarding strategic priorities. 22 Please note that any reference to baseline data is for context only; because the baseline surveyed the general population and the MTR focused on WE-Talk participants, results should not be interpreted as increases or decreases over time.

•

Community contributions to prevention and response (1100c): At baseline, 62% reported taking action in the past year. The Year 3 target was 68%. By midterm, 84.2% of respondents reported taking preventive or responsive action, surpassing the target and suggesting that WE-Talk is helping to build community champions and peer advocates.

•

Understanding of legal rights (1110a): Baseline knowledge was very limited, with only 14% able to explain the Domestic Violence Act and related protections. The Year 3 target was 24%. At midterm, 7.8% of participants were able to explain the Domestic Violence Act and related protections, showing no progress. This remains a critical gap despite wider gains in awareness and attitudes.

Overall, the midterm findings indicate strong improvements in awareness of services, positive attitudes, and community engagement, with most indicators exceeding Year 3 targets. However, persistent weaknesses in knowledge of GBV causes/consequences and especially legal rights require renewed investment and targeted engagement.

Learning and Behaviour Change The WE-Talk project’s combination of training, advocacy, and communication efforts has proven effective in building awareness and sparking attitudinal shifts around GBV. Across interviews and focus groups, the project’s workshops (Big Man Ting and the WMW Jamaica Anti-GBV sessions) emerged “It was an emotional moment as its most influential and transformational when one of the participants interventions. Workshops were consistently described as powerful tools for consciousness- began to cry. She had never raising. They equipped participants with a new thought about her own language to talk about their experiences (and those of others), helped challenge long-held beliefs, and experience as GBV until that encouraged critical self-reflection. Content was moment.” (IDI, WMW Jamaica) described as practical and emotionally resonant, grounded in “Sometimes people don’t everyday scenarios that made abstract concepts feel more real. Facilitators noted that participants were not just engaging even realize it’s abuse intellectually but were connecting on a personal level. Many until they’re in a space experienced “aha moments” and emotional breakthroughs. One like this where the participant in the St. Ann focus group shared that the WMW Jamaica Anti-GBV workshops helped her realise that what she layers are pulled back.” had witnessed between her parents growing up was a form of (IDI, WMW Jamaica) economic violence – something she had not previously understood until it was discussed during the session.

Participants also demonstrated the relevance and usefulness of the programme and topics by sharing transformative stories of how they came to understand members of vulnerable communities. For example, one participant from an FGD in St. Catherine said she now acknowledges that everybody’s life counts irrespective of their lifestyle choices. She expressed that her approach to people who identify as homosexual has changed significantly because of the workshop. A similar sentiment was shared by a participant from the St. Mary focus group, who explained that she was initially hesitant about the “gender” aspects of the workshop. However, after taking part in the session, her perspective shifted, and she noted that even as a Christian, she now approaches members of the LGBTQ+ community with greater openness and understanding. Knowledge Sharing and Practical Application The WE-Talk workshops are not only supporting personal reflection but are also helping participants feel more confident talking to others about what they’ve learned. Many described sharing information with family, friends, and neighbours, and starting conversations about GBV in everyday situations.

"After the first session, the second session, I guess people mind start to change in a way, you feel more comfortable because you realize gender-based violence is not about anything like that. Whether they call themselves male, female or anything like that… whoever they are they also have a right…" (Participant, FGD, St. Mary)

In one focus group, participants explained that they are pleased with the knowledge they have gained because they are able to impart that knowledge to persons who are unable to access the workshops (FGD, St. Catherine). Local partner organizations confirmed that participants are applying the content in their lives. One WMW Jamaica facilitator noted that people returned to say they had stepped in during family conflicts, corrected comments from friends, or changed how they talk to their children. These actions suggest that the project is starting to influence behaviour.

“You [now] hear people say things like, ‘Before, I would’ve blamed her. Now I realize it’s not so simple’” (IDI, WMW Jamaica).

This kind of informal knowledge sharing is an important part of how WE-Talk is building community awareness and helping to shift attitudes outside of the formal sessions. Facilitation Approaches that Encourage Reflection and Real-World Application The success of the workshops was also linked to how they were delivered. Facilitators leaned on participatory, arts-based methods such as drama, visual prompts, and storytelling, which proved especially effective in making difficult topics approachable and fostering a non-threatening learning environment. In multiple sessions, the project’s focus on role-playing and real-world examples was praised for equipping participants with practical tools and not just theoretical knowledge. As one facilitator recalled: “It’s not just that they understand the term GBV now…they understand what it looks like in their homes, their relationships, their communities.” (IDI, WMW Jamaica)

Participants also reflected that the sessions helped them approach conversations more constructively, identify red flags earlier, and navigate conflicts with more empathy. Advocacy and AI-Informed Media Campaigns The project also deployed media campaigns as a parallel strategy. Notably, these campaigns were designed using AI-powered research that analysed Jamaican digital discourse around GBV.23 This method allowed WE-Talk to anchor its messaging in real data, capturing language, sentiment, and misconceptions that could be directly addressed in campaign content. According to the Quilt.AI study reviewed in the desk review, an analysis of over 245,000 online searches and 16,000 social media posts from 2021 to 2023 confirmed that GBV is a consistent topic in Jamaica’s digital spaces, especially following high-profile incidents. Online conversations were most active in urban centres such as Kingston and St. Andrew and reflected a wide range of views, including survivor solidarity, victim-blaming, and the normalization of violence. The study found that younger Jamaicans, particularly women and LGBTQ+ users, are at the forefront of digital activism despite frequent online harassment. It also identified four major themes shaping public discourse: advocacy and awareness, personal testimony, critiques of institutional response, and the trivialization of GBV. These findings reinforced the importance of pairing public education with institutional reform to challenge prevailing social norms. This approach was described by one local partner organization as a “powerful tool” that added a layer of evidence-based precision to the project’s communication work. One team member noted that the AI-informed design helped them “get beyond assumptions” and speak directly to how people were actually thinking and talking about GBV online (IDI, WMW Jamaica). As highlighted in the desk review, a major achievement under WE-Talk has been the launch of the FACTSS media campaign (Fostering A Culture Toward Safety and Support) by WMW Jamaica, aimed at countering GBV myths and promoting supportive social norms through a range of platforms including television, radio, social media, and community events. The overarching campaign was formally launched on May 30, 2024, at Emancipation Park in Kingston. The event featured the première of the first campaign advertisement, a panel discussion on GBV among adolescents, and the interactive “Tunnel of Misconceptions” installation, which offered an audiovisual experience debunking common GBV myths. Approximately 80 people attended, the majority being adult women. Following the launch, WMW Jamaica rolled out a series of thematic mini-campaigns throughout the year, shaped in part by feedback gathered during the initial event. These minicampaigns were strategically timed to align with national and international moments of advocacy and reflection, allowing WE-Talk to sustain momentum and deepen public engagement. Each campaign addressed specific aspects of GBV discourse, from challenging normalization and victimblaming to promoting survivor solidarity and gender-equitable relationships. However, measuring the effectiveness of these campaigns has posed a challenge. While the messages were widely disseminated and positively received, WMW Jamaica acknowledged that tracking behavioural or attitudinal shifts from media exposure alone is more difficult than monitoring workshop outcomes (IDI, WMW Jamaica). The evidence strongly supports the effectiveness of WE-Talk’s training and campaigning efforts in building knowledge and promoting prevention of GBV. Workshops emerged as the most powerful 23 Oxfam Canada, WMW Jamaica, & Quilt.AI. (2023). Tapping social media using artificial intelligence to understand gender-based violence

norms and perceptions in Jamaica. Oxfam Canada.

vehicle for change. They fostered not only increased understanding but personal healing, behavioural transformation, and community advocacy. Learning Question 4: Which aspects are really attractive to participants? What factors motivate participants to engage in project activities? Participants and facilitators consistently described WE-Talk sessions as engaging, empowering, and personally meaningful. Several factors stood out as key motivators for participation: the creation of a safe and welcoming space, the use of interactive and culturally relevant methods, the practicality of the content, and the opportunity for peer learning and leadership. A Safe and Respectful Space Participants appreciated that WE-Talk created a non-judgmental and affirming environment, where they could speak openly without fear of criticism or stigma. This sense of emotional safety was essential to their willingness to engage and return (FGD St. Catherine and St. Ann). Facilitators also emphasized that tone and trust-building were central to the project’s success: “What pulls them in is the tone… that they will not be judged, and that their voice matters.” (IDI, VPA facilitator) This environment was particularly important for participants who had not previously spoken about sensitive or traumatic experiences. As one woman noted in the St. Mary workshop: “A di first mi really get fi talk some a dem thing yah out loud… mi feel better.”24 (Participant, FGD, St. Mary) This was also echoed in the Big Man Ting FGD, where the young male participants noted the importance of mutual respect and open dialogue: “Mi like how di man reason with wi. Him mek wi feel like wi opinion matter.”25 (Participant, Big Man Ting FGD) Practical Content Participants across all FGDs expressed that the topics covered were relevant to their everyday lives. Sessions addressed issues like gender roles, emotional regulation, and communication in a way that helped them reflect on their own relationships and community dynamics. These real-life connections made the content more engaging and useful.

“They [participants] were able to reflect on how they would respond differently to things now… not just what is GBV, but how they can act.” (IDI, WMW Jamaica)

Creative and Culturally Relevant Approaches Participants were particularly drawn to the creative facilitation methods used throughout the WETalk sessions. These approaches created opportunities for expression and learning that went

24 “It’s the first time I really got to say some of these things out loud…I feel better” 25

“I like how the man (facilitator) reasoned (spoke) with us, He made us feel like our opinion mattered.”

beyond traditional formats. Facilitators noted that these approaches were often the moments when participants opened up and reflected more deeply: “They love the dramatizations. That’s when people really open up or you see a shift in body language… they feel it.” (IDI, WMW Jamaica). Peer Learning and Community Leadership Many participants were motivated not only by the knowledge they received but also by the opportunity to share that knowledge with others. Several described a growing sense of responsibility to educate and support peers, neighbours, and family members. Many participants explained that they had begun speaking to friends differently and guiding them based on what they had learned in the sessions. Participants are drawn to partner activities because they provide a safe, relevant, and empowering space for reflection and learning. Facilitators’ respectful approach, the use of interactive and creative methods, and the opportunity for leadership and peer education have all contributed to strong levels of engagement. For many, participation is not just about personal growth but about being part of a collective effort to challenge GBV in their communities. Learning Question 5: Will and are targeted audiences using and applying the knowledge from project activities/interventions? Findings from FGDs, workshop observations, and interviews suggest that participants are not only engaging with the information provided through WE-Talk but are also applying it in their daily lives. This use of knowledge is seen in personal relationships, community interactions, ethical decisionmaking, and in some cases, direct responses to situations involving GBV. These patterns indicate strong alignment with the project’s intended outcomes around behaviour change and communitybased prevention. Sharing Knowledge with Family and Community Participants consistently described using what they learned in the workshops to start conversations in their households and with neighbours. These exchanges often took place with people who had not attended the sessions, demonstrating a willingness to pass on information and expand the reach of the programme. One participant shared: “I share with my husband and coworkers… like what’s abuse and what is not… I also did a display [on GBV] at the library where I work.” (FGD, St. Mary) Young people who participated in the Big Man Ting programme also showed this impulse to bring others into the conversation. Many of the young men expressed wanting to invite their friends to the sessions as they felt that they needed to hear these messages too. The two adolescent mothers interviewed also spoke about telling family members, friends and partners about the things they learned in the workshop sessions. Applying Knowledge in Real-Time Situations In some cases, participants acted on the information in the middle of a session. During an anti-GBV workshop observed by the MTR team, a participant approached the facilitators to request a referral for their neighbour who was being regularly physically abused by their partner. This type of 31

immediate, private action demonstrates the level of trust built within the sessions and the relevance of the content to participants’ real lives. Behavioural and Attitudinal Shifts Several participants spoke about changes in how they respond during interpersonal conflicts. These reflections suggest movement from awareness to practical behaviour change. Facilitators confirmed this trend. One implementer noted that participants were moving beyond surface-level understanding to reassess how they handle relationships:

“Mi used to just cuss back or walk out. Now mi try fi hear dem out and calm down before mi answer.” (Participant, FGD, St. Mary)

“There’s a continuum from the knowledge acquisition to the help-seeking behaviour. And then ultimately… people have then begun to look at their own relationships completely differently.” (IDI, WMW Jamaica) Strengthening Ethical Practices and Community Accountability Participants also reported adopting a more thoughtful approach to confidentiality and accountability. One group shared how they now protect the privacy of others who attend sessions: “They know now not to talk other people business from the session. That stay inna the room.” (Participant, FGD, St. Catherine) Others described becoming more confident in speaking up when they heard problematic or dismissive comments in public spaces: “We start fi talk up when something wrong. Not just laugh off dem joke anymore26.” (Participant (Male), FGD, St. Ann) These behaviours reflect a shift in social norms and personal responsibility. Rather than simply learning about GBV, participants are acting on their knowledge and encouraging those around them to reflect and do the same. The evidence shows that participants are using what they learn in practical and meaningful ways. They are sharing information with family and peers, adjusting how they manage conflict, referring others to support services, and challenging harmful language and behaviour. These changes reflect a deeper engagement with the content and a commitment to applying it in real-world situations. The fact that these actions are emerging organically from participants suggests that the project is laying a solid foundation for sustained community-based responses to GBV.

5.2.2. Relevance The relevance of WE-Talk’s approach has been consistently affirmed by participants and implementing partners. The project is seen as highly appropriate for the Jamaican context, addressing deeply rooted issues around gender, violence, and community well-being. Many stakeholders highlighted how the content and methods reflect the cultural and social realities that participants face. From the outset, the project employed several strategies to ensure this relevance, including a formative research process, a baseline assessment, the use of AI-supported social media analysis, and early-stage consultations with target groups. These inputs helped shape workshop

“We start to speak up when something is wrong. We don’t just laugh off their jokes anymore”

content, engagement strategies, and facilitation methods that resonate with diverse community members. Learning Question 1: How well does the project align with the needs and priorities of participants and partner organizations? From both participant and partner perspectives, WE-Talk’s focus and approach are clearly relevant to the social realities on the ground. Across interviews, focus groups, and workshops, there was consistent feedback that the project resonates with people’s lived experiences, particularly in relation to GBV and the wider culture of violence in Jamaican society. Participants, together with the local partner organizations and the implementing agency described WE-Talk as timely, necessary, and reflective of long-standing grassroots priorities. The demand for safe, community-based spaces to discuss issues like violence, relationships, and power came through strongly, along with a recognition that these conversations are needed for both healing and change. In the St Mary FGD, participants reflected on the pervasiveness of violence in their homes and communities and expressed a strong need for more spaces to discuss it. One participant explained: “Violence is the norm now... it's what we are exposed to. We need more places to talk about it.” (Participant, FGD, St. Mary) The VPA team shared similar reflections during their focus group, emphasizing that the Big Man Ting programme offered young men something they often lacked: safe, supportive environments to explore questions of masculinity and emotional expression. As one facilitator noted, “[m]any of them [boys] don’t have a father figure, and they’ve never had a space where they can talk about what it means to be a man and not feel judged.” This sense of relevance was echoed by participants and facilitators alike, who said that the themes of GBV, family conflict, and community violence resonated deeply, and participants consistently expressed appreciation for having a safe, non-judgmental setting where these issues could be openly discussed. Implementing partners also emphasized that the project aligns well with their core priorities around grassroots engagement and community development. WE-Talk has supported local organizations in revisiting and strengthening their community organizing practices. Local implementing partners described the project as reinforcing long-standing values of feminist and rights-based work while offering new tools, research, and strategies to advance these goals in the current context. Across different settings and stakeholder groups, there was a shared understanding that WE-Talk is responding to a real and urgent need for structured spaces where violence, gender roles, and community safety can be openly explored. The content and delivery methods reflect the realities of the Jamaican context and were repeatedly described as accessible and respectful. There is strong alignment between WE-Talk’s design and the needs and priorities of its key stakeholders. The project is grounded in issues that matter deeply to participants and partners and has provided a platform for dialogue and reflection that many felt had been missing.

Learning Question 2: Has WE-Talk changed the approach based on changing needs of partner organizations and/or participants? Throughout the first half of the project, partners have shown the ability to adapt in response to both shifting partner capacities and the evolving needs of participants (e.g. moving workshop sessions online). Flexibility has been an important feature of implementation, particularly in the face of external challenges such as delayed community entry, Hurricane Beryl, and the transition following the exit of one partner organization. These realities required changes in plans but also opened opportunities to reassess who was being reached and how. Local partner organizations adjusted their strategies to broaden participation across age groups and address gaps in engagement. This included exploring ways to connect more directly with young people, expanding access for older adults, and considering how to reach men more effectively. Partners also spoke about adapting the curriculum material to fit different audiences, both in content and delivery (e.g. adjusting workshop series from 5 to 3 sessions since many participants found it difficult to sustain attendance over time). Workshops were scheduled in ways that worked for participants, including holding sessions on weekends or during regular group meetings, and in some cases, delivering multiple concurrent sessions in different locations per day to meet community demand and coverage goals. WMW Jamaica’s team was able to draw on a broad network of skilled members to facilitate sessions, which supported ongoing flexibility in delivery. It was also noted that early project investments in facilitator training helped strengthen the team’s ability to pivot when needed. In the third year of implementation, VPA joined the project to strengthen programming for men and boys. VPA designed a curriculum focused on positive masculinity and community reflection, rather than directly emphasizing GBV, as a way to create safer, more relatable spaces for young men. All three partners (OCA, WMW Jamaica and VPA) have demonstrated meaningful adaptability in response to both internal and external changes. The ability to revise approaches based on partner feedback, participant demographics, and community context has been a core strength of the project to date. Going forward, sustaining this flexibility will be important for deepening engagement and ensuring that the project remains responsive to the communities it serves. Learning Question 3: Is the project contributing towards short- and long-term sustainability of the partner organizations? WE-Talk has contributed to the strengthening of local partner organizations, particularly in relation to internal reflection, visibility, and grassroots facilitation. The two partner organizations completed the CAT4GJO self-assessment and have developed tailored organizational development plans (Desk Review: Y3 Annual Report). Both WMW Jamaica and VPA staff spoke to the value of project processes in helping their teams better understand what is required to sustain programming beyond the life of donor-funded initiatives.

The CAT4GJO self-assessment tool was widely seen as a useful entry point for internal capacity-building. One interviewee explained,

“I think the WE-Talk project is great, because it demonstrates that WMW can do this kind of work and can be trusted to do this kind of work.” (IDI, WMW Jamaica)

“The CAT4GJO was an opportunity to reflect on where we are and what it will take to keep doing this work.” (IDI, WMW Jamaica).

For many, the exercise clarified gaps in organizational structure and revealed areas that need attention if long-term programming is to be viable. However, partners also noted that while the process was useful, not all parts of the tool felt fully relevant to their context (FGD, WMW Jamaica). Several participants from the two local partner organizations expressed the need for support in adapting tools to local realities.

The project also helped improve organizational credibility. Partners reported that WE-Talk raised their visibility within the sector and among key stakeholders, including government actors. In the short term, the project allowed them to hire staff, open physical office spaces, and form new relationships with other community-based groups and networks (FGD, WMW Jamaica; IDI, WMW Jamaica). There were also examples of emerging community leadership among participants. One implementer explained, “We’ve seen some of our participants move into leadership roles— chairing groups, supporting others.” (IDI, WMW Jamaica) This points to early signs of community-driven structures taking root, with some participants showing potential to sustain aspects of the project’s work independently.

“I think the instrument [CAT4GJO] can be tweaked… it's somebody who is thinking they're trying to be comprehensive. And you're just not being realistic to a real place. That's what I think. It's like. Somebody will sit down doing some academic work and not thinking of real people in real organizations.” (FGD, WMW Jamaica)

“Most of it [CAT4GJO] is okay. And we did find that there the parts that are not culturally relevant that need to be addressed. But it's extremely long.” (FGD,

Despite these strengths, resource constraints remain a major challenge. WMW Jamaica) Partners repeatedly cited limited staffing as a barrier to fully meeting deliverables. As one staff member noted, “We don’t have enough staff to meet all the deliverables.” (IDI, WMW Jamaica). While the number and type of activities were generally agreed upon, some respondents suggested that the overall design may have been overly ambitious in relation to available human resources. The fact that some key positions were not filled consistently across the implementation period further compounded these pressures. Others emphasized the challenges of managing a project of this size with relatively small teams, and the steep learning curve associated with donor reporting and MEL requirements. One local partner organization participant explained: “The burden of reporting… it’s been quite stressful for WMW. The MEL framework feels a bit disconnected from how we work.” (FGD, WMW Jamaica) 35

Several members of the local partner organizations also mentioned a need for clearer and more consistent guidance from OCA in areas such as MEL, financial documentation, and managing external expectations. They described instances of tension around language and approach, particularly when donor-driven frameworks did not fully align with local feminist practice or community-centred ways of working. Some of these challenges were linked to broader dynamics in the donor–recipient relationship, including efforts toward decolonization, navigating differing definitions and expectations, and addressing assumptions that may not have been realistic given the local context. While some of these issues were observed within the WE-Talk project, others reflected more systemic tensions common across development partnerships. WE-Talk has contributed to important capacity gains among implementing partners, particularly in self-assessment, visibility, and programming reach. The project has helped local organizations reflect on their structures, demonstrate their capabilities, and create new leadership opportunities within communities. However, these gains remain vulnerable without sustained support. To build on current progress, longer-term funding, improved staffing, and stronger technical guidance (e.g. on MEAL; trends in the sector etc.) will be needed. With the right investments, the project’s initial contributions can support more stable, independent, and community-driven GBV programming in the years ahead. Learning Question 4: What can OCA do to better support partner organizations? Implementing partners consistently described their relationship with OCA as positive and collaborative. They appreciated OCA’s flexibility, openness to feedback, and willingness to adjust timelines or strategies based on local realities. This adaptive approach helped foster trust and enabled local teams to navigate challenges on the ground. At the same time, partners identified areas where additional support would strengthen the partnership and help maintain project momentum. A recurring issue was the impact of frequent staff turnover within OCA, which they felt created some delays and placed added administrative burdens on local teams. As one team member noted: “There have been so many staff changes on the OCA side… it’s hard to keep explaining everything from scratch.” (IDI, WMW Jamaica) While this turnover did not fundamentally undermine the partnership, it did affect consistency in communication and decision-making. Staff from both WMW Jamaica and VPA shared that having to reintroduce project background and context each time a new OCA representative joined impacted progress in key areas. Local Implementers suggested that more structured onboarding processes for new OCA team members would help mitigate this issue. There was also a clear call for more strategic support in communications, policy engagement, and monitoring and evaluation. One WMW Jamaica staff member shared, “We need help taking this to the next level…like packaging some of our work for policymakers or donors.” (IDI, WMW Jamaica). This feedback reflects a desire to move beyond implementation and towards impact at scale. Partners want to use the lessons and materials developed under WE-Talk to influence broader systems and policies. To do so effectively, they need assistance in presenting their work in ways that resonate with decision-makers and funders (e.g. through practical guidance notes, sample formats for visualizing results, and examples of strong proposals or concept notes that can be adapted for potential funders). 36

In terms of monitoring and evaluation, partners noted that while the project included valuable tools such as the CAT4GJO, clearer technical guidance from OCA would strengthen reporting and analysis. Some also described the MEL reporting requirements as misaligned with their usual ways of working, which created added stress for already stretched teams. Much of the concern centred on reporting. Specifically, respondents noted that the types of data required did not always align well with realities on the ground, making it difficult to collect and report consistently. As one respondent noted: “Probably the biggest issue from my point of view is the GBA Plus federal-style reporting system, which I love…on one hand, you know, I think it's a wonderful thing that exists. But it's also, as with so many things on this project, it's designed for completely different types of entities. It's not in any way designed for a tiny little organization like WMW. And so, we're required to report in a similar way to Canadian statutory agencies, whether the military or educational services, or even the Mounties. So that is a good example of something that felt quite alien, and to a degree still does.” (IDI, WMW Jamaica) In addition, there is scope to support implementing partners with practical tools to ease the MEL burden, such as standardized participant databases and electronic data collection templates linked to key indicators. Targeted training and collaborative planning could help refine MEL processes moving forward. In addition, both WMW Jamaica and VPA emphasized the need for continued support in strengthening peer-led structures and connecting grassroots efforts to national platforms. This includes helping participants and facilitators transition into long-term community leadership roles, as well as identifying opportunities for WE-Talk messages and materials to feed into national-level advocacy or government programmes. In this regard, donor agencies and international partners can play a valuable role by helping to raise the visibility of local organizations and, where appropriate, facilitating access to government counterparts. Such support can help ensure that locally driven solutions are better integrated into policy dialogue and national frameworks. Interestingly, while some interviewees raised the question of whether OCA’s lack of a physical presence in Jamaica affected implementation, both partner organizations felt that this had not been a major barrier. The strength of relationships, regular communication, and local autonomy appeared to offset the need for in-country Oxfam staff. The overall partnership with OCA is seen as strong, grounded in mutual respect and a shared commitment to community-driven work. However, partners identified areas where more targeted support would increase effectiveness and sustainability. These include deeper investment in MEL, communications, and national-level policy engagement, as well as more structured onboarding processes to manage staff transitions. Small grants for community-led action, assistance with visibility, and support in formalizing peer-led structures were also noted as areas for future collaboration. By strengthening these elements, OCA can help local partners build on early successes and position their work for greater long-term impact.

Learning Question 5: How effectively does the project integrate Jamaican cultural perspectives and lived experiences into its approach to GBV prevention and response?

“They give you real-life examples. Not something from a book.” (Participant, FGD, St. Catherine)

WE-Talk’s approach to GBV prevention and response is rooted in the cultural and social realities of Jamaica. Both participants and implementers emphasized that the language, examples, and facilitation style used in workshops felt familiar and relevant. Participants described the sessions as grounded in their daily experiences and appreciated the use of clear, relatable content.

Based on feedback from implementers, this cultural relevance was intentionally built into the project’s design through a range of formative and participatory processes. These included early consultations with target groups, a baseline Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices assessment, and two key research activities: a participatory qualitative study led by CariMAN and a social media analysis using artificial intelligence to track perceptions of gender and GBV across Jamaican online spaces. These efforts helped partners better understand the social norms, language, and emotional responses that shape how people view and respond to violence. This grounding was reinforced by the selection of local partners with deep community ties and thematic expertise. WMW Jamaica brought decades of experience working with women and feminist networks, while VPA offered a strong record of engaging men and boys through community-based violence prevention. Programme activities were co-designed through a series of conversations with target populations, allowing each implementing organization to tailor content in ways that reflected their audiences’ lived experiences. Facilitators used culturally familiar techniques to support learning and participation. In the Big Man Ting sessions, for example, the activities and open discussions allowed young men to see themselves reflected in the scenarios. As one facilitator explained, “The youth connect with the activities…they really see themselves in it.” (FGD, VPA) This approach not only helped surface complex issues but also created space to address topics that are often considered taboo. Several participants reported shifts in their thinking about sexuality, violence in the home, and power dynamics in relationships. The non-judgmental environment and use of culturally resonant materials helped create a space where people felt safe enough to speak honestly and reflect critically. WE-Talk has effectively embedded Jamaican cultural perspectives into its approach, making the programme more relatable, engaging, and impactful. From partner selection and participatory curriculum development to research-informed design and facilitation techniques, the project reflects a strong understanding of local context. This cultural fluency has been one of WE-Talk’s greatest strengths and should continue to be prioritized as the project evolves. Learning Question 6: To what extent do participants feel that WE-Talk's interventions reflect their specific needs, including accessibility, language, and socio-economic realities? Participants consistently described WE-Talk’s content and delivery as accessible and relevant to their daily lives. The language used in workshops was familiar and clear, and the examples were 38

drawn from everyday experiences. This helped participants feel that the sessions were not only informative but also respectful of their realities. Facilitators played a key role in creating an inclusive environment where participants felt acknowledged and heard. Even those who did not speak often were encouraged to reflect and engage. Participants also described making sacrifices to attend because they valued what was being offered. One participant put it plainly, “Mi cya always afford fi come. But mi still try. Because it worth it.”27 (FGD, St. Ann). At the same time, several barriers to full participation were identified. Transport costs, lack of childcare, and workshop timing were all mentioned as challenges. While facilitators made efforts to adapt where possible (e.g. by offering sessions on weekends or during regular group meetings) these adjustments did not fully address the broader structural constraints faced by some community members. The need for more flexible formats (although some sessions were offered online), child-friendly options, and more transport support was raised in several interviews and focus groups. WE-Talk’s interventions are largely seen as responsive and grounded in the social and linguistic realities of participants. The language, facilitation style, and content are widely appreciated and contribute to a strong sense of relevance. However, economic and logistical barriers continue to limit access for some groups. Addressing these challenges through practical adjustments (e.g. increased travel stipend amount) will be important to ensure that the programme is equally accessible to all intended participants.

5.2.3. Sustainability Sustainability is always a complex consideration in projects of this nature. Both OCA and local partner organizations expressed concerns about what sustainability should look like for WE-Talk and which elements are most likely to continue beyond the current funding cycle. There was broad agreement that sustainability is particularly challenging for small, local NGOs that face ongoing constraints in staffing and resources. Interviewees also acknowledged that this is a difficult global moment for development work and fundraising more broadly. This context is further shaped by the rise of anti-rights discourse globally, underscoring the importance of continued support to help organizations and activists maintain momentum for social change. Despite these challenges, several aspects of WE-Talk were identified as having strong potential for continuity after the close of OCA and GAC funding. These include research materials and resources, selected components of the workshop curricula, community-level advocacy efforts, parts of the social media and campaign products, and elements of the CAT4GJO tool. Each of the four learning questions under the Sustainability criteria are discussed below. Learning Question 1: What is the likelihood of sustaining project outcomes given project design/approach?

“I can’t always afford to come. But I still try. Because it’s worth it”

WE-Talk’s design offers several promising features that support sustainability. Its participatory approach and flexible implementation structure have created meaningful opportunities for community engagement and ownership. Across interviews and FGDs, both partners and participants consistently emphasized the importance of grounding the work in local realities. The decision to use community-based mobilizers/influencers has been particularly impactful. These individuals are seen as trusted members of the communities they serve, which has helped foster open dialogue on difficult topics such as violence, gender norms, and trauma. For example, the Big Man Ting workshops only use male facilitators which has really resonated with the young male participants. This trust has enabled deeper participation and created space for individuals to reflect honestly and take action in their own lives.

“An all-male team really helps a lot with buy-in and trust” (FGD, VPA).

The participatory structure of the project has also contributed to a strong sense of local ownership. One VPA staff member described this effect, saying, “The way the project is set up... it gives communities a chance to own some of the changes.” (FGD, VPA). Similarly, a WMW Jamaica team member shared that the project’s influence is already taking root in communities: “Even if funding stops, people already see the benefit. It plants a seed” (IDI, WMW Jamaica). This perspective highlights that even as formal activities may end, the ideas and relationships built through WE-Talk have the potential to live on in local dialogues, attitudes, and informal advocacy.

“When we speak about

At the same time, implementing partners acknowledged sustainability, a ping goes the limitations of relying solely on community energy to sustain momentum. As one WMW Jamaica interviewee off in my head because I reflected, “When we speak about sustainability, a ping goes want to ask, does off in my head because I want to ask, does sustainability sustainability mean that we mean that we continue this work for free?” (IDI, WMW continue this work for Jamaica). This concern was echoed across several free?” (IDI, WMW interviews. While the project has successfully built strong engagement and a sense of ownership, stakeholders Jamaica) stressed that sustaining these efforts over time still requires resources, including support for transportation, stipends, materials, and ongoing coordination. Without some level of continued funding and support, the risk remains that progress could stall, especially in under-resourced communities. The WE-Talk project is well-positioned for sustainability, thanks to its participatory design, rooted facilitation model, and strong community buy-in. However, sustaining this progress will also require recognition that even the most committed grassroots work depends on some level of ongoing support. To ensure the long-term viability of WE-Talk’s outcomes, both structural reinforcement and resource planning will be needed to bridge the gap between initial momentum and lasting change.

Learning Question 2: What elements of the project are likely to be sustained beyond its lifespan? Across interviews and FGDs, both implementing partners and participants identified several elements of the WE-Talk project that are likely to continue beyond the life of the current funding. While concerns remain about the limited capacity of small organizations and the resource constraints they face, there was optimism that certain tools, relationships, and ways of working developed under “I'd love to see some of the WE-Talk have strong potential for long-term use. Social media and campaign materials

social media things being reused.” (IDI, VPA)

Social media and campaign materials emerged as one of the clearest areas for sustained use. The visibility and reach of campaigns like “Hey School Girl” were widely praised, and local partner organizations expressed interest in repurposing and extending them. At the same time, WMW Jamaica highlighted that limited staffing has constrained how much the campaign tools have been used to date. “We have a lot of work to do to make sure that we make full use of social media which we're not making as much use as we could right now, because the WE-Talk team is tiny for the amount of work.” (WMW Jamaica, FGD). Going forward, partners indicated that equipping community members to use their own digital platforms to share messages may be one of the most realistic ways to scale and sustain visibility efforts. For example, one member of a local implementing partner explained that “…[m]any of them (participants) already have Instagram accounts... [we can] use that to share information or speak out against, or about things that are happening.” (IDI, WMW Jamaica). Curriculum and Learning/Research Materials Training models and workshop content also emerged as strong candidates for sustainability, especially through adaptation. Although many interviewees acknowledged that mounting workshops are expensive, there were suggestions and ideas on how this work could continue post WE-Talk. WMW Jamaica is exploring the development of online formats and training-of-trainers models that would allow other civil society actors or community leaders to deliver sessions independently. The VPA team also noted potential for institutionalizing the work with men and boys through schools or local networks. Participants from the Big Man Ting workshops similarly expressed a desire to continue peer-led discussions and even recruit others to join. The boys mentioned institutionalizing the Big Man Ting programme by incorporating it into other existing clubs at their schools such as the “Gentleman’s Club” or linking with other groups such as the Jamaica Youth Advocacy Network (FGD, Young Men, Big Man Ting). The boys participating in this FGD also suggested starting a similar programme for girls where they would have a space to discuss their issues and concerns. Across several interviews, there was support for the idea that trained facilitators from within the communities could extend the reach of WE-Talk using existing content and materials. Research outputs were also cited as important legacy products. Numerous members of the WMW Jamaica team spoke about the potential to build on the AI-assisted research work, noting that 41

“[team members] have been having various opportunities to present information from that [work]... there’s opportunity there to do more.” (IDI, WMW Jamaica). Partners saw these materials as credible and practical resources that could support ongoing advocacy and training well beyond the life of the project. Community Advocacy structures and Support mechanisms Another area of promise is the integration of WE-Talk components into community advocacy and informal support networks. A senior WMW Jamaica staff member shared that participants consistently ask for continued engagement, noting, “…[e]very single group that has completed the workshop has said, ‘We want more. Do not stop engaging us. Do not be another project that leaves us high and dry.’” In response, WMW Jamaica is exploring “We want more. Do not low-cost, ongoing engagement strategies, such as using stop engaging us. Do not be WhatsApp groups to share information and sustain another project that leaves dialogue. They also described plans to connect participants to existing advocacy networks and activities us high and dry.” such as the Thursdays in Black series, stating:

(Paraphrased from Participants in the AntiGBV workshops)

“We’re looking at whether we can feed the groups from here that do not have a home into that (GBV and Feminist networks) ... so they have a space from which they can still do some kind of activism.”

OCA team members noted that one potential mechanism for sustaining project impact lies in the support groups emerging from the women’s groups engaged by WMW Jamaica. While they expressed doubt about the longevity of the media campaigns, given current budget constraints, they highlighted the informal networks beginning to take shape among participants. In some cases, individuals have initiated independent interactions beyond the workshops, such as inviting one another to church-based discussions and spaces to share lived experiences. These kinds of grassroots connections, they suggested, align with how feminist movements have historically developed and are therefore likely to endure beyond the life of the project. Organizational Capacity Building The CAT4GJO self-assessment tool was also viewed as a valuable resource that may be adapted for longer-term use. While some noted that not all components of the tool aligned with the Jamaican context, the underlying process of guided reflection and capacity assessment was widely appreciated. One interviewee suggested that the tool – or selected elements of it – could be useful for smaller CBOs and grassroots groups seeking to reflect on their internal capacity and identify areas for growth (IDI, WMW Jamaica). Finally, interviewees emphasized that sustainability is not only about tools or structures, but also about cultivating a culture of shared responsibility and small-scale activism. A WMW Jamaica team member described an upcoming Year 4 initiative aimed at encouraging participants to take simple actions, such as providing feedback to media houses on inappropriate or harmful reporting.

“We’re looking at what are simple actions. We know that everybody’s not going to go down the road for a street protest…but there have been different ways that we have been engaging groups.” (IDI, WMW Jamaica) The sustainability of WE-Talk’s progress will not depend on any single strategy or resource, but rather on the project’s ability to embed tools, relationships, and habits into the everyday work of partners and participants. Elements with the strongest prospects for continuation include campaign materials (especially social media content), participatory workshop content, informal advocacy networks, and tools like the CAT4GJO. Continued support for peer-led engagement, structured handover of tools, and investment in community-based leadership will be essential to ensure these components remain active and relevant beyond the life of the project. Learning Question 3: What recommendations or strategies can be adopted for a more lasting impact? Throughout interviews and focus groups, stakeholders highlighted several key strategies that could support longer-term impact for WE-Talk, particularly in the context of limited resources and the evolving development landscape. A central theme was the importance of embedding WE-Talk approaches into existing institutional structures such as schools, churches, and community groups. These spaces are already trusted and widely accessed and offer opportunities to extend the reach and relevance of WE-Talk content. As one staff member from WMW Jamaica observed, “[It] would be good if churches and schools could use the materials officially.” (IDI, WMW Jamaica). By formalizing the integration of rights-awareness curricula and discussion models into these settings, the project could reach new audiences and build sustainability through institutions that are already rooted in community life. Another widely supported recommendation was the use of train-the-trainer models, which were seen as essential for scaling WE-Talk’s reach and maintaining engagement beyond the life of the project. As one interviewee emphasized “More training of trainers would help reach more people... people still asking for sessions.” (IDI, WMW Jamaica). This model could be especially valuable in rural communities or areas where direct facilitation from the core team is no longer feasible. Equipping trusted community members, youth leaders, and peer educators with the skills and tools to facilitate workshops or community conversations can help sustain momentum and encourage ripple effects. However, it is equally important that community facilitators are equipped to navigate the sensitive nature of GBV-related discussions and are well-informed about the appropriate protocols, ethical considerations, referral pathways and how to provide accompaniment that is supportive, survivorcentred, and grounded in principles of care and dignity. Stakeholders also stressed that for WE-Talk’s impact to be meaningful over time, awareness must lead to action. This means ensuring that referral systems and service pathways are not only visible but accessible and functional. Participants raised concerns that in some cases, awareness-raising does not go far enough unless it is backed by follow-through and access to support. Strengthening connections between communities and service providers will help ensure that those experiencing or witnessing GBV know where to go and what to expect when they seek help. 43

In addition to programming strategies, there was strong recognition that resource mobilization must be a priority in the coming phase. Local partner organizations are already considering how to generate funding to continue the work. Some are exploring ways to offer training sessions or educational resources to external partners or community groups as a paid service. Others are seeking partnerships with allied organizations in the women’s movement to share platforms, reduce duplication, and pool limited resources. One WMW Jamaica staff member spoke of actively pursuing funding from non-traditional sources, noting the need to think creatively in a climate where traditional donor support is increasingly uncertain. This includes looking to private sector partners, philanthropic networks, or hybrid income models that allow organizations to remain mission-driven while covering essential costs. These efforts will be important not only to sustain WE-Talk’s core activities, but also to continue investing in community leadership, advocacy, and institutional engagement. Finally, local partner organizations emphasized that lasting impact requires not just replicating existing tools but adapting them to context. This includes refining curriculum content based on community feedback, simplifying tools for grassroots use, and exploring alternative formats such as digital delivery or arts-based engagement for younger audiences. For instance, one WMW Jamaica staff member outlined plans for simple advocacy actions that participants can take using media content they already consume, such as submitting feedback on harmful news stories or promoting respectful language through their own social media channels. Long-term impact will depend on the integration of WE-Talk’s principles, tools, and approaches into the everyday spaces where people gather and learn (e.g. schools, churches, youth clubs, and community networks). Expanding peer-led facilitation, strengthening referral linkages, and ensuring meaningful follow-up for participants are critical steps. Just as important will be the efforts of local partners to build sustainable funding streams and collaborative relationships within the broader gender justice ecosystem. With the right support, WE-Talk components/activities have the potential to not only continue, but to evolve into a community-led movement that drives real change in GBV prevention in Jamaica. Learning Question 4: How can OCA better support partner organizations in maintaining momentum post-project? Throughout the MTR, implementing partners emphasized that OCA’s flexible, collaborative approach has been one of the project’s strengths. The willingness to listen to feedback, adjust timelines, and generally respect local expertise was consistently noted as a positive and enabling factor. As partners begin to think about sustainability, they identified several ways in which OCA can continue to play a meaningful role in supporting their work beyond the current project cycle. One key recommendation was the creation of ongoing peer learning spaces. Implementers expressed a strong desire for regular opportunities to share insights, challenges, and strategies across partner organizations (especially with VPA coming onboard there is an opportunity to partner with and learn from WMW Jamaica’s experience in the project). These exchanges were viewed as not only useful for technical learning, but also for maintaining morale, sparking innovation, and building a shared sense of purpose across the WE-Talk community. 44

Small-scale funding for local initiatives was also highlighted as a practical and impactful way to support continuity. As a facilitator from WMW Jamaica shared, “Small grants from OCA for local groups would mek28 a world of difference.” These funds could support grassroots advocacy actions, community dialogues, or targeted follow-up with participant groups that have expressed interest in staying engaged. Even modest support would allow local organizations to be more responsive to emerging needs without relying entirely on new, large-scale donor funding. Partners also identified a need for ongoing technical support, particularly in monitoring and evaluation. While many staff have gained experience with feminist Monitoring, Evaluation, Accountability and Learning (MEAL) frameworks through WE-Talk, the learning curve has been steep, especially for smaller organizations. Additional mentorship or structured guidance from OCA could help organizations strengthen their data systems and use evaluation findings more effectively for planning, “Two years is really short… advocacy, and fundraising. At the same time, partners stressed that long-term funding remains essential, especially for work that seeks to shift attitudes and social norms. VPA in particular emphasized the limitations of entering the project midstream and the difficulty of demonstrating impact in a condensed time frame. Without extended investment, the risk is that promising shifts may stall before they are fully embedded at the community level.

some fundamental changes that are critical are necessary… but awareness to behavior change takes probably another five years.” (IDI, VPA)

Finally, there was interest in support for sustainability planning and resource mobilization. Some organizations are already exploring how to continue the work by forming new partnerships, sharing platforms with allied groups in the women’s movement, or offering training and resources to external audiences. One WMW Jamaica team member also mentioned seeking funding from nontraditional sources as a way to maintain operations in a difficult donor climate. OCA’s role in facilitating connections, mentoring on proposal development, or amplifying partner visibility could play a critical role in these efforts. Partners view OCA not just as a funder, but as a trusted collaborator. As WE-Talk moves toward its final years, targeted support in a few key areas such as ongoing MEAL guidance, cross-partner learning, small-scale funding, and resource mobilization could significantly enhance the likelihood that the project’s gains will endure. Continued partnership, even in a lighter-touch capacity, would demonstrate a sustained commitment to community-led change and help ensure that WE-Talk’s impact is not only meaningful but lasting.

make

6. Conclusions & Recommendations 6.1. Main Conclusions At mid-point, WE-Talk is demonstrating strong progress toward its objectives. The project has established trust with communities, built on culturally resonant approaches, and supported local partners in expanding their reach and visibility. Participants describe tangible shifts in how they think, act, and speak about GBV. These early outcomes confirm alignment with the project’s theory of change and suggest that WE-Talk is laying the foundation for long-term social norm transformation. However, challenges remain in extending reach (especially to young people and men), strengthening organizational capacity, and ensuring sustainability. With two years remaining, the priority is to consolidate gains, address identified gaps and embed practices that can endure beyond the life of the project. The evidence can be summarized across four broad themes: Progress and Agency WE-Talk is raising awareness, shifting attitudes, and strengthening participants’ sense of agency. Community advocates are emerging with confidence to speak out, share knowledge, and challenge harmful norms. Evidence from workshops and campaigns shows that participants are applying what they learn in practical ways, from conflict resolution to peer education and referrals to support services. Relevance and Inclusivity The project’s participatory and culturally grounded methods have made activities highly relevant and valued by participants. Safe spaces for dialogue have been especially valued. However, engagement has been strongest among adult women and elders, with men, working adults, and young people remaining underrepresented. Addressing barriers such as scheduling, caregiving responsibilities, and economic constraints will be essential to ensure inclusivity. Adaptability and Partner Capacity The project has shown flexibility, adjusting to contextual disruptions like Hurricane Beryl and partner transitions. This flexibility has sustained momentum and responsiveness. At the same time, implementing partners have made capacity gains through self-assessment, visibility, and programmatic reach. These gains are promising but remain vulnerable without continued technical support, stable staffing, and resource mobilization. Sustainability Prospects The project has established promising foundations for sustainability. For these gains to translate into lasting change, WE-Talk’s approaches and tools need to be firmly embedded within everyday community institutions, supported by stronger referral linkages, more structured peer leadership 46

pathways, and clear partner transition plans. With these elements in place, and with continued investment, the project is well positioned to consolidate progress and extend its impact beyond the current funding cycle. Taken together, these conclusions highlight both the achievements to date and the areas where further effort is needed. The following section presents conclusions and recommendations in more detail under the criteria of effectiveness, relevance, and sustainability.

6.2. Recommendations and Strategic Priorities for the Second Half of the Project (2025–2027) 6.2.1 Effectiveness Main Conclusions •

• •

•

WE-Talk has been most effective where implementation is consistent. Workshops and campaigns have been widely praised, with participants demonstrating increased knowledge, confidence, and agency. Delays and staffing changes slowed roll-out of influencer engagement and organizational capacity support. Adult women and elders have benefitted most, while young men and out-of-school youth remain underrepresented. Male engagement and organizational capacity support are less advanced. Emerging peer advocates and community-led initiatives confirm alignment with the theory of change but remain at an early stage of development.

Recommendations 1. Develop and refine tailored engagement strategies to increase participation of underrepresented groups, including young men, out-of-school youth, and working adults. For example, dedicate at least one full workshop cycle per year to marginalized populations, using neutral venues and customized facilitation approaches. Target: Local Partners (WMW, VPA); Priority: High; Timeline: From October 2025 – annually through March 2027. 2. Deepen coordination between local partners by creating more opportunities for joint programming, advocacy, and learning. This should include co-facilitated activities, shared campaigns, and structured peer exchanges to maximize synergy and reduce duplication. Target: Local Partners with OCA support; Priority: High; Timeline: October 2025 – December 2026. 3. Facilitate peer learning with other Oxfam regional GBV initiatives to exchange promising practices, particularly in engaging men and youth, and in managing MEAL requirements. These exchanges can strengthen innovation and inform adjustments during WE-Talk’s final phase. Target: OCA; Priority: Medium; Timeline: January – June 2026. 4. Consolidate and share knowledge products by systematically curating existing WE-Talk studies, training materials, communication outputs, and research tools into a central repository. Once compiled, disseminate lessons learned to partners, communities, and 47

policy stakeholders to maximize uptake and influence. This should include finalizing and organizing the programme database for continuity. Target: Local Partners with OCA technical input; Priority: Medium; Timeline: By December 2026. 5. Expand Big Man Ting outreach to additional schools, sports clubs, and youth groups, embedding mentorship and leadership pathways for young men to sustain engagement and model positive masculinities. Target: VPA (with OCA support); Priority: High; Timeline: January 2026 – September 2026. 6. Strengthen referral linkages and service pathways by integrating structured dialogues between community participants and duty-bearers (police, social workers, health providers) into existing Anti-GBV workshop sessions. This builds trust, clarifies roles, and ensures community members know where to seek support. Target: WMW; Priority: High; Timeline: From October 2025 – June 2026.

6.2.2 Relevance Main Conclusions • • • •

The project’s participatory and culturally grounded methods are highly relevant to the Jamaican context. Safe spaces are particularly valued. Engagement has been strongest among women and elders, with barriers (costs, caregiving, scheduling) limiting inclusivity for other target groups. OCA and Local Partners adapted delivery methods in response to crises (Hurricane Beryl, partner withdrawal). Project visibility is uneven, with some participants unaware of WE-Talk’s identity or broader activities.

Recommendations 1. Adapt workshop design to participant needs by piloting family-friendly sessions with parallel child-friendly activities, thereby expanding accessibility for caregivers and parents. Target: Local Partners (WMW); Priority: High; Timeline: October 2025 – June 2026. 2. Adapt workshop content based on participant feedback and emerging trends, incorporating themes such as technology-facilitated GBV, financial abuse, and influences from the online “manosphere.” Convene a joint workshop with OCA, WMW, and VPA to review participant feedback, identify knowledge gaps, and discuss potential adaptations to ensure materials remain current and responsive. Target: Local Partners with OCA technical support; Priority: Medium; Timeline: January – September 2026. 3. Strengthen WE-Talk visibility and communications by consistently branding all activities (signage, opening remarks, community media) and amplifying communication efforts. Establish regular partner updates, feedback loops, and a shared information platform to foster transparency, improve collaboration, and enhance recognition of WE-Talk’s contributions. This will also assist in facilitating the endline evaluation. Target: Local Partners & OCA; Priority: High; Timeline: October 2025 – September 2026. 4. Continue to leverage trusted cultural and social platforms such as schools, churches and community events to embed WE-Talk messages and sustain programme relevance across diverse audiences. Target: Local Partners & Communities; Priority: Medium; Timeline: October 2025 – September 2026.

5. Link workshop alumni with existing community structures (e.g., youth clubs, churches, women’s groups, schools) so they can continue dialogue and peer support, with ongoing facilitation and guidance from partners to maintain quality and focus. Target: Local Partners; Priority: Medium; Timeline: January – December 2026.

6.2.3 Sustainability Main Conclusions • • •

Foundations for sustainability exist through CAT4GJO capacity assessments, peer-led advocacy, and grassroots networks. However, these gains remain fragile without structured exit planning, stronger referral linkages, and dedicated resource strategies. Current sustainability efforts are ad hoc, and NGO/CBO capacity gaps risk undermining long-term continuation.

Recommendations 1. Finalize structured sustainability/exit plans for each partner by early 2026, with quarterly check-ins. Plans should define clear strategies for continuing relevant components (e.g., curricula, social media content, communication products) and for embedding tools such as CAT4GJO outputs into organizational practice. Target: Local Partners with OCA oversight; Priority: High; Timeline: By March 2026, with quarterly follow-ups through December 2026. 2. Convene sustainability roundtables with donors, partners, civil society, and government actors to align priorities, identify synergies, and avoid duplication. These forums should also spotlight partner achievements and explore opportunities for policy integration. Target: OCA; Priority: High; Timeline: Mid-2026. 3. Strengthen fundraising and resource mobilization capacity by providing partners with coaching on grant applications, proposal writing, and outreach to non-traditional donors (e.g., private sector, philanthropic networks). Target: OCA with Local Partners; Priority: Medium; Timeline: October 2025 – June 2026. 4. Develop a train-the-trainer model by adapting workshop content into facilitation guides for diverse audiences. Certify at least 20 community facilitators by end-2026 to ensure continuity of programming and broader reach. Target: Local Partners; Priority: High; Timeline: January – December 2026. 5. Support grassroots-led continuity mechanisms by encouraging participants and informal community networks to sustain dialogue and visibility. This includes promoting low/no-cost initiatives such as WhatsApp groups, buddy systems, school clubs, and alumni engagement in ongoing advocacy activities (e.g., “Thursdays in Black”). Target: Local Partners & Communities; Priority: Medium; Timeline: October 2025 – September 2026.

6.2.4 Monitoring, Evaluation, Accountability and Learning (MEAL) Main Conclusions •

• •

WE-Talk has established functioning MEAL systems, but reporting is burdensome and not always integrated into decision-making, particularly for partners less familiar with projects of this scale. Partners and participants are keen to use more participatory and creative approaches (e.g. storytelling, reflection workshops). Technical guidance from OCA is valued but could be deepened to strengthen consistency and reduce reporting challenges.

Recommendations 1. Provide closer technical guidance and capacity-building for partners on refining targets, data collection, and reporting formats to improve quality and consistency. Target: OCA; Priority: High; Timeline: October 2025 – March 2026 2. Streamline reporting systems and improve database management to reduce burden while maintaining accountability. This should include the development/adaptation of simple tools for data collection and management (e.g., automatic dashboards) supported by OCA’s MEL specialist to ensure consistent application by all partners. Target: OCA with Local Partners; Priority: High; Timeline: October 2025 – March 2026. 3. Plan and design the Endline evaluation as the main instrument for impact assessment. Develop a concept note that includes a robust survey component and complementary qualitative methods to measure outcomes and impacts. Ensure alignment with the baseline and MTR while addressing previous gaps. Target: OCA with Local Partners; Priority: High; Timeline: Concept note finalized by June 2026; implementation October 2026 – March 2027. 4. Pilot participatory MEAL tools such as reflection workshops, storytelling, peer learning, and grassroots validation sessions to ensure community perspectives inform evidence and learning. Target: Local Partners; Priority: Medium; Timeline: January – September 2026. 5. Integrate MEAL findings into adaptive management by using quarterly reviews to reflect on progress, adjust strategies, and reinforce collaboration between OCA, partners, and communities. Target: OCA with Local Partners; Priority: High; Timeline: Quarterly from October 2025 – December 2026. 6. Strengthen community accountability by engaging peer advocacy groups to share MEAL findings locally, encouraging dialogue and collective responsibility for outcomes. Target: Local Partners & Communities; Priority: Medium; Timeline: January – September 2026.

6.3. A final note WE-Talk enters the second part of the project with a solid foundation of community trust, practical tools, and committed partners who collaborate effectively. To achieve its long-term goals, the project will need to focus on cementing proven approaches, addressing barriers to participation, and strengthening connections between communities and support services. With continued adaptation and a strong commitment to locally grounded, gender-transformative programming, WE-Talk is well positioned to make a lasting contribution to GBV prevention and response in Jamaica. 50

Appendix A – Consent Form Templates & Instruments Mid-Term Review of the WE-Talk Project Consent Form – Participation in Focus Group Discussion Dear Participant, You are invited to participate in a group discussion (called a focus group) as part of the Mid-Term Review (MTR) of the WE-Talk Project. WE-Talk (Wo-Man Talk for the Reduction of Gender-Based Violence) is a five-year project that works to reduce gender-based violence in Jamaica by increasing community awareness and strengthening support systems. It is implemented by WMW Jamaica and the Violence Prevention Alliance, with support from Oxfam Canada and Global Affairs Canada. You were selected because you previously participated in a WE-Talk activity. The focus group will explore their experiences and perspectives. The session will last approximately 60 minutes. Participation is voluntary. You may decline to answer any questions and can stop at any time without any consequences. The discussion will be audio-recorded, and only the research team will have access to the recordings. We will not use your name in any reports. There are minimal risks, such as discussing sensitive topics related to violence. If you become distressed, you will be supported, and referrals to counselling services will be available. The benefit is that your voice may help strengthen the WE-Talk project and support positive change in your community. If you have questions, please contact: •

Charlene Coore Desai, Lead Consultant: cooredesai2@gmail.com

•

For concerns about your rights or your child’s rights as a participant, contact: Carla Caxaj, Oxfam Canada: carla.caxaj@oxfam.org

If you agree to participate, please sign below. Name: _________________________ Signature: _________________________ Date: _________________________

Mid-Term Review of the WE-Talk Project BIG MAN TING Programme Child Assent Form – Participation in Group Talk Hi, We are inviting you to take part in a group talk to hear your thoughts on the BIG MAN TING Programme. WE-Talk works to stop violence and support fairness between women, girls, boys, and men in communities across Jamaica. You are being asked because you participated in the BIG MAN TING Activity. The talk will last about one hour. You do not have to talk if you don’t want to, and you can leave the group anytime. We will record the session with audio so we can remember what people said. Only the research team will hear the recording. Your name will not be shared in any report. Some things we talk about might be sensitive, and that’s okay. If you feel upset, we will help and can connect you to someone to talk to. You will not be in trouble for saying what you feel. If you have questions or need help, you or your parent can talk to: •

Charlene Coore Desai, Lead Consultant: cooredesai2@gmail.com

•

Or contact Carla Caxaj from Oxfam at carla.caxaj@oxfam.org

Would you like to take part? ☐ Yes, I want to join ☐ No, I don’t want to join Your Name: _________________________ Signature: _________________________ Date: _________________________

Mid-Term Review of the WE-Talk Project Staff Consent Form – Participation in Focus Group Discussion Dear Participant, You are invited to join a focus group discussion as part of the Mid-Term Review (MTR) of the WE-Talk Project. WE-Talk is a five-year initiative to reduce gender-based violence in Jamaica by changing social norms and strengthening community and organizational responses. It is implemented by WMW Jamaica and the Violence Prevention Alliance (VPA), with support from Oxfam Canada and Global Affairs Canada. You are being asked to participate because you work on the WE-Talk project with one of its implementing organizations. This discussion will last about 60 minutes and will explore your insights on the project’s progress, strengths, and areas for improvement. Your participation is completely voluntary, and you may skip any question or leave the group at any time. The discussion will be audio-recorded, and no names will be included in any reports. The information you share will be treated confidentially and used only for the MTR. Risks are minimal, but the topic may bring up strong feelings. If you experience discomfort, we will offer support and referrals. The benefit is contributing to project improvement and future planning. For more information: •

Charlene Coore Desai, Lead Consultant: cooredesai2@gmail.com

•

To discuss your rights as a research participant, contact: Carla Caxaj, Oxfam Canada: carla.caxaj@oxfam.org

If you agree to participate, please sign below. Name: _________________________ Signature: _________________________ Date: _________________________

Mid-Term Review of the WE-Talk Project Staff Consent Form – Participation in In-Depth Interview (IDI)

Dear Participant, You are invited to take part in an individual interview for the Mid-Term Review (MTR) of the WE-Talk Project. WE-Talk is a five-year effort to reduce gender-based violence in Jamaica by empowering communities and building stronger responses through civil society. The project is implemented by WMW Jamaica and the Violence Prevention Alliance (VPA), with support from Oxfam Canada and Global Affairs Canada. You have been selected because of your role in implementing the WE-Talk project. The interview will take 45 to 60 minutes. It will be audio-recorded, and your responses will be kept confidential. Your name will not be used in any reporting. Participation is voluntary. You may choose not to answer certain questions or stop at any time. Some questions may be sensitive, and support will be available if needed. This interview will help strengthen the WE-Talk project by learning from your experiences and reflections. For questions or support: •

Charlene Coore Desai, Lead Consultant: cooredesai2@gmail.com

•

To raise any concerns about your rights as a participant, contact: Carla Caxaj, Oxfam Canada: carla.caxaj@oxfam.org

If you agree to take part, please sign below. Name: _________________________ Signature: _________________________ Date: _________________________

Parental Consent Form – Participation in Interview Mid-Term Review of the WE-Talk Project

Dear Parent or Guardian, Your child is invited to take part in a short interview as part of the Mid-Term Review (MTR) of the WE-Talk Project. This project works to prevent violence and promote fairness between women, girls, boys, and men across communities in Jamaica. Your child was invited because they previously participated in a WE-Talk activity. The interview will take about 40 minutes. It will be recorded using audio so that the research team can remember what was said. Only the research team will listen to the recording. Your child’s name will not be shared in any reports or results from this study. Participation is voluntary. Your child can skip any questions or stop the interview at any time. Some questions may be sensitive, but that’s okay. If your child feels upset at any time, support will be provided, and the team can connect them to someone to talk to. There is no penalty for choosing not to participate or for choosing to stop. This interview will help improve the WE-Talk project by learning directly from the young people who were part of it. If you or your child have any questions or need more information, please contact: •

Charlene Coore Desai, Lead Consultant: cooredesai2@gmail.com

•

Carla Caxaj, Oxfam Canada: carla.caxaj@oxfam.org

Please indicate whether you give permission for your child to participate: ☐ Yes, I give permission for my child to participate ☐ No, I do not give permission Child’s Name: ___________________________ Parent/Guardian Name: ___________________________ Signature of Parent/Guardian: ___________________________ Date: ___________________________

Mid-Term Review of the WE-Talk Project Child Assent Form – Participation in Interview Hi, We are inviting you to take part in an interview to hear your thoughts on the WE-Talk Programme. WE-Talk works to stop violence and support fairness between women, girls, boys, and men in communities across Jamaica. You are being asked because you participated in one of the WE-Talk Activities. The interview will last about 40 minutes. It will be audio-recorded, and your responses will be kept confidential. Your name will not be used in any reporting. Participation is voluntary. You may choose not to answer certain questions or stop at any time. Some things we talk about might be sensitive, and that’s okay. If you feel upset, we will help and can connect you to someone to talk to. You will not be in trouble for saying what you feel. This interview will help strengthen the WE-Talk project by learning from your experiences and reflections. If you have questions or need help, you or your parent can talk to: •

Charlene Coore Desai, Lead Consultant: cooredesai2@gmail.com

•

Or contact Carla Caxaj from Oxfam at carla.caxaj@oxfam.org

Would you like to take part? ☐ Yes, I want to participate ☐ No, I don’t want to participate Your Name: _________________________ Signature: _________________________ Date: _________________________

Mid-Term Review of the WE-Talk Project Consent Form – Participant (18 years and older)

What is the study about? You are invited to take part in a survey for the Mid-Term Review of the WE-Talk project, a five-year initiative in Jamaica aimed at preventing gender-based violence (GBV) by promoting fairness, safety, and respect for women, men, boys, and girls. This survey helps us understand how the project is working and how it can be improved. Who is conducting the study? The survey is being led by an independent research team on behalf of the WE-Talk project, which is managed by Oxfam Canada and implemented by WMW Jamaica and the Violence Prevention Alliance (VPA). Why were you selected? You were invited to participate because you have been involved in one or more, WE-Talk activities in your community. What will you be asked to do? If you agree, you will complete a short questionnaire about your experiences, attitudes, and opinions related to gender, violence, and community life. The survey will take about 20–30 minutes and may be done in person or online. Are there any risks or benefits? You will not be paid for participating, but your input will help improve programmes that promote safety and fairness in Jamaican communities. The questions may be personal, but you can skip any question or stop at any time. If anything discussed causes distress, support services will be offered. Will your information be private? Yes. Your responses will be kept confidential, and your name will not be linked to your answers. The information you give will be stored securely and only used by the research team. No names or identifying information will appear in any report. Mandatory reporting: If you tell us something that indicates a child is being abused or is in need of care and protection and it has not been reported, we are legally required to report this to the appropriate authorities. Can you change your mind? Yes. Participation is voluntary. You may stop at any time, without giving a reason. If you change your mind after completing the survey, you may contact the lead researcher at the email below to have your data removed (before July 31, 2025). 57

Who can you contact for more information? •

Charlene Coore Desai (Lead Consultant): cooredesai2@gmail.com

•

Carla Caxaj (Oxfam Canada): carla.caxaj@oxfam.org

_________________________________________________________________________________ Consent ☐ I understand the purpose of this study. ☐ I understand that my participation is voluntary and that I can withdraw at any time. ☐ I understand that my answers will be kept confidential. ☐ I give consent to participate in the WE-Talk MTR survey. Name: _______________________________________ Signature: ____________________________________ Date: _________________________________________ Contact (optional): _____________________________

Mid-Term Review of the WE-Talk Project Parental Consent Form – Participant (for minors under 18)

What is the study about? Your child is invited to take part in a survey for the Mid-Term Review of the WE-Talk project. This project is working to prevent gender-based violence and promote fairness and respect among women, men, girls, and boys in Jamaica. Who is doing the study? The survey is being carried out by an independent research team on behalf of Oxfam Canada, in partnership with WMW Jamaica and Violence Prevention Alliance. Why was your child selected? Your child was chosen because they participated in one or more WE-Talk activities in their school or community. What will your child be asked to do? Your child will be asked to complete a short survey with questions about attitudes and experiences related to safety, respect, and gender roles. The survey will take about 20– 30 minutes. It can be done in person or online and will be guided by a trained data collector. Are there any risks or benefits? There are no direct benefits, and your child will not be paid. However, the study can help improve future programmes for children and young people. If your child feels upset by any questions, we will provide support or referrals to someone they can talk to. Is participation confidential? Yes. Your child’s name will not appear on the survey or in any reports. All responses will be anonymous and stored securely. Mandatory reporting: If the research team learns that a child is being abused or neglected and it has not been reported, we are legally required to report it to the Child Protection and Family Services Agency. Can you or your child withdraw? Yes. You or your child can stop at any time without any consequences. If you later wish to withdraw your child’s responses from the study, you may contact the lead consultant by July 31, 2025. Questions or concerns? You may contact:

•

Charlene Coore Desai (Lead Consultant): cooredesai2@gmail.com

•

Carla Caxaj (Oxfam Canada): carla.caxaj@oxfam.org

_________________________________________________________________________________ Parental Consent ☐ I understand the purpose of this study. ☐ I understand that my child’s participation is voluntary, and they may stop at any time. ☐ I understand that my child’s information will be confidential. ☐ I give permission for my child to participate in the WE-Talk MTR survey. Child’s Name: _______________________________________ Parent/Guardian Name: _______________________________ Signature: ____________________________________________ Date: _________________________________________________ Contact (email or phone): _____________________________

Mid-Term Review of the WE-Talk Project Consent Form – Participation in Storytelling Activity (PhotoVoice) Dear Participant, You are invited to participate in a storytelling activity as part of the Mid-Term Review (MTR) of the WE-Talk Project. WE-Talk is a five-year project that works to reduce gender-based violence in Jamaica by increasing community awareness and strengthening support systems. It is implemented by WMW Jamaica and the Violence Prevention Alliance, with support from Oxfam Canada and Global Affairs Canada. You were selected because you previously participated in a WE-Talk activity. This storytelling activity uses a method called PhotoVoice, where participants reflect on their experiences through a creative process—taking photos, drawing, or recording short videos—and sharing a brief narrative to tell their story. What you will do: •

Attend a session to learn about the activity

•

Create one image and write or record a short story to explain its meaning

•

Choose whether you want to share your story in a follow-up session

•

Decide whether you give permission for your story to be used in the MTR report or shared with WE-Talk partners

Participation is completely voluntary. You may choose not to answer any questions or to stop participating at any time without any consequences. You will have full control over what you create, how it is shared, and whether your name is used. You may use a different name or symbol if you prefer. There are minimal risks, including emotional discomfort if your story touches on sensitive issues. If you become upset, we will support you, and referrals to counselling services are available. The benefit is that your voice and story may help improve the WE-Talk project and bring positive change to your community. If you have questions, please contact: Charlene Coore Desai, Lead Consultant: cooredesai2@gmail.com For concerns about your rights as a participant, contact: Carla Caxaj, Oxfam Canada: carla.caxaj@oxfam.org If you agree to participate, please sign below. If you have questions, please contact: •

Charlene Coore Desai, Lead Consultant: cooredesai2@gmail.com

•

For concerns about your rights or your child’s rights as a participant, contact: Carla Caxaj, Oxfam Canada: carla.caxaj@oxfam.org

If you agree to participate, please sign below. Name: _________________________ Signature: _________________________ Date: _________________________

WE-Talk Mid-Term Review In-depth Interview Guide April 2025

For Implementors/Key stakeholders Record Interview start time: Demographic information •

Organization

•

Gender

•

Position

•

Duration

Introduction 1. What has been your role in the implementation of WE-Talk? Effectiveness Perspectives on WE-Talk 2. What do you think about the project’s progress to date? 3. Which activities or strategies have been most effective in engaging the primary target groups (e.g., women, elders, youth)? a. Are some more useful with some subgroups than others? WE-Talk’s outcomes/impact 4. What, if any, changes in participants' (a) awareness, (b) attitudes, or (c) behaviours regarding GBV have you observed? 5. Which interventions (e.g. workshops, campaigns, training) have been most impactful? Why? Relevance & Adaptations 6. How has the project been adapted to reflect Jamaican culture, language, and local lived experiences? 7. How well does WE-Talk’s structure (staffing, budget, operations, etc.) support its relevance to participants and partners in reducing GBV?29

Process Mapping Question

8. Have any particular tools or strategies helped to reach underrepresented or vulnerable groups? 9.

Are there any activities or approaches you feel should be added, removed, or revised? (Ask Why? If it isn’t obvious)

10. Have any of the strategies or approaches been adjusted based on community feedback or any challenges? 11. How does WE-Talk adapt its approach when participants’ or partners’ needs change?30 12. What changes could help WE-Talk stay relevant to participants and partners in achieving its goals?31 13. What challenges have you or your organization faced during implementation? What caused them, and how were they addressed? What support systems helped in resolving them?32 Sustainability/Sustainable impact 14. Which elements of WE-Talk do you believe are most likely to continue after the project ends? 15. What mechanisms or partnerships are in place to support sustainability of interventions or advocacy work? 16. What additional support or capacity is needed from Oxfam Canada or other stakeholders to ensure lasting impact? 17. What are your recommendations for ensuring a lasting gender-transformative impact?

Process Mapping Question Process Mapping Question 32 Process Mapping Question 30 31

For Project Participants Record Interview start time: Introduction Warm up 1. How did you first hear about WE-Talk? 2. What made you want to participate? Reflection on activities 3. What activities have you been involved in? 4. What did you find most interesting or helpful about these activities? a. What would you like to see done differently? Perspectives on change/learning/etc. 5. What have you learned about GBV or your rights from participating in the project? 6. Have your views or understanding of GBV changed in any way? 7. Have you done anything differently (in your relationships or community) because of your participation in WE-Talk? 8. Did the project activities feel relevant to your life and experiences? 9. Were the sessions accessible and respectful of people from different backgrounds? Impact 10. What part of the project had the biggest impact on you? Recommendations and sustainability 11. Is there anything you would like to change or improve about the project? 12. What do you think needs to happen to continue the work that WE-Talk has started? a. Prompt: Are there any community groups, leaders, or community-based organizations that you think can/will continue the work started by WE-Talk?

WE-Talk Mid-Term Review Focus Group Questions April 2025

Experiences, Engagement & Relevance 1. How did you first get involved with WE-Talk? a. What kinds of activities have you participated in (e.g., workshops; community events etc.)? 2. Why did you participate in WE-Talk activities? a. What keeps you coming back? b. Is WE-Talk relevant in your life? In your community? c. Were the topics discussed helpful or interesting to you? Why or why not? d. How welcome did you and people like you feel? Effectiveness 3. What changes have you noticed in your life or community since participating in WE-Talk? a. Has your understanding of GBV or your rights changed? How? b. Have you used or shared any of the information from the activities? (Probe for examples). Challenges & Recommendations 4. What would you like WE-Talk to do? a. What topics should be addressed? 5. What suggestions do you have for improving the project or making it more effective going forward? a. What would you change to make people feel welcome? (Probe about age, gender). b. What are the challenges of participating? (Probe about time, safety, stigma, transport). c. Has there been anything that didn’t feel safe/comfortable or that didn’t work for you? 6. Is there anything else you’d like to share that we haven’t asked about?

WE-TALK MTR Survey (Adapted from Baseline Survey) # Question Response Options SECTION A: GENERAL INFORMATION TO BE ENTERED BY DATA COLLECTOR A01 Date and Time metadata A02 Name of data collector A03 My name is … and today I am looking for people to participate in a survey. Global Affairs Canada is working on a national project and we are conducting a survey to understand the relationships and roles of men and women, boys and girls in Jamaica. The survey will take about 20 minutes and is anonymous - meaning your name will not be recorded. What you tell us is private and confidential and we will use the information to help design public education messages on relationships. Some of the questions are sensitive and personal. You don't have to answer every question and you can stop the interview at any time if you want to. There are no right or wrong answers. If you want information about support services, we can offer this to you. Do you have any questions for me? A04 Are you completing this survey Self; Parent for yourself (18 years or older), or are you a parent/guardian consenting for a participant under 18 years? A05 Do you agree to participate in this Yes; No survey? SECTION B: DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION B01 Which parish do you live in? Clarendon; Hanover; Kingston; Manchester; Portland; St Andrew; St Ann; St Catherine;

B02 B03

What is your gender? What age group are you in?

B04

Do you have any health issues that affect your daily life? What is your level of education?

B05 B06 B07

St Elizabeth; St James; St Mary, St Thomas; Trelawny; Westmoreland Female; Male; Other; Prefer not to answer 18-24 years; 25-59 years; 60 years and over; Prefer not to answer Yes; No; Prefer not to answer No schooling; Primary school; Secondary school; Secondary school; Tertiary education; Other (please specify); Prefer not to answer Yes; No; Prefer not to answer Yes; No; Prefer not to answer

Do you have children? Do you have children that you are responsible for? This applies to all people helping to take care of children. B08 What is your religious affiliation, if No religion; Christian; Rastafari; Muslim; Jewish; any? Anglican, Seventh Day Adventist; Other Don’t read out the list but tick off (specify) the list as they respond SECTION C: LIVING SITUATION I would like to ask you some questions about your living situation. Please remember, you don’t have to give answers if you are not comfortable. And you can stop this interview at any time. C01 What is your relationship status? Married; Common-law union; Single; Divorced; Separated; Visiting; Other (please specify); Prefer not to answer C02 In your household who is Self – female; Self – male; Self – other gender; responsible for finances? (Check Female spouse; Male spouse; Myself and all that female spouse; Myself and male spouse; Mother; apply) Father; Sibling; Aunt; Uncle, Grandparent; Shared responsibility (between parents); Shared responsibility (parent and other sibling/ relative/grandparent); Everyone in household contributes; Other (specify); Prefer not to answer C03 Who is responsible for taking Self – female; Self – male; Self – other gender; care of household duties such as Female spouse; Male spouse; Myself and cleaning and cooking? (Check all female spouse; Myself and male spouse; Mother; that apply) Father; Sibling; Aunt; Uncle, Grandparent; Shared responsibility (between parents); Shared responsibility (parent and other sibling/ relative/grandparent); Everyone in household contributes; Other (specify); Prefer not to answer C04 Who is responsible for the care of Self – female; Self – male; Self – other gender; children and elderly family Female spouse; Male spouse; Myself and members? (Check all that apply) female spouse; Myself and male spouse; Mother; Father; Sibling; Aunt; Uncle, Grandparent; 68

Shared responsibility (between parents); Shared responsibility (parent and other sibling/ relative/grandparent); Everyone in household contributes; Other (specify); No-one, there are no children or elderly people in the house; Prefer not to answer SECTION D: LIFE DECISIONS Next I would like to talk to you about decisions you make in your life. D01 How much control do you have Complete control; Some control; No control at all; over major decisions in your life? Prefer not to answer D02 How much control do you have Complete control; Some control; No control at all; over decisions about spending Prefer not to answer the money you earn? D03 How much control do you have Complete control; Some control; No control at all; over decisions about the Prefer not to answer wellbeing of your children? (Only ask if participant has children) D04 How much control do you have Complete control; Some control; No control at all; over decisions about what you Prefer not to answer wear and how you present yourself? D05 How much control do you have Complete control; Some control; No control at all; over decisions about your Prefer not to answer personal health (e.g. physical, mental, emotional, sexual, reproductive health)? D06 How much control do you have Complete control; Some control; No control at all; over decisions about your safety Prefer not to answer and security? D07 Mother; Father; Grandparent; Relative; Partner/spouse; Other (please specify); Prefer not to answer SECTION E: RIGHTS & RESPONSIBILITIES I would like to ask some questions about people’s legal rights in a relationship and household. Once again, you don’t have to answer every question and if you want to stop this interview you can do so at any time. E01 What is the Domestic Violence Correct; Incorrect; Don’t know; Prefer not to answer Act? Please explain. Correct answer is that the act protects against violence in the home E02 What is a Protection Order? Correct; Incorrect; Don’t know; Prefer not to answer Please explain. Correct answer is that abuser is not allowed near to the victim 69

E03

E04

E05 E06

E07

E08

What is an Occupation Order? Please explain. Correct answer is that abuser is removed from the home A Protection Order bans an abuser from harassing or interfering with the person they are abusing or from going to their home, school or workplace. An Occupation Order removes an abuser from a house, even if they own it, for a period of time.

Correct; Incorrect; Don’t know; Prefer not to answer

Very supportive; Supportive; Not supportive; Prefer not to answer

How supportive are you of having these types of orders as a means of reducing domestic violence? Have you ever heard of the Sexual Yes; No; Don’t Know; Prefer not to answer Offences Act? To what extent do you agree with Strongly agree; Agree; Disagree; Strongly disagree; the following statement: Prefer not to answer Men and women should both contribute to household chores (e.g. cooking, cleaning, laundry To what extent do you agree with the following statement:

Strongly agree; Agree; Disagree; Strongly disagree; Prefer not to answer

Men and women should both contribute to family care (childcare and eldercare) To what extent do you agree with the following statement:

Strongly agree; Agree; Disagree; Strongly disagree; Prefer not to answer

Men and women should both contribute to financial support to the household (e.g. bills, expenditure) SECTION F: VIOLENCE IN THE HOME I’d like to talk to you about relationships between women, men and children in the home including different types of violence in the home. You may find some of these questions personal or sensitive, so please remember you do not have to give answers if you are not comfortable. There are no right or wrong answers. And you can stop this interview at any time.

F01

F02

F03

F04

F05 F06

F07 F08 F09

In your opinion, which of the following are examples of domestic violence? (Check all that apply) Read out the list to the participant one by one. Only check off the ones they believe are forms of domestic violence. Which of the following is against the law in the Jamaica? (Check all that apply) Read out the list to the participant one by one. Only check off the ones they believe are against the law. In what circumstances is violence acceptable? (Check all that apply) Do not read out the list but tick any scenarios identified by the respondent Who is more likely to be violent within the home? (Check all that apply) Do not read out the list but tick any scenarios identified by the respondent How common do you think domestic violence is in your community? In your mind, what are the top three factors causing violence to occur in relationships or within the family? Do you feel safe from violence in your home? Do you feel safe from violence in your community? To what extent do you agree with the following statement - a woman’s

Arguing with your partner; Withholding money from spouse; Hitting your partner/spouse; Cheating; Verballing putting down your partner/children; Ending a relationship; Forced sex; Hitting children; Forced prostitution; Neglecting household duties; Threatening your partner/spouse/children

Never; In an argument; Going out in secret; Child neglect; Refusing sex; Neglecting one’s duty; Disciplining children; Disciplining partner/spouse; Food not ready/spoiled; Housework not done; Other (specify) Men; Women; Siblings; Fathers who live at home; Fathers who don’t live at home; Elderly people; Young people; Other (specify); Prefer Not to Answer

Very common; Common; Not common at all; Never; I don’t know: Prefer not to answer Freetext

Yes, all of the time; Yes, most of the time; Some of the time; No; Prefer not to answer Yes, all of the time; Yes, most of the time; Some of the time; No; Prefer not to answer Strongly agree; Agree; Disagree; Strongly disagree; Prefer not to answer

F10

F11 F12

most important role is to take care of her family and home To what extent do you agree with the following statement – women should tolerate violence if it means keeping her family together How important is addressing violence to improving your community? Have you personally done any of the following [in relation to DV/violence]? (Check all that apply)

Strongly agree; Agree; Disagree; Strongly disagree; Prefer not to answer

Very important; Important; Somewhat important; Not important at all; Prefer not to answer Given advice or support about DV to family members; Given advice or support about DV to friends; Given advice or support about DV to strangers; Spoken out against violence publicly; Taken other action (specify); Has never done anything; Prefer not to answer

SECTION G: SUPPORT SERVICES I’d like to talk now about the services that exist to protect people against violence. Once again, you don’t have to answer every question and if you want to stop this interview you can do so at any time. G01 If someone you know was Yes; No; Not sure; Prefer not to answer experiencing violence would you be willing to report this to the police or local authorities? G02 If you were to experience Yes; No; Not sure; Prefer not to answer violence would you be willing to report this to the police or local authorities? G03 Can you think of any support Yes; No; Prefer not to answer services that people can turn to if they experience violence? G04 Which ones do you know of? Hotlines (Safe Spot, No Excuse for Abuse hotline; (Check all that apply). Victim Services Division hotline; Choose Life Rather than read from the list, hotline; Ministry of Health and Wellness hotline; tick off the ones that the RISE Life Management Services hotline; Woman Inc respondent mentions Crisis Centre hotline); Police; Victim Support Unit; Crisis Shelters; Women’s rights organisations/civil society organisations; Child Protection and Family Services Agency; Other (specify); Prefer not to answer G05 If someone was experiencing They don’t know where to go; They don’t trust the domestic violence, what might authorities; Slow response from authorities; Fear of stop them from seeking support? reprisal; Avoid making things worse; Its no-one’s (Check all that apply) business; Other (please specify); Prefer not to answer G06 Have you participated in any Yes; No; I can’t remember; Prefer not to say events or activities (online or in 72

person) in the past related to domestic violence? SECTION H: INVITE TO FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION As part of this evaluation we will be holding some group discussions to talk further about the topics we spoke about today. Participants would need access to a strong internet connection as the discussion will be online. H01 Are you interested in participating Yes; No in an online group discussion? H02 If yes, are you willing to give me Yes; No your email address and telephone number so someone can contact you about this? H03 If yes, thank you, we will finish the survey. I can record your contact details in another form. CONCLUSION We have come to the end of this survey. Thank you very much for your time today. Would you like any information about support services? Do you have any questions or comments before we finish?

WE-Talk MTR Phone Script for Survey Participants May 2025 Introduction: Hello, good [morning/afternoon], may I speak with [Participant’s Name] please? My name is [Your Name], and I’m calling on behalf of the WE-Talk team. We’re working with WMW to conduct the Mid-Term Review of the WE-Talk project (Gender-Based Violence Workshops). You may remember attending one of the anti-GBV workshops organized by WMW. I’m calling because you were a participant in that workshop, which was part of the WE-Talk project. Purpose of the Call: WE-Talk is now at its halfway point, and we’re speaking with participants like you to hear your opinions and experiences. Your feedback will help us understand how the project is going and how we can improve it going forward. We’d really appreciate it if you could take about 20–30 minutes to complete a short survey with us. It can be done now, or we can schedule a time that works best for you. Check for Safety and Privacy: Before we begin, may I check that you're in a safe and quiet place to talk? We want to make sure you feel comfortable and won’t be interrupted. If now isn’t a good time, I’m happy to call back at a better time. Also, in case you're interrupted and need to stop the call quickly or discreetly, is there a word or phrase you'd like to use? Something simple that you can remember – like “check the oven” or “call me back later.” Just let me know what you’d prefer to use. (Pause to allow them to choose a safe word/phrase or offer one if they need help.) Verbal Consent: Before we begin, I’d like to share a few important points: •

Your participation is voluntary. You can skip any question or stop the survey at any time.

•

Your answers will be kept private and will not be linked to your name.

•

The information you share will only be used for this review and to help improve the WE-Talk project.

•

If anything discussed causes any distress, we can refer you to support services.

•

If you mention anything that suggests a child is in danger or needs protection, we are required by law to report it.

Do you agree to participate in this survey? (If yes: Thank you! Let’s begin…) (If no: That’s okay, thank you for your time. Have a good day!)

Referral Protocol

WE-Talk MTR Project – Participant Referral Form Section 1. Date of Interview: 2. Interviewer Name: 3. Participant ID: 4. Age & Gender of Participant: 5. Location/Parish: 6. Nature of Concern (check all that apply): 7. Description of Incident/Disclosure: (Summarize clearly and objectively) 8. Immediate Actions Taken: 9. Referral Made to Ethical Focal Point 10. Consent for Referral Given? 12. Form Completed By: (Name & Signature) 13. Follow-up Required:

Details

☐ Emotional Distress ☐ Disclosure of Abuse ☐ Unsafe Living Conditions ☐ Asked for Help ☐ Other: ______

☐ Yes ☐ No ☐ ☐ Yes ☐ No ☐ Not Applicable (mandatory report)

☐ Yes ☐ No Notes:

Mid-Term Review of the WE-Talk Project Storytelling Activity Facilitator’s Agenda Welcome & Objectives • Goal: Create a safe, trauma-informed space. Introduce MTR purpose. • Say: “Today is about using your voice to tell your story – whatever that looks like for you.” • Remind: Participation is voluntary; nothing will be shared without their permission. Icebreaker • “Let’s start by sharing the story behind your name. This could be your first name, middle name, nickname—whatever feels meaningful to you.” o Give prompts to help them think: o Were you named after someone? o Does your name have a special meaning in your family or culture? o Do you like your name? Has it changed over time? • Invite each participant to share (around 1–2 minutes each). Overview of MTR & Storytelling • Goal: Ground the session in the broader MTR effort. • Prompt: “Why might stories be important for understanding the impact of a project?” Intro to Storytelling (PhotoVoice) • Show example from WE-Talk or a similar context. • Clarify: Stories can be told via photos, drawings, or short videos (up to 4 minutes). Ethics Session • Cover: o Voluntary participation o Informed consent (revisited throughout the process) o Anonymity options o Emotional triggers & support resources o Respectful listening and confidentiality 78

BREAK • Light check-in: Ask informally how participants are feeling so far. Co-Design the Process • Goal: Agree on key queries to explore (e.g., “How have things changed for you or your community since participating in WE-Talk?”). • Ask: “What themes feel most important to share?” • Prompts o “What has changed for you since participating in WE-Talk?” ▪ This encourages reflection on personal growth, shifts in attitudes, increased awareness, or new actions they've taken since the workshop. ▪ Participants might express changes in confidence, relationships, safety, or understanding of GBV. o “Since taking part in WE-Talk, what does strength or support look like for you or in your community?” ▪ This version encourages participants to think about how their understanding or experience of support and resilience has changed because of the project ▪ It allows for both personal and community-level reflections e.g., feeling more supported, recognizing safe people or spaces, or being inspired to support others. Instructions: Image & Story Creation • Create image (photo, drawing, video) • Choose one and give it a title • Narrate it (text, poem, voice note, etc.) • Remind: They will have 5 days to create the image, and 3 more days to add title/story. Next Steps • Share takeaway sheet. • Confirm mid-week check-in via WhatsApp or phone. • Collect verbal or signed consent to participate.

Presentation Notes Slide 1: Welcome Title: Welcome to the Storytelling Workshop & Slide Content: Objectives Welcome and thank you for being here of the Today’s session is about: Storytelling Exploring how WE-Talk has affected you and your community Session Using images and words to tell your story Co-creating a respectful and safe storytelling process Presenter Notes: Emphasize voluntary participation and the value of their lived experience. Acknowledge that sharing stories is powerful but can also be emotional. Reassure participants that they can choose how much or how little to share. Slide 2: • “Let’s start by sharing the story behind your name. This could be Icebreaker your first name, middle name, nickname—whatever feels meaningful to you.” o Give prompts to help them think: o Were you named after someone? o Does your name have a special meaning in your family or culture? o Do you like your name? Has it changed over time? • Invite each participant to share (around 1–2 minutes each). Slide 3: Slide Content: What is • The MTR is a check-in on how the project is going the Mid• It looks at what’s working, what’s changed, and what could be term improved Review • Your stories help us understand real experiences—what the project (MTR) means to you Presenter Notes: • Mention that WE-Talk is being reviewed halfway through its 5-year timeline. • Explain that they are helping to shape the future of the project by sharing feedback. Slide 4: Slide Content: Storytelling • Storytelling = using pictures to tell a personal story with • You can create: Images o A photo o A drawing or collage o A short video • Then, you give it a title and tell us the story behind it Presenter Notes: 80

• •

Slide 5 Examples Slide 6: Ethics in Storytelling and Image Creation

Slide 7: The Storytelling Process

Share a simple example (either hypothetical or from previous projects). Emphasize that it’s not about photography skills—it’s about expressing yourself.

•

Slide content: Ethics: Your Safety, Your Rights • You decide what to share • You can stop at any time • You don’t have to show your face or use your name • You can choose a symbol or nickname • Never take someone’s photo without their permission • If you feel upset or triggered, support is available • The group space is confidential and respectful Presenter Notes: • Introduce the concept of “safe words” if needed. • Remind them they can always talk to the facilitators or opt out of any part. Facilitated Co-Creation Activity: Creating Our Questions Together Let’s Explore Together We’ll now create the guiding questions (queries) for this exercise—what we want to reflect on or share through our stories. Prompts for Discussion: • What has changed for you since WE-Talk? • What moments, ideas, or lessons stuck with you? • What did WE-Talk help you see differently about yourself or your community? • What does strength or support look like after being part of WE-Talk? • If someone new joined WE-Talk, what would you want them to know? Activity: "I Want to Tell a Story About..." Ask each participant to complete this sentence: “I want to tell a story about…” • Write it down (or say it aloud) • Share with the group if comfortable • Facilitator writes key words and ideas on a board or screen Group Reflection: Once everyone has shared: • Are there any common themes? • What feels most important to talk about? • Can we turn some of these into guiding questions for our stories? Examples of Co-Created Queries That May Emerge: • What does healing look like for you now? • What helped you feel brave or safe? • How has WE-Talk helped change something in your life or thinking? 81

Facilitator Role: Help the group consolidate their input into 1–2 simple queries that everyone agrees on. Confirm that participation is flexible—each person can still choose what and how to share. Slide 8: How to Create Your Story

Title: How to Create Your Story Slide Content: 1. Create an image (photo, drawing, video) 2. Choose one that best tells your story 3. Give it a short title (1-3 words) 4. Add your story – write it, record it, or say it in a poem or voice note Presenter Notes: • Reassure them that creativity is welcome—there’s no one right way to do it. • You can use symbolic images—no need to show faces or personal spaces.

Slide 9: What will you do next?

Slide Content: • You’ll have 5–7 days to create and send in your image • Then 3 days to title it and add your story • We’ll meet again to share stories (if you choose to) • You can send via WhatsApp or email Presenter Notes: • Encourage participants to reach out any time with questions. • Let them know we’ll check in mid-way to see how things are going.

Slide 10: Slide Content: How will • You can message or call us if you: we support o Need help creating your image you? o Have questions or feel unsure o Feel overwhelmed or triggered • We’ll check in by phone or WhatsApp after 3 days • You are in control of your story—always Presenter Notes: • Reaffirm their autonomy. • Introduce support persons or trusted contacts if available.

Mid-Term Review of the WE-Talk Project Storytelling Activity Facilitator’s Agenda Welcome & Objectives • • •

Goal: Re-establish a safe, trauma-informed space for sharing. Acknowledge participants' effort and creativity. Say: “Today is about listening to and learning from each other’s stories. You have created something powerful, and we’re here to honour that together.” Remind: Participation is voluntary; sharing is optional; stories and images belong to the participants.

Icebreaker • • •

•

Prompt: “If your mood right now were an object, what would it be—and why?” Purpose: This light activity encourages creative thinking and helps participants ease into a reflective mindset. Example prompts to offer inspiration: o “I feel like a candle—quiet but steady.” o “I’m like a rubber band—stretched but holding on.” Invite each participant to share briefly (1–2 minutes max).

Recap of First Workshop • •

• •

Goal: Refresh memory of the storytelling purpose and PhotoVoice process. Say: “Last time, we talked about how stories help us understand the impact of WETalk. You each created an image and narrative to reflect your experience or your community’s journey.” Remind: Queries were developed by the group to guide your stories. Ethics Reminder: Sharing is still your choice. No pressure. What’s said here stays here.

Gallery Walk / Image Viewing • •

•

Goal: Allow participants to quietly view all submitted images and titles before storytelling begins. Method: o Virtual: Share screen with slides or folder of all images. o In-person: Post printed images in a circle or line on the wall. Prompt: “Take a few minutes to look at each image. What thoughts or emotions come up for you?”

Storytelling & Discussion • •

•

Goal: Invite each participant to share the story behind their image. Process for each participant: 1. Show their image and title. 2. Invite them to share their narrative. 3. Open for optional reflection from others: ▪ “What stood out to you in this story?” ▪ “How does this connect to your own experience or the WE-Talk journey?” Facilitator: Affirm and thank each participant. Do not push anyone to share. Note common words, emotions, or themes as they arise.

Group Reflection: Common Threads • • •

•

Goal: Facilitate a collective discussion on shared insights and themes. Say: “What are some of the things that showed up in more than one story?” Prompts: o “What do these stories tell us about how WE-Talk is working?” o “Did anything surprise or move you?” Facilitator: Gently highlight 2–3 themes that emerged from the stories, reinforcing participant-led analysis.

Next Steps & Gratitude • •

• •

Say: “Thank you for your honesty and bravery. Your stories are helping shape the future of this project.” Remind: o Participants can choose whether their story is shared beyond the group. o Stories and images may be included in the MTR, only with their permission. o A summary of themes and a follow-up message will be shared. Support: Share contact info for follow-up or emotional support if needed. Close: Express gratitude for their time, voice, and trust.

Telling Your Story with an Image of Your Choice Sometimes it’s easier to understand your story by exploring your experiences and emotions through images. Exploring may help you to understand your experiences and feelings differently. You control the images to convey your emotions, your experiences, and your messages. Step 1: Creating images. You might take photos, draw/paint pictures, make a collage out of readily available materials. Step 2: Explore what the images mean to you. When you examine each of the images you create, you will explore what each one means to you, and decide what image (one of those you already have or a new one you create) you want to use to tell your story. Step 3: Choose 1 image and give it a title. Choose the image you want to share with the group. Give it a meaningful title in just a few words – not a sentence – a title only. Step 4: Narrate the image. Tell your story in words that accompany the image. For Figure 1 Sample Image example: How does the image you chose reflect changes in you, your family/community? How does the image reflect what you learned? You can write a narrative, a poem, whatever works for you.

Moving images If you choose to tell your story in song, dance, or some other method: •

Keep it short – no more than 4 minutes

•

Keep it simple – this isn’t a contest and it isn’t about presenting yourself in any particular way.

•

Keep it personal – it’s your story, not someone else’s. If you need help, e.g., someone to hold the phone to record, then invite someone you trust and feel comfortable with to support you.

Sharing your story The sharing workshop will be with the same group as the first workshop. You should feel free to express yourself in the ways that work best for you and that show compassion for others in the workshop. The workshop is confidential and you should not speak about other people’s stories outside of the group. The workshop is a safe space if all participants and facilitators make it so. You may choose to use your own name or a name or symbol. The image and story are your own and are completely under your control. We will decide as a group and as individuals (for yourself) if you are willing for your image/story will be shared beyond the group, e.g., with WE-Talk representatives.

List of Resources for Children and Families Long Listing Bustamante Hospital for Children Services: Children’s Hospital Address: Arthur Wint Drive, Kingston 5 Website: http://www.serha.gov.jm/hospitals/bmch Telephone: 876-926-5720-5; 876-968 0300-9 Centre for Investigation of Sexual Offences & Child Abuse (CISOCA) Services: Care & Protection of Children Address: 3 Ruthven Road, Kingston 10 Email: cisoca@jcf.gov.jm Website: None Telephone: 876-926-4079 Child Protection and Family Services Agency Report Child Abuse: 211 Hotline Services: Care & Protection of Children Address: 48 Duke Street, Kingston Email: info@childprotection.gov.jm Website: childprotection.gov.jm Telephone: 876-878-2882; 876-948-1145 or 876-948-0243 Choose Life Services: Suicide Prevention (876) 920-7924 Early Childhood Commission Services: Care and Protection of Children Address: Shop 45 - 46 Kingston Mall or 8-10 Ocean Boulevard, Kingston Email: contact@ecc.gov.jm Website: www.ecc.gov.jm Telephone: 876-922-9296 Early Stimulation Programme (ESP) Services: Services for Children and Persons with Disabilities Address: 95 Hanover Street, Kingston Email: mlssearlystimulation@cwjamaica.com Website: www.mlss.gov.jm/departments/early-stimulation-programme/ Telephone: 876-922-5585 Educate Jamaica Helplines Services: For Parents and Guardians re PEP examination (888)-EDUCATE (888-338-2283) (888)-SCH-TIME (888-724-8463) 86

Equality Youth Ja Services: LGBT Youth Support 888-GET-HELP (438-4357); 876-667-6202 Monday - Friday: 11 a.m. – 4 p.m. Text/Call: (876) 399-HELP (4357) Saturday-Sunday: 7 p.m. – Midnight Family Court Services: Care and Protection of Children Website: https://parishcourt.gov.jm/content/family-courts St. James Address: 4 Kerr Crescent, Montego Bay, St. James Email: stjames.familycourt@rmc.gov.jm Telephone: 876-971-4999; 876-284-2421 Hanover Address: Watson Taylor Drive, Hanover Email: hanover.familycourt@rmc.gov.jm Telephone: 876-956-2576 Westmoreland Address: 26 Rose Street, Savanna-la-mar, Westmoreland Email: westmoreland.family@rmc.gov.jm Telephone: 876-918-1934 Clarendon Address: Chapleton District, Chapleton P.O. Email: None Telephone: None Kingston Address: 55a Duke Street, Kingston Email: kingston.familycourt@rmc.gov.jm Telephone: 876-922-0001; 876-922-6183; 876-922-7468 Family Life Ministries Services: Counselling for Children and Parents Address: 1 Cecelio Avenue, Kingston 10 Email: flmjamaica@gmail.com Website: www.familylifeministriesjamaica.com Telephone: 876-920-1034 Food for the Poor Services: Emergency relief aid and programmes in the areas of housing, food, medical, water, sanitation, education, agriculture, outreach and micro-enterprise Address: P.O. Box 557 Ellerslie Pen, Spanish Town, St. Catherine Email: ffpinfo@foodforthepoorja.org Website: https://foodforthepoorja.org/index.php Telephone: 876-618-0141 87

HEALTH SERVICES BY REGION Southern Regional Health Authority (SRHA) Services: Delivery of health care services Address: 3 Brumalia Road Mandeville, Manchester. Phone: 876-962-8232 | 625-0612-3 Fax: 876-962-8233 Email: pr@srha.gov.jm South East Regional Health Authority (SERHA) Services: Delivery of health care services The Towers, 25 Dominca Drive, Kingston Email: patientcare@serha.gov.jm Tele: 1 876 754 3439-42 Website: https://www.serha.gov.jm/ Western Regional Health Authority (WRHA) Services: Delivery of health care services Address: Lot 31B, Fairview Shopping Centre, Montego Bay, St. James Tele: (876) 630-1860, 684-9776 Email: info@wrha.gov.jm Website: https://www.wrha.gov.jm/ North East Regional Health Authority (NERHA) Services: Delivery of health care services Address: Ocean Village Shopping Centre, Ocho Rios,St. Ann, Jamaica Tele: 1-888-429-5646 (Toll Free); 1-876-795-3107 Email: info@nerha.gov.jm Website: https://nerha.gov.jm Ministry of Health & Wellness Services: Mental Health & Suicide Prevention Toll-Free, 24-Hour Assistance: (888) New-Life (888) 639-5433 Ministry of Health & Wellness Services: Covid-19 Helpline 1-888-663-5683 1-888-754-7792 1-876-542-5998 1-876-542-6006 1-876-542-600 Email: Jacovid19facts@Gmail.Com Email: Covid19@Moh.Gov.Jm Moh&W Website: 88

www.Moh.Gov.Jm/Edu-Resources/ Learn-About-The-Coronaviruses/ National Council for Senior Citizens Jamaica Services: Social Security Address: 11 West Kings House Road, Kingston Email: ncsc@mlss.gov.jm Website: https://www.mlss.gov.jm/departments/path/ Telephone: 876-906-9277/8 National Health Fund Services: Health Insurance Address: 6th Floor, The Towers 25, Dominica Drive, Kingston Email: info@nhf.org.jm Website: www.nhf.org.jm Telephone: 876-906-1106 National Parenting Support Commission (NPSC) Services: Parenting Support Monday to Thursday: 8:30 a.m. - 5 p.m. Friday: 8:30 a.m. To 4 p.m. (876) 560-9272 No Excuse For Abuse (Bureau of Gender Affairs) Services: Gender-Based Violence Helplines Female Callers: (876) 553-0372 Male Callers: (876) 553-0387 1-888-Protect or 1-888-777-8328 Woman Inc Crisis Centre (876) 929-2997 Kingston - 24hours (876) 952-9533 St. James Office of the Children’s Advocate Services: Care and Protection of Children Address: Air Jamaica Building, 11th Floor, 72 Harbour Street, Kingston Email: info@oca.gov.jm Website: www.welcome.oca.gov.jm Telephone: 948-1293 or 948-1469 Toll free: 1-888-948-1134 Office of the Children’s Registry Services: Care and Protection of Children Address: 12 Carlton Crescent, Kingston 10 Email: info@ocr.gov.jm To report a missing child: anandaalert@ocr.gov.jm To report child abuse: report@ocr.gov.jm 89

Website: www.ocr.gov.jm Telephone: Individuals who wish to make a report to the Children’s Registry may call the following number: 211 Programme of Advancement Through Health and Education (PATH) Services: Social Security Address: 14 National Heroes Circle, Kingston 4 Email: prunit@mlss.gov.jm Website: https://www.mlss.gov.jm/departments/path/ Telephone: 876-922-8000-13 Rise Life Management Services Services: Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment Counselling (876) 967-3778 (888) 991-4146 SafeSpot Services: A 24-Hour Dedicated Helpline for Children and Teenagers) WhatsApp: (876)439-5199 Toll Free: (888) -SafeSport; (888) -723-3776 Direct Message @Safespotja On Snapchat and Instagram. Women’s Centre of Jamaica Foundation Services: Services for Pregnant Adolescents (ages <17) St. Thomas Address: 21 Queen Street, Morant Bay P.O. Email: womenscentremorb@cwjamaica.com Telephone: 876-734-1834 Kingston Address: 42 Trafalgar Rd, Kingston 10 Email: womenscentre@cwjamaica.com Telephone: 876-929-7608 Victim Services Division (Ministry of Justice) Services: Counselling, mediation and therapeutic intervention (876) 946-0663; 946-9287 Toll Free: (888)-587-8423

Appendix B – List of Documents Reviewed 1. CariMAN Consultants. (2024). A participatory social research on gender inequalities & gender-based violence norms in Jamaica. WE-Talk Project. 2. Oxfam Canada (2022). We-Talk For the reduction of Gender-based violence: Project Implementation Plan 2022 – 2027. 3. Oxfam Canada. (2023). We-Talk For the reduction of Gender-based violence: Baseline Report. 4. Oxfam Canada. (2023). We-Talk For the reduction of Gender-based violence: Summary Report Baseline Report. 5. Oxfam Canada, WMW Jamaica, & Quilt.AI. (2023). Tapping social media using artificial intelligence to understand gender-based violence norms and perceptions in Jamaica. Oxfam Canada. 6. Oxfam Canada (2024). We-Talk For the reduction of Gender-based violence: Annual Report FY 2023 – 2024. 7. Oxfam Canada (2024). We-Talk For the reduction of Gender-based violence: Semi-annual operations report. 8. Oxfam Canada (2025). We-Talk For the reduction of Gender-based violence: Annual Report FY 2024 – 2025. 9. Violence Prevention Alliance, & Oxfam. (2024). School and youth group workshops: Big Man Ting! Workshop outline for high school and youth groups (Draft). 10. Violence Prevention Alliance. (2025). From feedback to action: “Big Man Ting” workshop debrief.

MTR Final Report September 30 2025