Final performance evaluation of USAID/El Salvador government integrity project

To what extent has GIP contributed to strengthening oversight institutions’ capacity to monitor, disclose, highlight, discipline, investigate, communicate, or bring attention to public resource use?; 2. What have been the main accomplishments and challenges of the anti-corruption Interinstitutional Working Group (GTIAC) in terms of key actors/champions, coordination of the participant institutions, and sustainability?; 3. To what extent has the activity contributed to better respond to access to public information requirements, implemented more expansive open government and accountability practices, and assisted compliance of ethics standards in selected municipalities, and Government of El Salvador (GOES) agencies (Ministry of Public Works [MOP], Ministry of Health of El Salvador [MINSAL], Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology [MINEDUCYT], Court of Accounts of the Republic [CCR], and Public Defender"s Office [PGR])?; 4. To what extent has the assistance provided to civil society organizations (CSOs) contributed to institutionalizing and expanding transparency and citizen oversight?; 5. How do recipients and decision-makers of the assisted CSOs, municipalities, GOES institutions, and independent regulatory entities (Government Ethics Tribunal [TEG], PGR, and CCR) value the technical assistance provided?; 6. What interventions promoted gender equality and social inclusion during the implementation of GIP? What factors enabled or inhibited the integration of these topics?. Recommendations derived from the evaluation should serve as inputs for learning and continuous improvements during GIP’s remaining implementation period and design of future activities. The evaluation team employed a mixed-methods approach, including document review, key informant interviews, online surveys, focus group discussions, and site visits. The evaluation found that GIP has contributed to the institutional strengthening of targeted government agencies, independent regulatory agencies, and municipalities through specialized trainings, technical support for institutional policy design, process streamlining, online platform development, and promotion of the Institutional Integrity Model. GIP support was crucial for the creation of an anti-corruption interinstitutional mechanism. With GIP’s support, civil society organizations (CSOs) increased their engagement on transparency and social oversight issues, enhanced inter-organization strategic alliances, and established collaborative relationships with public institutions. Advances regarding the strengthening of public institutions have suffered setbacks because of the political context hostile to transparency and accountability issues. The sustainability of CSOs’ expanded engagement also is at risk in this context.