Transparency and integrity performance evaluation : final evaluation report

The evaluation team primarily employed a qualitative methodological research design involving two tiers of analysis: a performance assessment of each project based on its goals and targets, and a cross-cutting analysis to address the six evaluation questions that guided this analysis, based on the scope of work provided by USAID. In general, the team found that most activities implemented their interventions and delivered their outcomes. However, the level of effectiveness varied among them, due mainly to external factors, which included a favorable political context, the presence of champions within institutions, and an alignment of priorities among all involved. Moreover, no evidence was found on whether a particular mode of engagement resulted in a higher effectiveness or better results. The evaluated interventions employed different mechanisms that varied case by case, thus not allowing for a generalization of the approaches followed to achieve their desired outcomes. Therefore, recommendations are centered around a larger field of action rather than on specific modalities, such as allocating future resources toward the support of local (subnational) governments and non-governmental institutions, where capacities remain underdeveloped. The team also recommends tailoring specific performance indicators that measure the activities’ contribution to their intended ends, supporting activities based on co-design through calls for proposals, supporting multi-stakeholder coalitions, and establishing clear roles and responsibilities from early stages.