Final report : evaluation of the LAC narcotics demand reduction program (598-0000)

The evaluation is based on case studies of bilateral projects in Guatemala, Mexico, Bolivia, Peru, and Brazil. Although cocaine and marijuana use in the five assisted countries tend to be well below U.S. levels, there are some alarming trends, such as high levels of use of gateway drugs such as inhalants; the use of drugs by drug traffickers to pay their collaborators, which increases the user base; high poverty levels and rapid population growth; a growing drugs/AIDS connection, especially in Brazil; and significant increases in use in some countries, again notably Brazil. Public awareness of the dangers of drug use varies widely, but seems to be growing. Public awareness of the dangers of drug production and trafficking appears to have increased significantly, particularly in Peru and Bolivia. Host governments generally neither assign a high priority to reducing drug demand and nor contribute significantly to the projects, while the priority assigned by USAID Missions ranges from high in Bolivia, Peru, and Brazil, to medium in Mexico, to low in Guatemala. The larger projects in Bolivia and Peru have reasonably well defined goals, purposes, and outputs; this is generally not the case with smaller projects. While not necessarily precluding positive accomplishments, the lack of a precise statement of goal, purpose, and outputs impedes project management and evaluation. Monitoring systems appear adequate for the projects, but impact assessment has been weak or nonexistent, and there have also been weaknesses in evaluating output and performance. Overall, the projects have generated impressive outputs, and the A.I.D.-supported entities are run by competent and dedicated individuals. Project resources are generally adequate, though there are exceptions, such as the SUBDESAL Communication Unit in Brazil. Also, in a number of cases, notably Brazil, extra funding could be put to good use if available. However, the most promising efforts are now generating or showing promise of generating outside assistance. Creation or strengthening of an institution is the mostly costly intervention and should be undertaken, as with the Center for Information and Drug Abuse Prevention (CEDRO) in Peru, only when less costly means of achieving similar ends have been ruled out. In most cases, sustainability of drug prevention efforts in the absence of continued U.S. funding is unlikely. This is particularly true because A.I.D. has focused its assistance on PVOs, which face all the difficulties inherent in private sector fundraising in the region. Until demand reduction programs begin to receive full support from national public sources, they will continue to require outside funding. Except for CEDRO, there is little evidence of serious efforts by A.I.D.-supported entities to raise non-U.S. funds. Most persons contacted -- country team officers and host country nationals -- had a high opinion of A.I.D.-funded services and TA; most also expressed satisfaction with the TA provided by Development Associates, Inc. under the Narcotics Awareness and Education contract. Seventeen recommendations are made for modifying A.I.D.'s drug demand reduction strategy in the region; chief among these is that A.I.D. conduct an interagency assessment of U.S. efforts in this area and develop a strategy involving collaboration with other donors, in particular the UN Drug Control Program.