Evaluate the past to build the future : final report of the second phase of the evaluation of the impact of the Centro DEMOS Program

The evaluation covers the period 10/93-12/95. The project has been implemented through a cooperative agreement with the Institute for Central American Studies (ICAS). Centro Demos has conducted two courses (1/94-6/94 and 11/94-6/95) which have brought together 120 leaders from key sectors to learn to listen to one another, respect each other's views, and increase their tolerance of persons and ideas opposed to their own, without attempting to have the participants arrive at consensus on what was discussed. The courses were based on topics selected by the institutions represented within five "factors of power": military, economic, political, social, and geographic. The curriculum includes conferences and panel discussions with speakers representing the different viewpoints, seminar-workshops, study tours, and informal "supper-sessions." The courses have resulted in positive changes in the level of tolerance among participants, but the degree of impact within the institutions they represent is unclear, and the impact on the reconciliation process even less so. The project design did not include specific objectives or clear performance indicators. Also, the formal internal monitoring system required by the cooperative agreement has not been established. Hence, there is no systematized data base to measure progress or assess results. Due to the political environment which existed when the courses began, plus the need to protect participants' confidentiality, information on the courses has not been disseminated. It seems, however, that the time for doing so has arrived. ICAS has also helped to establish FUNDEMOS, a foundation broadly representative of Salvadoran society, to serve as the permanent home of Centro DEMOS. FUNDEMOS was constituted in 11/94, although legal recognition is still pending. While no fundraising strategy has been developed, over 100,000 colones have been donated so far by individuals and local enterprises. Responsibility for project activities is to be transferred from ICAS to FUNDEMOS. Lessons learned are as follows. (1) Participation of all interested parties in an evaluation process enriches the product, lowers the "static" within the system under study, and establishes a platform for the future. (2) To measure progress and results in conflict management projects, it is particularly important at the design stage to define "success," identify clear indicators, and create the internal systems for continuous and participatory monitoring. (3) To ensure greater efficiency from all available resources, human as well as financial, it is necessary for an organization to have a plan which is strategic, clear, and transparent, and which all interested parties help to design and keep up to date. (4) Structuring an organization with two executive directors, separate departments, and different "team" labels leads to confusion as to who is in charge, and can interfere with the team spirit that should permeate the entire organization, particularly in departments that feel in the "minor league." (5) NGOs should create the systems needed to take maximum advantage of all the voluntary labor, support, and expert advice that may be offered. (6) In NGOs, a vision of self-sufficiency should be ever present, with solid plans to move continually toward that goal. It is also in NGOs' interest to avoid dependency on a single donor. (7) Creating a new entity as governing body in the middle of a project and trying to transfer authority and responsibility from the original sponsor to this entity creates frustration on all sides and leaves the program's executing unit in a confused situation. (8) To increase the effectiveness of a participatory evaluation process, the participants should study what has been learned and convert this knowledge into a plan of action for the future. (9) The type of document required from a participatory evaluation process should be decided by, and serve the purposes of, all interested parties, and not simply satisfy the procedural requirements of the sponsoring entity. (10) A lack of flexibility imposed by administrative contractual procedures contradicts the very concept of participation and prejudices all parties involved in the process.