DATA COLLECTION The Evaluation Team collected primary data from November 2020–February 2021. Due to COVID-19 international travel restrictions, the team conducted data collection virtually over Zoom or Microsoft Teams, with group facilitation assisted by other technology solutions, including SurveyMonkey, Miro, and Google Docs. Snowball sampling and purposive sampling from document reviews was used to identify interviewees and, during the data gathering phase, the Evaluation Team interviewed or engaged a total of 165 individuals, with the breakdown of the total interviews highlighted in Graph 1, below. Informants represented a wide range of stakeholders, including those who were both directly funded by PRM and some that were linked to PRM funding. Individual and group interviews included PRM, UNHCR, members of the UN family, U.S. Embassy staff, Women’s Refugee Commission (WRC), development actors, International Non-Governmental Organizations (INGOs), and civil society actors (CSOs). A list of the organizations interviewed or engaged in global interviews is included in Annex J. Graph 1: Reach of Interviews Dominican Republic 34 Thailand 35 Nepal 38 Global 58 The only government official interviewed was in Thailand. In all three countries, the Evaluation Team interviewed stateless or formerly stateless persons. In addition, in December 2020 the Evaluation Team facilitated a virtual Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats analysis with UNHCR’s Statelessness Section in Geneva. The Evaluation Team also administered an (anonymous) online survey to PRM’s Refugee Coordinators (RefCoords), which was accompanied by an online focus group discussion (FGD). The Evaluation Team recorded and transcribed all the evaluation primary research to ensure accuracy and in accordance with the evaluation’s design and analysis approach. In each interview, evaluators obtained informed consent orally. In cases when an interpreter was engaged, such as in Thailand and Nepal, the interpreter signed a non-disclosure agreement. Following data collection, all interview transcripts were uploaded to Dedoose (a qualitative research software) for analysis. The Evaluation Team conducted content and thematic analysis to identify patterns, as well as sentiment analysis to determine key perceptions and to find areas of concurrence across interviewees. Findings were organized by EQs and are presented by EQ in the next sections of this report. LIMITATIONS The evaluation’s main limitations are related to: (1) conducting a fully remote and virtual evaluation; (2) reporting bias and (3) generalizability. Despite the pivot to a fully remote evaluation, the Evaluation Team did not face major challenges engaging CSOs or stateless people through remote means in each of the three countries, which was raised as a concern during the Inception Phase. However, the inability to travel and ‘see’ programming in action or contexts is a limitation of a fully virtual evaluation. The Evaluation Team had to instead rely on descriptions and explanations of programming and challenges, which is sufficient but does not allow for participant observation. Reporting bias is a concern for evaluations that place a heavy emphasis on consulting with implementing partners, as they can be “incentivized” to share positive outcomes only. The potential bias was mitigated by the Evaluation Team engaging with a wide array of organizations and stakeholders, including those outside of PRM’s scope of influence (i.e., academics, CSOs, stateless persons, non PRM funded INGOs, etc.). Reporting bias was also limited through the evaluation’s methodologies, including outcome harvesting and participatory workshops that focused on building consensus, as well as through qualitative analysis coding of all interviews using a standard approach. The limitation to the evaluation around generalizability is that the countries selected are unique and programming strategies are not consistent across the board. The evaluation also faced some challenges assessing bilateral diplomatic efforts, given the sensitivity of statelessness in some contexts and the inability 3