Evaluation of USAID/Peru's democracy education activities : final report

USAID/Peru's decision to emphasize a demand-based strategy for its democracy program during the period leading up to the 2000 elections was sound and greatly enhanced the possibility of achieving its strategic objective (SO)1: "broader citizen participation in democratic processes." Of current activities examined, human rights efforts have had significant impact on citizen awareness and participation, including male/female and Quechua- speaking subgroups. Participating organizations have achieved impressive results both on their own and in coordination with one another. While many other activities seem well on the way to meeting objectives, their ultimate impact depends on political realities and attitudes. The lowest degree of impact on citizen education and participation belongs to activities that serve individual beneficiaries through conciliation services and free legal assistance and do not undertake policy- related advocacy or dissemination efforts. The desire to institutionalize activities within grantee organizations is strong, but grantees' ability to achieve this is mixed. Most participating NGOs have little funding for this purpose, and many have prepared proposals to obtain additional resources from USAID and other donors. Organizations that are well established and whose primary mission coincides with the activities underway are most likely to institutionalize results. Increased communication/coordination among all SO1 counterparts could produce more effective results at the SO level by capitalizing on potential synergies. Meanwhile, there are clear multiplier effects among organizations using methodologies and practices pioneered by other grantees, including, for example, the training methodology of the Peruvian Institute of Education on Human Rights (IPEDEHP) and the election materials produced by Transparencia and Rural Educational Services (SER). The most cost-effective interventions to date have been those related to human rights. Activities designed by Instituto de Democracia y Propuestas (IDS) to use the electronic media for democracy education have the potential to reach large numbers of citizens cost- effectively, but are too new to have yielded measurable results. The least cost-effective have been activities that reach very small numbers of beneficiaries while not proactively advocating for policy change (Chamber of Commerce, IPRECON, APENAC, Ministry of Justice, APOYO Institute) and that propose long-term solutions and involve a relatively limited number of beneficiaries (FORO Nacional/Internacional, CIDE/TAREA, Foro Juventud). The diversity of the activities supported makes it infeasible to assess impact at the intermediate results level. Also, indicators lack consistency across similar programs; different variables are being tracked, which makes comparison especially difficult and creates an "apples and oranges" effect. Moreover, it is not clear that successful completion of the goals, objectives, and expected results of the activities reviewed under IR2 and IR4 will produce the results expected, while activities under IR1 and IR3 are too few to make significant progress toward results as currently stated. A careful review and revision of IRs is needed. As for the PARTICIPE program and the SO1 framework, because over two-thirds of available funding is dedicated to election-related indicators (with targets set for 2001), impact cannot yet be accurately assessed. The 5-year post-electoral period will be a crucial time of transition in Peru, marked by both opportunities for and challenges to developing sustainable democratic institutions and strengthening civil society. There is an urgent need for strategies to maximize these opportunities and challenges. Also, since democratic governance affects all substantive initiatives, the Mission should make a more proactive effort to integrate it into all areas of its portfolio and not rely solely on the disproportionately small budget allocated to SO1.