Contents

individual/family responsibility values promoted by the trial. In turn, these explanatory variables should predict a range of trial outcomes, as described below. Of particular interest for this chapter are the following explanatory variables: endorsement of the FRC (e.g. ‘I want the FRC to keep helping people’) • perceptions of strong leadership (e.g. ‘There is strong leadership in this community’, ‘Most • people in this community have respect for the community leaders’) levels of individual and family responsibility (e.g. ‘I want to work hard to make things better • for myself and my family’, ‘I am motivated to make things better for my community’). Note that there may be other structural and demographic variables which could have been predictive of community change and current behaviour, but since the focus of this report is explicitly on the CYWR trial logic, including the role of the FRC and associated leadership and social norm processes, these were the explanatory variables included in the subsequent analysis. Outcomes of the trial include perceptions of change when comparing community life before the beginning of the trial and at survey, and also self-reported current behaviour. It is possible to assess the kinds of behaviour that are currently evident within the communities against the standards defined by the aspirational norms (see Table 5.1). More specifically, the social change survey also included items to assess perceptions of behaviour change (e.g. ‘In the past 3 years have you noticed any change with children in this community?’, ‘People in this community are working better together to fix problems now than they were 3 years ago’) and current behaviour, such as seeking health support (e.g. ‘I am willing to ask for help with my problems when I need it’, ‘I encourage my family to seek help when they have problems’) and community engagement (‘Most people in the community work better to fix their problems’, ‘Most people in the community are willing to speak up and get involved’).

#### 5.4.3 5.4.3

There are a variety of limitations with a cross-sectional survey (conducted three years into the trial) when it comes to drawing conclusions about the impact of the trial and evidence of social norm and behaviour change. Two notable limitations are the lack of baseline measures or a comparison ‘control’ group or community (who have ‘matched’ features but who were not exposed to the interventions). If similar measures had been obtained before the trial was announced, it would be possible to better analyse whether things had changed by comparing data across time. Such a design, however, still makes it difficult to assess the actual impact of the trial per se. It is possible that other factors, such as time and broader policy initiatives independent from the trial interventions, could explain any observed change. Given the lack of an experimental design, it is possible to highlight a relationship between the explanatory and outcome variables but not to determine whether one variable (or a different variable not assessed, for example) causes the relationship. Even so, there are sound theoretical and logical reasons to distinguish the explanatory from the outcome variables in the present model, which supports the analysis strategy. There are some other limitations pertaining more to the construction and administration of the survey itself. First, the questions are positively framed, such that there could be some acquiescence on behalf of the participants, artificially inflating the relationship between some measures. Second, given that the participants were in the presence of others while performing the survey (most notably the interviewer), there could have been a tendency to report more positive change or better outcomes as a function of social desirability concerns. Third, in this survey respondents were asked specifically to make comparisons between ‘before the trial and

23