Participatory evaluation of Partners of the Americas grant from the US Agency for International Development (LAG-G-00-93-00032-00) focusing on the Inter-American Democracy Network : final report

Participatory interim evaluation covers the period 9/93-10/99 and focuses on citizen participation activities carried out in collaboration with the Inter-American Democracy Network (IADN). IADN has evolved into an effective mechanism for engaging citizen participation in the democratic process (though this is difficult to document systematically) and is in a position to consolidate the gains made so far. Communication and exchanging experience and information across the entire network is a key challenge. Most IADN members feel it is time to shift from a hierarchical structure, focused on transferring methodologies from Founding Members (FMs) to Associate Members (AMs), to a more horizontal structure. The existence of two classes of membership has led to resentment among AMs. The deliberation methodology has been successfully transferred to a sizable number of AMs. However, there are no concrete data showing that the methodology, in and of itself, increases citizen participation. In nearly all cases, follow-up by network members is key to the sustainability of the activities assisted, the level of confidence engendered among participants, and the accurate assessment of the results obtained. Creation of the Central America sub-network provides insights into a number of aspects of network building. By creating country chapters, members learned to work together towards a common goal. However, some chapters are still weak and need help in such areas as strategic planning, team-building, communication, and conflict management if they are to be consolidated. Further strengthening could be achieved by moving beyond deliberation to incorporate other approaches to citizen participation. There is also need for more fluid communication and information-sharing mechanisms across countries with less developed technological infrastructures. Finally, there is potential for greater interaction between IADN members and USAID missions in identifying areas of mutual interest and potential funding opportunities. Lessons learned are as follows: (1) Networks are established for a variety of reasons, some, like IADN, to address broad, cross-cutting themes, others to focus on more specific concerns. This initial context affects the network's subsequent development and perhaps also its possibilities for cohesiveness. (2) Latin American civil society organizations (CSOs) working in the democracy area are eager to take advantage of the contacts, support, validation, and opportunities for exchanging information and experience that a network can offer. (3) A key ingredient for successful creation and operation of any network or partnership is mutual agreement on purpose, roles, responsibilities, decisionmaking, and other procedures. (4) If forced to choose between providing short-term services to a large number of organizations scattered over a particular geographic area and more in-depth assistance and follow-up to a smaller, more targeted group, the latter approach is preferable if sustainability is a concern. (5) Within networks or consortia of southern CSOs, members are likely to vary greatly in organizational skills and capacity, making it necessary to provide organizational development assistance to weaker members, as well as to the network itself. If a network cannot provide this service itself, it should help fragile member organizations locate such assistance. (6) It is important to decentralize a network's decisionmaking process and governance structure as far as possible. (7) In countries without a strong CSO sector, forums among organizations already in collaboration offer much more possibility for decisionmaking, while forums among those who have not yet agreed to work together can be effective primarily for educational purposes. The utility of both purposes should be assessed prior to launching any initiative. (8) Evaluating civil society programs is difficult, as the definition and indicators of "success" are open for interpretation. Evaluation is even more difficult in the case of a regional network. Participatory evaluation techniques can help overcome some of these challenges. Also, including an outside facilitator on the evaluation team can counteract the biases to which participatory evaluations may be subject.