Insert high-quality photograph representing the project being evaluated to replace this instruction 
and fill this text box. 
MIDTERM EVALUATION OF THE PROGRAM 
REPRESENTASI (PROREP) PROJECT

MIDTERM EVALUATION 
OF THE PROGRAM 
REPRESENTASI (PROREP) 
PROJECT 
April 2013 
DISCLAIMER 
The author’s views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the 
United States Agency for International Development or the United States Government. 
] 
CONTENTS 
Acronyms ........................................................................................................................................................................... ii
Acknowledgements .......................................................................................................................................................iii
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................................................ 1
Evaluation Purpose and Evaluation Questions ....................................................................................................7 
Project Background ........................................................................................................................................................9 
Evaluation Methods and Limitations .................................................................................................................... 13 
Findings and Conclusions ......................................................................................................................................... 15 
Findings and Conclusions for Component 1: Civil Society ............................................................ 15 
Findings and Conclusions for Component 2: Support to Research Institutions ................... 19 
Findings and Conclusions for Component 3: Legislative Bodies ................................................ 24 
Findings and Conclusions for the Strategic Activities Fund .......................................................... 27 
Findings and Conclusions for Project Impacts ................................................................................... 28 
Findings and Conclusions Related to Local Partners ....................................................................... 30
Findings and Conclusions Related to Gender .................................................................................... 32
Recommendations ....................................................................................................................................................... 33
 Annexes .......................................................................................................................................................................... 35 
Annex I: Evaluation Statement of Work ................................................................................................ 35 
Annex II: Evaluation Methods and Limitations................................................................................... 41
Annex III: Data Collection Instruments.................................................................................................. 44
Annex IV: Sources Consulted .................................................................................................................... 47 
Annex V: CSO Grants and Training Matrices ...................................................................................... 50
Annex VI: Civil Society Objective Indicators ........................................................................................ 51
Annex VII: Research Institution Objective Indicators....................................................................... 52
Annex VIII: Legislative Bodies Objective Indicators.......................................................................... 53
Annex IX: Summary of Constituency Outreach Activities by MPs from the First Two 
Recess Visits .................................................................................................................................................... 54
ii
ACRONYMS 
ACYPL American Council of Young Political Leaders 
BAKN Badan Akuntabilitas Keuangan Negara (State Finance Accountability 
Committee of the DPR)
BALEG Badan Legislasi (Legislation Committee of the DPR)
BPK Supreme Audit Agency 
BURT Badan Urusan Rumah Tangga (Household Affairs Committee of the 
DPR)
COP Chief of Party
CSO Civil Society Organization 
DCOP Deputy Chief of Party
DPD Dewan Perwakilan Daerah (Regional Representative Council)
DPR Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat (House of Representatives) 
DRSP Democratic Reform Support Program 
GOI Government of Indonesia
JABAT Jangkau dan Libatkan 
KRA Key Result Area
LSI Indonesian Survey Institute 
M&E Monitoring & Evaluation
MOU Memorandum of Understanding 
MP Member of Parliament
MP3 Masyarakat Peduli Pelayanan Publik 
NGO Non-Governmental Organization
PBB Performance-Based Budgeting
PIR Program Intermediate Result
PMP Performance Management Plan 
PPPI Paramadina Public Policy Institute
ProRep Program Representasi
RPJMN Rencana Pembangunan Jangka Menengah Nasional (National Long 
Term Development Plan) 
SAF Special Activity Fund 
SOW Scope of Work
SP Service Provider
TA Technical Assistance
UKP4 Presidential Working Unit for Development Oversight and Control
USAID United States Agency for International Development 
USG United States Government 
WRI Women’s Research Institute 
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The team wishes to thank USAID/Indonesia and ProRep for their assistance with arranging 
meetings with Indonesian government officials and for providing critical background 
materials for review. The team also would like to thank Mr. James Fremming from Social 
Impact for his advice and support both in Jakarta and in Washington in the preparation of 
this document. 
1 
EXECUTIVESUMMARY
EVALUATION PURPOSE AND EVALUATION QUESTIONS
The purpose of this evaluation is to conduct an independent mid-term review of the 
Program Representasi (ProRep) project. The evaluation focuses on identifying which 
elements are or are not having an impact and which aspects of project design need to be 
adjusted for the remaining three years of the project (one remaining base year and two 
option years). The evaluators sought to identify lessons learned and best practices to help 
determine if current activities planned in each of ProRep’s component areas are likely to 
achieve project objectives. 
The evaluation of ProRep’s performance covers the period from program initiation to date 
(April 2011 to March 2013). The evaluators reviewed, analyzed, and evaluated ProRep to 
determine: 
1. To what extent has ProRep, including work through all of its partners, been successful 
in achieving the program objectives? 
2. How well did the activities of each of ProRep’s three components contribute, in a 
coordinated way, to achieving program objectives? 
3. What factors, including external factors, are contributing to or inhibiting the 
achievement of program objectives? 
4. What have been the project impacts (at least qualitatively)? 
5. To what extent has ProRep’s work with local partners strengthened local capacity to 
represent membership and constituent interest, develop and disseminate evidence￾based public policy research, and engage in the legislative process? 
6. How well have gender issues been addressed by ProRep?
PROJECT BACKGROUND
The Government of Indonesia (GOI) articulated a comprehensive new vision of a more 
peaceful, modern, and prosperous Indonesia in a national plan of action called the Rencana 
Pembangunan Jangka Menengah Nasional (RPJMN), the National Long Term Development 
Plan (2005-2025). The RPJMN articulates specific timetables for the accomplishment of 
national goals. The plan pays particular attention to consolidating democratic norms through 
five national development agendas for the period covering 2009-2014, namely: 
 Economic Development and Increased Welfare of the People 
 Enhancement of Good Governance 
 Strengthening of the Pillars of Democracy 
 Enforcement of the Law and Eradication of Corruption 
 Development that is Inclusive and Just 
It is within this evolving political context that the ProRep initiative seeks to contribute to 
USAID/Indonesia’s Development Objective of “making democratic governance deliver” and 
supporting Indonesia’s consolidation of democracy. ProRep’s central theory is that better 
policy-making and stronger democracy will be advanced by strengthening the 
representational capacity of membership and constituency-based civil society organizations 
(CSOs); building the capacity of selected universities, think tanks, and CSOs to conduct and 
2 
disseminate policy-relevant research and analysis on key policy and governance issues; 
supporting a more effective, responsive, and transparent legislative process; and by 
providing timely resources designed to respond to opportunities or events not anticipated in 
the other three components but with the potential to build relationships with key Indonesian 
officials. ProRep distinguishes itself from other initiatives because it seeks to leverage 
synergy among reform-oriented legislators, elite think tanks, and national advocacy CSOs 
that are prepared to work on national policy and ultimately may influence the behavior and 
practice of a newly-democratic national legislature that is still maturing as an institution. 
ProRep promotes “representation” as both a vehicle for change as well as a goal in itself. Like 
democracy itself, representation is a process to be valued in the public sphere, and thus a 
goal. At the same time, however, representation is expected to causally contribute to other 
desired ends, such as more responsive, effective, and efficient public policies. In this way 
representation serves as both a vehicle for change and a goal in itself.
EVALUATION QUESTIONS, DESIGN, METHODS, AND LIMITATIONS 
The evaluation was conducted by team leader, Mr. Patrick Fn’Piere, an expert on governance 
and legislative bodies; Mr. Richard Holloway, an expert on civil society; and Mr. Irfani Darma, 
an Indonesian development practitioner on governance and civil society programming. The 
evaluation team undertook a three-phase approach to the evaluation. During Phase 1 (Desk 
Review), the evaluation team reviewed key documents, including relevant background 
documents, ProRep and grantee materials, and project monitoring data. During Phase 2 
(Fieldwork), the evaluation team traveled to Jakarta, Yogyakarta, and Palembang to meet 
with individuals associated with ProRep and its partners, as well as outside experts with 
relevant expertise. The team asked a set of standard questions of all those interviewed along 
with varied questions targeted to those associated with the different components. Key 
informants included ProRep staff, members of Indonesia’s Parliament, ProRep program 
beneficiaries and grantees, USAID (including other relevant USAID implementers), U.S. 
Embassy staff, other donor representatives, civil society leaders, government officials, and 
representatives from academia, journalism, and other domestic and international non￾governmental organizations (NGOs). Field research for the evaluation was carried out from 
March 9–22, 2013. Phase 3 (Analysis) consisted of synthesis and analysis of the compiled 
date to generate findings, conclusions, and recommendations for USAID/Indonesia, ProRep, 
and other relevant stakeholders. 
The evaluation resources and timeframe allowed for interviews with a portion of the grantees 
in components 1 and 2 and with approximately six of the MPs and others supported through 
component 3 rather than discussions with all those supported. USAID and ProRep made 
recommendations regarding which partners to interview. Since the program has only been 
providing technical assistance (TA) and training to partners for about 18 months, 
experiencing impact will likely not be realized for three to five years or longer. 
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 
ACHIEVING OBJECTIVES 
ProRep met its contractual goals of developing an approved start-up plan and a grants 
manual, producing a life-of-project performance management plan (PMP), and submitting 
3 
first and second year work plans (which included the role of their sub-contractors: Kemitraan, 
Urban Institute, and Social Impact) on time. 
The ProRep PMP contains 19 indicators. ProRep met or exceeded targets in 10 of the 11 
indicators for which progress has been reported. ProRep achieved 70% of the target for the 
remaining indicator, “Number of public forums resulting from USG assistance.” Sufficient 
time has not elapsed to measure progress on four indicators for which data are reported bi￾annually. Two others are high-level and results for them are not anticipated until later in the 
program. Targets have not yet been set for the remaining two indicators. The information 
gained from the interviews by the evaluation team is consistent with the data reported by 
ProRep in their quarterly and annual reports. 
COORDINATION TOWARD PROJECT OBJECTIVES 
The lag time before ProRep could work directly with grantees and partners varied greatly 
among the components. In addition, the three ProRep components are on different 
schedules as per capacity building, grant award dates, and lengths of time required for 
product completion. As grant products were produced and policy papers completed, ProRep 
orchestrated events, (e.g., workshops, trainings, and hearings participation) that engaged 
component participants in increasingly shared activities. Early, purposeful coordination was 
difficult and these timing variances continue to present challenges in harmonizing across 
components. 
CONSTRAINTS 
Few membership civil society advocacy organizations that meet USAID criteria for 
membership exist in Indonesia; therefore, proxies for membership had to suffice to find 
organizations for ProRep to work with. All of the CSO and think tank grantees interviewed 
cited lack of support for core operations as a critical need for longer-term viability. They also 
noted that the initial ProRep grant award time period was too short to accomplish all of their 
agreed-upon goals. The schedules for both research and grant activities did not line up well 
with either the national legislative calendar nor with the reality of policy making in Indonesia, 
which can take years for the passage of laws and further years for actual implementation. 
With regard to the national legislature, the absence of buy-in from the Indonesian House of 
Representatives (Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat, or DPR) Speaker is a significant factor that 
explains why ProRep has not been able to work more broadly and openly with the institution 
as a whole, including with the Badan Urusan Rumah Tangga (BURT), the DPR’s domestic or 
household committee that the Speaker chairs, which is key to coordinating broad reforms 
within the House, or with committees that have authorization or appropriation responsibility 
within the DPR. The 2014 elections are on the horizon and likely to have an influence on the 
makeup and priorities of the new legislature. Members of Parliament (MPs) currently 
supported by the project may not be reelected. 
ProRep took appropriate steps to respond to the paucity of grant applications from true 
membership organizations. They sought modification of the grant criteria and provided 
robust support in terms of increasing awareness of the importance of representation of 
membership and constituents and of operational requirements related to membership 
management. In addition, they encouraged non-membership CSO partners to involve 
membership/constituency-based organizations in implementing their grant programs. 
4 
Finding lack of support for ProRep by the Speaker, ProRep’s engagement of the next level of 
leadership was a meritorious strategic move. 
PROJECT IMPACTS 
The first two years of the project were invested in starting up the in-country office and team, 
conducting assessments of each of the three sectors, overcoming constraints to identifying 
potential grantees that meet award requirements stated in the contract, building capacity, 
awarding grants, and providing assistance as appropriate to grantees to achieve the 
purposes of their grants. The first round of research grants through ProRep served to gauge 
the quality of research and research institutions in Indonesia and to identify specific areas of 
assistance from which the organizations could benefit. The first round of grants for CSOs 
provided support to the partners that advocated budget transparency and public access to 
information, thereby contributing to partner capacity. The second round of research grants 
will be longer than the first and are expected to start producing research results in late 2013. 
ProRep CSO partners are increasingly interacting on their issues with respective legislative 
committees or directly with MPs; they are largely at the beginning of the legislative process. 
Though the evaluation team observed evidence of progress, it is too early to judge impact. 
To date, ProRep has not had any “legislative victories,” partly because most of partners’ 
programs are focused on monitoring the implementation of already enacted laws – not 
advocating on new laws or regulations. 
LOCAL CAPACITY STRENGTHENING 
With respect to strengthening capacity of program partners and grantees to achieve 
program goals, the evaluation team found that ProRep provided robust training courses, 
mentoring relationships, tailored capacity building strategies, and improved financial 
management. The project also provided quality TA by both domestic and international 
experts. ProRep research organizations were provided advanced training to reinforce 
substantive research techniques and improved skills in policy analysis and monitoring and 
evaluating research. The CSO partners were trained on alternative approaches to advocacy, 
the essence of constituency building, and techniques of engagement with policy makers. 
Additionally, participants noted an increase in face-to-face meetings with MPs and 
participation in legislative hearings and other public hearings. It is too early to tell whether 
these new behaviors will be sustained over time. 
GENDER TREATMENT 
ProRep reports include high levels of gender-disaggregated data; these data indicate high 
levels of participation by women. Grantees selected are advocating and conducting research 
and advocacy on issues that address important gender disparities in rights and 
opportunities. Specific topics include migrant workers, maternal insurance, family planning, 
and agriculture. The training on legal drafting also includes topics of gender relevance and 
significance. 
RECOMMENDATIONS 
1. Fund the membership function for CSOs in Component 1: The membership function 
of any organization involves a significant operational and management cost, yet ProRep 
grants account for a small fraction of the core operational costs for their CSO grantees. 
Emphasis should be shifted from the number of CSOs ProRep engages over the life of 
5 
the project (indicated in the present contract) to capability for sustainability for a smaller 
number of CSOs, particularly current CSO grantees who have better incorporated 
representation into their operational mode. To perform a representational function well, 
the respective CSOs need to develop a more secure core membership base that is 
capable of sustaining the organization programmatically (e.g., to provide and attract 
resource support) and to better incorporate the membership function into their overall 
operating plans and budgets. With regard to critical mass, the evaluators were told that 
the target of 16 to 20 CSOs was based on early projections of what the budget was able 
to support. Additionally, ProRep found that fewer CSOs than anticipated met ProRep 
criteria as national membership organizations. Thus, more resources were required to 
build awareness of the importance of membership and management responsibility 
related to the representation function within such organizations than anticipated. 
Providing further support to the membership function of current ProRep CSOs will 
require more resources to the grantees than originally envisioned and expansion of CSO 
networks to include like-minded organizations (including other USAID/Indonesia CSO 
partners). Within present resource and time constraints, providing more intensive 
support to a smaller number of CSOs would prove more effective than extending thinner 
support to a larger number of CSOs. 
2. Evaluate application of skills enhanced through ProRep assistance: ProRep provided 
considerable TA to their 14 CSO grantees in the development of their proposals, the 
implementation of their respective projects, and facilitation of opportunities for 
engagement with think tanks and MPs. ProRep also offered training on how to deepen 
CSOs’ utilization of their membership as a vehicle for knowledge building and a source of 
institutional legitimacy to the Parliament. As part of its third year activities, we encourage 
ProRep to investigate the depth of the skills strengthened and how much their use has 
been incorporated at this juncture. At present, ProRep does not have a performance 
measure that gauges the way CSOs “use” representation in their policy advocacy.
3. Expand partners and networks: Many ProRep CSOs work on behalf of constituencies 
that are not typically well-represented in Parliament. One important service that ProRep 
CSOs may perform for their constituents is to increase support for issues important to 
them from organizations that may have direct or indirect interest in their issues. 
Advocacy carried out through partnerships with organizations/constituencies whose 
interests coincide, resulting in a larger and wider mix of proponents for an issue, may be 
more compelling to the DPR as a whole. It may also reinforce the status of the CSOs as 
national organizations to the extent they may be perceived to have broad support across 
diverse geographic and demographic populations. 
4. Support research of topics salient to targeted audiences for increased use of 
research: ProRep selection criteria for research grants have included sectors and topics 
that were relevant to other parts of the ProRep activities, i.e., access to information, 
gender, budget, etc. The evaluation team recommends that ProRep undertake its own 
research to determine which policy issues are the most salient for the largest number of 
Indonesians, government, and elected officials. It is likely that economic issues will 
register higher. If so, ProRep may, in response, include economic impact to the social 
agenda that it has already undertaken. Linking ProRep research to issues with economic 
impact (e.g., trade issues, investment, taxation, and licensing) may provide entry to larger 
budget allocation issues which has the potential for more direct impact, given that the 
6 
national budget is the most basic and perhaps the only legislative action that is assured 
to take place each year.
5. Increase awareness of relevance of ProRep values and approaches to a broader 
array of organizations: The role of national political parties in legislative affairs is 
ubiquitous. ProRep has assets that are of interest to political parties. While ProRep’s 
JABAT program will go into hiatus during the 2014 elections, ProRep-supported CSOs 
can still contribute to advancing important policy and concurrently build credibility for 
independent non-partisan voices to engage. USAID, for example, works with many other 
Indonesian organizations involved in consolidating democracy. Other USAID-supported 
groups have sector-specific interests that may at some come before the Parliament. 
ProRep should look for opportunities to leverage the sharing of core ProRep values and 
approaches with other organizations. 
7 
EVALUATION PURPOSE & 
EVALUATION QUESTIONS 
EVALUATION PURPOSE 
The purpose of this evaluation is to conduct an independent mid-term review of the 
Program Representasi (ProRep) project. ProRep, implemented by Chemonics International 
through Contract No-AID-497-C-11-00002, is a five-year initiative whose main objectives are 
to increase the effectiveness of representative groups and institutions in policy making and 
implementation specifically undertaken by the national legislature of Indonesia and, in doing 
so, bolster both democracy and good governance in the country. 
The evaluation focused on identifying which elements are or are not having an impact and 
which aspects of project design need to be adjusted for the remaining three years of the 
project (one remaining base year and two option years). The evaluators sought to identify 
lessons learned and best practices to help determine if current activities planned in each of 
ProRep’s program areas are likely to achieve project objectives. 
Per the ProRep contract, the project will strengthen representation in three important areas: 
 It will build the capacity of member- and constituency-based based civil society 
organizations (CSOs) so that they can better represent the interests of their members 
and constituents at the national and/or local level. 
 It will support independent analysis and public consideration of legislation and 
policies having a major impact on democratic governance. 
 It will work with Indonesia’s key representative bodies – primarily the House of 
Representatives (Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat, or DPR), but possibly also the Regional 
Representative Council (Dewan Perwakilan Daerah, or DPD) – to help them become 
more effective, responsive, and transparent. 
The principal project results are expected to include: 1) membership-based CSOs will be 
better able to represent the interests of their members; 2) Indonesian universities, think 
tanks, and CSOs will be better able to produce and disseminate policy-relevant research and 
analysis; and 3) the legislative process in the DPR will be more effective, responsive, and 
transparent. 
The project also will give the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) a 
mechanism to allow it to respond flexibly and rapidly to unanticipated needs and 
opportunities that USAID believes are important to protecting or advancing democratic 
governance in Indonesia. 
“These results will contribute to the achievement of Intermediate Result (IR) 2 of USAID’s 
2009–2014 Democratic Governance (DG) strategy, which supports efforts at both the 
national and regional levels to make governance more representative, effective, and 
responsive to citizen’s needs.”
1
 
1
 USAID contract No-AID-497-C-11-00002 
8 
EVALUATION QUESTIONS 
The evaluation of ProRep’s performance covers the period from program initiation in April 
2011 to March 2013. The evaluators reviewed, analyzed, and evaluated ProRep at this mid￾point to determine: 
1. To what extent has ProRep, including work through all of its partners, been successful in 
achieving the program objectives? 
2. How well did the activities of each of ProRep’s three components contribute, in a 
coordinated way, to achieving program objectives? 
3. What factors, including external factors, are contributing to or inhibiting the achievement 
of program objectives? 
4. What have been the project impacts (at least qualitatively)?
5. To what extent has ProRep’s work with local partners strengthened local capacity to 
represent membership and constituent’s interest, develop and disseminate evidence￾based public policy research, and engage in the legislative process? 
6. How well have gender issues been addressed by ProRep? 
9 
PROJECT BACKGROUND 
Indonesia has made considerable progress since the economic and political turmoil of the 
late 1990s that helped bring about the end of the authoritarian, military-backed regime of 
President Suharto in 1998. Indeed, Indonesia’s economy has rebounded well from the Asian 
monetary crisis and is currently ranked 16th in size among world economies with GDP 
growing at more than 6 percent per year.2
 Politically, Indonesia has undertaken significant 
structural reforms with respect to conducting democratic elections, devolving central 
authority, advancing freedom of the press, increasing decision-making authority and 
responsibilities of its legislative bodies at both the national and local level, and enhancing 
judicial and executive programs to fight corruption. To many, Indonesia is “recognized as a 
shining example to the world that Islam, democracy, and modernity can actually be 
compatible and exist in harmony.”
3
The above examples are illustrative of an impressive set of economic and political 
accomplishments, hard won over a relatively brief period from 1998 to 2013. However, 
Indonesia is by no means assured of an equally optimistic future. Despite its top 20 GDP 
ranking, Indonesia’s 2012 UN HDI rank was 121th out of 187 countries with more than 30 
million of its citizens living below the poverty line. And, according to the CIA World Fact 
Book, of the 144 countries ranked, Indonesia occupies the 81st place on the 2010 Gini Index, 
a measure of income inequality. Equally concerning is the pace or effectiveness of the 
political reforms that have taken place since the end of authoritarianism. As Harold Crouch 
points out in his seminal work, Political Reform in Indonesia after Suharto, “post-crisis reform 
did not follow a standard democratic template in which freely elected legislators responded 
to popular pressures and bureaucrats followed the principles of good governance in pursuit 
of a perception of the long-term national interest. Rather, it was the product of protracted 
bargaining of largely self-serving parties both old and new.”4
 Many political experts 
interviewed for this evaluation cited rising Islamic fundamentalism, negative public 
perception of government performance (particularly with respect to the national legislature), 
political corruption, cronyism, patronage, and poor and unequal service delivery as among 
the many fault lines that continue to threaten Indonesia’s stability and characterize the state 
of play of Indonesia’s political landscape. 
Cognizant of considerable political, social, and economic challenges that lay ahead, the 
Government of Indonesia (GOI) articulated a comprehensive new vision of a more peaceful, 
modern, and prosperous Indonesia in a national plan of action called the Rencana 
Pembangunan Jangka Menengah Nasional (RPJMN), the National Long Term Development 
Plan (2005-2025). The RPJMN articulates specific timetables for the accomplishment of 
national goals. The plan pays particular attention to consolidating democratic norms through 
five national development agendas5
 for the period covering 2009‐2014, namely: 
 Economic Development and Increased Welfare of the People; 
 Enhancement of Good Governance; 
 Strengthening of the Pillars of Democracy; 
 
2
 World Bank Country Report, 2011. 
3 Democracy, Human Rights, and Governance Assessment of Indonesia, Final Report 2013, USAID 
4
Political Reform in Indonesia after Suharto, Harold A. Crouch 
5
 RPJMN 
10
 Enforcement of the Law and Eradication of Corruption; and 
 Development that is Inclusive and Just. 
In keeping with the goals set by the RPJMN, the Indonesian House of Representatives, 
Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat (DPR), launched a multi-year initiative to reform the institution that 
among its reforms calls for “efficient and effective legislation function, transparent and 
accountable budgeting function, transparent and effective oversights to the government, 
and for the DPR to be strong, aspirative, responsive, and accommodative.”
6
It is within this evolving political and economic context that the ProRep initiative seeks to 
contribute to USAID’s strategic goal of “making democracy work” and supporting Indonesia’s 
consolidation of democracy. ProRep’s central theory is that better policy making and 
stronger democracy will be advanced by strengthening the representational capacity of 
membership and constituency-based CSOs; building the capacity of selected universities, 
think tanks, and CSOs to conduct and disseminate policy-relevant research and analysis on 
key policy and governance issues; supporting a more effective, responsive, and transparent 
legislative process; and by providing timely resources designed to respond to unanticipated 
opportunities or events in the other three components which have the potential to build 
important relationships with key Indonesian officials. A fundamental tenet of ProRep is that 
representation by the country’s legislature is an essential element for sound, legitimate, and 
effective policy making and its subsequent implementation. At this juncture in Indonesia’s 
post-Suharto era, representation of the interests of ordinary citizens in Indonesia’s national 
legislature, i.e., the 560-member DPR and the 132-member Dewan Perwakilan (DPD), is weak. 
USAID’s 2008 assessment of the national legislature states: “With respect to representation, 
because of Indonesia’s party list electoral system, with its strong party discipline, DPR 
members have relatively little opportunity to represent their constituents in policy-making or 
in plenary and committee sessions. Members of the DPR seem to place relatively little 
emphasis on constituent relations. Members elected from party lists are more likely to 
represent ideological or minority interests than the interests of particular geographic areas.”7
The East Asia Forum noted in a 2011 article that perception of the DPR has not improved 
since 2008: “One year into their tenure, critics claim that the DPR is not performing well. Few 
bills have been passed (16 out of a target of 70), while its members continue to be defensive 
in the face of public outcry over allegedly luxurious facilities, overseas trips and corruption 
cases. It is no surprise that numerous polls suggest high public dissatisfaction with the DPR.”
8
A second tenet of ProRep is that effective formulation and implementation of public policy is 
not solely the responsibility of elected officials but that non-governmental actors also have a 
critical role. Indeed, it is envisaged that if non-government actors engage more substantively 
with elected officials in Parliament, the governance of Indonesia – and perhaps even the 
reputation of the body– would improve. 
Past USAID and other international donor (most notably AusAID and UNDP) programs have 
provided support to CSOs, think tanks, and to the GOI in support of activities directed at 
enhancing policy development. Indeed, USAID supported a partnership between the Center 
for Institutional Reform and the Informal Sector (IRIS) at the University of Maryland and the 
Institute for Economic and Social Research (LPEM) at the University of Indonesia (a ProRep 
 
6 DPR’s Strategic Plan (2010-2014)
7
 USAID, Democracy and Governance Assessment, 2008. 
8
 East Asia Forum, March 17, 2011. 
11
grantee) to support and advise local policymakers on political, administrative, and fiscal 
decentralization issues (1998-2003). IRIS’ regional university network stretches from one end 
of the archipelago to the other and includes members from Banda Aceh, Bandung, 
Banjarmasin, Denpasar, Jayapura, Manado, Manokwari, Medan, Padang, Surakarta, 
Palembang, Ujung Pandang, Semarang, Surabaya, and Yogyakarta, among others.9
 The more 
recent UNDP effort through the Parliamentary Reform and Public Engagement Revitalization 
(PROPER) Parliamentary Reform Initiative and DPD sought to strengthen parliamentarians’
capacities to consolidate democracy in Indonesia to better carry out key functions, including 
drafting and deliberating new legislation, review, and approval of state and local government 
budget and expenditures, as well as improved oversight to monitor and evaluate the 
implementation of laws and policies by the Government’s executive branch. ProRep builds 
on these projects as well as ProRep’s predecessor, the Democratic Reform Support Program 
(DRSP), which (among several areas) focused on capacity building of the national legislature. 
ProRep distinguishes itself, however, from other initiatives because it seeks to leverage 
synergy among reform-oriented legislators, elite think tanks, and national advocacy CSOs 
that are prepared to work on national policy and ultimately may influence the behavior and 
practice of a newly-democratic national legislature that is still maturing as an institution. 
ProRep promotes “representation” as both a vehicle for change as well as a goal in itself. 
Representation is not an explicit constitutional responsibility of Members of Parliament (MPs) 
nor is it a standard operating protocol across civil society. Like democracy itself, 
representation is a process to be valued in the public sphere, and thus a goal. At the same 
time, however, representation is expected to causally contribute to other desired ends, such 
as more responsive, effective, and efficient public policies. In this way representation serves 
as both a vehicle for change and a goal in itself. ProRep seeks to increase representation in 
the national legislature, among CSOs, and in the development and execution of public policy 
emanating from the national legislature as a fundamental aspect of governance. A 
measurable increase in representation is the goal. The practice of representation, e.g., 
engagement and responsiveness to a variety of voices in deliberations and decision making, 
is necessary to reach the goal; it is a vehicle to create the change, institutionalizing 
representation as a valued behavior, i.e., the goal requires a long-term process. The process, 
i.e., the vehicle to achieve the goal, is the practice of the behavior combined with observation 
and accrual of benefits from that practice. The aim is to achieve a point at which MPs, civil 
society leaders, and public policy specialists perceive that it is deemed unacceptable to not 
formally employ inclusive behaviors that are grounded in fact-based analysis. 
ProRep is a complex project comprised of three primary but very distinct objectives. Each 
objective supports different institutions, e.g., the national legislature, think tanks, and CSOs, 
all of which are independent entities with discrete histories, compositions, and institutional 
challenges requiring different strategies to achieve ProRep goals. Not accustomed to 
working together, each entity is supported by ProRep in capacity strengthening with the 
expectation that this will enhance the abilities and wills of these organizations to work more 
closely together in a common purpose. While all three types of institutions purport to act in 
the public interest, they do so in very different ways and with different incentives, resources, 
timetables, levels of accountability, and institutional frameworks guiding their everyday 
operations. This evaluation reviews ProRep’s three program areas individually with their 
 
9
IRIS/LPEM Peg Grant, “Strengthening Regional University Capacity to support Decentralization,” Annual Report 
2001 
12
unique challenges (and contractual requirements) and also investigates the sum of the three 
parts. 
13
EVALUATION METHODS & 
LIMITATIONS 
METHODS 
The evaluation was conducted by team leader, Mr. Patrick Fn’Piere, an expert on governance 
and legislative bodies; Mr. Richard Holloway, an expert on civil society; and Mr. Irfani Darma, 
an Indonesian development practitioner on governance and civil society programming. The 
evaluation team undertook a multi-method, 3-phase approach to the evaluation. During 
Phase 1(Desk Review), the evaluation team reviewed key documents, including relevant 
background documents, ProRep and grantee materials, and project monitoring data. 
Chemonics/Washington and ProRep provided the team with copies of relevant project 
documents, including the ProRep scope of work (SOW), the Performance Management Plan 
(PMP), ProRep assessments, quarterly and annual reports, work plans, newsletters, and other 
project related documents. 
During Phase 2 (Fieldwork), the evaluation team traveled to Jakarta, Yogyakarta, and 
Palembang to meet with individuals associated with ProRep and its partners, as well as 
outside experts with relevant expertise. An in-briefing with USAID/Indonesia detailing 
USAID’s objectives and specific issues the team should address, was held on March 11 in 
Jakarta. From March 12–22, the team conducted key informant interviews with ProRep staff, 
ProRep supported CSOs, research organizations, DPR Members and staff, other international 
donors working with research and CSOs in Indonesia, and representatives from other USAID 
projects to gather information on ProRep, its development, and its impacts. The field 
investigation sought informed comment, data, and reflections from ProRep participants and 
grantees, government officials, domestic and international partners, local experts, 
USAID/Indonesia, the US Embassy, and ProRep staff on the extent to which ProRep was 
achieving its objectives. The team also evaluated how ProRep’s fourth component, (i.e., the 
Strategic Activities Fund, or SAF) was providing USAID/Indonesia with an effective 
mechanism to respond rapidly to unanticipated needs and opportunities to advance 
democratic governance in Indonesia. Finally, the team considered whether the results to date 
were on course in contributing toward achievement of IR 2 of USAID’s 2009–2014 
Democratic Governance (DG) strategy, which supports efforts at both the national and 
regional levels to make governance more representative, effective, and responsive to citizen 
needs. 
Phase 3 (Analysis) consisted of synthesis and analysis of the data to generate findings, 
conclusions, and recommendations for USAID/Indonesia, ProRep, and other relevant 
stakeholders. 
The team conducted the evaluation in accordance with the approach described in USAID’s 
Evaluation Policy, Learning from Experience (2011). The team asked a set of standard 
questions of all interviewed along with varied questions targeted to those associated with 
the different components. Examples of the interview protocols used can be found in Annex 
III. The evaluation team provided a brief report on its preliminary findings to USAID before 
departure from Indonesia. 
14
LIMITATIONS
Given that much of the data is of a qualitative nature, the information presented herein is 
subject to the standard limitations of qualitative research. In other words, the evaluation 
team cannot generalize findings beyond direct respondents and the qualitative findings 
gathered from interviews are subject to various forms of bias (including recall bias). The 
evaluation team made every reasonable effort, within the constraints of time and other 
resources, to triangulate findings across data sources to strengthen reliability of findings. 
The evaluation resources and timeframe allowed for interviews with a portion of the grantees 
in components 1 and 2 and with approximately six of the MPs and others supported through 
component 3 rather than discussions with all those supported. USAID and ProRep 
recommended the partners to interview. Since the program only has been providing 
technical assistance (TA) and training to partners for about 18 months, evidence of impact 
will likely not be realized for three to five years or longer. 
This mid-term evaluation is not intended to attribute impact. Unlike an impact evaluation, 
the ProRep mid-term performance evaluation can identify some causal chains but cannot 
authoritatively ascribe impact or causal relationships between observed outcomes and the 
program. 
15
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 
The findings presented below are organized by ProRep component, followed by a discussion 
of the SAF. Each of the three component sections contains sub-sections for findings and 
conclusions for evaluation questions 1–3. The evaluation team then discusses evaluation 
questions 4–6 in aggregate. 
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS FOR COMPONENT 1: CIVIL SOCIETY 
(QUESTIONS 1-3)
Component 1 Objective: To build the capacity of member- and constituency-based 
based civil society organizations (CSOs) so that they can better represent the interests 
of their members and constituents at the national and/or local level. 
In its first 24 months, ProRep honed the grantee selection process and identified appropriate 
grant mechanisms to support 14 grantees in their pursuit of legislative remedies important 
to their mission by tailoring trainings and TA to meet the needs or gaps in representational 
and advocacy skills. At its core, Component 1 endeavors to first alter the relationship 
between CSO leadership with its members/constituency, giving priority to the members; 
then, using the collective strength and judgment of that membership, to develop and 
implement strategies to achieve the organization’s goals.
Evaluation Question 1: To what extent has ProRep, including work through all of its 
partners, been successful in achieving the program objectives? 
Findings
ProRep provides assistance to membership and constituency-based CSOs10 with grants, TA, 
training, and other support for membership and network building, issue analysis, advocacy, 
and public outreach. ProRep also facilitates CSOs’ consultative processes and engagement 
with the DPR and/or DPRDs, and other branches of government, along with documenting 
and sharing of lessons learned and best practices. 
In the first two years, ProRep has supported 14 CSOs. While ProRep’s contract stipulates that 
ProRep is to work with “membership and constituency based CSOs,” only 6 of the 14 CSOs 
which received grants are, in the opinion of the responsible ProRep staff, membership 
organizations in the customary sense of having listed members involved in the governing 
structure of the organization. Of the CSOs interviewed by the evaluation team, Allians Aliansi 
Journalis Independen and Aisyiyah fit this definition. 
An early challenge for ProRep was that it had surprisingly few takers when it advertised its 
intentions and made a call for proposals. ProRep found few organizations that fit the strict 
definition of a “national membership organization” and were attracted by the conditions of 
the grant. In response, new guidelines were developed and discussed with USAID that 
modified the membership requirement and a training course on constituency building 
became part of the assistance provided to CSO grantees. 
 
10 ProRep targets assistance to 16–20 CSOs over the five-year life of the project. 
16
With this modification, ProRep was able to accept CSOs with proxies for membership, such 
as: 
 CSOs which are linked to membership organizations, but are not themselves 
membership organizations – e.g., Circle Indonesia which is linked to Alliansi Organis 
Indonesia;
 CSOs with beneficiaries and that represent the interests of these beneficiaries – e.g., 
YSKK in Solo which is, in effect, their constituency; and 
 CSOs which are linked to other CSOs with beneficiaries – e.g., Prakarsa, which is 
linked to PIAR in East Nusa Tenggara (Nusa Tenggara Timur or NTT) province.
ProRep identified CSOs working in many areas of Indonesia with advocacy agendas 
important to the country (please see Annex V for locations). The grant proposal topics met 
the criteria required for receiving a grant. ProRep’s Grants Data Summary (simplified) shows 
us: 
1. AJI – improving journalists’ knowledge of budgets
2. Circle Indonesia – clarifying budgets available for organic farmers 
3. HAPSARI – clarifying government budgets available for women in accessing People’s 
Business Credit (KUR) 
4. PRAKARSA – understanding and implementing the budget allocations for maternity 
insurance 
5. YSSK – understanding and implementing the primary school operational fund (BOS) 
6. ISAI – agreeing what information is classified and what is not in the documents of the 
Ministry of Health 
7. Aisyiyah – making sure that the budget for maternity insurance is used in accordance 
with the law 
8. ASPPUK – making sure that the part of the budget available for microbusiness 
development of women is known to them 
9. Pergerakan – making sure that the budget for fishermen’s welfare (Program 
Kesejahteraan Nelayan or PKN) is known and implemented properly
10. SEKNAS Fitra – understanding and implementing the budget for maternity insurance 
and helping DPR members to understand and supervise the national budget 
11. LAKPESDAM NU – improving the connection between religious groups and MPs 
12. Muslimat NU – Representing constituents’ needs in budgeting for flood 
management 
13. ICEL - Improving oversight of the law on Protection and Management of the 
Environment 
14. INPROSULA – helping farmers’ networks to understand and monitor government 
budgets for sustainable livelihood 
Conclusions 
ProRep has laid a solid foundation with its support to the 14 national CSOs and the 
upcoming election could produce more constituent-indebted MPs. If that were to occur, 
ProRep will have a diverse group of national CSOs positioned to take advantage. If this does 
not happen, some of the efforts CSOs are engaged in may be better directed to political 
parties rather than just to the legislature. 
17
In the next year, the final base year of the project, ProRep will have to weigh the comparative 
advantage of adding more CSOs to reach the program goals of 16–20 CSOs against 
deepening the experience and competency of the current ProRep CSOs (or even a smaller 
number) in determining strategic value and prudent use of remaining funds. ProRep 
experience to date suggests that the level and type of funding, i.e., project funds to build its 
representative capacity, are not sufficient to support the core cost associated with executing 
successful advocacy campaigns or to ensure permanent change in the management and 
operational culture of an organization. Furthermore, the additional funding sources for the 
critical core support will require new strategies to attract domestic and international funding 
if they are to develop and initiate longer sustainable development strategies and increase 
the probability of finding new sources of institutional financing to pursue their advocacy 
agenda to its conclusion. 
Evaluation Question 2: How well did the activities of each of ProRep’s three program 
objectives contribute, in a coordinated way, to achieving program objectives? 
Findings 
We found increasing coordination between CSOs and think tanks/research organizations, 
partly facilitated through the ProRep Partners Reflection Workshops. Two of the workshop 
objectives were to “share experiences, achievements, and lessons learned in implementing 
ProRep grants” and “determine concrete methods for collaboration across program 
objectives, based on specific issues and/or key programmatic areas.” CSO respondents and 
post-workshop evaluations expressed satisfaction with the informal and valuable assistance 
given to the CSOs by ProRep staff and by people identified by ProRep staff to assist in 
training and provide TA. 
There have been CSOs working at the national level on advocacy issues prior to ProRep 
(including ProRep grantees: SEKNAS Fitra, ICEL, ISAI, AJI, PRAKARSA), and ProRep is giving 
more CSOs the opportunity to bring their constituents’ interests to the national level. ProRep 
has encouraged the CSOs, in nearly all cases, to compile data and evidence, direct this 
information to MPs or to expert staff of the DPR, develop material for advocacy, and 
participate in hearings and communicate directly with MPs and the Executive. It is too early 
to ascertain whether these activities will result in the achievement of the different CSO 
objectives, as the legislative process is very long and the legislature is a complicated 
institution with complex structures and conflicting incentives. A 2011 ProRep Civil Society 
assessment asserted that: 
Common challenges in engaging with the DPR for policy advocacy include 
the following: (a) public participation is hampered by the bureaucracy, with 
the Government and the DPR taking a passive approach to participation, (b) 
even when called for by DPR rules, public and CSO attendance at hearings 
or meetings is controlled by DPR officials through commissions or other 
bodies, (c) DPR members regularly prioritize political interest above those 
addressing economic or (even more so) social issues. This phenomenon is 
especially significant given the slowness of the legislative process in 
18
Indonesia and the small number of laws considered and passed by 
Parliament in a given year.11
Conclusions
ProRep has provided an opportunity for its partner CSOs to have a voice in Parliament in a 
way that has not been common for them in the past, although other CSOs have worked in 
this way (e.g., a CSO-led coalition which pushed the Freedom of Information Law, the 
Masyarakat Peduli Pelayanan Publik (MP3), and the Law on Public Services).
12 Indonesian 
CSOs have previously addressed Parliament using donor funds, but ProRep has considerably 
expanded the range of CSOs and issues addressed. 
From conversations with CSOs interviewed, the evaluation team found that the concept of 
CSOs requiring legitimacy through a mandate from their constituents is being 
enthusiastically accepted. This increasingly allows them to put forward their constituents’ 
interests and to relay information about the DPR to their constituents. ProRep’s training 
courses in Constituency Building, Strengthening Relations with Policy Makers, and Creative 
Advocacy (see Annex IV) are helping CSOs that have not previously worked in this manner to 
build their capacity to represent their own membership and constituents’ interests. 
Evaluation Question 3: What factors, including external, are contributing to or 
inhibiting the achievement of program objectives? 
Findings 
The evaluation team found that there were significant variances between resources available 
through ProRep (generally under $75,000) and needs of ProRep partners for implementing 
advocacy campaigns. The ProRep Civil Society Assessment, conducted in the spring of 2011, 
detailed the complicated and time consuming steps required by a CSO to implement 
advocacy campaigns. It cited common challenges, such as uncertain time frames, insufficient 
staff, and cost considerations. CSOs, helped by ProRep, have limited amounts of time and 
money to engage in these steps. While some of the CSOs have received assistance and may 
receive further support from ProRep, there remain significant gaps between the ProRep 
design for working with CSOs on advocacy to the DPR and on increasing their own 
representative capacity. 
In interviews with several CSOs we found that, at this stage, their advocacy overtures to MPs 
were indeed based on their experience. For example, Prakarsa, working with PIAR on 
implementing the new law on maternity insurance (Jampersal), relied on data from NTT 
province; Aisyiyah, working on the same issue relied on data from one Kabupaten/district
(Kendal) in Central Java; Circle Indonesia, working with Alliansi Organis Indonesia on the need 
to get clear subsidies for organic farmers, relied on data from one Kabupaten, Boyolali, in 
Central Java; and YSKK, working on the need to get reforms in the budgets for schools and 
how they are spent, relied on data from Surakarta, Central Java and Gunung Kidul (in DIY). 
ProRep’s CSOs are a combination of local organizations (like YSKK in Solo), which have links 
to a larger network but feel that their experience is national in implication, as well as national 
organizations (like Aisiyah) which have enthusiastic local chapters (in this case in Yogyakarta) 
that feel that their local data is relevant throughout Indonesia. 
 
11 ProRep Civil Society Assessment, 2011.
12 ProRep Civil Society Assessment, 2011. 
19
Social media is enormously popular in Indonesia. The evaluation noted that in a recent 
posting in the Jakarta Post, Indonesia ranked first in Southeast Asia among users of 
Facebook and Twitter. Recognizing the potential organizational and communication benefits 
of social media for fundraising, marketing, online-polling, and petition drives, linking like￾minded organizations and affiliations to a common purpose, ProRep has provided a very 
popular social media training course. The evaluation did not see, however, an equal amount 
of training provided for the use of broadcast and print media, even though, as was noted in 
ProRep’s own Civil Society Assessment, “Independent mass media such as newspapers, radio, 
and television networks have grown remarkably [in Indonesia]. There are now hundreds of 
new print media published in Jakarta and nationally, all providing relatively free press 
coverage of political and social affairs.”13 However, in the record of activities planned by the 
ProRep CSOs, there were plans for use of more electronic, broadcast, and print media.14
Conclusions
CSOs, stimulated by increasing opportunities to work with the legislature and encouraged by 
ProRep, have started projects with insufficient funds to see their advocacy effort to fruition. 
The passage of the “Freedom of Information Act” is a pertinent case in that it took eight 
years to pass. ProRep found that there is a cost for CSOs developing and/or institutionalizing 
a membership function. It requires human resources and systems dedicated to this task that 
are often beyond that organization’s capacity. Covering these costs is beyond ProRep’s 
scope. 
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS FOR COMPONENT 2: SUPPORT TO 
RESEARCH INSTITUTIONS (QUESTIONS 1-3)
Component 2 Objective: To support independent analysis and public consideration of 
legislation and policies having a major impact on democratic governance. 
Evaluation Question 1: To what extent has ProRep, including work through all of its 
partners, been successful in achieving the program objectives? 
Findings 
At this mid-point in the project life, ProRep has selected eight research organizations and 
provided 12 grants in support of the program’s support of independent analysis. Grants in 
this category stipulated that the topics of policy research should: (1) be relevant to the 
National Legislature (DPR) and the interests of supported CSOs and (2) involve monitoring or 
assessing the implementation of existing laws. The policies or laws could be on topics such 
as national budget, government accountability, corruption, access to information and 
regulatory bodies, and they needed to be of special import to women. 
The initial seven “Quick Start” grants met those criteria and focused on:
1) Women and disadvantaged groups, including adat (indigenous) communities, 
affected by mining and the management of natural resources;
 
13 ProRep Civil Society Assessment, 2011.
14 ProRep assumed that partners had experience in print and broadcast media; therefore, it did not provide 
training. 
20
2) Analyzing the effectiveness of a quota system for increasing the number of female
DPR Members;
3) Research on the persistent backlog of bills awaiting action in the DPR;
4) Research on barriers in the way of public access to information on budget 
formulation and deliberation by the DPR;
5) Research on how to make the national budget process more transparent and less 
prone to inefficiencies;
6) Research on the process of development management and regulation from the local 
to the central level; and
7) Research on policies towards public access to information, especially law-making 
processes, with respect to the parliaments of three ASEAN member states –
Indonesia, Singapore, and the Philippines. 
Respondents uniformly concurred that the TA from ProRep staff and the Urban Institute has 
deepened their knowledge, acceptance, and experience with evidence-based analytic 
research and, through ever-expanding contact with CSOs, has facilitated more engagement 
on legislative issues. Respondents noted keen interest in policy identification and relevance 
of budget analysis in their operations – areas of interest or engagement that these 
organizations stated that they had rarely pursued in the past. While the first round of “quick￾start grants” were meant (in part) to gauge public policy competencies of the selected 
research institutions, we found in reviewing ProRep reports (e.g., the December 2012 
Newsletter) and in discussions with ProRep grantees that several government policy officials 
had positively responded to research products. This suggests that the second round of 
grants, designed to have significantly more policy substance and more strategic 
dissemination plans, already has made inroads on demand. For example, Dr. Marwanto 
Harjowiryono, one official from the Director General for Fiscal Balance at the Ministry of 
Finance, referred to the Institute for Economic and Social Research of the University of 
Indonesia (LPEM-UI) research on the impact of forestry extraction and the proposed 
amendment to Law No. 33/2004 on Fiscal Balance, commenting that “…Forestry Revenue 
Sharing Policy in essence is to control forest extraction, and therefore to conserve our 
forests. In this regard, I find this research important to check whether that purpose has been 
met. Furthermore, this research is strategic to see the impact of revenue sharing for social 
development and local communities.” Further notation of how ProRep research is being 
received comes from Mr. Hanif Ary, Deputy for Monitoring and Evaluation and a senior 
official of the government’s Presidential Working Unit for Development Oversight and
Control (UKP4), cited Paramadina Public Policy Institute’s (PPPI) research on the 
implementation of performance-based budgeting (PBB) policies in Indonesia and 
commented that, “this research at 6 ministries may provide an important input for us in 
perfecting current ministerial/government agency performance indicators. We wait for your 
research findings…our [UKP4] support to this research is for PPPI to use our access with 
senior officials at the ministries when conducting field research…”
For many of the first tranche of ProRep research grantees, this was their first foray into policy 
research directed at the legislature. The “quick start” research products from the initial 
ProRep grants were generally well received by respective committees and policy staff of the 
DPR. All of the products were published and disseminated to appropriate media, and 
respondents from legislative CSOs and participating research organizations relayed an 
increased confidence in the quality of the public policy research they provided. Furthermore, 
21
the engagement with both CSOs and parliamentarians in the research process opened lines 
of communication with new collaborators. 
Conclusions 
As in most countries, the legislative process in Indonesia is long and full of uncertainties. The 
brevity of the initial grants did not allow sufficient time to see end results that may be gained 
from the investment. We do, however, conclude that the relationships formed may prove to 
be more enduring with the DPR if the MPs and or committee chairs to which the research 
organizations have provided research remain in office after the next round of elections. 
Evaluation Question 2: How well did the activities of each of ProRep’s three program 
objectives contribute, in a coordinated way, to achieving program objectives? 
Findings 
While the selected research institutions met ProRep eligibility requirements related to the 
type of research to be done, ProRep found that they required supplementary assistance to 
enhance their internal operations as well as to improve their relationships as “knowledge 
suppliers” with advocacy CSOs and Parliament. ProRep and the Urban Institute provided 
targeted training through two Policy Fellows Workshops, two grant orientation workshops, 
and more than a dozen joint consultations and mentoring sessions (conducted in-person or 
electronically) with ProRep research institutions. Moreover, ProRep conducted a capacity 
assessment for ProRep’s grantee think tanks that included an analysis of the market for 
policy research in Indonesia, organizational effectiveness, outreach, professional credentials, 
quality control, sustainability, and performance as well as providing specific 
recommendations for each ProRep research institution. In addition, a national public policy 
research network was launched with ProRep current research grantees as founding members. 
As the “quick start” grants’ period of performance came to a close, ProRep awarded a second 
round of grants with attendant technical pre-award support. Four of the original seven 
grants received longer term (17 month) Policy Research Grants. Maintaining the same 
eligibility requirements of the “quick start” grants, these longer term instruments provide 
ProRep more time to fully develop institutional capacity and include 30% of the total grant 
for core support to improve institutions’ long-term viability. 
The 17-month (up to $120,000) policy research grants focus on: 
1. The impact of forestry extraction and proposed amendment to Law No. 33/2004 on 
Fiscal Balance; 
2. The implementation of performance-based budgeting; 
3. The role of female MPs and the Gender Equity Bill; 
4. Effective models of representative-constituency relations at the House of Regional 
Representatives (DPD); and, 
5. Effective models of representative-constituent relations in the DPR.
Conclusions 
The question of whether more demand for evidence-based public policy research was 
generated or will be generated remains. The research topics largely cover areas involving 
public access to information, the DPR budget process and internal procedures, and the 
22
impact of legislative actions on women or marginalized groups.15 While the topics meet 
ProRep’s selection criteria, one must ask whether these topics are the most likely subjects to 
more broadly increase the demand for independent policy research by the Parliament. The 
GOI has ambitious plans to address a range of broader economic issues concerning GDP 
growth, productivity, or its regional and global ascension that perhaps could create more 
demand for research by independent research institutions. Conditions for ProRep research 
grants narrowed the subjects allowed for the research but an important question for ProRep 
as it moves to its third year is whether the chosen subjects will create demand. The topics are 
important to the committees ProRep is working with, but those committees are not the 
appropriators, authorizers, or the ones who make sector related policies.
Evaluation Question 3: What factors, including external factors, are contributing to or 
inhibiting the achievement of program objectives?
Findings 
ProRep and the Urban Institute cited serious weaknesses in the enabling environment as well 
as in the supply and demand for policy relevant research in the legislative process. Moreover, 
they found in their original assessment that addressing all of the issues related to the 
legislature’s use of independent evidence-based research would require a number of reforms 
related to financing, political parties, and the functioning of the DPR itself – issues beyond 
the scope of ProRep. However, given the emergence of the policy making role of the DPR 
and the many challenges ahead for Indonesia, ProRep could take steps to alter the 
equilibrium by initiating and demonstrating processes and activities which will, over the 
course of the project and beyond, alter the structure and functioning of the market for policy 
relevant research and analysis. Given the range of research topics, the initial reception they 
have experienced from peers and MPs, along with the continuity of assistance provided by 
ProRep in support of their work, grantees interviewed were optimistic about the utility of 
their research providing more relevant information to policy makers. ProRep research 
organizations have provided some baseline information concerning other research activities 
they have conducted prior to their work with ProRep; however, for many, this represents the 
most concerted effort in working with the national legislature. 
ProRep is designed to be an institutional development tool but one that is having an impact 
in real time. Each component has time constraints that make it difficult for harmonization. 
For example, research products take anywhere from 4 to 17 months to come to fruition and 
research institutions have other products in which they are simultaneously engaged that may 
take priority over ProRep. Coordinating schedules for group activities (e.g., trainings, 
workshops, etc.) among research organizations, CSOs, and MPs requires considerable 
forward planning and flexibility in participant schedules, particularly with the availability of 
outside experts’ involvement brought in by ProRep. Finally, the vagaries of the legislative 
calendar of Parliament, timing of Committee hearings, and other institutional protocols are 
not in the Project’s control, therefore making synchronization among all three components 
difficult. 
 
15 Advocacy and research programs were selected in consultation with potential Component 1 and Component 2 
grantees. 
23
Conclusions 
While policy research grantees clearly see value in the ProRep assistance they have received 
thus far, the context for producing efficacious policy research is daunting. Coordinating the 
timelines of assistance to institutions with the legislative and electoral calendar as well as 
with ProRep CSO assistance is a particularly substantial hindrance to achieving ProRep’s 
intended outcomes.
24
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS FOR COMPONENT 3: LEGISLATIVE 
BODIES (QUESTIONS 1-3)
Component 3 Objective: To work with Indonesia’s key representative bodies –
primarily the House of Representatives (Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat or DPR) but 
possibly also the Regional Representative Council (Dewan Perwakilan Daerah or DPD) –
to help them become more effective, responsive, and transparent. 
Under Objective 3, ProRep provides direct institutional capacity-building support to: 
 BAKN (Badan Akuntabilitas Keuangan Negara (State Finance Accountability 
Committee, or Public Accounts Committee) of the DPR; 
 BALEG (Badan Legislasi) or Legislation Council of the DPR; 
 The Secretariat General of DPR; and, 
 The Upper House of the Parliament, the Dewan Perwakilan Daerah (DPD), or Regional 
Representative Council. 
Additionally, ProRep works with selected MPs on a constituency outreach program called 
JABAT (Jangkau dan Libatkan).
In recent years, public opinion polls have consistently indicated that the Indonesian public 
does not have high opinions of Parliament. The Indonesian Survey Institute (LSI) found in an 
April 2012 survey that a majority of parents (56.4%) do not want their children to become 
members of DPR. This was a marked turnaround from the result of the same survey in 2009 
where 59% of parents wanted their children to be members of the DPR. This perception of 
the DPR has many causes, including the sheer size, distance, and complexity of individual 
constituencies; the pervasive influence and role of political parties in the electoral process 
(party list systems); and the fact that many MPs live in Jakarta and West Java and therefore 
have little contact with the district they represent, either before or after the election. 
Evaluation Question 1: To what extent has ProRep, including work through all of its 
partners, been successful in achieving the program objectives? 
Findings 
The evaluation team interviewed members and staff of BAKN, the State Finance 
Accountability Committee of the DPR. These respondents stated that ProRep has contributed 
to a higher level of functionality within their committees. In particular, they credited study 
visits to the UK and the Netherlands as important learning experiences. 
A major milestone for BAKN and ProRep has been the production and dissemination of the 
first annual report to the DPR summarizing the work of the committee. A particularly 
important component of BAKN’s first annual report is the specific recommendations it makes 
for follow-up to its audit of the Supreme Audit Agency’s (BPK) government report. The 
findings of the audit of BPK’s report have implications for other standing committees in the 
DPR with regard to how budget allocations are being spent. The annual report also 
recommends important steps that the BAKN proposes to take to enhance its independent 
oversight responsibility and identifies additional resources that would be required to carry 
the steps out more effectively. These annual reports are an important indication of the 
25
BAKN's growing confidence in their oversight function of government expenditures and 
performance. 
ProRep’s JABAT effort (funded through the SAF, discussed below) is another encouraging 
aspect of the project’s efforts with the legislature. JABAT is an acronym for Jangkau and 
Libatkan – reach out and engage – and is designed to improve the way MPs interact and 
engage with the constituents in their electoral districts. JABAT is a pilot initiative that 
provides strategies, consultations, data, and district-level constituency outreach to selected 
MPs. Designed to roll out in three phases over four years, JABAT is slated to eventually 
engage 50 or more MPs (roughly 10% of the DPR). The evaluation team found that the 
number of constituency meetings per MP visit ranged from one to six meetings and the 
number of constituents met ranged from 39 to 523 persons, representing different 
backgrounds and groups including farmers, fishers, students, women’s groups, migrant 
workers, and journalists (ProRep target groups) as well as volunteer family planning groups, 
midwives associations, and Islamic community groups. Issues covered included: maternal 
health, HIV and AIDS, seaside erosion, salt production, public participation in policy making, 
anti-corruption, and income-related issues. A summary of the activities during the 
constituency visits is in Annex IX. These interactions also opened up access for constituents 
to contact the MPs. The MPs interviewed by the evaluation team intend to run again and 
suggested that improved constituency relationships gained from program participation 
would help them to potentially be reelected in the upcoming election. 
Conclusions 
While the legislature-wide impacts are modest to date, ProRep’s work with the DPR has been 
encouraging and positively received by those counterparts directly involved. ProRep directly 
engages a relatively modest number of MPs compared to the whole body of the Parliament 
(560 Members) and, as previously noted, ProRep has not benefited from the support of the 
Speaker during its first two years. However, with a new Parliament in 2014, the DPR 
leadership structure, at the top level and at the committee level, is likely to undergo changes. 
It is not possible for the evaluation team to predict the rate at which incumbent MPs will be 
returning to the new Parliament. We do note, however, that re-elected ProRep-affiliated MPs 
may be assigned to new committees or ascend to leadership posts, providing ProRep with an 
entry point that it did not have at its start. Moreover, the signing of a formal Memorandum 
of Understanding (MOU) with the Secretary General of the Parliament provides a solid base 
that may further strengthen institutional partnerships and open up work with other 
committees of Parliament. 
Evaluation Question 2: How well did the activities of each of ProRep’s three program 
objectives contribute, in a coordinated way, to achieving program objectives? 
Findings 
ProRep was designed with an optimistic view that the commitment for reform “… on the part 
of DPR members and leadership and in the DPR Secretariat” would continue and that 
foreign-funded training and TA would continue to be welcomed. The evaluation team 
interviewed three of the six currently participating MPs and one “prospective” member. The 
participating MPs highly regarded their involvement in the program. These individuals stated 
that although meeting constituents was not new to them, the MPs experienced well￾structured and facilitated visits and events for the first time through ProRep. The program 
26
demonstrated value in terms of preparing MPs for their outreach events and also facilitating 
their interactions with various segments of their constituents in different ways. The JABAT 
participation permitted MPs to meet and interact with citizen groups that are usually not on 
their schedules. In addition, these interactions were held at venues that were more conducive 
to exchanges, including: community meetings, seminars, radio and TV talk-shows, where they 
discussed bills being deliberated in the DPR or the delivery of public services to their locale. 
JABAT MPs also met with journalists from their districts and with local government officials. 
These activities were well planned with the MPs receiving considerable briefings in advance 
by ProRep. Kemitraan staff augmented respective MPs’ staff in preparing for events in the 
field. 
Conclusions 
The DPR is supported by two kinds of staff: first, the civil service staff under the Secretary 
General’s Office and, second, the expert (temporary) staff serving members, Committees, 
Fractions (parties in the DPR), and complementary bodies of the DPR, such as BALEG, BAKN, 
etc. Strengthening the capacity of the Secretary General’s Office of the DPR and the expert 
staff, especially in committees and the complementary bodies, ultimately strengthens 
Parliament because they are the institutional memory of the body. Therefore, the recently 
expressed interest on the part of the Secretariat in MOU with ProRep is an important 
milestone. 
Evaluation Question 3: What factors, including external factors, are contributing to or 
inhibiting the achievement of program objectives? 
Findings 
In 2011, the DPR terminated its relationship with a UNDP legislative strengthening program. 
Reports at that time attributed the dismissal as a result of media coverage criticizing the DPR 
leadership and the Secretariat General – including commentaries by 
politicians/parliamentarians – for allowing foreign interferences in parliamentary processes. 
Given these circumstances and DPR’s sensitivity, ProRep’s introduction to the Parliament 
took longer than anticipated and had to be discreetly managed as they sought commitments 
and partnerships within the institution at the outset. 
The upcoming election and sitting of the new Parliament (particularly the committee chairs) 
will determine whether BAKN remains a standing committee. However, without pro-reform 
MPs remaining in office and the passage of recommended MD3 amendments before the 
conclusion of this Parliament, ProRep may find itself in the same place it was when it began 
in 2011. There is no indication that the role of political parties in the DPR will significantly 
diminish; therefore, political parties will play a decisive role directly or indirectly in ProRep’s
future programming. Likewise, JABAT holds great promise for ProRep to improve channels 
for MPs to reach out to their constituents by creating venues, forums, and opportunities for 
more meaningful engagement of MPs with their constituencies, both directly and through 
representative groups. While the program has been well-received by its participants, its 
ultimate impact on the institution will likely be determined by the acceptance of leadership 
in the political parties who make decisions regarding candidate selection, committee 
assignments, legislative priorities, and even how “consensus” is reached on individual policies 
before the DPR determines its relevance. Since members represent individual parties, 
27
perhaps some of the efforts with JABAT should also include efforts to increase members’ 
engagement with their own party regarding representation. 
Each component has its own unique set of issues that do not easily lend themselves to quick 
solutions. For example, consensus guides the standing rules in Parliament. Voting and 
therefore MP accountability (and conversely recognition) are secondary in the course of 
legislative business. Consensus is arrived at through multiple levels of negotiations among 
political parties, party whips/fraksi, and committee chairs, leaving considerably less space for 
a transparent deliberative process where non-governmental actors may engage. Beyond 
historical or cultural bias, expanding representation within CSOs has economic, legal, and 
operational costs that must be borne by the organization; those costs are different for CSOs 
that may have dues-paying members in contrast to those that do not. International donors, 
by and large, have not prepared for the often significant funds necessary to successfully 
maintain a membership function with the CSO organization (AusAid’s ongoing Knowledge 
Sector project is an exception). Finally, traditional funding sources for public policy research, 
such as government research grants, contracts, or private funding from foundations or 
private sector investment, are not robust in Indonesia. 
With regard to the national legislature, the lack or absence of buy-in from the Speaker is a 
significant factor that explains why ProRep has not been able to work more broadly and 
openly with the institution as a whole. Other areas of difficulty within the legislature include 
the Badan Urusan Rumah Tangga (BURT), the DPR’s domestic or household committee that 
the Speaker chairs are both key to coordinating broad reforms within the House. Ultimately, 
the prospects of broad, significant policy reforms within the DPR lie with these more 
powerful committees. 
Conclusions 
Despite reluctance on the part of leadership within Parliament to fully engage with the 
project, ProRep adapted its planned activities and realigned resources to the situation and 
demonstrated significant progress by achieving annual project targets. For example, after not 
garnering the support of the Speaker of the DPR (threatening to deny access to the body), 
ProRep worked to gain the trust of the four Deputy Speakers, chairs of two critical 
committees within Parliament, the Secretary General of the DPR, and the leaders of the 
BAKN, thus allowing its program and partners to work in and through the national 
legislature.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS FOR THE STRATEGIC ACTIVITIES 
FUND (SAF) 
Findings 
The “Strategic Activities Fund” (SAF) provides timely assistance for special initiatives not 
encompassed in other program activities. Its purpose is to take advantage of “windows of 
opportunity” to advance democratic governance. Activities from the fund have been used to 
support international visits, peer-to-peer actions, special survey research, pilot initiatives, and 
other special time-sensitive events that are determined to be critical for ProRep’s success. In
some instances, the SAF supported previously approved activities of Components 1, 2, or 3 
when funding for that activity was not available in the component’s budget. Use of the SAF 
has also been in direct response to requests from USAID, such as the US presidential 
28
campaign observation visit managed by the American Council of Young Political Leaders 
(ACYPL) and support to the Myanmar Caucus of the DPR. In all cases, USAID is in agreement 
with funding the activity through SAF before proceeding. 
As a principal focus of ProRep’s work with the Parliament, SAF has seized opportunities to 
support rapid response for TA to BAKN and BALEG of the DPR for issues roundtables, 
oversight workshops, and expert consultations. Beyond TA, SAF provided funds for DPR visits 
to the US and for BAKN visits to the UK and Netherlands, as well as peer-to-peer 
consultations between American and Indonesian legislators and congressional aides. 
The SAF currently underwrites the JABAT program and provided critical early resources to 
support that program’s initial survey on the attitudes of constituents from the nine electoral 
districts of the DPR members who participated in the first round of JABAT activities. The 
survey provided insight into constituents’ perspectives on the effectiveness of past and 
present constituent relations programs implemented by their respective DPR Members. A 
second SAF survey focused on constituent relations, services, and activities provided by the 
nine DPR Members participating in the JABAT initiative. Research conducted by Indonesian 
opinion research firms provided new and valuable data that helped guide ProRep 
Component 3 activities and provided valuable insights about home districts to participating 
MPs. 
Conclusions 
The fund has proven to be a timely and flexible vehicle for advancing program imperatives 
and responding to political opportunities to advance relations with the DPR. The fund’s 
responsiveness contrasts with the longer lead times required by the other three components 
of ProRep.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS FOR PROJECT IMPACTS (QUESTION 
4) 
Evaluation Question 4: What have been the project impacts (at least qualitatively)? 
Findings 
The training courses provided by ProRep have helped develop competence within CSOs to 
compile data and evidence, direct this information to MPs or to expert staff of the DPR, 
develop material for advocacy, participate in hearings, and communicate directly with MPs 
and the Executive. MPs have expressed the importance of constituency outreach, interaction, 
and understanding in possible re-election and see the value in ProRep’s initiatives to this 
effect. 
Officials and staff at the Secretariat General’s Office of DPR highlighted their appreciation of 
ProRep’s engagement, stating to the team that they wish to execute a formal MOU to 
continue building their partnership. The Secretary General stated that the MOU will promote 
more planning of program activities, is not based on the current “door-to-door” approach, 
and will ensure transparency of cooperation. Research organizations provided policy briefing 
or research studies to 75 Members of the DPR (15% of the body)16 and now more routinely 
 
16 Reported to the evaluation team by grantees. 
29
participate in public seminars, radio and online interviews, peer reviews, commission 
hearings, etc. 
Interviews with staff from the Secretariat General Offices of DPR and DPD indicated 
significant regard for the legal drafting and budget analysis supported by ProRep. They 
indicated that the six trainings provided were responsive to their identified needs. The 
respondents indicated that the trainings were particularly useful as they were designed to be 
directly applicable to legal drafting assignments that were currently on their agenda. The 
Deputy Secretary General of DPR stated that the knowledge and skills gained from the 
budget impact analysis exercise will be applied immediately to two draft bills the Secretariat 
General identified as having significant fiscal implications. During the evaluation team’s
interview with the Secretary General of DPD, she suggested that legal drafting skills may be 
needed by the DPD in anticipation of the constitutional court ruling for DPD to gain the 
authority to propose legislation and submit draft bills that are of the interest to the regions. 
Under its existing legislation, the DPD has limited legislative authority, but that is evolving. 
BAKN was created with the 2009 DPR reforms and is still establishing itself as a committee in 
the Parliament. With assistance from ProRep, BAKN’s task of working with other committees, 
most notably BALEG, to establish itself has more credibility. This is reflected in the 
endorsement by eight of nine political parties in the DPR of BAKN’s proposed amendments 
to MD3 legislation, which affect its longer term viability. With ProRep’s support BAKN has: 
 Produced and disseminated its first series of annual reports; 
 Improved its oversight capacity of government expenditures; 
 Expanded its budget oversight of eight provincial-level parliaments (DPRD) and four 
district-level parliaments; 
 Met with Public Accounts Committees from the UK and the Netherlands; 
 Drafted revision of the MD3 Law; and, 
 Verified the audit findings by BPK (Supreme Audit Agency of the Government of 
Indonesia) related to five state-owned enterprises: PT PAL, PT Pelindo II (East Java); 
Bank Sumselbabel, PTBA, PDAM Palembang (South Sumatera). 
Regarding the potential impact of JABAT, the evaluation team found that ProRep received 
enthusiastic support from interviewed MPs. The team saw that the first group of MPs 
participating in JABAT were instrumental in the recruitment of the second cohort of JABAT 
MPs. Together, 18 MPs will have participated in ProRep outreach activities before the 2014 
elections. Though the number is modest, moving forward, the evaluation team encourages 
ProRep to assess the election outcomes in districts of JABAT participants by comparing 
success of MPs in the JABAT program with success of MPs not in the JABAT program to 
gauge whether the JABAT-supported MPs’ outreach activities affected constituent 
perception of their effectiveness. A measurement of the impact ProRep engagement may 
have on future relations with the Parliament as a whole is somewhat more difficult to project. 
Conclusions 
According to those interviewed, ProRep activities reflect stakeholders’ perceived needs and 
the delivery of those activities is on their own terms. Stakeholders recognize the value of 
ProRep activities and trainings and have been useful to training participants. The evaluation 
team believes ProRep’s work is likely to have impact at the national level if more MPs believe 
that their own fates are tied to better relations with their constituencies at the local level. 
30
ProRep’s working relationship is with leadership just below the Speaker, committee chairs of 
two committees, and the Secretariat General and civil service staff. While the two committees 
with which ProRep primarily works provide excellent opportunities for engagement on some 
institutional reform and budget issues, neither committee controls the appropriation or 
authorization of social or economic policy. Therefore, the impact of ProRep’s efforts through 
the work with CSOs and think tanks is not likely to have the immediate impact working with 
other committees might have. The two committees that ProRep works with are engaged with 
audit functions and rules for the institution itself. 
The evaluation also found various examples of the timely/tactical use of the SAF. The Fund 
has been used to enhance ProRep relations with key MPs by providing funds, in a timely 
manner, to support of the institution’s interest in playing a broader global and regional 
leadership role. Examples of such activities include: Indonesia Myanmar Caucus’s peer-to￾peer exchanges with Members of the Parliament of Myanmar, facilitating peer-to-peer 
exchanges between Members of Indonesia’s Parliament with counterparts and staff from the 
United States, and hosting a delegation of Indonesian leaders to observe the 2012 US 
election. Further, if a correlation can be found between ProRep-affiliated MPs and their 
successful re-election in 2014 (particularly those MPs participating in the JABAT initiative), 
one can infer that those MPs would be more likely to take advantage of future ProRep 
programming. As Indonesia positions itself to play an ever increasing regional and global 
role, ProRep’s SAF has assisted the Parliament to engage while quietly forging important 
relationships with the body complimenting other components of the project. 
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS RELATED TO LOCAL PARTNERS 
(QUESTION 5)
Evaluation Question 5: To what extent has ProRep’s work with local partners 
strengthened local capacity to represent membership and constituent’s interest, 
develop, and disseminate evidenced-based public policy research and engage in the 
legislative process? 
Findings 
TRAIPSE, a ProRep partner and a local service provider (SP), led the constituency building 
training. This training emphasized the need for CSOs to understand what “constituency” 
means and the importance of having a mandate from the people they claim to be 
representing. For many sub-grantees, it represented a radical revision to their operating 
model. 
In surveys designed to measure participant satisfaction of trainings, workshops, and other TA
provided by ProRep, participants gave high marks for the quality of information presented, 
new research methodologies introduced, and for the rigor with which ProRep engaged 
participants at every step of the way. Moreover, interviews revealed that several researchers 
and heads of research organizations complimented ProRep for helping to raise standards for 
internal management, improving their collaboration with peers, and facilitating new 
opportunities with MPs and civil society. Indeed, one senior manager at LPEM stated that 
ProRep “has increased project management, financial management, and the substantive 
research we do, improving skills up and down our institution.” Another ProRep grantee 
remarked that, through their ProRep-funded research, they gained useful insights on: (a) the 
31
institutional challenges lawmakers encountered with providing “administrative oversight” of 
laws and (b) how cumbersome the legislative process is even for the most dedicated of 
public servants.
As noted earlier, ProRep does not enjoy the support of the Speaker of the House, despite 
efforts by ProRep and USAID to work out differences. Nonetheless, the evaluation team 
found that ProRep had successfully developed working partnerships with several committees 
within the DPR, the Office of the Secretary General of the DPR and DPD, professional staff 
connected to the DPR, and with a small but growing number of individual MPs. The 
evaluation team met representatives from each of these offices and received positive 
feedback about ProRep’s contribution to their work. The team also found that ProRep’s low￾profile and careful communications (primarily through former members) with the important 
DPR leaders was instrumental to their ability to work in the institution. During the evaluation 
team’s interviews, the lead BAKN expert staff member stated that had ProRep pushed its 
own agenda, BAKN would have rejected it. Rather, ProRep’s process of selecting TA
consultants and training facilitators was completed in consultation with DPR-related 
personnel, signaling the importance of partnership. 
Conclusions 
ProRep’s analysis of the needs of the CSOs and the specific training required to improve the 
institution’s representational capacity is accurate and insightful. ProRep’s work has 
strengthened local partners and many beneficiaries value the added knowledge gained from 
ProRep trainings and TA. 
ProRep’s strategy with Parliament, despite lack of support from the Speaker of the House, 
has been successful in allowing them to build partnerships with the local government. 
Furthermore, ProRep has pursued an effective partnership strategy that allows stakeholder 
involvement and buy-in. However, given the anticipated increased political hypersensitivity 
leading up to the 2014 elections by political parties, candidates, media, and the Parliament 
itself, ProRep should remain low key, non-partisan, and focused on concluding legislative 
action in the current Parliament and the administrative reforms underway. This may include: 
On BAKN: 
 Continue to support BAKN and BALEG with the revisions of MD3 Law; 
 Support BAKN participation in the BPK Peer Review in 2014; and 
 Support BAKN with the documentation and further development or refinement of 
systems and procedures, taking advantage of lessons gained during the work 
performed during this Parliament period. This could include a workshop involving 
staff of other committees (Komisi) and provision of TA. The next Parliament would 
benefit from this. 
On JABAT:
 Commission a rigorous and comprehensive study to learn and document lessons to 
inform strategies for adoption and replication in the next DPR. 
32
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS RELATED TO GENDER (QUESTION 6) 
Evaluation Question 6: How well have gender issues been addressed by ProRep? 
Findings 
Out of the 14 grantees of ProRep, 517 can be classified as women’s CSOs or CSOs dealing 
with women’s issues. Three can be classified as CSOs dealing with issues important to gender 
(Circle Indonesia for organic agriculture, Pergerakan for fisherfolk, and YSKK for school 
operations budget). 
The evaluation found that 3 of the 12 research grant topics were on gender-specific issues, 
i.e., the needs and interests of women and disadvantaged groups who are affected by 
mining and the management of natural resources, an analysis of the quota system for 
increasing the number of women in the DPR, and research on the role of female MPs and the 
Gender Equity Bill before the Parliament. Additionally, Policy Fellow training included a 
session on “An Introduction to Feminist Research Methods” which was presented by a senior
researcher of the World Resources Institute (WRI). A session on “Gender Perspectives and 
Indicators in Drafting Laws and Regulations” was included in the Legislative Drafting Training 
(July and September 2012) for BALEG expert staff, DPR Secretariat legislative drafters, and 
DPR Commissions expert staff. More than half of participants in the trainings, workshops, 
and mentoring opportunities provided by ProRep are women. 
Conclusions 
Support to ProRep CSOs is designed to encourage greater representation of the 
constituency and pays particular attention to women and disadvantaged groups, e.g., 
fishermen, farmers, poor women, etc., primarily to the national legislature (DPR). ProRep has 
demonstrated responsiveness to gender issues by ensuring that women are represented not 
only as constituents, but also as direct beneficiaries in trainings, workshops, and mentoring. 
 
17 Aisyiyah and PRAKARSA for maternity insurance (Jampersal), ASPPUK for Small and Micro Business 
Development for Poor Women, HAPSARI and Muslimat
33
RECOMMENDATIONS 
1. Fund the membership function for CSOs in Component 1: At this point, ProRep grants 
account for a small fraction of this core operational cost for CSOs. The membership 
function of any organization involves a significant operational and management cost, 
and ProRep should consider shifting emphasis from the number of CSOs it engages over 
the life of the project to the sustainability of those CSOs ProRep is already working with, 
particularly those who have better incorporated representation into their operational 
mode. By encouraging and supporting efforts for long-term sustainability and providing 
strategic financial support to high performing project partners, ProRep can enable these 
organizations to undertake the difficult task of strategically mapping a more independent 
future. ProRep should help them develop a more secure core membership base capable 
of sustaining the organization and incorporate this function into their overall operating 
budget. To accomplish this, ProRep will need to award additional resources to develop 
and implement a comprehensive strategy for membership management, new personnel 
systems, bylaws, and, most importantly, strategies for attracting new funding streams 
beyond project-specific opportunities. With regard to critical mass, the evaluators were 
told that the target of 16 to 20 CSOs was based on early projections of what the budget 
was able to support. Additionally, ProRep found that fewer CSOs than anticipated met 
ProRep criteria as national membership organizations. Thus, more resources were 
required to build awareness of the importance of membership and management 
responsibility related to the representation function within such organizations than 
anticipated. Providing further support to the membership function of current ProRep 
CSOs will require more resources to the grantees than originally envisioned and 
expansion of CSO networks to include like-minded organizations (including other 
USAID/Indonesia CSO partners). Within present resource and time constraints, providing 
more intensive support to a smaller number of CSOs would prove more effective than 
extending thinner support to a larger number of CSOs. 
2. Evaluate application of skills enhanced through ProRep assistance: ProRep provided 
considerable TA to their 14 CSO grantees in the development of their proposals, the 
implementation of their respective projects, and facilitation of opportunities for 
engagement with think tanks and MPs. ProRep also offered training on how to deepen 
CSOs’ utilization of their membership as a vehicle for knowledge building and a source of 
institutional legitimacy to the Parliament. As part of its third year activities, we encourage 
ProRep to investigate the depth of the skills strengthened and how much their use has 
been incorporated at this juncture. At present, ProRep does not have a performance 
measure that gauges the way CSOs “use” representation in the development of their 
policies. 
3. Expand Partners and Networks: Many ProRep CSOs represent constituencies that are 
not typically well-represented in Parliament. One important advocacy service that ProRep 
CSOs may perform for those constituents is to increase their support among other 
organizations that may have direct or indirect interest in their issues. Forming 
partnerships with different organizations/constituencies whose interests, even if they are 
different, may be more compelling to the DPR as a whole. Such partnerships could serve 
to re-enforce a CSO’s status as a national organization with broad support across 
34
geographic and demographic populations. For example, there may be points in common 
that the Indonesian Bar Association would share with maternal health issues, or national 
media outlets may have an interest in “access to information” issues. Linking ProRep 
grantees to other organizations could serve to not only to expand their networks but also 
their own membership base. 
4. Support research of topics salient to a targeted audience for increased use of 
research: ProRep selection criteria for research grants included sectors and topics that 
were relevant to other parts of the ProRep activities, i.e., access to information, gender, 
budget, etc. The evaluation team recommends that ProRep undertake its own research to 
determine which policy issues are the most salient for the largest number of Indonesians. 
It is likely that economic issues will register higher. If so, ProRep may respond by 
including economic impact to the social agenda that it has already undertaken. Linking 
ProRep research to issues with economic impact may provide entry to larger budget 
allocation issues which has the potential for more direct impact given that the national 
budget is the most basic and perhaps the only legislative action that is assured to take 
place each year. 
5. Increase awareness of the relevance of ProRep values and approaches to a broader 
array of organizations: The role of national political parties in legislative affairs is 
ubiquitous. It is difficult to envision ProRep succeeding without at least tacit agreement 
from the political parties. ProRep has succeeded in part by keeping a low profile and 
working with pro-reform minded MPs and civil servants. Nonetheless, ProRep has assets 
that are also of interest to political parties. Research products, policy papers, and national 
constituents have long been allies of political parties worldwide. With the 2014 elections 
ahead, ProRep’s JABAT program will go into hiatus; however, this does not mean that 
ProRep-supported research and policy papers, editorials, and issue forums supported by 
CSO networks could not contribute in a positive way to advancing important public 
policy and building credibility for independent non-partisan voices to engage. USAID 
works with many other Indonesian organizations involved in consolidating democracy or 
who have sector-specific interest that may at some point be a matter before the 
Parliament. ProRep should look for opportunities to encourage core ProRep values and 
approaches to be shared with other organizations. Political parties play a central, even 
leading, role in virtually all aspects of political life in Indonesia. New electoral rules for the 
2014 election cycle may serve to lower the number of political parties in Parliament by 
raising the threshold for inclusion on ballots and increasing the requirement such that 
political parties must exist in all provinces (compared to 2/3 in the 2009 election); within 
provinces, have a formal presence in 75% of districts (compared to 2/3 in 2009); and 
within districts, must be present in 50% of sub-districts (not required in 2009). The 
number of political parties participating in the 2014 elections will likely be smaller than 
the 44 that stood for election in 2009. Nonetheless, we were advised by several political 
experts that party leadership (both inside and outside the Parliament) will continue to be 
a driving force in setting the legislative agenda. Given the role parties play in the 
legislative process, we recommend increasing its party work focus on party activities in 
Parliament and further exploration of how political parties may utilize ProRep supported 
research, forums, and affiliations with CSOs to inform their processes. 
35
ANNEXES
ANNEX I: EVALUATION STATEMENT OF WORK 
Indonesia Program Representasi 
Scope of Work 
Mid-Term Evaluation 
I. Summary 
The ProRep Project requires the services of a team of three (3) consultants to: 1) conduct a 
mid-term evaluation of the Program Representasi (ProRep) Project and 2) make 
recommendations concerning the final year of the base project period and concerning the 
two optional years of the Project. 
II. Project Overview 
The primary objective of ProRep is to increase the effectiveness of representative groups and 
institutions in Indonesia and, in doing so, bolster both democracy and good governance in 
the country. The ProRep project seeks to strengthen representation in three important areas: 
 First, it will build the capacity of member-and-constituency based civil society 
organizations (CSOs) so that they can better represent the interests of their members and 
constituents at the national and/or local level; 
 Second, it will support independent analysis and public consideration of legislation and 
policies having a major impact on democratic governance and policy; and 
 Third, it will work with Indonesia’s key representative bodies – primarily the House of 
Representatives (Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat, or DPR) but possibly also the Regional 
Representative Council (Dewan Perwakilan Daerah, or DPD) – to help them become more 
effective, responsive, and transparent. 
The principal anticipated project results are: 1) membership-based CSOs will be better able 
to represent the interests of their members; 2) Indonesian universities, think tanks, and CSOs 
will be better able to produce and disseminate policy-relevant research and analysis; and 3) 
the legislative process in the DPR will be more effective, responsive, and transparent. The 
project also provides USAID with a mechanism to allow it to respond rapidly and flexibly to 
unanticipated needs and opportunities that USAID believes are important to protecting or 
advancing democratic governance in Indonesia. These results will contribute to the 
achievement of IR 2 of USAID’s 2009–2014 Democratic Governance (DG) strategy, which 
supports efforts at both the national and regional levels to make governance more 
representative, effective, and responsive to citizen needs. 
36
III. Context and Objectives 
Program Representasi will be completing its second year in April 2013, and the ProRep 
Contract requires that Chemonics conduct an independent performance evaluation: 
F.7.9. Mid-Term Evaluation 
The Contractor will conduct an independent mid-term evaluation of the project 24 
months after contract award and prior to development of the Year 3 Workplan. The 
focus of the evaluation will include identifying which elements of the project are 
having impacts, which are not, and which aspects of project design need to be 
adjusted. The evaluation team is to be comprised of technical experts/evaluators who 
are independent of the Contractor and the Contractor’s staff. USAID staff may also 
participate. 
In compliance with Contract requirements, ProRep, in agreement with USAID and through 
subcontractor Social Impact, will conduct an independent mid-term evaluation of the ProRep 
Project. The objective of the evaluation, as stated in the Contract, will include identifying 
which elements are the project are having impacts, which are not, and which aspects of the 
project might need to be adjusted. The three person team (two expatriates and one 
Indonesian) will, among them, have sufficient expertise in ProRep’s three main component 
areas (i.e., CSOs, research organizations/think tanks, parliament) to be able to assess 
program impacts and make recommendations regarding future program directions and 
adjustments. 
The midterm evaluation will cover the areas listed below: 
1. Review, analyze, and evaluate the effectiveness and relevance of the ProRep project 
at the 2-year mark. This should include analysis of project impact to date, at least 
qualitatively. 
2. Identify the factors which are, or are not, contributing to the achievement of the 
project’s objectives.
3. Detail lessons learned/best practices and describe their relevance to future project 
activities. 
4. Determine if the current activities planned in each of ProRep’s component areas are 
likely to achieve project objectives, expected results and Performance Management 
Plan (PMP) indicators within the life of the project (LOP), and if project activities and 
PMP indicators need to be adjusted to respond to available budget and 
USAID/Indonesia priorities. 
5. Assess the project work implemented through local and international implementation 
partners (grantees and subcontractors) and in response to USAID priorities to 
strengthen local partners. 
6. Make recommendations for the remaining year of the base period of the project and 
for the 2-year option period. 
IV. Evaluation Questions 
This Scope of Work (SOW) is for a mid-term evaluation of ProRep’s performance from 
program initiation to date. The evaluation should review, analyze, and evaluate ProRep along 
the following criteria, and, where applicable, identify opportunities and recommendations for 
improvement. In answering these questions, the Evaluation Team should assess the 
performance of both USAID and its implementing partner(s). 
37
A. Results 
1. To what extent has ProRep, including work through all of its partners, been successful 
in achieving the program objectives? 
2. How well did the activities of each of ProRep’s three components contribute, in a 
coordinated way, to achieving program objectives? 
3. What factors, including external factors, are contributing to (or inhibiting) significantly 
the achievement of program objectives? 
4. What have been the project impacts (at least qualitatively)? 
B. Working with partners
5. To what extent has ProRep’s work with local partners strengthened local capacity? 
C. Cross Cutting Issues 
6. How well have gender issues addressed by ProRep? 
For each question, the evaluation team shall present findings, conclusions, and 
recommendations. Recommendations should be actionable and specific and should focus on 
the following: 
 Identifying best practices which should be continued or scaled up 
 Suggesting adjustments to project activities, or new approaches, to maximize 
achievement of desired outcomes 
V. Draft Methodology
The detailed methodology of this mid-term evaluation will be designed by the evaluation 
team in the work plan. Some illustrative methods (to be finalized by the evaluation team in 
coordination with the Mission), include: 
 Conduct background reading and preparation prior to beginning work in Indonesia. 
ProRep will provide the team with electronic copies of all relevant project documents, 
including the contract, PMP, assessments, quarterly and annual reports, work plans, 
newsletters, etc. 
 In-briefing with USAID/Indonesia detailing USAID’s objectives and specific issues the 
team should address soon after the team arrives in Jakarta. 
 Key informant interviews with USAID, ProRep staff, project counterparts (i.e., CSOs, 
research organizations, DPR Members and staff), and others to gather information on 
ProRep, its development, and its impacts. 
 Focus groups or joint discussions with CSOs, journalists, public intellectuals, etc., 
informed of ProRep’s program. 
Data collection, including key informant interviews and focus group discussions, are 
expected to take place in Jakarta, Yogyakarta, and Palembang. The team is expected to 
spend approximately 2 days in Yogyakarta to meet with project partners and beneficiaries. 
The local evaluation team member is expected to spend approximately 2 days in Palembang 
to observe activities with Component 3.The remainder of time is expected to be spent in 
Jakarta. 
To minimize potential bias in data collection, the evaluation team will select all respondents 
with the objective of ensuring that samples of interview sources are sufficient in number, 
scope, and diversity to qualitatively support evaluation findings. ProRep will provide the 
evaluation team with a list of recommended sources along with their level and nature of 
38
interaction with the project. ProRep will also be available to support the team in arranging 
for interviews of selected sources. 
Prior to travel, the evaluation team will review the proposed methodology and alternative 
methods in light of the evaluation questions, timeframe, budget, data collection 
requirements, quality of existing data sources, and potential biases. The team will build on 
the proposed methodology and provide more specific details on the evaluation 
methodology in the evaluation work plan (see Deliverables below). They will incorporate 
draft data collection guides into the work plan. Interview tools or checklists of about 10-12 
items will be prepared for each type of interview or discussion. The tools will be shared with 
USAID at the in-briefing and as part of the evaluation report. 
The evaluation team will complete a brief, preliminary report and present it to USAID prior to 
departing from Indonesia. The team members will then collaborate in drafting a more 
detailed report to USAID over the three weeks following their departing Indonesia. 
VI. Deliverables 
1. A work plan for the evaluation including design and time frame (March 8) 
2. Presentation of findings to USAID/Indonesia (March 22)
3. A draft report on the evaluation, as described below (Date TBD)
4. Final Report (within 7 business days of feedback from USAID on draft report, which 
is expected within 5 business days of receipt of the draft report)
The final (and draft) report should meet the following criteria to ensure the quality of the 
report: 
 The mid-term evaluation report should represent a thoughtful, well researched, and 
well organized effort to objectively evaluate what has worked in the project, what did 
not, and why. 
 Evaluation reports shall address all evaluation questions included in the SOW. 
 The evaluation report should include the SOW as an annex. All modifications to the 
SOW, whether in technical requirements, evaluation questions, evaluation team 
composition, methodology, or timeline need to be agreed upon in writing by the 
technical officer. 
 Evaluation methodology shall be explained in detail and all tools used in conducting 
the evaluation such as questionnaires, checklists, and discussion guides will be 
included in an Annex in the final report. 
 Evaluation findings will assess outcomes and impact on males and females. 
 Limitations to the evaluation shall be disclosed in the report, with particular attention 
to the limitations associated with the evaluation methodology (selection bias, recall 
bias, etc.). 
 Evaluation findings should be presented as analyzed facts, evidence, and data, and 
not based on anecdotes, hearsay, or the compilation of people’s opinions. Findings 
should be specific, concise, and supported by strong quantitative or qualitative 
evidence. 
 Sources of information need to be properly identified and listed in an annex. 
 Recommendations need to be supported by a specific set of findings. 
39
 Recommendations should be action-oriented, practical, and specific, with defined 
responsibility for the action. 
The format of the final evaluation report should strike a balance between depth and length. 
The report will include a table of contents, table of figures (as appropriate), acronyms, 
executive summary, introduction, purpose of the evaluation, research design and 
methodology, findings, conclusions, lessons learned, and recommendations. The report 
should include, in the annex, any substantially dissenting views by any team member or by 
USAID on any of the findings or recommendations. The report should not exceed 30 pages, 
excluding annexes. The report will be submitted electronically in English. The report will be 
disseminated within USAID. A second version of this report excluding any potentially 
procurement-sensitive information will be submitted (also electronically, in English) by Social 
Impact to USAID’s Development Experience Clearinghouse (DEC) for dissemination among 
implementing partners and stakeholders. 
VII. Team Composition 
 Team Leader – a senior level specialist with experience designing and evaluating 
similar D&G programs, a proven track record supervising teams in the field and 
producing reports, and technical knowledge and expertise in at least one of ProRep’s 
three main component areas (i.e., CSOs, think tanks/research organizations, and 
parliaments) 
The team leader will: 
˗ Finalize and negotiate with USAID/Indonesia the evaluation work plan; 
˗ Establish evaluation team roles, responsibilities and tasks; 
˗ Facilitate all necessary meetings; 
˗ Ensure that logistical arrangements in the field are complete; 
˗ Coordinate schedules to ensure timely production of deliverables; 
˗ Coordinate the process of assembling individual input/findings for the evaluation 
report and finalizing the evaluation report; and 
˗ Lead the oral and written preparation and presentation of key evaluation findings 
and recommendations to USAID/Indonesia. 
 Team Member 2 – a senior-level expatriate with expertise in one or more of ProRep’s 
three main component areas. 
 Team Member 3 – a senior-level Indonesian with expertise in one of more of 
ProRep’s three main component areas. 
Two of the three team members will have substantial expertise in Indonesia and D&G 
programs in Indonesia, and have good-to-excellent Indonesian language skills. 
VIII. Logistical Support 
The Evaluation Team is responsible for arranging all logistical support for this exercise. SI 
staff, in Jakarta and DC, will be available to support the team in all logistical matters, 
including arranging transportation and lodging. The ProRep Project and USAID will be 
available to provide logistical support, as needed, including scheduling requested interviews. 
The ProRep chief or party (COP) and staff will make themselves available to the team to 
answer questions and provide other support to the team, as needed. In addition, the ProRep 
40
office will make working spaces, phones, and Internet access available to the team members, 
should they wish to use them. 
IX. Oversight and Management 
The Team Leader will liaise closely with USAID, which will be requested to provide input and 
feedback at periodic intervals during the evaluation process. All deliverables will be 
submitted by the evaluation team to Social Impact for final quality assurance review, 
formatting, and editing prior to submission to USAID. To ensure independence of the 
evaluation team, all recommended changes during the quality assurance review must be 
approved by the evaluation Team Leader. In the event of disagreement, the Team Leader will 
submit as an annex to the report any differences of opinion. 
41
ANNEX II: EVALUATION METHODS AND LIMITATIONS 
Social Impact (SI) conducted a comprehensive mid-term evaluation of USAID/Indonesia’s 
Program Representasi (ProRep) program implemented by Chemonics--Contract No. AID￾497-C-11-00002. The evaluation provides a detailed examination of the extent to which 
Chemonics is achieving ProRep objectives to: (1) build capacity of selected Indonesian civil 
society organizations (CSOs) to better represent the interests of their members and 
constituents at the national and/or local level; (2) support independent analysis and public 
consideration of legislation and policies that have a major impact on democratic governance; 
and (3) work with Indonesia’s key representative bodies –the House of Representatives 
(Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat, (DPR) and the Regional Representative Council (Dewan 
Perwakilan Daerah, or DPD) – to become more effective, responsive, and transparent. The 
three person evaluation team consisting of: Mr. Patrick Fn’Piere (Team Lead), Mr. Richard 
Holloway, and Mr. Irfani Darma: 
 Reviewed, analyzed, and evaluated the effectiveness and relevance of the ProRep 
project at the 2-year mark. This included analysis of project impact to date, at least 
qualitatively. 
 Identified the factors which are, or are not, contributing to the achievement of the 
project’s objectives.
 Detailed lessons learned/best practices and described their relevance to future 
project activities. to ascertain if the current activities planned in each of ProRep’s 
component areas are on track to achieve project objectives, expected results and 
PMP indicators within the life of the project (LOP), and if project activities and PMP 
indicators need to be adjusted to respond to available budget and USAID/Indonesia 
priorities. 
 Further, the evaluation team assessed the project work implemented through local 
and international implementation partners (grantees and subcontractors) and if 
project activities were in response to USAID priorities to strengthen local partners. 
 Finally the team made recommendations for the remaining year of the base period of 
the project, and for the 2-year option period. 
The evaluation addressed the major questions raised in the scope of work as well as other 
questions that arose during the course of the evaluation not anticipated in the SOW but 
deemed consequential. The evaluation team’s approach included: in-depth interviews with 
targeted stakeholders, review of relevant project documents, and analysis of quantitative and 
qualitative data to the extent that they were available and useful. Due to the absence of 
control group data the evaluation team did not have the capacity to rigorously analyze 
causality behind impacts but endeavored to aggregate readily available hard data provided 
by Chemonics to appraise project performance, provided available narrative to characterize 
potential or actual impact, and recommendations for future programming. 
The evaluation was divided into three phases: (1) initial document review, (2) in-depth field 
interviews and data collection, and (3) analysis and development of recommendations. 
Phase 1: Preparation and Initial Document Review 
The first phase of the evaluation involved a desk review of key documents. This initial review 
helped the team gather comparative data and gain a practical understanding of the program 
42
goals, implementation plans, performance monitoring efforts, and country context .During 
the document review, the team examined key ProRep materials: strategy and planning 
documents, work plans, progress reports, quarterly reports, annual reports, and performance 
monitoring plans. Additionally the team reviewed: ProRep’s SOW, first and second year Work 
Plan, first and second year Annual Reports, ProRep’s Component 1,2, and 3 assessments, 
ProRep Quarterly Reports, ProRep Monthly Newsletters, and ProRep’s PMP. 
Phase 2: Fieldwork 
The evaluation team met with representatives of USAID/Indonesia’s DG office and ProRep 
staff to define and clarify the approach, timelines, and evaluation activities to develop a more 
nuanced and detailed understanding of USAID’s goals for the mid-term evaluation. 
While in country, the team collected and reviewed quantitative and qualitative data 
regarding implementer performance and beneficiary impact. The team analyzed ProRep’s 
program performance monitoring reports and compared them with available data related to 
project performance and outcomes. The team payed attention to gender, age, ethnicity, and 
program phase to the greatest extent possible. 
In consultation with USAID and ProRep staff, the evaluation team selected interviewees who 
could provide substantive feedback on the program and its impact. Key informants include 
but were not limited to: ProRep staff, Members of Indonesian’s Parliament, ProRep program 
beneficiaries and grantees, U.S. Embassy staff, other donor representatives, civil society 
leaders, government officials, representatives from academia, journalism, and other domestic 
and international nongovernmental organizations. 
The evaluation team used this qualitative yet structured approach to understand whether 
and how the project is contributing to the achievement of IR 2 of USAID/Indonesia’s 2009 –
2014 Democratic Governance (DG) strategy, which supports efforts at both the national and 
regional levels to make governance more representative, effective, and responsive to citizen 
needs. 
Phase 3: Analysis and Development of Recommendations 
During this phase, the evaluation team analyzed and reviewed the interview findings and 
data collected, reached consensus on key findings, develop strategic recommendations, and 
prepared a draft evaluation report. The evaluation team sought to ensure that findings, 
conclusions, and recommendations were based on accurate, objective, and reliable data that 
include the internal and external factors affecting the program’s ability to achieve its 
objectives. The team’s report presents results achieved to date, draws conclusions, and 
documents lessons learned. In instances where the evaluation team found the program 
lagging in meeting its objectives, the team proposed recommendations to assist Chemonics 
develop a set of short- and long-term course corrections to achieve overall program 
objectives. 
SCHEDULE OF ACTIVITIES 
Phase 1: Preparation and Initial Document Review 
March 4 – March 12: Document review. Key documents that were reviewed included the 
following: 
 ProRep Scope of Work (SOW), extracted from the contract 
43
 ProRep Performance Management Plan (PMP) 
 Year 1 & 2 ProRep Annual Work Plans: 2011/2012 
 ProRep Annual Reports: 2011/2012 
 ProRep Quarterly Reports 
 ProRep Monthly Report: September 2012 
 ProRep Monthly Report: October 2012 
 ProRep Monthly Report: November 2012 
 ProRep Monthly Report: December 2012 
 ProRep Monthly Report: January 2013 
 ProRep Newsletter: September 2012 
 ProRep Newsletter: October 2012 
 ProRep Newsletter: November 2012 
 ProRep Newsletter: December 2012 
 ProRep Newsletter: January 2013 
 ProRep Component 1 Assessment: July 2011 
 ProRep Component 2 Assessment: July 2011 
 ProRep Component 3 Assessment: July 2011 
 ProRep Gender Needs Assessment: July 2011 
Phase 2: Fieldwork 
March 11: In-brief with USAID 
March 12 to March 20: In-depth interviews and data collection 
March 22: Out-brief with USAID 
April 26: Submit draft report to USAID/Indonesia 
May: Submit final report (after receiving comments from USAID/Indonesia) 
44
ANNEX III: DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENTS 
The team asked a set of standard questions of all those interviewed along with varied 
questions targeted to those associated with the different components. Key informants 
included ProRep staff, members of Indonesia’s Parliament, ProRep program beneficiaries and 
grantees, USAID, U.S. Embassy staff, other donor representatives, civil society leaders, 
government officials, and representatives from academia, journalism, and other domestic 
and international non-governmental organizations (NGOs). 
INTERVIEW ISSUES AND QUESTIONS 
GENERAL QUESTIONS
· What is the general consensus among CSOs on the functioning of the National 
Legislature? Have these views changed since the start of the ProRep program? What 
aspects of the program contributed to this shift? 
· How do average citizens access decision making in the Parliament? 
· Has gender been incorporated into each component-in management, 
activities/processes, and outcomes? 
· Are there political, cultural, historical, or structural, barriers to women and other sub￾groups participating in decision making? 
· What other programs or donors are involved with helping citizens/CSOs gain access 
to decision making in the Parliament? 
· Is there donor or project coordination with regard to CSO engagement on policy and 
political decision-making? 
· What is the visibility and acceptance of the project? 
· What have been the most difficult aspects of working with ProRep? 
· What are your major accomplishments to date working with ProRep? 
· How did you learn of ProRep? 
CIVIL SOCIETY COMPONENT QUESTIONS 
· Do CSOs engage the Parliament on behalf of their members/constituents? 
· What types of CSOs are prevalent in engaging with the legislature? 
· How has ProRep improved CSOs’ advocacy capacity? 
· Has the number and quality of CSOs’ with the legislature changed since the start of 
ProRep? 
· What, specifically, have been the results of training provided by ProRep? 
45
· Has there been any resistance on the part of CSOs to conducting outreach to the 
legislature? What is the nature of this resistance? How did the program deal with it? 
· Are Indonesian CSOs aware of their rights and responsibilities with respect to 
interacting with the Parliament? 
RESEARCH COMPONENT QUESTIONS 
· What kind of new data is being collected by ProRep supported organizations? Are 
Indonesian universities, think tanks and CSOs supported by ProRep better able to 
produce and disseminate policy-relevant research and analysis? 
· What specific administrative/management improvements have been proposed for 
research oriented organizations during this project? Which of them have been 
approved in whole or in part? Which have been rejected? 
· Have research or policy recommendations by ProRep supported organizations been 
implemented? 
· Do MOP’s seek guidance from research supported by ProRep? 
· Have standing committees in Parliament sought support from ProRep research 
organizations? 
PARLIAMENTARY SUPPORT COMPONENT QUESTIONS 
 What activities have been undertaken to train legislative staff on reforming Parliament’s 
interaction with constituents and CSOs? 
 What percentage of MPs has participated in ProRep activities? 
 What evidence exists to show that the training is being implemented on a regular, 
sustained basis? What has been the reaction by MPS and civil servant staff at Parliament 
to ProRep interventions? Are periodic performance evaluations made? 
 What has been the response of the public to these outreach activities? 
 Who have been the main beneficiaries of these activities? 
 What outreach activities have the Parliament conducted? 
o What topics have the outreach activities addressed? 
o Are these the topics that needed addressed the most? 
o How is this evident? 
o Does any particular segment of the Indonesian public or CSO community 
supported by ProRep exhibit a greater awareness of the Parliament’s outreach? 
o What groups need more outreach? 
TECHNICAL QUESTIONS 
 What are ProRep’s criteria for Effectiveness?
 Adequacy along input-process-output flow? 
46
 Changes in institutional capacity in the advocating organizations? 
 Quality and compactness of activities? 
 Factors: 
o Internal: institutional capacity and resources 
o Project input: approaches/methodologies – positive advocacy?; 
method/technique; grant management; grant size 
o External: institutional capacity and resources of target organizations; priorities; 
regulations; perception; internal processes 
o Acceptance of ProRep and advocating organizations 
o Local capacity building 
o Internal organizational setting 
o Dealing with USAID 
o Relationship with sub-contractors 
47
ANNEX IV: SOURCES CONSULTED 
Government of Indonesia 
Hon. Hetifah Sjaifudian, MPP, Member of Parliament 
Hon. Malik Haramain, Member of Parliament 
Hon. Sumarjati (Ms.), Director, BAKN, DPR 
Hon. Yahya Sacawiria, Member of Parliament, Vice Chairman/BAKN, DPR 
Hon. Nur Yasin, Member of Parliament P, BAKN Member, 
Hon. Winantuningtyastiti (Ms.), Secretary General, DPR 
Hon. Johnson Rajagukguk, Deputy of Legislation, Secretariat General DPR 
Eddy Rasyidin Coordinator Expert staff of BAKN, DPR 
Murdjito, Expert Staff of BAKN, DPR 
Andrey, Expert Staff of BAKN, DPR 
Setyo, Expert Staff of BAKN, DPR 
Anis Mayangsari, DPD, Liaison with Donors (Jakarta) 
USAID/Indonesia and US Embassy/Jakarta 
Miles Toder, Director, Office of Democratic Governance, USAID 
Zeric Smith, Office of Democratic Governance, USAID 
Diman K. Simanjuntak, Project Development Specialist, Office of Democratic Governance, 
USAID, Jakarta 
Maria Ining Nurani, Project Development Specialist, Office of Democratic Governance, USAID 
Neil Helbraun, Second Secretary, Political Section, American Embassy, Jakarta 
ProRep/Chemonics 
John Johnson, Chief of Party 
Farini Pane, Deputy Chief of Party 
Yoenarsih Nazar, Civil Society Specialist 
Agus Loekman, Public Policy Specialist 
Noelle Veltze, Operations Manager 
Trias Utomo, Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist18
Alvin Lie, Legislative Affairs Specialist 
Agus Wijayanto, Policy Research and Legislative Drafting Specialist 
 
18 Trias Utomo is a full-time employee of Social Impact, implementing organization for this evaluation. 
48
ProRep Partners 
Agung Djojosoekarto, Program Director, Kemitraan, ProRep, (Jakarta, Palembang), 
Setio W. Soemeri, Program, Manager, Democratic and State Governance Unit, Kemitraan 
Ridaya Laodengkowe, Policy Research Development Specialist, Kemitraan 
Wicaksono Sarosa, Executive Director, Kemitraan 
Charles Cadwell, Director, Center on International Development & Governance, The Urban 
Institute, Washington, DC 
Imam Sanjaya, Peneliti, Research and Political Consultant, Jaringan Suara Indonesia (Survey 
and Polling organisation), Jakarta 
Sukanta, Manager Data Riset, Research, and Political Consultant, Jaringan Suara Indonesia, 
Jakarta 
CSOs 
Eva Danayanti, Program Manager, Alliansi Jurnalis Independent, Jakarta 
Sebastian Eliyas Saragih, Program Manager, Circle Indonesia, Jogjakarta 
Yani Lestari, Consultant, Circle Indonesia, Jogjakarta 
Victoria Fanggidae, Program Manager, Prakarsa, Jarkata 
Y.Ade Zendrato, Finance and Administration Manager, Prakarsa, Jarkarta 
Rizal Malik, Senior Governance Specialist, Circle Indonesia, ProRep Collaborator, Yogjarkarta 
Nordjannah Djohan, Aisyiyah, Jogjakarta 
Khusunul Hidayah, Aisyiyah, Jogjakarta 
Ari Pribadi, BKBBN, Aisyiyah, Jogjakarta 
Alim Mohammed, BKBBN, Aisyiyah, Jogjakarta 
Aisyiyah, Klaten, CSO ProRep Collaborator, Klaten 
Suroto, Yayasan Satu Karsa, Solo 
Ana Susi Y, Yayasan Satu Karsa, Solo 
Sri Ekawati, Yayasan Satu Karsa 
Nino Hitiraludin, JERAMI, Yayasan Satu Karsa, Solo 
Andwi Joko M, Pattiro, Yayasan Satu Karsa, Solo 
Agus Qosim, Komite Sekolah, Yayasan Satu Karsa, Solo 
Research Institutions 
Nana Adriana, Women’s Research Institute, Jakarta 
Wijayanto, Managing Director and Co-founder, Paramadina Public Policy Institute, Jakarta 
49
Tedy Sitepu, Director, Paramadina Public Policy Institute, Jakarta 
 Junaidi, Legal Specialist, Paramadina Public Policy Institute, Jakarta 
Muhamad Ikhsan, Researcher, Paramadina Public Policy Institute, Palembang 
Phillips Vermonte, Director, Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), Jakarta 
Inda Prasanti Loekman, Knowledge and Research Manager 
Wicaksono Sarosa, Executive Director 
Vid Adrison, Researcher and Lecturer, Institute for Economic and Social Research, Universitas 
Indonesia, ProRep Collaborator, Jakarta 
Ifa Isfandiarni, Senior Associate, Institute for Economic and Social Research, Universitas 
Indonesia, ProRep Collaborator, Jakarta 
M. Zainal Anwar, Researcher, Institute for Research and Empowerment (IRE), (Yogya) 
Other Donors
Hans Antlov, Senior Social Development Specialist, World Bank, Independent Expert, Jakarta 
Benjami K. Davis, Second Secretary (Senior Program Manager), Tertiary Education and 
Knowledge Sector, AusAID, Australian Embassy, Jakarta Donor in Democratic Governance 
Maesy Angelina, Senior program Manager - Knowledge Sector Analyst, Tertiary Education 
and Knowledge Sector, AusAID,, Australian Embassy, Jakarta 
Paul Nicoll, Executive Director, Performance Audit Services Group, Australian National Audit 
Office, Supreme Audit Agency of Indonesia, Independent Expert, Jakarta 
Independent Experts 
Paul Rowland, Associate, Centre for Democratic Institutions, The Australian National 
University 
Taufik Anwari, Manager, Keuangan, Voice of Indonesia Networks 
Ari Pribadi (BKBBN) 
Alim Mohammed (BKBBN) 
50
ANNEX V: CSO GRANTS AND TRAINING MATRICES 
Names of CSOs, location of head offices, geographical focus, size of grant, topic or issue, and 
time for the execution of the grant. Organizations underlined are either women’s 
organizations or are targeting women’s issues:
CSO Grants 
No. Organization Office Location Geographical focus Period of 
Grant 
(months)
Amount in 
US$ (1 US$ 
= IRP 9738)
Topic/
issue
1. Allians Jurnalis 
Independen
Jakarta West Sumatra, Riau, 
Jambi, East Java, Central 
Java
6 49,251 Knowledge of 
budget
2. Aisyiyah Jogjakarta Klaten, Kendal 9 55,180 Women’s Health 
insurance 
3. ASPPUK Jakarta Klaten, Pontianak,Banda 
Aceh
9 64,034 Women’s credit
4. Circle Indonesia Jogjakarta Bogor 12 57,070 Budgets of organic 
agriculture
5. HAPSARI North Sumatra North Sumatra, Central 
Java, East Kalimantan, 
West Sulawesi
9 73,819 Women’s credit
6. ISAI Jakarta Jakarta 9 49,439 Public information 
at Min. of Health
7. ICEL Jakarta Jakarta 12 75,442 Environment
8. Inprosula Jogjakarta Jogjakarta 7 53,876 Budgets for farmers
9. Lakpesdam NU Jakarta Central Java 12 77,458 Religious tolerance
10. Muslimat NU Jakarta Jakarta 7 45,906 Flood management
11. Pergerakan Bandung ? 9 54,672 Budget for 
fishermen
12. Prakarsa Jakarta NTT 9 55,123 Women’s health 
Insurance
13. Seknas FITRA Jakarta Central Java 11 56,596 Women’s Health 
insurance
14. YSKK Solo, Central 
Java
Central Java, Jogjakarta 8 58,010 Budget for 
education
CSO Training 
No. Name of course No. of 
repetitions
No. of participants No. of Organizations 
participating
Sex distribution
1. Creative Advocacy 8 135 44 F 68/M 67
2. Organizational 
Assessment and 
Development
1 20 7 F13/M7
3. Social Media for Advocacy 1 19 8 F11/M8
4. Constituency Building 2 40 18 F25/M15
5. Strengthen Relations with 
Policy Makers
1 24 14 F15/M9
51
ANNEX VI: CIVIL SOCIETY OBJECTIVE INDICATORS 
Civil Society Objective: Achievements in 7 Indicators through Year 2 
Indicator 
Number
Indicator Target until 
end Year 2
Achievement 
until end of 
Year 2
Notes
PO a. Number of laws, legislative 
amendments or Parliamentary 
oversight proceedings influenced 
by CSO advocacy
4 0 Indicator needs revising. 
The process of influencing 
Parliament takes much 
longer.
PIR. A. Extent of CSOs use of diverse 
mechanisms to receive 
information and opinions from 
their members
4 5 (125%) 
Twitter, 
Facebook (all), 
PSA 
(HAPSARI), 
Website 
(Aisyiyah, 
YSSK), comic 
book (FITRA)
Indicator needs revising.
Diverse mechanisms are 
used to provide information 
to a wider audience, not all 
of whom are their members.
PIR 1 b Percent of CSO members and 
constituents who feel that their 
interests have been effectively 
advanced by the CSO
30%
(of which 
women 
45%)
0 Reporting for this indicator 
is incomplete as the data will 
be captured through the 
Self-Assessment of 
Competence survey to be 
finalized in May 2013. 
KRA 1.1.b Number of CSOs experiencing 
with significantly expanded 
membership 
6 2 (34%)
(KPRI and 
HAPSARI)
Indicator needs revising.
Many CSOs do not have 
members in a formal sense.
They have a combination of 
alliances to networks, 
alliances to other CSOs, and 
beneficiaries.
KRA 1.2.a Number of ProRep supported 
CSOs that participate in legislative 
proceedings
6 5 (84%)
(Circle 
Indonesia, 
HAPSARI, ISAI, 
YSKK, 
PRAKARSA
Indicator needs revising.
Making representation to 
MPs (which is reported by 
ProRep) is valuable, but is 
not the same as 
participating in formal 
legislative proceedings.
KRA.1.2.b Number of policy briefs brought 
to Parliament by CSOs and 
substantively reflected in 
responsive legislation, oversight 
or budget proceedings
5 2 (40%)
Fitra, Prakarsa
CSOs have usually only been 
able to bring issues to the 
attention of MPs in public 
discussions.
KRA 1.3.b Number of times CSO advocacy 
positions are featured in the 
media
8 (women 
related 2)
44 (550%) 
(women 
related 2 
(100%) –
Hapsari and 
YSSJK) 
39 were for AJI. Women 
related also relates to issues 
important to women – in 
this case School Operational 
Fund.
52
ANNEX VII: RESEARCH INSTITUTION OBJECTIVE INDICATORS
Research Institutions: Achievements of Indicators through Year 2 
Indicator 
Number
Indicator Target until 
end Year 2
Achievement 
to date
Notes
PO b. Number of bills, amendments or 
laws influenced by research, and 
analysis provided by a supported 
research institution
Cumulatively: 
Yr. 1: 2 
(Women￾related: 1) 
Target to be 
determined 
based on year 
1 data
0 Indicator needs revising. 
The process of influencing 
Parliament takes much 
longer.
PIR 2.a. PIR2.a. Level of selected MP or 
Parliament staff satisfaction with 
policy research
Yr. 1: 10% 
Yr. 2: 10% 
0 To be collected through a 
survey with members of 
BALEG, BANGGAR, and 
Komisi.
KRA 2.1.a Number of organizations in key 
areas achieve organizational 
improvements
Yr. 1: 3 
Yr. 2: 6 
0 Supposed to come from an 
Organizational Effectiveness 
Assessment.
KRA 2.2.a KRA 2.2.a. Number of copies of 
written research products 
disseminated to Parliament 
members and policy makers
Yr. 1: 8 
Yr. 2: 6 
Total : 14
Year 1: 37
Year 2: 0
Total: 37 
(264%)
Through QStaR grants.
KRA 2.2.b Number of target Parliament 
Members and staff who report 
receipt of written research 
products and/ or verbal 
presentation from research 
institutions
Cumulatively: 
Yr. 1: 50 
Yr. 2: 80 
Year 1: 3719 To be collected through a 
survey with members of 
BALEG, BANGGAR, and 
Komisi.
KRA 2.3.a Number of Parliament members 
reporting use of products of 
research institutions
Yr. 1: 15 
Yr. 2: 15 
Total : 30
Yr. 1: 18
Yr. 2: 0
Total: 18 
(60%)
Data was gathered from 
reports by partners and 
were verified through 
interviews with selected 
MPs by ProRep.
 
19 Minimum achievement based on Indicator 2.2a. Thirty-seven MPs have confirmed receipt of written research 
products. The actual achievement will be measured in a survey, as indicated in the notes. 
53
ANNEX VIII: LEGISLATIVE BODIES OBJECTIVE INDICATORS 
Legislative Bodies: Achievements in 5 Indicators through Year 2 
Indicator 
Number
Indicator Target until 
end Year 2
Achievement 
until end of 
Year 2
Notes
PIR 3.a. Number of pieces of legislation 
positively affecting democratic 
governance deliberated and 
passed
Yr. 1: 
Deliberated : 
2 
Passed : 1 
Yr. 2: 
Deliberated: 
2 
Passed: 1 
Deliberated: 1 
(25%)
Passed: 0
This is MD3 Law; the 
proposed amendments to 
the Law from BAKN have 
been submitted to BALEG.
KRA 3.1.a Number of consultations with 
constituents held by ProRep￾engaged DPR members
Yr. 1: 53 ;
Yr. 2: 65
Total : 118
Yr. 1: 37
Yr. 2: 48
Total: 85
(72%)
This is from JABAT.
KRA 3.2.a Linkages of ProRep-supported 
legislative amendments to the 
amendment process
Yr. 1: 2
Yr. 2: 5
Total: 7
Yr. 1: 2
Yr. 2: 3
Total: 5
(71%)
Yr. 1: Activities with BALEG 
(round table meeting for 
preparation of BALEG 
workshops on MD3 Law). 
Yr. 2: public hearings on 
amending MD3 Law in three 
provinces.
KRA.3.3.a Number of U.S.-assisted actions 
contributing to better budget or 
program oversight undertaken 
by the DPR
Yr. 1: 1 
Yr. 2: 2
Total : 3 
Yr. 1: 5
Yr. 2: 8
Total : 13
(325%)
Yr. 1: BAKN annual report, 
investigative report and 
hearing with ministry of 
education. Yr. 2: hearing in 
three universities on higher 
education budget; 
verification of BPK audit 
findings and 
recommendations with five
state-owned companies.
KRA 3.4.a Number of DPR institutional 
reforms proposed, passed and 
implemented
Yr. 1: 
Deliberated : 
1 
Passed : 1 
Yr. 2: 
Deliberated: 
1 
Passed: 1 
Total : 2 
Yr. 1: 
Deliberated: 0
Passed: 0
Yr. 2: 
Deliberated: 1 
(50%)
Passed: 0
This is related to the 
amendments of MD3 Law.
54
ANNEX IX: SUMMARY OF CONSTITUENCY OUTREACH ACTIVITIES 
BY MPS FROM THE FIRST TWO RECESS VISITS 
District 1st Recess Visit 2nd Recess Visit District 1st Recess Visit
Grobogan, 
Pati, and 
Blora 
Districts, 
Rembang 
Districts 
(Central 
Java)
· Public meeting 
with salt farmers, 
fishermen, students 
of Islamic boarding 
schools, and local 
journalists attended 
by a total of over 
120 participants
· Community meeting - 2 
seminars. Thematic focus: 
public health issues: maternal 
health, maternity insurance 
program, HIV and AIDS. 
Participant: total 523. 
· Training for 2 women’s 
groups in 2 districts in 
producing micro businesses 
Grobogan, 
Pati, and 
Blora Districts, 
Rembang 
Districts 
(Central Java)
· Public meeting with salt 
farmers, fishermen, 
students of Islamic 
boarding schools, and 
local journalists 
attended by a total of 
over 120 participants
Brebes and 
Tegal 
Districts 
(Central 
Java)
· Public consultation 
forum – attended by 
54 participants, 
including local CSOs 
and community 
members from a 
village facing 
problems related to 
abrasion
· Seminar for youth –
attended by 230 students 
(senior high schools and 
university)
· Community meeting with 
salt producers – attended by 
59 participants in the same 
two districts
· Anti corruption talk at a 
community meeting 
Brebes and 
Tegal Districts 
(Central Java)
· Public consultation 
forum – attended by 54 
participants, including 
local CSOs and 
community members 
from a village facing 
problems related to 
abrasion
Tasikmalaya 
and Garut 
Districts 
(West Java)
· Public consultation 
forum – attended by 
40 participants 
representing 
different livelihood 
backgrounds: 
farmers, fishers, 
teachers, public 
transportation 
drivers
· Discussion with 
local CSOs –
attended by 26 
participants 
· Media gathering 
with 12 local 
journalists 
· 6 community meetings in 2 
districts with religious 
leaders, community leaders, 
and youth leaders – attended 
by 360 participants
· Free health care service 
event in collaboration with 
district health agency 
· Radio talk shows, in 2 
districts 
Tasikmalaya 
and Garut 
Districts 
(West Java)
· Public consultation 
forum – attended by 40 
participants representing 
different livelihood 
backgrounds: farmers, 
fishers, teachers, public 
transportation drivers
· Discussion with local 
CSOs – attended by 26 
participants 
· Media gathering with 
12 local journalists 
Probolinggo 
and 
Pasuruan 
(East Java)
· Public hearings on 
bills being 
deliberated in DPR:
on election of 
governor and 
mayor; mass 
organizations; and 
on village 
governance –
attended by 239 
participants
· 2 workshops for farmers on 
improving farming practices 
and management – attended 
by 60 participants
· Training on CSO advocacy 
for increased public 
participation on local policy 
making – attended by 60 
representatives of CSOs and 
youth in each district
· TV talk show at a local TV 
station on youth 
unemployment 
Probolinggo 
and Pasuruan 
(East Java)
· Public hearings on bills 
being deliberated in 
DPR: on election of 
governor and mayor; 
mass organizations; and 
on village governance –
attended by 239 
participants