• Close During the Breakout Groups portion, participants were divided into two groups where the Evaluation Team led a discussion on the purpose and understanding of the three evaluation questions, including the relevance of the Evaluation Team-developed sub-questions. The guiding questions for the discussion included: • Will the sub-questions lead to gathering the right information to answer the main question? Are there any gaps? • Do any of the sub-questions seem repetitive or redundant? Is there anything we may be missing? • Would you rephrase any of the sub-questions? What is the proposed rationale for doing so? How will this give us better data? For the Country Selection Activity, the Evaluation Team narrowed the 12 countries being considered down to seven countries. These seven countries were selected based on feedback and insights gathered during the field-focused Inception Meetings. The Evaluation Team led participants in a sticky note voting exercise using Google virtual collaboration tools. Participants were instructed to place green stickies on countries considered high priority (“Go” countries) and their rationale as to why this country should be prioritized. At the same time, participants were instructed to place red stickies on countries considered low priority (“No” countries). OUTPUT 1: EVALUATION QUESTION DEFINITION AND NOTES The Evaluation Team came away from the Inception Meetings with a clear definition of each evaluation question and the data required to answer them. Participants agreed that there were significant overlaps in evaluation questions 1 and 2 and simplifying would be useful to clarify intent. Based on this feedback, the Evaluation Team assigned the three short-hand questions to clarify the overall meaning and intent of the main evaluation questions. • • • Evaluation Question 1: How was PRM’s statelessness strategy implemented? Evaluation Question 2: How effective was PRM’s statelessness strategy as implemented? Evaluation Question 3: What are the gaps in PRM’s statelessness strategy? The sub-questions, which were used primarily to ensure the Evaluation Team was gathering the right data and information, were finalized as follows: EQ1: PRM’s Strategy EQ2: The Strategy’s EQ3: Changes to PRM’s Implementation Effectiveness Strategy 1.1. How has PRM’s statelessness strategy addressed the identification, prevention, reduction, and protectionrelated activities that have been carried out to address statelessness? 1.2. How have PRM’s financial contributions contributed to these activities? 2.1. How effectively is the Global Action Plan set up to achieve its goals, and what role has PRM played in that? 3.1. Where are the linkages between PRM’s funding and diplomacy, and in what ways has this contributed to outcomes? 2.2. How does PRM’s strategy best align with the goals of the campaign, and which goals has PRM been the most effective in supporting? 1.3. In what ways has PRM or the USG contributed to these issues diplomatically? 2.3. How effective have PRM’s funding and diplomacy been towards the goal of ending statelessness? 3.2. How is PRM’s monitoring done? What is the goal, and how does it contribute to the end goal of strengthening statelessness initiatives? How can it be improved? 3.3. What is working well and should be expanded on, and where are the gaps? 49