December 2013 This publication was produced at the request of the United States Agency for International Development. It was prepared independently by Organisation Development Centre. EVALUATION Mid Term Evaluation of Nepal Strengthening Political Parties, Electoral and Legislative Processes Program ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This report presents the findings, lessons learned and recommendations from the Mid-Term Evaluation of the USAID/Nepal’s “Nepal: Strengthening Political Parties, Electoral and Legislative Processes (SPPELP)” program (2010-2015) implemented by two partners of the Consortium of Elections and Political Processes Strengthening (CEPPS): National Democratic Institute for International Affairs (NDI) and International Foundation of Electoral Systems (IFES). The evaluation was carried out from May to December 2013 by Organisation Development Centre (ODC). The evaluation team consisted of Ken Afful (Team Leader), Henrik Schou Hansen, and Sagar Bhusal. Sanju Rajbhandari, Senior Consultant and Director of Operations at ODC, greatly supported the team in carrying out the evaluation. The team sincerely acknowledges USAID/Nepal for entrusting ODC to carry out this important assignment. The team would especially like to mention Maria Barrón, Director of USAID/Nepal’s Democracy, Human Rights, and Governance Office, for her critical feedbacks during the team’s presentation of its first draft report. The feedback helped the team to fine tune its methodology and approach during the rest of the evaluation. Ramesh Adhikari and Sumitra Manandhar in USAID/Nepal deserve special thanks for their co-operation, guidance and support to the team throughout the evaluation period. The team would like to extend its gratitude to Alan Wall, former IFES Country Director in Nepal and his staff and to Kenza Aqertit, Country Director of NDI-Nepal and her staff for providing valuable information and support to the team during the evaluation period. The team expresses its thanks to the staffs of the two sub-grantees of the CEPPS partners: The Asia Foundation and Internews Network. The team also expresses its thanks to staffs at United Nations Development Programme Electoral Support Project (UNDP ESP) and The Carter Center who took time to share their insights with the team. Similarly, the team is thankful to the Chief Election Commissioner, the Commissioners, District Election Officers (DEOs) and other staffs of the Election Commission of Nepal (ECN) for providing with information and documents that helped the team. The team thanks Manohar Bhattarai, Secretary General and Mukunda Sharma, Spokesperson, of Parliament Secretariat for sharing with the team valuable information about their activities and the SPPELP program. The team expresses thanks to the CSOs (including YI, DNF, NNDSWO, NNSWA, and DUS) for providing with very useful information during interviews in Kathmandu and during the field visits. The team conveys its sincere thanks to the leaders and youth members of the various political parties for taking time off to share their insights with the team. Last but not the least, the team would like to thank all other individuals and groups including community leaders and community members for their support, cooperation and providing valuable information which contributed significantly to the successful completion of this evaluation. This report was prepared by: Organisation Development Centre (ODC) Kupondole, Lalitpur, Nepal Telephone: +977-1-5551979 EVALUATION Mid Term Evaluation of Nepal Strengthening Political Parties, Electoral and Legislative Processes December 2013 Solicitation Number: SOL-367-13-000007 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. SPPELP MID-TERM EVALUATION i CONTENTS Acronyms ...................................................................................................................................... iii Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................... v Background .................................................................................................................................... 1 Donor Support to the Political and Electoral Processes ................................................................................ 2 Evaluation Purpose & Questions ................................................................................................. 2 The Evaluation of The SPPELP Program ............................................................................................................. 2 Purpose and Focus of The Evaluation ................................................................................................................. 3 Summary of Evaluation Questions ....................................................................................................................... 3 Project Background ...................................................................................................................... 4 Objective 1: Promote and Strengthen Broader Political Processes ............................................................. 5 Obejctive 2: Strengthen Institutions Involved in Electoral Processes, Either as Actors or Participants ...................................................................................................................................................... 6 Objective 3: Improve the democratic functioning of the Constituent Assembly (CA)/Legislature Parliament................................................................................................................................................................... 7 Evaluation methodology ............................................................................................................... 8 Preparatory meetings .............................................................................................................................................. 8 Review of literature ................................................................................................................................................. 8 Development of questionnaire guidelines .......................................................................................................... 8 Interviews and group discussions ......................................................................................................................... 9 Field visit ..................................................................................................................................................................... 9 Target audience for the report ............................................................................................................................. 9 Limitations of the research .................................................................................................................................... 9 Findings, conclusions & Recommendations ................................................................................ 9 Common questions: political parties, Electoral and Legislative Processes ............................................... 11 Questions for Political Parties and Legislative Processes ............................................................................. 18 Questions for Electoral Process ......................................................................................................................... 27 Conculsions ............................................................................................................................................................. 32 Lessons learned with regards to Implementation of SPPELP ...................................................................... 33 Recommendations .................................................................................................................................................. 34 Annexes Annex I: Evaluation Statement of Work ........................................................................................................ A-1 Annex II: Evaluation Questions ...................................................................................................................... A-22 Annex III: Data Collection Instruments ....................................................................................................... A-24 Annex IV: Sources of Information ................................................................................................................. A-52 ii SPPELP MID-TERM EVALUATION Annex V: List of Stakeholders interviewed ................................................................................................. A-53 Annex VI: Budget analysis ................................................................................................................................ A-55 Annex VII: The November 19th, 2013 Election ........................................................................................ A-56 Annex VIII: Clarifications from Cepps and Response from the Evaluation Team ............................. A-57 Annex IX: Disclosure of any Conflicts of Interest .................................................................................... A-62 Figures Box 1: Major findings and recommendations .................................................................................................. vii Box 2: Lessons learned ......................................................................................................................................... 33 Box 3: Election result from 19 Nov 2013 ................................................................................................... A-56 Figure 1: The primary and secondary objectives of SPPELP .......................................................................... 5 Figure 2: Participation in "Town hall consultation with youth and women" ............................................ 16 Figure A 1: Funding of the two CEEPS partners .......................................................................................... A55 Figure A 2: Budget spending of the two CEPPS partner organizations .................................................. A55 SPPELP MID-TERM EVALUATION iii ACRONYMS AusAID Australian Agency for International Development BRIDGE Building Resources in Democracy, Governance and Elections CA Constituent Assembly CEPPS Consortium of Elections and Political Processes Strengthening CSO Civil Society Organization CPA Comprehensive Peace Agreement DEO District Election Office/Officer DGA Democracy, Human Rights and Government Assessment of Nepal DGO USAID/Nepal Democracy and Governance Office DNF Dalit National Federation ECN Election Commission of Nepal EEIC Electoral Education and Information Centre EU European Union FLA Future Leadership Academy FPTP First past the post GoN Government of Nepal IDEA International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance IFES International Foundation for Electoral Systems INGO International Non-Governmental Organization IPA Inter Party Alliance IPWA Inter-party Women’s Alliance JWAS Janaki Women’s Awareness society MP Member of Parliament NDI National Democratic Institute for International Affairs NGO Non-Governmental Organization NGPG Next Generation Parliamentarians Group NNDSWO Nepal National Dalit Social Welfare Organization NNSWA Nepal National Social Welfare Association ODC Organisation Development Centre PR Proportional Representation SOW Statement of Work SPPELP Strengthening Political Parties, Electoral and Legislative Processes TA Technical Assistance TAF The Asia Foundation ToT Training of Trainers TtF Train the Facilitator UNDP ESP United Nations Development Programme Electoral Support Project USAID United States Agency for International Development YI Youth Initiative SPPELP MID-TERM EVALUATION v EXECUTIVE SUMMARY USAID/Nepal’s “Nepal: Strengthening Political Parties, Electoral and Legislative Processes” (SPPELP) program is implemented by the Consortium of Elections and Political Processes Strengthening (CEPPS). CEPPS, as the prime recipient of the award (Cooperative Agreement No. AID-367-LA-10-00001), implements through two partners: the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs (NDI) and the International Foundation for Electoral Systems (IFES). Through the CEPPS mechanism, NDI and IFES sub-grant portions of the project to The Asia Foundation (TAF) and Internews Network. USAID/Nepal is supporting the SPPELP program with a total budget of USD 26,504,000 over five years. The SPPELP program has 3 primary objectives: (1) promote and strengthen broader political processes, (2) Strengthen Institutions Involved in electoral processes, either as actors or participants, and (3) Improve the democratic functioning of the Constituent Assembly (CA)/Legislative Parliament. The purpose of the mid-term evaluation was to assist the Mission in making modifications, if necessary, and to help guide SPPELP through program completion. The mid-term evaluation was framed by a number of key evaluation questions defined by the Statement of Work (SOW). The evaluation questions are presented below: Common Questions: Political Parties, Electoral and Legislative Processes 1. Given two-and-half years of the program, do the objectives of the project remain relevant to Nepal’s political development? Are there new challenges which are not addressed by the program? What adjustments to the program are recommended? 2. To what extent is the project on track to reach its intermediate results? Overall goals? 3. How effective is the program in engaging women, youth, Dalits, and other marginalized groups to contribute to development of national politics? 4. How effective is the relationship between the CEPPS partners and key stakeholders? Questions for Political Parties and Legislative Processes 1. In light of the negative role of political parties as cast in the DGA, are NDI’s programmatic efforts relevant and effective? Is NDI working with the right parties? How effective was the CA/Legislature Parliament component of the program? 2. How effective was the Constitute Assembly (CA)/Legislature Parliament component of the program? Are they any success cases in CA that we can learn in future in CA and legislative Parliament? What can be done in the absence of CA and legislative parliament? What approach should follow in the future? 3. Did NDI’s technical assistance to the Legislative Parliament/CA result in increased technical capacity of the staff members of the parliament and committees and what modifications would be useful in future engagement of Nepal’s legislative branch? 4. How effective was the mechanism for public participation in politics such as public hearings, community dialogues, round table discussions and town hall consultations? How have MPs utilized community dialogues to gather and aggregate constituent input on local issues of concern? How effective do district-level NGOs feel their advocacy efforts have been? Do they feel their voices/concerns have been heard by MPs? How effective are the community dialogues perceived to be in highlighting and/or resolving local issues of citizen’s concern? vi SPPELP MID-TERM EVALUATION By MPs? By district-level monitoring committees? 5. How effective was the Next Generation Parliamentary Group (NGPG), Inter Party Alliance (IPA) and Future Leadership Academy (FLA)? To what extent are participants utilizing FLA materials within their parties? How prepared do participants feel to engage in the party; to take on leadership roles? 6. To what extent do participating parties demonstrate steps taken toward implementing competitive electoral campaigns? Specifically, steps towards: a. Building or reach consensus on rules of electoral competition b. Effective participation in issue-based candidate debates c. Implementing strategic campaigns Questions for Electoral Process 1. How effective is the design and production of training and education materials by the ECN and IFES' sub-awardees led to increased knowledge of ECN staff and potential voters? 2. In what ways has IFES technical assistance to the ECN resulted in increased technical capacities of ECN staff and/or improved quality of their electoral planning and management? 3. Is IFES support for Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) sub-awardees resulting in improvement in the CSOs' planning, management, control and reporting capacities? Are these improvements sustainable? The SPPELP, implemented through the CEPPS mechanism, has three major components. Promote and strengthen democratic political processes though political party development: This component that is implemented by NDI is focused on supporting political party reforms, assist party decentralization and enable them to better serve their constituents. Under this component, NDI provides technical assistance and capacity development to political parties to help them modernize the internal governing structures and promote decentralization, transparency and participation. Under this component, NDI is working with 10 political parties represented in the 2008 CA. Strengthen the capacity of citizen oversight of the electoral process: This component is predominantly implemented by IFES and focuses on improving the capacity of the Election Commission of Nepal (ECN) to manage elections and consolidate its performance and mandate by providing technical assistance in the legal, managerial and technical aspects of elections. This activity also focus on providing quality voter education through ECN as well as select CSOs, and through NDI, provide better civil society monitoring of elections. Institutional strengthening of the CA and improve its capacity to address constituent needs: This component which is led by NDI and its sub-grantee, the Asia Foundation (TAF), focuses on building the capacity of the CA and ensuring community outreach. NDI worked on strengthening the capacity of the parliamentary committees in areas such as capacity development on legislative drafting, legislative￾executive communications, and public outreach. TAF supported the parliament secretariat through an upgrade of the parliament library and the media center. Under this component, innovative interventions such as the NGPG provided a forum for young and first-term parliamentarians to interact with each other. Community dialogue programs promoted policy- focused discussions among key parliamentarians, party leaders, and NGOs and nation-wide town hall consultations with youth and women focusing on subjects of wide interest in Nepal were conducted on a quarterly basis reaching between 2200 and 2500 participants in each round. The major findings and recommendations of the mid-term evaluation are as follows: SPPELP MID-TERM EVALUATION vii Box 1: Major findings and recommendations Findings Recommendations The objectives of the project remained relevant, but the achievements of these objectives have been critically affected by the delays in the implementation caused by the changing political situation in Nepal. The two CEPPS partners have to take new emerging political issues into account when planning for the remainder of the SPPELP – areas such as local governance and discussion of the possible sub division of Nepal into federal states are likely to re-emerge in the last two and half years of the project and CEPPS partners should have a clear direction for how to deal with this. SPPELP managed to engage women, youth, Dalits and other marginalized groups in its activities. However, it was found that more efforts could be put into engaging the marginalized groups outside the activities specifically targeted towards these groups. It is recommended that CEPPS partners more proactively engage marginalized groups such as Dalits by including them in all the activities in the project. A main-streaming effort is recommended where all activities have to consider the role of the marginalized groups in a more proactive manner. The two CEPPS partners were found to have a good working relationship but very clear division of labor between the two organizations and the lack of joint or mutually supportive programming could mean that the program missed out on possible synergies. It is recommended that a more formalized coordination body between the two CEPPS partners, beyond the bi-monthly reporting meeting with USAID/Nepal, could explore these synergies and strategies could be jointly formulated to deal with possible future program changes due to often changing and volatile nature of Nepali politics. The NGPG, IPA and FLA can help intra party cooperation and nurture new politicians. However, the evaluation team found that three bodies could play a greater role in the newly elected CA to settle intra party disputes and build capacity. It is recommended that need assessments are conducted to evaluate the need of the CA members – these need assessments should include the needs of IPA, NGPG and also the need for CA internship program and training needs for newly elected CA members. The evaluation team found that the SPPELP fitted well with the recommendations that came from the DGA assessment, providing a support for the DGA programmatic recommendation III “advocate for greater transparency and accountability” and to a less degree programmatic recommendation II “prepare for state restructuring”. The CEPPS partners should clarify what role they can play in the discussion of possible state restructuring. SPPELP MID-TERM EVALUATION 1 BACKGROUND The first open multi-party election in modern Nepal was held on May 12, 1991 with Nepali Congress (NC) winning the majority and later forming a government. With this election, Nepal became a constitutional monarchy, where the King was the head of state while the prime minister was the head of the government. Nepal emerged from this period of rapid political change facing a multitude of economic and social problems; among these were a stagnant economy and a variety of regional, ethnic and religious movements, some of whose basic demands were not acceptable to the country’s Hindu majority. Although overwhelming support existed for the new democratic constitutional monarchy, at both political and the public level, the democratic movement itself remained badly fractionalized and antagonistic, making it more difficult for any new government to attempt to introduce hard but necessary economic and social policies. The Panchayat governments had carefully avoided introducing hard economic policies in an effort to mollify several small but important interest groups. As inter and intra party bickering continued and corruption accusations against politicians and their cronies increased and with the economy in trouble, the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) (later to become the Unified Communist Party of Nepal (UCPN)) in 1996 decided to go underground, where they until 2006 waged a violent insurgency estimated to have cost between 13,000 – 15,000 lives and billions of rupees. The signing of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) in 2006 set an ambitious framework agenda on equity, inclusion, accountability, good governance and state restructuring and signaled the end of 10 years armed conflict. An interim constitution, which transferred all executive power to the Prime Minister, remained in effect until the weapons management plan had been completed, elections had been held, and a permanent constitution had been drafted to replace the constitution of 1990. In 2008 elections to the CA were held, signaling the beginning of the infant Nepali Democracy and the beginning of a journey towards sustainable peace. It was on this background that USAID/Nepal, in August 2010, initiated the SPPELP project with the CEPPS as primary recipient and the NDI and IFES as primary partners. SPPELP builds on the hypotheses that (i) strong electoral institutions and processes are fundamental to an inclusive, stable and lasting democracy in Nepal, (ii) if parties were more representative and able to implement effective competitive electoral campaigns and the population had access to better information of policy differences, the political parties can better contribute to the democratic process in Nepal, (iii) more comprehensive election monitoring and better informed media to cover election related issues will enable civil society initiatives to more effectively contribute to transparent electoral processes, and (iv) more effective reviews and deliberation of bills of the CA incorporating input from constituents will make the legislative process more transparent and will help the CA more effectively fulfill its democratic functions. With the SPPELP, USAID/Nepal thereby tried to address what was perceived as weaknesses of the young Nepali democracy, the capacity of political parties to run party organizations and to participate in competitive electoral campaigns, the capacity of civil society to have better oversight of the political process, and the institutional capacity of the CA and the ECN. The first three years of SPPELP however has been a period of political instability. The drawn-out debate on the structure of possible future federal sub-division of Nepal has continued to absorb significant attention and energies of politicians and government officials, and constrain the ability of political parties to reach consensus on other key issues such as compensation for victims of the insurgency and returning of properties seized to their rightful owners. In light of the disagreement, the May 27, 2012 CA dissolution without finalizing the drafting of the Constitution came as little surprise. After months of uncertainty a government of technocrats was consequently formed in February 2013 under the leadership of a sitting Chief Justice to conduct CA election. The dissolution of the CA and the prolonged period needed to agree upon an election date created what was almost a one and a half year constitutional vacuum that delayed 2 SPPELP MID-TERM EVALUATION the formulation of the constitution and the implementation of many other aspects of the peace process. The CA/Legislative election was finally held on November 19, 20131. For details regarding the election result please refer to annex VII. DONOR SUPPORT TO THE POLITICAL AND ELECTORAL PROCESSES Donors continue to support the peace process through various contributions to the Government of Nepal. International donors including the United Kingdom’s Department for International Development (DFID), United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), The Swiss Embassy, Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID), European Union (EU), and others continue to support the political and electoral process. USAID/Nepal, through its Democracy and Governance Office (DGO), has provided a substantial support to the Government of Nepal (GoN) on broader democracy and governance interventions. USAID/Nepal is not only providing election, democracy and governance support through SPPELP but also supports:  Local Development through its “Sajhedari Birkaas: Partnership for Local Development” Project,  The transition to peace through its “Nepal Peace Support Project (NPSP)”,  Conflict mitigation through its “Community Initiatives for Common Understanding (CICU) project”,  Conflict management and mitigation through its “Conflict Management and Mitigation (CMM) Project” and “Sambad, Dialogue for peace” Project,  Enhance stability through natural resource conflict resolution and inclusive natural resource management through its “Inclusive Resource Management Initiative (IRMI) Project”,  Enhanced monitoring of the democratic process in Nepal through its “Monitoring Nepal’s Peace Process and Constitution Drafting” project,  Transition to peace through its support to the Nepal Peace Trust Fund (NPTF), and  “Combating Trafficking in Person Project”. Even with the good intentions of the donor communities, the transition process has been slow, acrimonious, and stalled by Nepal’s internal political debates. Unless the politicians make a conscious decision to move the peace process forward, the newly elected second CA is in itself unlikely to solve contentious issues mentioned above. It is likely that the stalemate will continue to affect the formulation of a new constitution. It is within this context that the evaluation team conducted the mid-term evaluation of the SPPELP program from June – November 2013. EVALUATION PURPOSE & QUESTIONS THE EVALUATION OF THE SPPELP PROGRAM In May 2013, the USAID/Nepal Democracy and Governance Office (DGO) commissioned the Organization Development Centre (ODC), an independent consultancy firm based in Nepal, to conduct an independent Mid-Term Evaluation of the SPPELP program. This Mid-Term evaluation 1 This mid-term evaluation was written over the period of the CA election in November 19, 2013. Although the result of the election was known at the time of revision of this evaluation it is still to be seen what impact the election will have on Nepal’s journey towards a more mature democratic state. For a short description of the outcome of the election please see Annex VII SPPELP MID-TERM EVALUATION 3 covers the first half (August 2010 to April 2013) of the five-year Cooperative Agreement (August 2010 – August 2015). PURPOSE AND FOCUS OF THE EVALUATION According to the Statement of Work (SOW), the purpose of the mid-term evaluation is to assist the Mission in making modifications, if necessary, to help guide SPPELP through program completion. The Mid-Term evaluation was conducted over the course of June – November 2013 with regular guidance from USAID/Nepal DGO and focused on the following: 1. Examine the process of application, implementation, and effectiveness of completed and ongoing interventions; 2. Investigate intended and unintended consequences of the program; 3. Determine what are the activities taking place, and based on those lessons, recommend what adjustments can be made to the program to maximize improve impact project effectiveness and sustainability; and 4. Analyze the lessons learned with regards to political development and political and electoral processes in Nepal over the period when the CPA was signed and the dissolution of the CA. SUMMARY OF EVALUATION QUESTIONS The key evaluation questions framing the evaluation, as defined by SOW, are as follows: Common Questions: Political Parties, Electoral and Legislative Processes 1. Given two-and-half years of the program, do the objectives of the project remain relevant to Nepal’s political development? Are there new challenges which are not addressed by the program? What adjustments to the program are recommended? 2. To what extent is the project on track to reach its intermediate results? Overall goals? 3. How effective is the program in engaging women, youth, Dalits, and other marginalized groups to contribute to development of national politics? 4. How effective is the relationship between the CEPPS partners and key stakeholders? Questions for Political Parties and Legislative Processes 1. In light of the negative role of political parties as cast in the DGA, are NDI’s programmatic efforts relevant and effective? Is NDI working with the right parties? How effective was the CA/Legislature Parliament component of the program? 2. How effective was the Constitute Assembly (CA)/Legislature Parliament component of the program? Are they any success cases in CA that we can learn in future in CA and legislative Parliament? What can be done in the absence of CA and legislative parliament? What approach should follow in the future? 3. Did NDI’s technical assistance to the CA result in increased technical capacity of the staff members of the parliament and committees and what modifications would be useful in future engagement of Nepal’s legislative branch? 4. How effective was the mechanism for public participation in politics such as public hearings, community dialogues, round table discussions and town hall consultations? How have MPs utilized community dialogues to gather and aggregate constituent input on local issues of concern? How effective do district-level NGOs feel their advocacy efforts have been? Do they feel their voices/concerns have been heard by MPs? How effective are the community dialogues perceived to be in highlighting and/or resolving local issues of citizen’s concern? By 4 SPPELP MID-TERM EVALUATION MPs? By district-level monitoring committees? 5. How effective was the NGPG, IPWA and FLA? To what extend are participants utilizing FLA materials within their parties? How prepared do participants feel to engage in the party; to take on leadership roles? 6. To what extent do participating parties demonstrate steps taken toward implementing competitive electoral campaigns? Specifically, steps towards: a. Building or reach consensus on rules of electoral competition b. Effective participation in issue-based candidate debates c. Implementing strategic campaigns Questions for Electoral Process 1. How effective is the design and production of training and education materials by the Election Commission, Nepal (ECN) and IFES' sub awardees led to increased knowledge of ECN staff and potential voters? 2. In what ways has IFES technical assistance to the ECN resulted in increased technical capacities of ECN staff and/or improved quality of their electoral planning and management? 3. Is IFES support for CSO sub awardees resulting in improvement in the CSOs' planning, management, control and reporting capacities? Are these improvements sustainable PROJECT BACKGROUND SPPELP is implemented with CEPPS as the prime recipient of the award (Cooperative Agreement No. AID-367-LA-10-00001), through two prime partners: NDI and IFES. Through the CEPPS mechanism, NDI and IFES sub-grant portions of the project to The Asia Foundation (TAF) and Internews Network. USAID/Nepal is supporting the SPPELP program with a total budget of USD 26,504,000 (For a more detailed breakdown of the budget please see description in annex VI). As can be seen from the figure 1 below, SPPELP program consists of three primary objectives supported by nine sub-objectives. The following paragraphs will describe SPPELP’s main activities following the structure outlined in the primary and sub-objectives of the program. SPPELP MID-TERM EVALUATION 5 Figure 1: The primary and secondary objectives of SPPELP OBJECTIVE 1: PROMOTE AND STRENGTHEN BROADER POLITICAL PROCESSES a. Improved Democratic Political Party Organizational Structure and Operations This component supports political party reform efforts, assists political party decentralization to more effectively identify and represent their constituents, provides technical assistance and mentoring to assist parties in modernizing their internal governing processes, and promotes decentralization, transparency, and broader participation. The key activities under the political party assistance component are:  Party consultations and assessments to assess strengths and weaknesses of participating political parties, to help parties better understand their own organizations and help CEPPS determine the most appropriate areas for improvement.  Political Party Development offering political parties the options and solutions to better address political challenges and strengthen their party organizations. The political parties have been introduced to a variety of techniques and practices from which they can choose and adapt for their own environments and circumstances. Based on the party assessment, this includes workshops assisting the parties establish a baseline and define and implement necessary reform and strengthening of their internal communication and internal training capability.  National- and District-level Training of Trainers (ToT) is one of the areas where the internal training capacity of the parties has been strengthened by promoting active learning and sparking dialogue.  Inter-Party Alliance has been created to serve as contact point between the parties. Its role is to enhance communication, coordinate activities and oversee administrative details. 6 SPPELP MID-TERM EVALUATION  Future Leadership Academy trains multi-party cohorts of skilled young leaders in the basics of policy and political party development.  Intra Party Women’s Alliance: IPWA expanded its district chapters in 15 districts and provided trainings to women activists. Based on clearly defined selection criteria developed by NDI2, 10 political parties have been selected to participate in the political parties strengthening component of SPPELP. b. Enhanced Electoral Competitiveness of Political Parties To help parties prepare for elections, NDI offered a series of campaign seminars open to candidates and to all political parties represented in the CA. The focus of these seminars has been to strengthen political parties’ abilities to contest elections and effectively advocate for the views of a broader cross- section of Nepali voters. OBEJCTIVE 2: STRENGTHEN INSTITUTIONS INVOLVED IN ELECTORAL PROCESSES, EITHER AS ACTORS OR PARTICIPANTS a. Strengthened Democratic Legal Framework A key component in the preparation of Nepal’s new Constitution is the development of a new electoral framework that addresses the identified limitations of the current electoral framework and related legislation. Without new Constitution it has been difficult for CEPPS partner IFES to provide technical advice on the formulation of a new election law. However, through their frequent informal meetings with key political decision makers, CSO leaders and ECN commissioners, IFES has focused on enhancing their understanding of effective methods for the development of electoral legislation, international best practices, systems of representation for minority groups, and the required changes to current Nepali legislation. b. Strengthened ECN’s Electoral Management Capacity In order to meet the challenges of planning and delivering elections, as well as working on an ongoing basis to implement the ECN five-year strategic plan, IFES has supported ECN’s professional and technical development through targeted technical advice, trainings and workshop in the areas of election planning and management, strategic planning, voter registration and identification systems. IFES also supported ECN in the development of an Electoral Information and Education Centre (EEIC) as well as EEIC’s electoral education plan for 2013 and EEIC business plan. In partnership with UNDP/ESP and IDEA, SPPELP has also provided support to the Elections BRIDGE (Building Resources in Democracy, Governance and Elections) program. The BRIDGE Program is a modular professional development program designed to building the capacity of electoral administrators and other relevant stakeholders to hold elections. Through the BRIDGE, 22 program modules were implemented in the wide areas of electoral architecture, electoral operations, and working with electoral stakeholders. c. Expanded and Improved Delivery of Voter Education CEPPS partner IFES provided capacity building support to ECN on the design, implementation and evaluation of voter election campaigns. IFES also worked closely with ECN to develop and publish relevant voter education and publicity materials and helped ECN redevelop their website. Through 5 CSO sub-grantees (Dalit National Federation (DNF), Janaki Women’s Awareness society 2 NDI in its selection of political parties is using selection criteria that have been tested by NDI internationally The focus of the selection criteria is on commitment to democratic principles and non-violence, political viability and base of popular support evidenced by legitimate election results, level of grassroots organization, and the ability to absorb assistance SPPELP MID-TERM EVALUATION 7 (JWAS), Nepal National Dalit Social Welfare Organization (NNDSWO), Nepal National Social Welfare Association (NNSWA), and the Youth Initiative (YI)) IFES conducted a voter education campaign. Utilizing tools such as household visits, street dramas, self-help groups, visits to schools and other social groups, and visits to colleges, the 5 sub-grantees managed to reach more than 1.5 million people in 2012. IFES also provided a sub-award to National Federation of the Disabled Nepal (NFDN) to expand delivery of voter education to persons with disabilities. d. Enhanced Capacity of Civil Society to Observe Elections Central to any democracy is the ability of civil society, the media and through that ultimately the population, to have oversight of the election process and ensure that it is fair and open. SPPELP is providing assistance and helping coordinating local observer groups as they organize and train a network of monitors to observe future elections and conduct voter education campaigns. Domestic monitoring networks build public confidence in the electoral process and give citizens a chance for “hands-on” participation in the democratic development and future of Nepal. e. Strengthened Capacity of Media to Report on the Electoral Process To promote the capacity of civil society to monitor the activity of electoral process, SPPELP through Internews, builds the capacity of the media, as well as providing technical support, to enable them to report on politics and fulfill their role as watchdogs of democracy. Through its partners, Antenna Foundation Nepal (AFN), Freedom Forum (FF) and Federation of Nepalese Journalists (FNJ), Internews addresses training and mentoring needs in Kathmandu and the districts, encourages journalists to produce investigative reporting that meets citizen needs, and tracks trends and blockages in media reporting on political and electoral issues. This has been done though a number of workshops on investigative journalism as well as provision of a news clipping service that journalists and others can subscribe to. OBJECTIVE 3: IMPROVE THE DEMOCRATIC FUNCTIONING OF THE CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY (CA)/LEGISLATURE PARLIAMENT a. Strengthened Legislative Drafting Capacity of the Legislature To strengthen the CA and the successor parliament, SPPELP has worked on strengthening the capacity of the parliamentary committees in areas such as Capacity development on legislative drafting, legislative-executive communications, and public outreach. NDI arranged a number of workshops and working session on effective committee workings and management, exploring experiences with committee work from around the world, but unfortunately had to stop this activity when the CA was dissolved in May 2012. SPPELP offered a series of tailor made consultations and specialized workshops focused on issues of interest to the CA members. This activity was also stopped when the CA was dissolved late May 2012. Through one of its sub grantees TAF, SPPELP has continued to support the parliament secretariat after the dissolution of the CA. Through TAF support has been given to the upgrade the Parliament library and the media center, including capacity building of the staff, renovation, provision of 8000 books, and upgrading computer software. The NGPG provided a forum for young and first-term parliamentarians to interact, learn build their governing skills, and enhance their political effectiveness. NGPG is self-governed by a 21-member coordinating committee whose members come from different political and ethnic backgrounds. Although no longer CA members after May 28 2012, the NGPG has continued some of its activities such as a workshop on the future of Nepal (Nepal: looking back, moving forward) in October 2012. b. Increased Communication between Representatives and Their Constituents Through a number of community dialogue programs SPPELP is promoting policy-focused discussions 8 SPPELP MID-TERM EVALUATION between key parliamentarians, party leaders, NGOs and the local communities. SPPELP rolled out the grassroots programs in 10 districts starting in May of 2011 where locally-based NGOs provide logistics for the dialogues. Topics vary from district to districts focusing on issues which are important to the individual district such as developing tourism or discouraging deforestation. TAF has conducted a very successful series of nation-wide town hall consultations with youth and women. Initially conducted quarterly3, the town hall consultation has focus on subjects of wide interest in Nepal (In September 2012 the subject for eighth round of Town hall consultation was “the investment climate in Nepal” and November 2012, for the ninth round it was “local elections”). The participation has, until now, been between 2200 and 2500 participants in each of round of town hall consultations. EVALUATION METHODOLOGY The approach chosen by the evaluation team to evaluate the program provided a common and consistent framework for assessing the performances of the CEPPS implementing partners. The evaluation team was careful to ensure that the specific roles of each of the organizations covered in the evaluation were considered. The process was participatory and all other key stakeholders were engaged during the period of data collection and analyses. Such engagement was to ensure that stakeholders contribute fully to the efficacy of the outcomes and recommendations. The methodology applied to analyze data collected ensured that the evaluation questions are clearly answered (See Annex II for evaluation questions). PREPARATORY MEETINGS The evaluation team held a number of preparatory meetings with the representatives of USAID/Nepal DGO, the Director of IFES, and the Director and selected staff of NDI for initial discussions on the methodology, process, the selection of key informants for interviews, and the time frame of the evaluation (See time line in Annex). All three entities provided various documents for the review by the evaluation team (See bibliography in Annex IV). REVIEW OF LITERATURE Literature provided by USAID/Nepal, NDI, and IFES as well as other stakeholders was reviewed to provide a platform for clarifying key issues relating to answering the evaluation questions. Information was also culled from websites of participating organizations. The evaluation team sourced information from the public realm and on the various websites. The literature base from which information was drawn came mainly from USAID/Nepal, IFES and NDI. The information contained in these reports provided crucial evidence during the analytical phase of the evaluation. The evaluation team continued to review literature throughout the period of evaluation referring to appropriate documents, not just during literature review but also during data analysis and report formulation (for a list of literature reviewed please refer to annex IV). DEVELOPMENT OF QUESTIONNAIRE GUIDELINES Different questionnaire guidelines were developed in order to ensure that appropriate questions were asked to the right persons. Questionnaire guidelines were developed for the staff members of NDI, IFES, TAF, Internews Network and their stakeholders including representatives of political parties, commissioners of ECN, and CSOs. Questionnaire guidelines were also developed for collaborators of IFES including UNDP ESP and the Carter Center. These questionnaires were tested on NDI and IFES staff. (Samples of different sets of questionnaires are attached in Annex III). Consequent interviews with NDI and IFES to obtain answers not covered in initial interviews were conducted in a less methodical manner. 3 In third quarter of 2012 the frequency was changed to bi-monthly SPPELP MID-TERM EVALUATION 9 INTERVIEWS AND GROUP DISCUSSIONS Based on a list of interviewees assembled jointly by the evaluation team, USAID/Nepal DGO, NDI and IFES, the evaluation team held interviews and groups discussions with staff of NDI and IFES and representatives from key stakeholder organizations including political parties, CSOs, Parliament Secretariat, and staff of ECN (Between June – July, 2013). The questionnaire guidelines were used as the basis of a series of focused interviews with these key stakeholders from the various political parties, the ECN, staff of NDI sub-grantees and IFES collaborators. The emphasis was placed on determining the effect of NDI and IFES capacity and other support to their stakeholders. The evaluation team sought to find out the benefits that stakeholders derived from the support provided by the NDI, IFES and their sub-grantees, beneficiaries and collaborators. The interviews and discussions also covered suggestions for improvement of support in future. The lists of persons interviewed from different organizations and parties are attached in Annex IV. FIELD VISIT The evaluation team visited Kailali District to interview the District Election Officer, political party representatives, community, and CSO leaders and members. The two-day visit covered stakeholders from Kailali and Kanchanpur Districts. It provided primary beneficiaries’ perspectives to the SPPELP Program, its benefits and challenges. TARGET AUDIENCE FOR THE REPORT The primary audience for this midterm evaluation report will be USAID/Nepal as the sole funding agency of the SPPELP program and the DGO. Additional interested parties will be the CEPPS partners NDI and IFES and their stakeholders. The findings will inform USAID and CEPPS partners to what degree the principal objectives have been achieved and the recommendation put forward by the evaluation team will help guide the project to the end of the Cooperative Agreement. LIMITATIONS OF THE RESEARCH Although the midterm evaluation was limited to the period from April 2010 to April 2013, due to the significance of the November 2013 CA elections, USAID/Nepal requested the evaluation team to include key activities such as voter education, voter registration, and other key activities by the sub￾grantees CEPPS Partners that led to the success of the November 19, 2013 elections to the report. Due to large number of evaluation questions guiding this mid-term evaluation, the evaluation team elected to let the evaluation questions themselves guide the structure of the evaluation formulation. This was done to ensure that all evaluation questions were fully addressed. Although this approach has the clear advantage that all aspects deemed important in the SOW are addressed, it has the disadvantage that all questions are given equal weight. The evaluation team visited and interviewed stakeholders and sub-grantees in two districts (Kailali and Kanchanpur). The evaluation team also held group discussions with a mixed group of community members in the two districts. In selecting the field visit site the evaluation team sought advice of the two CEPPS partners. However, the evaluation team is confident that the districts visited were representative for the field activities implemented under SPPELP. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS In this chapter the evaluation team presents its findings. Due to high number of evaluation questions (11main questions each consisting of at least a couple of separate sub-questions), the evaluation team has chosen to present its findings based on the answers to the evaluation questions. Then 10 SPPELP MID-TERM EVALUATION evaluation team will present its conclusions and recommendations. This chapter will therefore also follow the structure outlined in the evaluation questions. The evaluation team starts with answering the four common evaluation questions, followed by the six questions for the political parties and legislative processes. The evaluation team then answers the three questions on the electoral processes. However, before answering the evaluation questions the evaluation team sums up its major findings as follows:  Although the objectives of the project remained very relevant, the achievement of these objectives has been critically affected by the delays in the implementation caused by the changing political situation in Nepal. The set-backs, first through the dissolution of CA and later by the delayed election compelled the CEPPS partners to revise their scheduled programs. However, the evaluation team found that although SPPELP faced implementation delays due to the changing political reality in Nepal, all three primary objectives remained relevant.  The activities that were critically affected by the two events mentioned above were related to the following performance milestones: “Advancement in drafting of the electoral legislation and regulation”, “Strengthening the legislative drafting and oversight capacity of parliament – Effective committee work”, and” Strengthening the legislative drafting and oversight capacity of parliament – internship program”. However, the partly unsuccessful implementation of the delayed activities would not jeopardize the overall goal of SPPELP.  SPPELP managed to engage women, youth, Dalits and other marginalized groups in activities. However, it was found that women’s participation was better monitored than the participation of youth and marginalized population groups and that more efforts could be put into engaging the marginalized groups outside activities specifically targeted towards these groups.  Although the two CEPPS partners were found to have a good working relationship, the evaluation team found that very clear division of labor between the two organizations and the lack of joint or mutually supportive programming could mean that the program missed out on possible synergies. It is suggested that a possible more formalized coordination between the two CEPPS partners beyond the bi-monthly reporting to USAID/Nepal could explore these synergies.  It was found that NDI efforts to build the capacity of the political parties was still relevant, even in the light of the negative role of political parties cast in the USAID Nepal Democracy and Governance Assessment (DGA). It was also found that NDI had selected the right parties that participated in activities under SPPELP.  The evaluation team found that SPPELP’ successfully attracted community dialogue and participation. The partners, especially NDI and its sub-grantee TAF have successfully implemented community dialogue intervention that attracted wide participation, also of the marginalized, the young and women.  The evaluation team also found the NGPG, IPA and FLA a helpful addition that could help inter and intra party cooperation and that would nurture new politicians. However, the evaluation team also found that the three entities could play a greater role in the newly elected CA to settle inter and intra party disputes and facilitate closer inter party relations.  The support of IFES to ECN had significantly increased the technical capacity of the commissioners and staff. The support provided by IFES had strengthened ECN’s electoral management capacity and also significantly improved CSOs capacity to deliver voter education. However, it was also found that the regular changes of central staff in ECN due to the civil service regulation of staff rotation may have affected the process of consensus SPPELP MID-TERM EVALUATION 11 building and enhancing the collaboration among ECN, the CEPPS partners and their sub￾awardees. COMMON QUESTIONS: POLITICAL PARTIES, ELECTORAL AND LEGISLATIVE PROCESSES 1. Given two-and-half years of the program, do the objectives of the project remain relevant to Nepal’s political development? What adjustments to the program are recommended? Although the objectives of the project remain very relevant, the achievement of these objectives has been negatively affected by the delays in the implementation caused by the changing political situation in Nepal. The CA’s inability to finalize the formulation of Nepal’s democratic constitution by 2012 and the resulting dissolution of the CA on May 27, 2012, was a blow to Nepal’s transition to a stable mature multi-party democracy. These events hit at the core of SPPELP’s aim to strengthen political parties, electoral and legislative processes in Nepal and frustrated the implementation of the SPPELP program components, compelling the CEPPS partners to revise their scheduled programs. Especially program activities under principal objective 3: Institutional strengthening of the Constituent Assembly/ Legislative Parliament and to improve its capacity to address constituent needs has had to be revised or rescheduled due to their dependence on a functioning CA. Primary objective 1 has also been affected, where activities regarding electoral competiveness of the parties could not be implemented due to the delays in the execution of elections. Primary Objective 1 - Promote and strengthen democratic political processes through political party development assistance. Under objective I, CEPPS partner NDI has provided support to (i) strengthening of the party structures and organizations, and (ii) enhancement of the political competiveness of the parties. NDI’s ToT program has been effective in strengthening the party organizations at district level. The NDI trained master trainers have, in the period evaluated, trained more than 1,300 party activists in their local communities, and the evaluation team found that there was, amongst the party officials interviewed, an appreciation of the impact of this activity on the parties’ own training capacities and on the strengths of the district party organizations. IPA activities were seen as helping the political parties enhance capacities within the parties to discuss issues of concern and find effective solution and provide motivation for impartiality in decision making. FLA activities were commended on their ability to instill leadership in young party officials and creating a forum where the younger party officials could network. Finally, a move towards a larger community dialogue component was well received as a substitute for planned party electoral competiveness activities (in light of the late election) as it enhanced party interaction with the voters and focused on local issues. Taking all this into account, it is clear that the stakeholders (here defined as the participating political parties and the communities participating in the community dialogues) find that the activities under objective I remain relevant. However, in itself, this does not prove the relevancy of objective I to the Nepal’s political development. To prove the relevance of objective I to the Nepal’s political development (as it is formulated in the evaluation question) or the future of the Nepali democracy, one will have to look at the view of the Nepali population and the way they see the role of the parties in the Nepali democracy. A recent survey conducted jointly by State of Democracy in South Asia (SDSA)/Nepal chapter and International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA)4 found that an overwhelming majority of 94% of respondents approved of a system of government led by the people’s elected representatives, although the majority of respondents (56%) were not satisfied with the way democracy worked (compared to 44% who were "satisfied"). However, the same survey 4 State of Democracy in South Asia/Nepal chapter and International IDEA, “Citizen Survey 2013: Nepal in Transition - Nepal Democracy Survey Round III”, July 2013, p. 7 12 SPPELP MID-TERM EVALUATION also found a drop in trust in the political parties. In 2013, only 36% of the respondent said they trusted political parties; a drop of 21 percentage points since earlier survey in 2007. Much of the explanation for this drop can be found in the crises in the changing political situation in Nepal. On the failure of the CA to finalize a new constitution, 69% of respondents blamed the political party leaders for indulging in power games and for in-party differences on contentious constitutional issues. From the SDSA/IDEA survey it is clear that the Nepali population’s trust in political parties has been weakened in recent years, something that is also supported by the DGA, but that most Nepalese still see political parties as central to the future of democracy in Nepal. It is also clear that the participating parties have seen the activities provided by NDI under objective I as having strengthened their organizations. In light of this the evaluation team concludes that objective I remain relevant. Primary Objective 2 - Strengthen the capacity of citizen oversight of the electoral process Under objective II NDI is providing support to (i) enhancing civil society capacity to observe elections and (ii) strengthening of media capacity to report on the electoral process and IFES is working on (i) strengthening the electoral legal framework, (ii) enhancing the electoral management capacity of ECN, and (iii) expanding and improving the delivery of voter education. IFES has played an important role in building the capacity of the ECN, both through capacity development as well as through technical and material support to the ECN. IFES has also been instrumental through its 5 CSO sub grantees to bring voter education and registration to more than 1.5 million voters, many of them from marginalized communities, the young and women. Although having been confronted with difficulties in bringing the electoral legislation forward in a time where there was no CA and having had to deal with often changing leadership in ECN, there is recognition within ECN that IFES has provided invaluable support in building capacity within the commission and in the preparation for the November 2013 election. NDI has worked on training and coordination of local observer groups and have, through their sub-grantee Internews, provided training and mentoring of journalists and encouraged them to produce investigative reporting. For an election to be conceived as fair by the general population it is important that it is conducted in a manner that is considered none partisan. ECN plays an important role in taking partisan politics out of the election management. However, it is equally important that the election is observed by impartial observers to ensure that no election violations takes place and if they take place that they are brought to the attention of the public. In evaluating the first CA election in 2008 (unfortunately, no similar surveys have been found for the 2013 election), 85% of respondents in the IDEA/SDSA survey claimed that the election was ‘completely free and fair or completely free and fair with minor problems’. However, one of the reasons that the 2008 CA election was conceived free and fair was due to the large contingence of international observers. In the survey, an overwhelming majority of 81% of respondents believed that international observation of the elections positively contributed to making the election free and fair5. So it is clear that observation, although in this case international, of elections is being seen as helping a free and fair election execution. Objective 2 is assisting Nepal to move towards being better able to conduct and monitor elections and also fulfill a need for more inclusivity, outside the political parties, in the political life of Nepal. Objective 2 therefore also continues to be very relevant considering the development in Nepal. Primary Objective 3 - Institutional strengthening of the Constituent Assembly/ Parliament and improve its capacity to address constituent needs As a governing body, the CA is in its infancy, having only existed since 2008. Many of the members elected in 2008 had limited or no experience and many of the bodies within the CA are understaffed and underfunded. Having only existed for the last 5 years, the CA is still to fully develop rules and regulations for the functioning of all bodies and with new members having been elected to the CA in 5 State of Democracy in South Asia/Nepal chapter and International IDEA, “Citizen Survey 2013: Nepal in Transition - Nepal Democracy Survey Round III”, July 2013, p. 66 SPPELP MID-TERM EVALUATION 13 November 2013, it is clear that the CA will need continued support. Of the CA members elected in the November 2013 almost 80% are, according to media reports6, first time elected members. Taking the development within the CA, it is clear that further capacity development of the body is necessary and the evaluation team therefore also finds that objective 3 remain relevant. So although SPPELP has faced problems due to the changing political reality in Nepal, all three primary objectives remained relevant. It was however found that the lack of a new constitution and dissolution of the CA was likely to prolong achievement of the objectives. Taking that into account the evaluation team found that efforts should be made to ensure that the activities of SPPELP are aligned with the recommendations of the USAID DGA for remainder of the program period. In line with the recommendations of the DGA, an area that will become increasingly important in the remaining half of SPPELP will be the state restructuring in either a federal or a more traditional local governance direction. These discussions will most likely be the dominating policy discussions during the initial phases of the second CA and also be a possible stumbling block for progress of the CA. It will be important for CEPPS partners to define what, if any, role they can play in these discussions and how they can best support the GoN and their stakeholders in ensuring that these discussions can be conducted in a constructive manner. 2. To what extent is the project on track to reach its intermediate results? Overall goals? The stalled formulation of the constitution and the resulting dissolution of the CA followed by the November 2013 election have had an impact on the CEPPS partners’ ability to implement some of their planned activities. However, these delays have been limited to some activities mainly related to primary objective 3 and the election on the other hand have enabled CEPPS to implement some of their election related activities under primary objective 2. The evaluation team has not found that these delays of single activities will impact the CEPPS partners’ ability to achieve the overall goal of SPPELP. Areas that should be closely monitored due to delays in the implementation are: Advancement in drafting of the electoral legislation and regulation – SPPELP, through CEPPS partner IFES, has supported dialogue and provided technical assistance to the electoral legislation drafting process. IFES has been building the capacity of key stakeholders through international exposure and this component has complimented efforts by IFES’s Norwegian funded election reform program. However, although key components such as party laws have been drafted, little progress has been seen towards formulation of Electoral Legislation and its tie into the constitution. Considering the lack of progress in this program component, it is suggested that CEPPS partners explore a new strategy that involves partnering with more international donors whereby having more clout to move the issue forward. This new strategy has been further necessitated by the worrisome fact that the Norwegian Embassy has chosen not to fund the IFES electoral reform program past June 2013. Strengthening the legislative drafting and oversight capacity of parliament: Effective committee work – SPPELP, through NDI, should have provided parliamentary committees with comprehensive technical assistance in areas such as legislative drafting, legislative-executive communications and public outreach. It was the plan that this activity should be done through consultations and workshops on subjects such as effective leadership, rules of procedure and report writing. NDI would work with select committees such as: the Public Accounts Committee; the State Affairs Committee; the Committee on Women, Children and Social Welfare; the Committee on Finance and Labor Relations; and the Legislative Committee. This activity has been delayed due to the dissolution of the CA. 6 China Daily "Nepal's new lawmakers pledge early charter", 21 January 2014 14 SPPELP MID-TERM EVALUATION The evaluation team sees no reason why this activity could not be successfully implemented when the new CA convenes for business in 2014. However, some of the structural issues pointed out in the quarterly reporting, stating that the focus on the formulation of the constitution meant that there is a need to provide adequate support staff to assist the different committees as these committees were left understaffed and therefore unable to function in a constructive manner. Strengthening the legislative drafting and oversight capacity of parliament: Internship program – To compensate for the insufficient staffing levels in the CA to handle the workload of the CA and the successor parliament, an internship program was planned to assist parliamentary groups, leadership structures and other entities in the national parliament. This effort would also promote greater youth engagement in political life and help develop a new generation of political activists. However, this program never materialized. It is unclear if the lack of progress is due to reluctance from the CA members. It is suggested that discussions are held with the parliament secretariat to see if this activity can be implemented early in the second half of SPPELP. If no progress is seen the program should be abandoned. Other activities of the CA – Other activities such as the Next Generation Parliamentarian Group that has been implemented under the CA has also been implemented at a pace lower than what would be expected had the CA continued. However, as these activities were well-established before the dissolution of the CA, it is the opinion of the evaluation team that they can be re￾established under the new CA. The evaluation team therefore suggests that these activities need special monitoring beyond ensuring that they have been restarted after the election. It is clear that special attention should be paid to the areas of delayed implementation. Unless these activities are initiated early in the second half of SPPELP, CEPPS partners should take action to initiate alternative activities that would either achieve the same outcome or recalibrate the program with alternative activities. This should be done in close cooperation with partners and with USAID/Nepal. The evaluation team does not find that partly unsuccessful implementation of the highlighted delayed activities would jeopardize the overall goal of SPPELP. The ability of the CEPPS partners to reach their overall goal will primarily depend on a well-functioning CA. With a newly elected CA in place, the pivotal factor will therefore also be the discussions regarding the suggested federal restructuring of Nepal. If an agreement is not reached on the federal state restructuring it could have a longer-term debilitating effect on the functioning of the CA. If this happens, the achievement of the goal of SPPELP can be endangered and it will be important that the CEPPS partners in that case jointly develop a reorientation of the program, moving the focus from primary objective 3 that is highly depended on a well-functioning CA to primary objective 1 that is much more robust in time of political uncertainty. 3. How effective is the program in engaging women, youth, Dalits and other marginalized groups to contribute to development of national politics? Are there any unintended results from the engagement by CEPPS partners of historically marginalized communities? In the USAID DGA report, it is stated that the principle driver in Nepali politics over the past 15 years has been the social and political assertion of long-marginalized communities. The assessment points out that these newly emerged formerly excluded social actors are claiming their rightful place in the public sphere without willingness to moderate their demands for the sake of “maintaining social harmony” and that the new trends have especially crystallized around demands for single ethnicity-based federalism7. Every government formed since 2006 has allocated key ministerial posts to Madhesi political leaders- -a clear indication of the power of the Madhesis as a clearly defined ethnic group. Other marginalized 7 USAID-Nepal “Democracy, Human Rights, and Government Assessment of Nepal”, Kathmandu, 2013, p. 4 SPPELP MID-TERM EVALUATION 15 groups such as Dalits and Kamaiyas are also organized to fight for inclusion but because of a long history of marginalization, oppression and forced labor and the lack of formal education, these groups continue to fall behind. In the first CA, Dalits had an unprecedented number of seats. However, their eight per cent share8 was still considerably lower than their population ratio of 13 per cent9. During the 2008 Constituent Assembly election10, women in the political parties and civil society successfully advocated for a minimum representation of 33 percent of seats in the Assembly. Out of female CA members 30 were directly elected and 161 were elected through proportional representation. The 2008-2012 CA thereby joined an exclusive group of countries that have fulfilled the 1995 Beijing Platform for Action demands for at least 30% representation of women in national parliaments11. SPPELP is working with women through it support to the IPWA and local women’s groups such as JWAS. “As is the cases for many rural Muslim women of Nepal, I had little knowledge about my political rights. This changed when a social mobilizer visited our village. My family and I are now all registered to vote and I am encouraging everyone to register as well,” said Maithool Khatun, who participated in voter￾education activities conducted by JWAS. Through this program, over 5,000 community members have been trained as voter educators, becoming long-term resources to support public awareness campaigns for future elections. In addition to promoting greater political participation by marginalized populations, it aims to restore citizen confidence in democratic processes and institutions. SPPELP also has similar activities for Dalits - through the DNF and the NNDSWO, and for youth through the YI. Through one of the sub-grantees TAF, a large number of “Town Hall Consultations with Youth and Women” has been conducted reaching between 2100 and 2500 participants in 45 urban locations per quarter. At the end of 2012, nine rounds of Town Hall meetings had been held, each of them covering one specific subject of interest, such as “the investment climate in Nepal”, “Establishment, Operation and Management of the Social Security Fund Bill 2012” or “the Civil code Draft Bill 2068 BS”. For each of the Town Hall Consultation, all participants were registered giving the evaluation team a unique insight into their composition. As it can be seen from the figure 2 below12, the Town Hall Consultation lives up to the name (consultation with Youth and Women) when it comes to young people, where the consultations have been attended by consistently large although falling numbers. When it comes to women, the picture is unfortunately not as clear – where more than 40% of the participants in the initial Town Hall Meetings of 2011 were women, and even more than 50% in the Town Halls of the 1st Quarter of 2012, the more recent Town Hall Meetings have been predominantly attended by men. Since the 1st Quarter of 2012, the participants in Town Hall meetings have become older, less Janajati, less Dalit and predominately male. Although the Town Hall meeting gives the evaluation team a unique insight into the gender composition and the caste background, as well as the age profile of the participants, it does not provide the evaluation team with information of the combinations across the profiles. It is therefore not possible for the evaluation team to analyze how many of the participants were double marginalized, like low caste woman nor can the evaluation team tell the age profiles of the participating women. The detailed data collection conducted for the Town Hall meetings can be seen as an example that should be followed in all training activities conducted by 8 At the time of the formulation of this mid-term evaluation it is not clear how high representation Dalits or other marginalized groups will get in the new CA following the November 2013 election 9 IDSN (by Frits Sollewijn Gelpke), “IDSN Briefing Paper: Nepal: Dalit political participation and the 2013 election”, Kathmandu, 2013 10 The 2008 election is here taken as it the gender distribution of the 2013 CA is still not public at the time of the formulation of this mid￾term evaluation. However, initial evidence points towards lower female representation in the 2013 but this will only be clear when all member have been nominated 11 Inter-parliamentarian Union (IPU), ”Women in Parliament in 2008 – a year in review”, Geneva, 2009 - in 2008 only 15% of the parliaments globally had fulfilled this goal 12 The representation in the figure does not include all the data collected. Only the categories of age and gender will add up to 100%. Please also be aware that the fall in age above 40 in the 3 quarter of 2012 can be due to a bad tabulation. 16 SPPELP MID-TERM EVALUATION SPPELP. The shift away from the intended target audience seen since the beginning of 2012 should be addressed by TAF. TAF may suggest themes for future Town Halls meetings that appeal to the target groups. TAF can then publicize the themes for the meetings and encourage target groups to participate. They should ideally also try to enhance the data collection to highlight double marginalized groups. Figure 2: Participation in "Town hall consultation with youth and women" These are just some of the initiatives that SPPELP has implemented in support of Youth, Women and the marginalized groups. Other initiatives have included support to the IPWA activities promoting inclusion of women in election management and administration and support to voter education for the disabled through NFDN as well as support to young political party officials through the FLA. The evaluation team found that SPPELP has been able to reach the women, youth, Dalits and other marginalized groups through the specifically activities targeted towards these groups. The evaluation team found no adverse effects from SPPELP’s activities targeting the marginalized communities, nor have any other unintended effects of SPPELP been found in any of the programs dealings with these communities. When implementing activities that are not directly targeting women, youth or marginalized groups, the organizers ensure that they encourage the participation of these groups. The evaluation team believes that the CEPPS partners and their sub-awardees need to increase their efforts at attracting the groups mentioned above to participate in the programs that are targeted to them. These awareness and other educational programs are too important to be left to the other partners. For example, in the case of the parliamentarian internship program the CEPPS partners stated that they will “encourage a gender and caste based program” or when providing training for the parties they stated that the parties are “encouraged to submit female and participants from marginalized groups”. In the DGA report, the marginalized groups were singled out as being the “principle driver” in the changes that Nepal has gone through in the last 15 years. In SPPELP, there are some activities that directly target parts of this varied group (voter education and registration of Dalits, disabled people and other effort to target marginalized groups with specific voter education efforts comes to mind). The evaluation team found that these efforts could be strengthened by actively encouraging the targeted groups to participate actively in the political process as equal citizens. The evaluation team therefore recommends that CEPPS partners implement programs that are more consistent and more proactive to encourage the marginalized groups into the mainstream society. Efforts need to be made to encourage the marginalized groups to address their concerns. Their participation in the political process needs to be given priority in all aspects of SPPELP, not just in isolated targeted interventions. Inspiration can be drawn from the way that SPPELP is currently treating gender concerns, where the gender profile of every activity is being analyzed and where gender concerns are proactively being addressed. SPPELP MID-TERM EVALUATION 17 4. How effective is the relationship between the CEPPS partners and key stakeholders? Through the program documentation, the relationship within CEPPS has been clearly defined. Whereas IFES is in charge of four sub-objectives under primary objective 2, NDI is in charge of primary objective 1 and 3 as well as the remaining two sub-objectives of primary objective 2. There are, therefore, no de-lineation issues between the two partner organizations. However, the clearly defined division of labor, at times, makes the program seem overly rigid and compartmentalized. Each organization works with methodologies that, for the many of the activities, have been field tested in similar CEPPS implemented governance and election programs through the two partners (and the International Republican Institute (IRI)) around the world. Activities such as FLA and internship programs for the CA have been implemented in different version in other countries by NDI. It is important that the Nepali context is taken fully into account when this kind of reduplication of activities is done. With the clear division of labor between the CEPPS partners, they, to a high degree, work independent of each other and one can fear that possible project synergies are missed. Especially when it comes to community interactions such as community dialogues and Town Hall meetings as well as some of the capacity development activities, the two partners could benefit from a more joint approach that could involve sending participants to each other’s training activities or utilize experts and master trainers across the program. However, the compartmentalization of the implementation of SPPELP seems to discourage these kinds of approaches. The evaluation team finds that SPPELP could benefit from the partners exploring possible areas where they could utilize each other’s areas of expertise better. This was especially important in connection with the set-back that SPPELP saw in connection with the dissolution of the CA, and it was an opportunity lost that the two partner organizations each decided to formulate their own approach to the set-back instead of formulating a joint approach, focusing on synergy gains. The CEPPS partners and USAID/Nepal meet up bimonthly to discuss project progress. However, beyond this, project coordination within CEPPS seems to depend on informal contact between the Senior Management of the two organizations. The informal nature of the relationship between the two primary partners of CEPPS seems to be necessitated by lack of formal coordination structures build into SPPELP. Where CEPPS might have been envisioned as coordinating body between the two parties, and might be used so in other countries with similar programs, it is clear that this formal coordination has not been implemented in Nepal13. The two CEPPS partners have a sound and productive relationship with the sub-grantees of the project. TAF has been working successfully on the Town Hall meetings and with activities to establish a library at the CA and Internews and TAF have been working to enhance the Nepali media’s ability to function as watchdogs and to provide better political and election coverage. Much of the success of these components can be traced to the good working relationship between the CEPPS partners and the sub-grantees. However, it is also clear that the professionalism and capacity within these sub-grantees is high and that this has contributed to the success of the programs they run. When it comes to the 5 sub-grantee CSOs implementing voter registration and education activities, it has been more of an up-hill battle which is natural considering the much lower initial capacity of these organizations. However, due to the relationship with CEPPS, the 5 CSOs have developed capacities, not just on reporting etc. but also in data collection and analysis, something that they can utilize in their work beyond the cooperation with CEPPS. The primary stakeholders of the CEPPS partners are: for NDI the 10 political parties and Parliament Secretariat and for IFES the ECN. IFES has had a good relationship with the ECN, and has provided technical support and advice and has supported the capacity building of the institution. When it 13 The source for the lack formal coordination body can be traced back to the program document for SPPELP that at times seem to have been formulated by the two partners of CEPPS, independent of each other, and where little, if not nothing, has been done to make it a coherent program document, including formulation of joint coordination body. 18 SPPELP MID-TERM EVALUATION comes to formulating electoral legislation IFES has had to depend on its informal relationships with political leaders, commissioners, NGO leaders and other personalities for key information. IFES continues to depend on these informal interactions to convey its message of instilling democratic values. With the election having been conducted and the CA soon back to work, it is still to be seen if the electoral legislation agenda can be brought forward in a more formal manner. IFES has at times been under the constant pressure as the changes of leadership within ECN means dealing with a new leadership. Due to the civil service rules of Nepal the leadership within ECN are often rotated to other positions within the Nepali Civil service, as has been the other ECN employees central to the IFES program. Due to the political sensitivity of the ECN, the commissioners are also often rotated and the assignments of new commissioners have at times been legally challenged. The constant changes of ECN commissioners and other staff can lead to difficulty in management of the commissions and affects its relation with the SPPELP and the CEPPS partners. IFES continues to deal with the constant leadership changes within ECN by initiating regular formal and informal meetings to get to know each other. The government’s explanation to the constant transfers is that it is a part of “normal” civil service rotation. IFES, however, needs to ensure that it continues to maintain good working relationship with not just the commissioners and the senior management within ECN but also with the middle management that will be functioning as officers-in-charge when ECN is left in a management vacuum. IFES should also, considering the capacity that it has built within the institution, enter into dialogue with the GoN for some kind of guarantee that the commissioners and other staff whose capacity has been enhanced will be made available to the ECN to utilize their skills in the management of future elections. NDI also has had good relationship with the political parties and the parliament secretariat that it worked with during the first half of the SPPELP program. All the political parties’ members that the evaluation team talked to expressed their satisfaction regarding the much needed capacity support provided by NDI at a time when the CA was dissolved and all the parties were gearing up with the preparation for the next CA elections. All the political parties were generally satisfied with the selection of political parties by NDI to work with which means that similar criteria can be adopted while selecting the political parties this time around too. The evaluation team found that NDI could not work much with the very top-tier of the political parties, aside from getting consent, during the first half of the program; it worked mostly with the second-tier. Even though the different political party leaders engaged in the IPA, the first-time parliamentarians involved in the NGPG and the young political party members from FLA were very appreciative of NDI’s efforts towards instilling democratic practices inside the political parties; these beneficiaries did not fully believe that the top leader in their parties had a very strong sense of ownership towards NDI efforts targeted to them. With the new CA in place and drafting a new constitution as the parties’ priority issue over others, it seems highly unlikely that NDI will manage to work more closely with the top party leaders in the early part of the second half of the program. NDI should continue to engage the top leaders of the political parties in order to increase the sense of ownership of the NDI support to enhance the capacity of the parties. The parliament secretariat appreciated the efforts made by NDI and TAF towards improving the secretariat capacity to deliver effective and efficient services. However, the secretariat suggested that it would appreciate if NDI and its sub-grantees could run different activities aimed at improving the secretariat’s capacity with some form of prior approval from the secretariat. QUESTIONS FOR POLITICAL PARTIES AND LEGISLATIVE PROCESSES 1. In light of the negative role of political parties as cast in the DGA, are NDI’s programmatic efforts relevant and effective? Is NDI working with the right parties? Should the number of parties be increased? Or reduced? The challenge of Nepal’s political and electoral processes is not a recent phenomenon. In the 1990s when political parties were allowed to operate freely, the party leaders took the opportunity to strengthen their parties and to consolidate their power. The infighting in the major political parties led to splits and could have contributed to the 10 years of violent conflict. The challenge of post- SPPELP MID-TERM EVALUATION 19 2006 political parties is that politics is no longer the reserved domain of the political elite14. The emergence of the Terai political parties, the increasing call for inclusion and the entry of educated youth into National politics suggest that the population still have faith in the political process and political parties. The high voter turnout during the November 19, 2013 CA elections is also a clear indication that the people of Nepal believe in democratic multi-party political process. The new generation of politicians and their demands for accountability and openness in running of the parties resonates with the younger generation Nepalese. The calls for the new generation politicians to be given leadership roles in their parties is also an indication of slow but steady change in the way political parties respond to pressure for positive change. The parties realize the challenges of operating in a multi-party democracy where the leadership can be challenged and be pressured to be accountable to the population. The call for the reform of political parties from within is a sign of growing calls for changes15 in the way the country is run. The elections of November 19, 2013 however passed on relatively peacefully with no serious malpractices reported. Of the total registered voters of over 12 million, 9.5 million (over 78%) voted. Although the total number of registered voters for the 2008 CA election was 17.6 million, the turnout was lower at 60%. Analysis suggested that the population was frustrated16 with the politicians for their conduct during the tenure of the first CA. They were also concerned about violence as the 33 party Alliance decided to boycott the election and disrupt the process. The population, however, still believed17 in the democratic political process and turned out to vote. The Carter Center and other international observers stated that the election was well conducted. The US, UK, India, China and other countries congratulated Nepal for a well conducted election. Although there may have been minor misconducts during the November 19, 2013 CA-2 elections, the Chief Election Commissioner and observers (local and international) agree that the election was free and fair and well conducted. NDI has a worldwide experience working with political parties in several countries. In Nepal, NDI is working with 10 political parties18 to improve party structures, promote inter-party dialogue, and increase the political participation of women, youth and other minority groups. NDI has conducted national and regional ToT workshops on topics such as public speaking, conflict resolution, internal and external communications, and election campaigning. In turn, party trainers have returned to their districts to replicate trainings for almost 28,000 local political activists. NDI also conducted workshops on voter registration and elections to prepare more than 2,700 party activists to carry out door-to-door canvassing to register party supporters and to ensure that they voted in the November 19, 2013 CA elections. Nepali political parties have limited opportunities for cross-party cooperation and coordination since the dissolution of the CA in 2012. To encourage collaboration, NDI supports the IPA, a group of high-level party representatives who meet regularly to engage in dialogue, enhance communication, coordinate activities and participate in learning and sharing workshops and seminars. NDI and its sub grantee TAF also hosted a series of Town Hall forums and community dialogues, organized in collaboration with locally-based civil society groups that offered citizens a chance to discuss local and national issues with political party leaders and district representatives. 14This is also pointed out in the USAID DRG Assessment p. 7 15 George Varughese, Nepal County Representative, The Asia Foundation identified this need in his Article: New Idea of Politics Needed For a Stable Nepal, May 1, 2013. Please see: http://asiafoundation.org/in-asia/2013/05/01/new-idea-of-politics-needed-for-a-stable-nepal/ for more 16 Findings of the Citizen Survey 2013 conducted among 3850 participants jointly by State of Democracy in South Asia/Nepal Chapter and International IDEA suggested that only 36% of respondents trusted political parties and 69% of the respondents blamed the political party leaders for the failure of CA 17 Findings of the Citizen Survey 2013 show that 94% of the respondents had an approval of a system ruled by people’s elected representatives 18In selection of participating parties NDI is following selection criteria that have been implemented in other NDI activities around the world – The selection criteria focus on (1) Level of grassroots organization – the parties that have members in the CA and have established office in Kathmandu and in the Districts. (2) Base of popular support as indicated by the number of members the party has in the CA/Legislative assembly and (3) ability to absorb the activities and funding that NDI is providing 20 SPPELP MID-TERM EVALUATION NDI’s support to political parties enhanced the parties’ capacity to campaign positively and to manage their cadres so that their campaigning will be peaceful. The evaluation team was informed during the interaction with politicians and community members during field visit that the political parties carried out their campaign by communicating their messages clearly without intimidation of other political parties and without provoking violence. The evaluation team, however, found that the parties’ structure, decision making and management are controlled by the parties’ old leadership. From what the evaluation team observed, the support of international and local organizations did encourage the parties to select women, Dalits, Janajatis and other persons from marginalized group; it appeared that most of the big parties fielded women candidates in the November 19, 2013 CA elections. However, the percentage of elected women (FPTP and PR) was less than the required 30 percent quota. In 2008, there were 30 women and 7 Dalits elected through the FPTP system. In contrast, in 2013, there are 10 women and 2 Dalits elected through the FPTP system. However, the PR system would incorporate the excluded groups in, more or less, the same ratio as its mandatory. Similarly, the remaining 26 appointees would consist of 5 women, few Janajatis and some outstanding personalities who are needed in the drafting process including party leaders who lost the elections19. The findings of the DGA clearly warned of the response of the “old order” to the rise of inclusion and the demand for a greater share of political and economic spoils of the system20. There is a strong resistant put up by the old order to thwart any radical move from the periphery to the center of the political system by the politically emerging communities. The report affirmed the failure of the CA to agree on the structure of a federal state as crisis of consensus between the “old order” and the new logic that has been overtaken by new realities21. The report also states that a new order that reflect these new realities has yet to emerge. The program conducted by NDI for the political parties to prepare them for the November 19, 2013 CA election has had positive impact on parties’ participants. Most participants have adopted the NDI way of facilitating programs and other activities. As a political party institute, NDI approaches its work from a practical viewpoint, sharing tools and techniques that parties can use to develop stronger connections to the public, mount competitive electoral campaigns, and perform more effectively in the legislature. The Institute’s multi-partisan programs seek to foster vibrant, competitive, and sustainable multiparty systems rather than to promote particular parties or ideologies. The evaluation team also found that NDI has the expertise and the experience to support other aspects Nepal’s political and legislative processes including mediation, conflict resolution and conflict management. NDI continues to train political parties’ leaders and cadres in conflict mediation, resolution and conflict management. With all the expertise and a high profile international reputation for working with political parties, NDI cannot transform a political party unless the party leadership is willing to reform itself. If the parties accept the support but reject the conditions that come with it, NDI cannot do much but use persuasion to convince party leadership to apply reform or discontinue the support to the feuding parties. Almost all the well-established political parties which are in partnership with NDI (NC, UML, UCPN-M, CPN-M, RPP, and RPP-N) and others are some of the parties that have mutated as a result of factional infighting. There are strong intra-party clashes which sometimes lead to serious consequences. Most of the established political parties have a faction that feel excluded move away to form a splinter group (NC, CPN Maoist, RPP are some examples of political parties that have a faction leave the party and form a new party). In some of the parties some leading members also resign from the party to join another party. The often stated reason was ideological but the real reason maybe a clash of personalities or personal egos. These internal problems continue to exist even if the faction that moved away return to the fold. Although the NC faction rejoined the main 19 These figures were presented by election expert Kare Vollan during a Debate on Elections Results organized by Kathmandu University and Nepal Constitution Foundation. Find more at: http://www.spotlightnepal.com/News/Article/KUSL-Debate-on-Elections-Results 20USAID DRG Assessment of Nepal p viii 21ibid SPPELP MID-TERM EVALUATION 21 party factional feuding has not stopped. Most of the old established parties have youth wings from which the youth are nurtured and prepared for leadership in the party. There are in all the old parties highly articulate young leaders who have the potential to lead but with the rule by old party leadership these entrepreneurial young leaders wait and bid their time for opportunities or quit the party in frustration. Such internal feuding cannot be resolved by an external institution such as NDI. Even with these internal challenges, the parties are keen to work in partnership with NDI. The evaluation team suggest that NDI is working with the right political parties irrespective of their internal challenges. First a well formulated criteria used internationally by NDI was adapted to suit the political environment of Nepal. Ten political parties which fulfilled the criteria were selected. In selection of the parties, NDI has followed a transparent and field tested selection model that ensures that the parties selected are not only relevant and have an extensive outreach but also able to benefit from the support provided under SPPELP. This selection model has not only been utilized in connection with SPPELP in Nepal but also in similar interventions done by NDI in a number of countries around the globe. The evaluation team is therefore also confident that the parties selected for the interventions under SPPELP fulfil all requirements for relevance and that the selection process fulfil requirements for transparency. Party leaders and cadres confirmed during interaction with the evaluation team their satisfaction with NDI support which has helped its young leaders to campaign successfully during the preparation for the November 19, 2013 CA election. 2. How effective was the Constitution Assembly (CA)/Legislature Parliament component of the program? Are there any success cases in CA that we can learn from in future in CA and legislative Parliament? What can be done in the absence of CA and legislative parliament? What approach should follow in the future? The CA component of SPPELP was designed to enhance the legislature’s ability to govern and to increase public participation in the legislative processes. NDI is mandated to build the capacity of CA members and to help them to develop modalities and regulations for the CA as an institution. In collaboration with the Parliament Secretariat and members of the Parliamentary Committees, NDI developed programs to increase Parliament’s legislative expertise and strengthen its involvement with the community. Activities were designed to enhance the capacity of CA/Legislative Parliament members to effectively participate in the business of the CA. Before the dissolution of the CA, NDI parliamentary program was more focused on enhancing the capacity of the Legislative committees and also promoting dialogue between elected members and their constituencies while NDI’s major sub-grantee, TAF was working toward increasing public awareness and engagement in the work of parliament. NDI was providing capacity support to the parliamentary committees enabling them to more effectively perform their major functions: representation, lawmaking, and oversight, through building the capacity of CA members. NDI was also working toward developing the CA Secretariat as an institution that provide secretariat, technical and logistic support to the CA members. Implementing the original activities designed for the CA was not appropriate with the dissolution of the CA. By the time of dissolution of the CA, two rounds of community dialogues were held. The community dialogue support activities enabled politicians to engage their constituents directly. The community dialogue program was closed following the dissolution of the CA as were the Constituency Services Offices established in three districts. Former MPs urged NDI to continue with the community dialogue program22 during a discussion regarding the future of the community dialogue program. The evaluation team found that the dissolution of CA shifted the focus of NDI’s support from direct support to CA members to the political parties outside the parliament. NDI continued to support 22 See CEPPS Quarterly Report: April 1, 2012 to June 30, 2012 22 SPPELP MID-TERM EVALUATION the capacity enhancement of entities such as FLA, IPA, and NGPG. TAF continued to partner with the Nepal Constitution Foundation (NCF) to convene a broad coalition of five specific interest groups, which include Dalit, Madheshi, women, youth and Janajati, to conduct legislative audits of different bills while also continuing the town hall meetings. NDI also continued to provide TA to improve the capacity of the Parliament Secretariat in readiness for the next CA/Legislative Parliament after the November 19, 2013 CA elections. Until the dissolution of the CA in May 2012, the different inter-party alliances were solid in their assertion that the supports given by NDI through different intervention processes have enabled the groups to work together in the CA. Although the support provided by NDI to the different inter￾party groups during the tenure of the first CA are acknowledged by NDI’s partners as useful, these participants are often not the key decision makers in their parties and are not able to influence major decisions. The top party leaders make all the major policy decisions. The dissolution of the CA offered a window of opportunity for the politicians to take a closer look at the social and economic situation in their constituencies and to plan with community leaders on how to support their constituents how they can work together to deal with the development problems in the constituencies. Are there any success cases in CA that we can learn in future in CA and legislative Parliament? When the CA was dissolved there was a great disappointment among the population and some anger against political parties. The CEPPS partners and the USAID/Nepal DGO decided to alter the program from supporting parliamentarians to providing capacity support to political parties. This decision turned out to be the appropriate decision offering opportunities for politicians to reconnect with their constituencies and prepare their constituents for November 2013 elections. The NDI partners in the different inter party groups such as IPA, NGPG, and FLA with the support of NDI facilitators conducted programs such as community dialogue, candidate debates, ToT in part to prepare future CA members to participate effectively in the constitution drafting and participate in legislative processes. It also offered opportunities for groups created by NDI such as IPA and NGPG to strengthen inter-party dialogue. Although the dissolution of the CA is likely to delay the formulation of the constitution for several more months the evaluation team believes that the replacement programs that were put in place by NDI benefited politicians as it gave them time to intensify their electoral campaign for the 2013 elections. The evaluation team concludes that although the dissolution of the CA was seen initially as a setback for Nepal’s democratic transition, the time was utilized effectively to prepare politicians for even a more challenging job of bringing back confidence into politics and into government. The evaluation team found that the SPPELP program was appropriate when the CA was in session targeting some crucial areas of the transition including provision of support to political parties in the CA, enhancement of the capacity of the CA Committees, and the CA. Although the dissolution of the CA was a setback for the program as components targeting the CA had to be discontinued, switching to alternative program support for former CA members was a positive move. NDI has now focused its support to activities that will enhance the capacity of politicians to engage with the electorate in their communities and constituencies. The lesson that can be learned is that it is important for the implementer and the beneficiary to negotiate alternative support should there be an unintended change that requires alternative activity or approach. What can be done in the absence of CA and legislative parliament? The evaluation team found that the alternative program targeting parties outside the CA/Legislative Parliament and preparing them for the CA election was appropriate use of allocated resources. The program is on track to meet the objectives as defined in the Cooperative Agreement with CEPPS. Capacity development support provided during the initial stages of the program was well focused, targeted and within the larger donor assistance framework. The alternative support is likely to help the electoral process. NDI needs to be ready to resume support to the CA/Legislative Parliament as it is most likely there will be new members who will need to learn the art of operating in the CA/Legislative Assembly. SPPELP MID-TERM EVALUATION 23 What approach should NDI follow in the future? The evaluation team found that the newly elected (especially first time elected) members of the CA will need an intensive orientation on Parliamentary practices followed by how to conduct business in the CA. However, to ensure that the newly elected members receive the right skills it was also found that a need assessment on this activity could be conducted. Parliamentary Strengthening Program: This program’s activities are designed to enhance the legislature’s ability to govern and to increase public participation in the legislative processes. In collaboration with the Parliament Secretariat and legislative leaders, NDI develops activities to increase Parliament’s legislative expertise and strengthen its involvement with the community23. 3. Did NDI's technical assistance to the Legislative Parliament/CA result in increased technical capacities of members of parliament and committees and how? What modifications would be useful in future engagement of Nepal’s legislative branch? The evaluation team found that NDI’s technical assistance to the CA/Legislative Parliament and through the Parliament Secretariat has enabled members of CA/Legislative parliament, first and foremost, to learn to work together as leaders representing their citizens in the parliament. Through NDI Parliamentary Assistance Programs and the work of groups such as the IPA, IPWA, NGPG, there is more cooperation among parliamentarians from different political persuasions. Through the FLA, young aspiring politicians learn the art of working in the legislature. Some of these programs continued even after dissolution of the CA/Legislative Parliament with NDI facilitators working with politicians to learn parliamentary procedures and norms. CA/parliamentary members learn to cooperate and are able to agree on issues that affect their constituents. Even after the dissolution of the CA in 2012, former members continued to meet and plan how they would support the wellbeing of their constituents in future. The evaluation team found that in 2011, NDI supported political party activists and women parliamentarians to enhance their capacity in advocacy especially on inclusion and women’s Rights. Support was focused on developing their skills and their ability for advocacy. NDI also supported first-term parliamentarians as they learned technical skills, enhanced their political effectiveness and worked toward a common agenda. In addition, NDI supported three pilot multi-party constituency offices for women CA members and produced a weekly television program that focused on women’s issues. At IPA and IPWA meetings, members do discuss issues affecting women, exclusion, and how to contain the country’s instability due to the political stalemate. Politicians are cooperating more in solving problems that affect the country. Evidence of this can be found in the demonstrations for women’s rights, inclusion and other rights. E.g. Sita’s rape and robbery case on returning from work abroad and Adhikari’s fast–to-death over the killing of their son during the insurgency. The technical and behavior skills they did acquire when parliament was in session did not help in the dissolution of the CA but this show that there are still more work to be done to ensure that representatives are accountable to their constituents and the citizens of Nepal. What modifications would be useful in future engagement of Nepal’s legislative branch? The evaluation team found that the NDI support, which was provided to members of the CA before it was dissolved, was effective while the CA was in session. Parliamentarians took these cases up in the CA and also joined in the different demonstrations including sit-ins that were led by the women of IPWA and other women’s organizations. The TA support enhanced the capacity of the CA, CA committees and staff of the Parliament Secretariat. TA support was to upgrade key equipment needed as technical aid to ensure that the secretariat is in good shape to continue its service to the new CA/Legislature when the newly elected members assume their CA and legislative duties. 23 Nepal- Post Elections: The State of the Parties: Update No. 291 Note No. 707 Dated 27-Jan-2014 24 SPPELP MID-TERM EVALUATION Support is needed to set-up the secretariat in readiness for the new session of the CA. The preparation entails installing all learning equipment to be used for parliamentary business, training CA members in the use of the equipment during their parliamentary sessions. Intensive orientation needs to be organized for new comers and refresher program for those who are reelected in readiness to participate in the deliberations of the CA and the legislative parliament. Parliamentary Strengthening Program Through its parliamentary strengthening programs, NDI has introduced the new parliamentarians to programs which are designed to enhance the legislature’s ability to govern and to increase public participation in the legislative processes. NDI needs to work with the Parliament Secretariat and legislative leaders, to develop activities which are aimed at increasing Parliament’s legislative expertise and strengthen its involvement with the community. 4. How effective was the mechanism for public participation in politics such as public hearing, community dialogues? On November 19, 2013 the voters of Nepal cast their votes to elect members of the country’s second constituent Assembly in 5 years. The election went smoothly and was generally accepted by both local and international observers (Carter Center) as generally free and fair and devoid of serious irregularities. Nepal’s Interim Constitution guarantees various levels of citizen and civil society participation in governance and establishes a number of institutions for public accountability and oversight. The 2007 Right to Information Act grants citizens broad access to public information. The 2008 Good Governance Act stresses the need for a public administration that is “pro-people, accountable, transparent, inclusive and participatory”. NDI introduced series of activities on public participation in political, social and economic issues. Through these mechanisms citizens have been provided a platform to engage political leaders in public debates. Such open public engagement of citizens with their leaders ensures that politician and public figures are accountable to their citizens. Although the effectiveness of the mechanism for public participation in discussions such as public hearing, community dialogues, round table discussions and town hall consultations have not been scientifically measured the outcomes are well known to the people in the communities who regularly participates in these events. The people in the communities who regularly attend these meetings are aware of the changing attitude of people including the excluded and the marginalized. The November 19, CA election result clearly show the level of awareness the Nepalese voters are becoming. Though disappointed with the status quo politicians, they value their own rights to choose their representatives. The evaluation team found that the involvement of CA Members at these hearings defending local issues and making positive suggestions is an indication that these discussions are taken seriously. It is also a platform for potential legislators to put up their agenda and discuss local issues. The evaluation team found that local CA members utilized community dialogues to gather and aggregate constituent input on local issues of concerns. It has also been a platform for communities to meet their potential representatives and discuss political, social and development issues. With an open agenda for such meetings district-leve,l NGOs are able to carry out their advocacy activities while maintaining neutrality. These messages are accepted by local communities which have developed trust in them. These district level NGOs are often well known community leaders. The challenges are with politically affiliated NGOs which are seen to be biased toward their party’s agenda. Because these dialogues are at community levels often by known NGO leaders they feel their voices/concerns have been heard by CA members. Whether these NGOs and Local CA members are able to assist in solving some of the day-to- day problems in these communities may not be very clear. Local CSO leaders and political party cadres are seen as efficient and capable of articulating local SPPELP MID-TERM EVALUATION 25 political issues to their communities through the mechanism for public participation in politics including public hearing and community dialogues. On electioneering campaign, political parties tend to make promises that they are unable to deliver when elected. The issues they raise are articulated from the perspective of the speaker’s political party. Most rural populations get confused by the different promises made by the different political parties. Communities therefore need to have these views explained by neutral entities. The CSOs working with the CEPPS partners are known as neutral entities working to inform and educate the population on the current political and electoral issues that affect them. Their neutrality means that in facilitating voter education programs, they educate voters about their rights to cast their votes, the need to register to be eligible to vote and the voting processes. They are not to instruct, advise or cajole communities to vote for a particular individual or a political party. The experience from the 2008 CA election provides a clear indication of the effectiveness of mechanism for public participation in politics. The evaluation team found that the activities under the mechanism for public participation in politics have been well received in the communities. Communities in town and villages where the programs have been implemented are more likely to vote during election than those who have not had the opportunity to participate in the program. 5. How effective was the Next Generation Parliamentary Group (NGPG), Inter Party Alliance (IPA) and Future Leadership Academy (FLA)? Activities supporting NGPG, IPA, and FLA are implemented by NDI under the Political Party Development Program. Through this program NDI is currently supporting 10 political parties.  Next Generation Parliamentary Group: NGPG is a self-governed group of young and first term CA members/parliamentarians. The group is coordinated by a 21-member coordinating committee. Members of the group come from an array of political and ethnic backgrounds. The NGPG meets regularly to interact and learn how to contribute to debates in the CA. NDI supports the parliamentarians to develop skills of political governance through the group. The program ensures that the young parliamentarians are able to enhance their political and legislative competencies and be confident enough to participate in CA/Parliamentary debates in the parliament. The evaluation team found that the program has been very useful for the first time CA members. The members found that the program has enhanced their capacity including developing confidence to participate in the deliberations of the CA as a new CA member. The debates on sensitive issues such as corruption, governance and unemployment were very useful. The evaluation team found that the program was effective when the CA was in session because the public have the opportunity to question their potential representative without fear of intimidation. Although the young former CA members lost the opportunity to debate in the CA, their newly acquired skills and knowledge helped them to carry out an effective campaign for the 19, November CA election.  Inter Party Alliance: The IPA was created to serve as a principal contact point between the political parties. Its role is to enhance communication, coordinate activities and oversee administrative details of the parties in the alliance. Members, who are high-level party representatives, meet regularly to engage in cross party dialogue and to participate in learning and sharing seminars. The IPA was formalized after consultations with other political parties revealed a need to establish a central coordinating group between political parties. IPA members suggested that it is very important not only in a sense that it is a platform for experience sharing and capacity building but also an icebreaker between parties at the central and local levels. The evaluation team found that IPA activities have been effective as it has created a pool of experts inside the parties to discuss issues of concern and find effective solutions. It has also provided motivation for impartiality in decision making and also encouraged other I/NGOs to work with the political parties. IPA-NDI relationship has helped develop democratic culture inside the parties. NDI 26 SPPELP MID-TERM EVALUATION provided national level ToTs and regional level training program while it also supported parties to replicate training programs in the districts. Members meet regularly to engage in cross party dialogue and to participate in learning and sharing seminars. As the IPA takes roots, it is confronted by challenges. The desire of some of it members to expand to the districts is a good idea which cannot be implemented immediately as the IPA consolidates its achievements and plan for the future. The evaluation team found that a positive start has been made and with the experience gained in the two and half years need to be consolidated. However for the IPA to be a true cross party forum it, it should encourage the political parties to support its activities and use its expertise to settle intra and inter party disputes. 6. To what extent do participating parties demonstrate steps taken toward implementing competitive electoral campaigns? Specifically, steps towards: a. Building or reach consensus on rules of electoral competition b. Effective participation in issue-based candidate debates c. Implementing strategic campaigns In a foreword to a report on the Carter Center’s observation mission to the 2008 CA election, former President Carter commended people of Nepal for holding a successful election. He stated “Nepal’s [CA] election was characterized by significant voter turnout of more than 60 percent and by a generally calm and orderly atmosphere given the country’s post-conflict environment”. President Carter also praised the interim government and the ECN for a well conducted election on November 19, 2013. The Carter Centre stated that “election day was a largely festive and peaceful affair with only isolated instances of violence and fraud”. There is a rising optimism among political parties that the 2008 and 2013 election set a precedent for future elections. Building or reach consensus on rules of electoral competition One of the major activities spearheaded by the CEPPS partners in working with political parties is the need to reach consensus on major decision making processes during negotiations. Stalemate during any negotiation is regarded as preparation to fail. This is what happened in the days leading to May 27, 2012 when the CA was dissolved. The efforts of CEPPS partners to encourage consensus building among political parties on rules of electoral competition appears to be yielding results as political party representative who participated in the programs acknowledge the need to reach consensus on major issues such as how to conduct peaceful election campaign in the days leading to the CA election. The elements of dialogues and consensus building aspects of programs held for political party representatives has had impact of the party representatives who participate in these programs. The ability and willingness of political parties to build or reach consensus on rule of electoral competition during the election campaign will be tested during candidate selection and in formulating party strategies and manifestoes in future election. Effective participation in issue-based candidate debates Candidate debates goes on all the time in political settings. Formal debates among opposing political parties in a formal setting in front of large audience which brings leaders of political parties together to debate on key political, social and economic issues prior to elections is new to Nepal. NDI organized candidate debates in late October 2013 prior to the November 19, 2013 CA elections. NDI organized other programs including polling agent training; women’s campaign training schools; regional and national candidate debates; and a joint activity with the ECN where party leaders signed a pledge for a peaceful election. NDI also supported a media advocacy campaign by women’s CSOs to lobby political party leaders to keep a 33 percent quota for women’s representation in the new CA. SPPELP MID-TERM EVALUATION 27 Implementing Strategic Campaigns The CEPPS Partners, especially NDI, supported political party reform efforts, by assisting political party decentralization, and by helping the parties to better identify and represent their constituents. NDI continues to assist political parties to modernize their internal governing processes, and to promote decentralization, transparency, and broader participation through technical assistance and mentoring. NDI also supported the capacity enhancement of parliamentary committees. The enhanced capacity will enable the committees to more effectively perform their major functions: representation, lawmaking, and oversight. NDI support to the CA also include building the capacity of CA members and developing modalities and regulations of the CA as an institution. This support program was however suspended after the dissolution of the CA/Legislative Parliament. QUESTIONS FOR ELECTORAL PROCESS The objectives of this component of the USAID/Nepal’s SPPELP program is to support Nepal’s electoral process in order to ensure that elections are successfully held and that these elections are efficiently managed, free, fair and devoid of violence. Support for the electoral process resulted in the election of legitimate candidates for the CA on November 19, 2013. The success of the November 19, 2013 CA election fulfilled USAID’s definition of “effective and credible - was efficiently administered, transparent and in compliance with international standards for sound electoral administration”. 1. How effective is the design and production of training and education materials by the ECN and IFES' sub awardees? Has it led to increased knowledge of ECN staff and potential voters? Has it led to enhanced ECN and CSO sub awardees' capacities to develop and produce effective training and information materials? IFES’ support to ECN and the 5 CSOs sub-awardees includes financial and technical assistance in the design and production of training and education materials for electoral purposes. Most of the materials used by ECN and CSOs for local capacity development training and voter education are designed and produced locally by ECN. IFES also supports the CSO sub-awardees to produce training and education materials which are aimed primarily at their defined target groups, mostly based in rural communities. Most of these materials including flip charts, handouts, booklets, and CDs & DVDs are produced in the Nepali language. Some of these materials are also produced in other ethnic languages such as Tharu and Maithili and also in Brail (for the blind). IFES also contributes to the quality of the contents of the materials providing support in editing the contents of the training and education materials. Participants in the interactions and the group discussions that the evaluation team covered during field visits expressed satisfaction with the messages of the training and education materials. Participants to the voter education programs who have access to these education materials expressed satisfaction with the contents. The illustration on the posters also appeals to all including illiterate participants as the CSOs explain the processes sequentially to them. In January 2012 IFES wrote in an article24 that it was estimated that up to 5 million eligible Nepalese were not registered to vote. To combat this trend, ECN with the support of IFES launched a voter registration initiative and several voter education programs. The voter training and education focused on the most disadvantaged groups in Nepal: women, youth, Dalits and freed bonded laborers. The voter education programs were built on the premise that it is essential for all Nepali to understand their democratic rights and participate in their country’s electoral process. 24 For more, see http://www.ifes.org/: Voter Registration in Nepal: Reaching Out to Underrepresented Groups, Alexandra Matthews, Program Associate, Europe and Asia, January 13, 2012 - IFES 28 SPPELP MID-TERM EVALUATION The training and education materials were used successfully by staff of ECN and CSOs trainers during voter education for the November 19, 2013 CA elections. The CSOs used flipchart and handouts that helped to explain the steps of voter registration, especially, to their illiterate audience. The materials helped CSOs as they encouraged eligible voters to register to vote and recognize the importance of participating in elections. YI used a peer-to-peer educational approach in which young people are trained in the voter registration process so that they can facilitate voter education programs in their own communities. YI also conducted awareness-raising sessions at high school, college campuses and local youth clubs. They also participated in community events targeting underprivileged youth who do not attend school. JWAS worked with IFES to educate women in the voter registration process. The local District Election Office (DEO) in Biratnagar stated that, since the start of the IFES-YI project, there has been an increase in the number of young people registering to vote, many for the first time. Other DEOs are grateful for the work of the CSOs. “They make our job easier,” says one Janakpur official. During a field group discussion conducted with more than 20 Dalits and disabled people in Kailali, the participants appreciated the efforts by NNDSWO, Dhangadi and Disabled Unity Society (DUS) to educate people especially from marginalized communities and raising awareness regarding their rights to vote during elections. They said that they were aware of the importance of election, its general process and the process of registering their names in the voter list. The participants expressed the need of more intensive programs because the people at the grassroots levels are often not encouraged to participate in such programs. Since the two organizations are working with their separate and specific target groups—NNDSWO with Dalits and DUS with disabled—they would like to see a joint program to work with disabled inside the Dalit community. During another field group discussion conducted with more than 50 people from the Freed Kamaiya Community in Kanchanpur, the participants acknowledged the role of NNSWA in facilitating voter education and registration campaigns in their community. They said that NNSWA came house to house to ensure that nobody eligible to vote is left out of the process. NNSWA also organized street drama and orientation programs during the voter education process. The participants stated that earlier they used to think that voting is done just for the sake of voting with no benefit to the ordinary people but now they understand that it is their right and also their duty to vote. The evaluation team found that participants who attended the education programs include the educated and articulate as well as illiterate men and women from the Dalit, ethnic group and Muslim communities. Participants welcomed the information sharing provided by the CSOs using the training and education materials made available through IFES technical assistance. The evaluation team found that the technical support is reaching its intended target groups through facilitation of ECN staff and CSO leaders. Through their facilitation of training and education programs the ECN staff and CSO facilitators are reaching communities at grassroots level including the communities of excluded groups who are encouraged to exercise their electoral franchise. The evaluation team also found that CSOs and community leaders are able to translate the contents of the training and education materials into the local language of the communities where the voter education was held. The evaluation team concludes that, from the observation of voter registration and the result of the November 19, 2013 CA election, the voter education carried out by the ECN and CSO sub￾awardees with the active support of IFES has been successful in getting voters out to vote. IFES’ support to the ECN contributed significantly to the high voter turnout (over 78 percent25). The evaluation team further concludes that the technical assistance provided by IFES to ECN and CSO sub-awardees have enhanced the capacity of ECN and CSO sub-awardees enabling them to produce voter training and education materials which are tailored to the needs of the different communities and groups they cater to. 2. In what ways has IFES technical assistance to ECN resulted in increased technical capacity of ECN staff and/or improved quality of their electoral 25 ECN’s website: http://www.election.gov.np/election/np SPPELP MID-TERM EVALUATION 29 planning and management? The ECN as the key stakeholder of IFES is also the biggest beneficiary of its technical assistance. IFES’ technical assistance to ECN is aimed at enhancing the legal, technical and management capacity of ECN to manage elections and consolidate its mandate and performance. IFES has been providing technical assistance to ECN to enhance the latter’s technical capacity since the Cooperative Agreement26 was signed in 2010. IFES’ support is also to ensure that the ECN maintains its independent status and has full authority and ownership of the entire electoral process. Such independence will ensure that all electoral processes managed by ECN are carried out efficiently and effectively without any form of external interference. Through the technical assistance provided by IFES to ECN, the latter’s technical capacity was significantly strengthened. ECN with enhanced technical, legal and management capacity formulated democratic legal framework and delivered voter education through DEOs. Working with CSOs in the districts, especially in rural and difficult to reach communities of Nepal, DEOs launched the voter registration and education programs. IFES provided technical assistance to expand and improve the ECN’s delivery of voter education by working with the ECN and civil society to plan, develop, and implement effective voter education programs. The focus is on enhancing the electorate’s understanding of democratic practices and rights, and to increase participation of citizens in the electoral process. IFES’ technical assistance significantly improved the capacity of the ECN to successfully manage the November 19, 2013 CA elections. Mr. Sambhu Chalise, DEO of Kathmandu stated, “IFES should help us identify our own issues and the activities should be demand-based, IFES is doing exactly that”. Mr. Maheshwor Neupane, Joint Secretary at ECN, stated, “They are supportive to our activities”. Through IFES’ technical assistance to ECN as well as its long-term capacity building of electoral administration staff, the important task of managing the November 19, 2013 CA elections was concluded successfully. Other key benefits of IFES’ technical assistance to ECN are summarized below: The Bridge Program: Local implementation of The BRIDGE training programs: The BRIDGE Program supported by IFES, UNDP ESP and IDEA to prepare ECN staff for election enabled them to use skills attained during these programs for the preparation of the November 19, 2013 election. IFES support for BRIDGE ToT programs has also resulted in the training of 27 BRIDGE training accredited facilitators. These ensure that ECN is able to use local accredited facilitators for it BRIDGE training program. Voter Registration for November 19, 2013 CA Elections: IFES provided comprehensive support to the ECN to improve voter registration through funding of review of the voter register used for the 2008 CA elections. The review resulted in the ECN implementing an appropriate voter registration system that resulted healthy registration of voters for the November 19, 2013 CA election. Through it technical assistance, IFES funded and provided management support to ECN for the printing of forms and other materials for voter registration and the collection of voter registration data. The data collected and analyzed enabled ECN to plan the registration process which led a successful voter registration and the ultimate successful CA election on November 19, 2013. Well trained ECN staff: Through IFES’ support, ECN was able to create a pool of staff trained for electoral planning and management. Review of CEPPS Annual Reports of 2011 and 2012 indicate that the total number of electoral staff trained with SPPELP assistance (funding, technical assistance or training provided 26 Associate Cooperative Agreement No: AID-367-LA-10-00001 30 SPPELP MID-TERM EVALUATION through CEPPS) has been more than 88,00027. IFES also provided support in procuring training materials and production of videos for voter education to encourage increased registration of voters. These annual reports further indicate that number of training materials (including Enumerators Handbook, Voter Registration Handbook, Trainer’s Guide, Voter Registration Training Videos, and ECN Voter Registration Directives) developed has been above 137,000. Broader understanding of international standards for and improved quality of electoral legal frameworks: IFES’ technical assistance to ECN and its legal drafting subcommittee and IFES’ support for stakeholder workshops on electoral law issues has increased knowledge of the ECN’s legal department of international good practices in electoral law. IFES supported the ECN in reviewing the new and existing electoral laws/regulations which guided the shaping of the November 19, 2013 CA electoral framework. Development of ECN Strategic Plan and ECN’s monitoring of activities against this plan: IFES’ support for the ECN’s development of its Strategic Plan resulted in the ECN, for the first time, identifying a set of strategic objectives for its activities. Follow up advice and support to ECN from IFES has resulted in the ECN now assessing its progress annually against its strategic plan objectives. Ballot design and production: One of the major supports IFES provided to ECN, especially leading to the November 19, 2013 CA election, was the work on ballot design and production. IFES significant support in the design and production of the ballot papers enabled the ECN to distribute ballot papers on time to almost all the constituencies even in the remote areas. This was a major program area that successfully increased ECN internal capacity to manage elections. The result of the November 19, 2013 CA election showed clearly that the ECN managed the electoral process efficiently and effectively. Out of a total of over 12 million citizens who registered, over 78 percent28 voted on Election Day. A record turnout of voters went to their voting stations to exercise their right in an election which was relatively peaceful with no serious electoral malpractices. 3. Is IFES support for CSO sub-awardees resulting in improvement in CSOs’ planning, management, control and reporting capacities? Are these improvements sustainable? IFES has primarily worked with 5 CSO sub grantees to provide voter education in 28 districts around Nepal. The five CSOs were: DNF, JWAS, NNDSWO, NNSWA, and YI. Mr. Paras Acharya, Executive Director of YI based in Biratnagar, led his CSO facilitators (known as Youth Champions) to facilitate series of voter education programs aimed at the youth of the district. IFES supported the Youth Champions to train as trainers in order that they will train community leaders to carry out voter education in their communities. Mr. Acharya mentioned during interaction with the evaluation team that “YI has conducted two research activities with technical and financial assistance from IFES [and had] also developed an M&E framework with support from IFES”. YI leaders are confident that the capacity development support IFES provided has enhanced the CSO’s ability to plan and manage events relating to voter education and registration and has enabled them to manage and control its finances efficiently and effectively. In Janakpur, JWAS worked with IFES to educate women on the voter registration process. JWAS trained Female Community Health Volunteers (FCHVs) to communicate the need and importance of, and the steps to, voter registration. Mr. Suresh B. K., a Senior Program Officer of NNDSWO agrees to this and adds that “IFES support expands to project/activity planning, central level 27 See CEPPS Annual and Quarterly Reports for more 28 Source: ECN’s Website SPPELP MID-TERM EVALUATION 31 communication/coordination, reporting, training, monitoring, mini-survey, and capacity enhancement”. Ms. Sabitra Pariyar, National Project Coordinator of DNF, stated that IFES also provided “guidance in mobilizing volunteers” during the voter education and registration campaigns. The CSO sub-awardees acknowledge that the technical assistance provided by IFES has enhanced their capacity to plan and manage programs. The training in control and reporting has enhanced the CSO leaders’ skills to determine whether or not they are achieving the targets of their planned activities and are fulfilling reporting responsibilities to IFES. During meetings with the CSO sub￾awardees they acknowledged that the technical assistance by IFES to facilitate voter education to encourage potential voters to register and vote during the November 19, 2013 CA elections has been successful given the number of potential voters who participated in the voter education campaign. Mr. Acharya also mentioned that IFES provided support in ‘institutional growth’, ‘office furnishing’, and ‘developing relation with ECN and line agencies’. However, it has to be recognized that these improvements will only remain within the 5 CSO sub￾awardees as long as they can retain the staff that benefitted from the additional exposure and higher reporting demands due to the SPPELP voter education efforts. To retain these staff members, the sub-awardees will have to find other sources of funding (and preferable donor funding as this will require similar program management demands) to continue their activities. This is also why the management gains from these kinds of short term interventions are often very evident but seldom sustainable. Mr. B. K. of NNDSWO rightly urges donors to provide long-term capacity support (including financial and technical assistance) in order to continue the task of getting the marginalized people in their communities out into the mainstream of social and political life. In an interaction during the evaluation, Mr. B. K. mentioned that there is a need for “capacity building trainings for long￾term use”. It is clear that working with IFES has, in the short term, improved the planning, management, control and reporting capacity of the 5 CSOs sub-awardees and that these skills have been extended to the CSOs that have been cooperating with these 5 CSO sub-awardees. CSOs receiving donor assistance for implementation of activities normally experience a short-term boost in management capacity during the implementation of such activities. Very often, the demands that are put on the CSOs by the donor agency for additional reporting, submitting of quarterly plans and additional M&E efforts will build short-term capacity within the CSOs. However, as these donor requirements will often be so overwhelming, especially to smaller organizations, that the CSO will have to seek short-term external assistance, such as employing a program manager or an M&E assistant, to fulfill the donors requirements. Long term sustainability will therefore also depend on the ability of the single CSO to attract new funding so they can keep the staff that they have employed. Longer term capacity is only built when longer term cooperation is established between a CSO and a donor agency. In that case the CSO will be able to slowly build the capacity of the office as a whole and the capacity of its own staff instead of seeking short-term assistance to fulfill specific requirements. The CSO sub-awardees have acquired program management skills in addition to their skills in mobilizing, training and educating communities running what IFES and ECN recognize as effective voter education and registration programs. These skills and experience gained in the field is an asset that can be put to use in a wider social and political context. Most of these CSOs have broader social and political agenda. They work mostly in educating social and politically disadvantaged communities to get them into the mainstream of social and political life (social inclusion). The evaluation team found that the capacity development support that has been provided by IFES to the 5 CSO sub-awardees has enhanced their management and resources mobilization capabilities. This and their abilities to campaign on broader social and political issues give them an advantage to use the knowledge beyond working with IFES. The management and organizational skills and competencies of planning, management, control and reporting are competencies that can be sustainable as long as the CSO awardees find partners beyond IFES who can support them financially 32 SPPELP MID-TERM EVALUATION to enable them to transfer these skills to other CSOs. They can transfer these skills by supporting other CSOs, training their leaders in management principles and practices, for fees as trainers/consultants. CONCULSIONS This report has attempted to address the purpose of the Mid-Term Evaluation (re-stated in the box below). The evaluation team’s conclusions are presented below according to the purpose. According to the Statement of Work (SOW) “the purpose of the mid-term evaluation is to assist the Mission in making modifications, if necessary, and to help guide SPPELP through program completion”. The successful conclusion of the November 19, 2013 CA election provided a new opportunity for the newly elected CA to write Nepal’s constitution. Although the dissolution of CA in May 2012 and the consequent delayed election influenced the implementation of SPPELP in the first half of the project, the decision of the CEPPS partners in consultation with USAID/Nepal to adjust the program which was targeted to CA/Legislative parliament members was appropriate. The adjustment also provided opportunities for the ex-CA members to re-engage with their constituents. The dissolution meant that many of the activities planned for the CA, such as capacity building and technical assistance for the parliamentary committees, capacity enhancement and support to different coordination groups (outlined in reply to evaluation question two) were delayed. However, the CEPPS partners managed to keep the efforts going by moving to other activities (such as community outreach). The evaluation concludes that the SPPELP project is still on track to reach its goal even with the challenges that the political situation in Nepal has provided. The Nepali democracy is still very young and the political parties still need support to enhance their capacity to engage in healthy political process that will contribute to nation building and ultimately an inclusive political process that will lead economic growth and development. Having conducted very few elections the capacity of the ECN still needs to be strengthened and having only existed for five years the CA is still to fully mature. The evaluation team therefore concludes that the three principle objectives of 1) Political party development assistance, 2) Electoral process strengthening and 3) Institutional strengthening of the CA/successor parliament still remain relevant. The evaluation team found that the SPPELP project managed to engage youth, women, Dalits and other marginalized population groups through targeted intervention. And whereas women were also consistently targeted across most activities, the marginalized population groups seemed to mainly benefit from specific activities targeted towards them. The evaluation team found that there is a formal bi-monthly reporting meeting of USAID/Nepal DGO including the CEPPS partners. Although the two CEPPS partners were found to have a good working relationship the evaluation team concludes that very clear division of labor between the two organizations and the lack of joint or mutually supportive programming could mean that the program missed out on possible synergies. To guide its governance and democracy interventions, USAID has produced the DGA for Nepal. The evaluation team found that the SPPELP fitted well with the recommendations that came from the DGA assessment, providing a support for the DGA programmatic recommendation III “advocate for greater transparency and accountability” and to a less degree programmatic recommendation II “prepare for state restructuring”. The evaluation team found that the activities for the CA, focusing on provision of support to the CA working committees, as well as building capacity within the CA, had been less than effective due to the challenging political situation in Nepal. However, it was also found that the shift towards more field based activities provided opportunities for politicians to personally engage their constituents. Programs such as community dialogue and town hall meetings had been an effective approach during SPPELP MID-TERM EVALUATION 33 the time when the CA was out of session. However, the CEPPS partners need to work on creating a framework to deal with similar delays in the future should the election not provide the clarity and stability required. It is the opinion of the evaluation team that the public participation and the community outreach of the SPPELP should be commended. The community dialogues meetings on local issues were an effective way to get greater participation in the time leading up to the election and the town hall consultations with youth and women also proved to be a very effective way to engage people to discuss subjects of political interest to people. LESSONS LEARNED WITH REGARDS TO IMPLEMENTATION OF SPPELP Based on the above findings and conclusions, the major lessons that have been learned from the implementation of the SPPELP program (2010 – 2013) are presented below: Box 2: Lessons learned Activity Area Lessons Learned Strengthening the Electoral Process Continued support to strengthen electoral processes in a post￾conflict context is essential as systemic distortions from past administrations are tackled and eliminated and new democratic systems and rules of accountability are developed. Working through CSOs is the key to delivering successful voter education and registration campaigns to the marginalized communities at the grassroots level. CSO’s voter education through the IFES support to encourage voters to register to vote in the November 19, 2013 CA-2 elections has been critical to the success of Nepal’s electoral process. Sustainability needs to be factored into work with CSOs. This capacitates them to continue working in the area of strengthening electoral processes in the future. Strengthening Political Parties Working with youth members of political parties and bringing them together through different capacity building programs is more useful toward instilling democratic practices and consensus building practices in political parties, while the top leaders are engrossed with constitutional issues in a post-conflict context. District level party officials can start a process of change within their parties when they have the basic information on party roles and responsibilities and the corresponding “how to…” With this they start questioning national party leadership and demanding increased participation and inclusion in decision making. Women at the national, district and local level also need to be brought into this process. 34 SPPELP MID-TERM EVALUATION A functioning political party system that can aggregate constituent interests and articulate public policy is an essential component of SPPELP. Providing support only during an election reinforces the status quo and has little to no impact on building a sustainable party system which requires a continued program of targeted assistance and mentoring. Strengthening Legislative Process In a post-conflict situation, assistance to a newly elected legislature should be developed before the elections are held so that the new program can start before the legislators take office – this way there is a functional secretariat ready when they take office and a schedule of routine training and assistance is already in place to avoid assistance from becoming politicized and/or marginalized (through delays or capture) by vested interests and/or political considerations. Program design, implementation and management Donor support through international organizations that are highly experienced in supporting the political, legislative and electoral processes is very helpful in establishing democratic processes in these areas in a post-conflict context. Joint execution of some projects, for example, those involving CSOs, by the CEPPS partners and coordination during implementation could have helped to avoid delays and saved effort and money. Impact from some of the post-elections assistance will only be felt in and after the next election. RECOMMENDATIONS The recommendations provided below are based on the evaluation team’s review and response of the evaluation questions and to the three principal objectives. General Recommendations The evaluation team believes that the CEPPS partners will need an extension of time to complete the second phase of the program. The evaluation team therefore recommends the following:  The CEPPS partners continue with the implementation of the second phase of the SPPELP Program with time extension beyond 2015. (Second phase of the original contract is from 2013-2015).  That an assessment be carried out to determine how much extension is required to complete the phase 2 of the program. The assessment should include deciding on the priorities for the stakeholders and how much extra funding is required to complete the program.  The agreement between CEPPS partners and USAID/Nepal will need to be re-examined and re-adjusted to ensure that strategies and plans are re-designed and implemented to ensure that the projects and other activities are completed on time. SPPELP MID-TERM EVALUATION 35 Strengthening Nepal’s Electoral Processes The evaluation team recommends that SPPELP continue assistance to the ECN to prepare for the forthcoming local elections. Early support will enable the ECN to be fully prepared when the date for the local elections is announced. The type of assistance would look very similar to the package of assistance provided in USAID’s 2013 program description which includes:  Continued technical assistance to the ECN on planning for future general and local elections, registration of the new voters as well as the other actions that will be needed to implement the electoral reform package.  Continued technical assistance and mentoring to the ECN at the National and District levels.  Increased links for the ECN with election commissions outside Nepal that can serve as good role models.  Technical assistance for electoral and constitutional reform that is made available to ECN, legislature and CSOs; increased engagement of strong and credible CSOs in monitoring the reforms and electoral process and advocacy for its improvement.  Increased use of the media, especially radio, in all program activities to ensure wide- spread dissemination of information. Institutional Strengthening of the National Legislature A full scale program of institutional strengthening is needed for the national legislature. This includes developing its systems, strengthening its permanent staff and building its institutional capacity to perform its legislative and oversight roles. After the successful November 19, 2013 CA election this program should remain cognizant of future election (probably local election) electoral schedule and target its interventions appropriately, but its main objective would be to build the institutional capacity, systems and structures for the legislature. Depending on what other donors would cover, the evaluation team recommends SPPELP:  Focus on the key departments and committees within CA/Legislature that are critical to the functioning of the legislature, especially enactment of the annual budget and passing reforms that are critical to the development of good governance and sustaining the democratic transition.  Develop strategic plans with key committee chairpersons and department heads on issues such as improving technology and communications to enhance the legislative processes.  Conduct need-assessment of the internship program, the training of the newly elected members of the CA and the IPA to ensure that these activities remain relevant and contribute to the achievement of the CA’s overall objectives. Strengthening of Political Parties Continue with the assistance to strengthen the multi-party system through party building, provision of elections-specific support and party agent trainings at the national and district levels. Party assistance should also include developing issue-based platforms to discuss public policies and linking the parties with their legislators and party legislative caucuses. Further Recommendations to the CEPPS Partners  Establish a coordination body for CEPPS where the two primary partners can explore possible areas where they can find synergy activities and also provide a forum for joint planning in case of extreme change to program such it was seen during the delay due to the 36 SPPELP MID-TERM EVALUATION dissolution of the CA.  Develop the capacity of partner organizations (sub-grantees) in monitoring and create a forum where they can regularly provide and discuss their findings during the project implementation period.  Carry out a regular assessment of the capacity of implementing partners at local level (sub￾grantees) which may not have the capacity to implement the specific type of activities they have put in their proposals. This will ensure that they have the capacity to implement proposed projects.  Participating sub-grantees should be encouraged to carry out an assessment of their capacity to support the effective implementation of activities in line with USAID/SPPELP requirements in staffing, reporting, procurement, timing and program monitoring.  Improve communication with USAID/Nepal. Check what type of information and how often they are required. USAID/Nepal manages several projects and for each project USAID/Nepal has different requirements. Engage in regular semi-formal and formal relations especially when the project is not sure that all required information has been provided. There is always new information from a partner which often proves useful even if it is given near the end of the project.  Explore the possibility of entering into partnership with more CSOs operating at local level and less on intermediary CSOs mostly based in Kathmandu. This will enable local CSOs to enhance capacity with such contacts.  Encourage CSOs and other partners in the field to work with and learn from other international agencies working in Democracy and Governance. ANNEXES SPPELP MID-TERM EVALUATION Page | A1 ANNEX I: EVALUATION STATEMENT OF WORK STATEMENT OF WORK (SOW) Mid Term Evaluation for USAID/Nepal Strengthen Political Parties, Electoral and Legislative Process (SPPELP) Acronyms: CA Constitutional Assembly CEPPS Consortium of Elections and Political processes Strengthening CBOs Community based organizations CPN – UML Communist Party of Nepal, Unified Marxist-Leninist CPN – U Communist Party of Nepal - United CPN – ML Communist party of Nepal (Marxist – Leninist) (CPN-ML) Nepal Marxist – Leninist CSO Civil Society organizations DEO District Election Office DGO Democracy and Governance Office ECN Election Commission Nepal FLA Future Leadership Academy GON Government of Nepal IFES International Foundation for Electoral Systems (IFES) M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MJFN Madheshi Janadhikar Forum Nepal MJFN – D Madheshi Janadhikar Forum Nepal – Democratic MP Member of Parliament NC Nepali Congress NDI National Democratic Institute NGOs Non-governmental organizations NGPG Next Generation Parliamentary Group RPP Rastriya Shakti Prajantrik Party TAF The Asia Foundation TMLP Terai madhes Loktantrik Party SoW Statement of Work SP Sadvabana Party SPPELP Strengthening Political parties, Electoral and Legislative Processes UCPN-M United Communist Party of Nepal – Maoists USAID United States Agency for International Development USG United States Government Page | A2 SPPELP MID-TERM EVALUATION 1. Introduction This statement of work (SOW) is for a mid-term evaluation for USAID Nepal’s Strengthening Political Parties, Electoral and Legislative Processes (SPPELP) program implemented by the Consortium of Elections and Political Processes Strengthening (CEPPS). CEPPS, as the prime recipient of this award implements through two prime partners: the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs (“NDI” or “the Institute”) and the International Foundation for Election System (IFES). Through the CEPPS mechanism, NDI and IFES sub￾grant portions of the project to The Asia Foundation (TAF) and Internews Network. The three principal objectives of the program are to: a) Promote and strengthen broader political processes; b) strengthen institutions involved in electoral processes, either as actors or participants; and c) improve the democratic functioning of the Constituent Assembly (CA)/Legislature Parliament. This evaluation will focus on activities implemented during the first half of the current Cooperative Agreement (August 2010 – April 2013) to: a) examine the process of application, implementation, and effectiveness of completed and ongoing interventions; b)investigate intended and unintended consequences of the program; and c) to determine what are the activities taking place, and based on those lessons, recommend what adjustments can be made to the program to maximize improve impact project effectiveness and sustainability. 2. Project Background: Development Hypothesis & Implementation The SPPELP has three dimensions: A. Promote and strengthen democratic political processes through political party development assistance This component is conducted by NDI to support political party reform efforts, assist political party decentralization, and to more effectively identify and represent their constituents. The Institute provides technical assistance and mentoring to assist parties in modernizing their internal governing processes, and promote decentralization, transparency, and broader participation. NDI focuses on building capacity, sharing experiences from around the world and offering a range of options and practices that leaders can adopt that may work best Nepal’s political environment. NDI’s assistance should be tailored to the individual strengths and needs of the major political parties represented in the CA and successor parliament. Working to address the expressed needs of the parties, NDI provides party members with the skills required to build more representative, transparent, and effective institutions. The planned activities are designed to strengthen connections between national and local offices and promote broad participation in the parties’ decision-making processes. Such interventions are critical to helping parties become more representative of the needs of Nepali citizens. NDI is focusing its efforts primarily on different political parties, all previously represented in the CA: the Unified Communist Party of Nepal-Maoists (UCPN-M), the Nepali Congress Party (NC), the Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist-Leninist) (CPN-UML), the Madheshi Janadhikar Forum Nepal (MJFN), the Madheshi Janadhikar Forum Nepal-Democratic (MJFN-D), the Terai Madhesh Loktantrik Party (TMLP), the Sadvabana Party (SP), the Communist Party of Nepal-United (CPN-U), the Rastriya Prajantra Party (RPP), the Communist Party of Nepal (Marxist – Leninist) and the Nepal Marxist – Leninist (CPN-ML) B. Strengthen the capacity of citizen oversight of the electoral process SPPELP Identification Data Project Title: Nepal Strengthen Political Parties, electoral and Legislative process Associate Cooperative Agreement No: AID-367-LA-10-00001 Life of Project: August 2010 – August 2015 Implementing partners: NDI and IFES Project Funding: $23.9 M Agreement Officer’s Representative: Ramesh Adhikari SPPELP MID-TERM EVALUATION Page | A3 This component conducted by IFES is designed to improve the capacity of the Election Commission of Nepal. ECN to manage future elections and consolidate its mandate and performance through the provision of high level technical assistance in the legal, management, and technical aspects of elections, as well as long-term capacity building of electoral administration staff. The activities focus on expanding and improving the delivery of voter education by working with the ECN and select non-governmental organizations to plan, develop, and implement effective voter education programs, with a focus on capacity building, in order to enhance the electorate’s understanding of democratic practices and rights, and increase participation in the electoral process. IFES closely monitors, analyzes and reports on the overall electoral process with a focus on the ECN’s internal activities and external interaction with other electoral stakeholders. C. Institutional strengthening of the Constituent Assembly/ Parliament and improve its capacity to address constituent needs This component is led by NDI and its sub-grantee TAF. NDI worked with parliamentary committees enabling them to more effectively perform their major functions: representation, lawmaking, and oversight. NDI offered newly elected representatives training and mentoring to help them acquire the knowledge and skills need to better fulfill their parliamentary mandates. They lack sufficient staffing resources to handle the workload of the CA and the successor parliament, NDI intended to establish an internship program to assist parliamentary groups, leadership structures and other entities in the national parliament. This program has been delayed since year 1 as Parliament Secretariat (PS) was not convinced on the expected outcomes of this activity. PS recently agreed to implement the Internship Program at a limited scale; however, the Constitutional Assembly was dissolved. NDI conducted a workshop on the parliament and effective media relations to CA staff members. NDI supported the PS in drafting the rules of procedure for the successor parliament. It assisted the parliamentary library to improve its collection, upgrade and maintain its infrastructure, and expand services. TAF continued to work towards its five-year improvement plan for the Parliamentary Library. TAF supported to establish the PS Media Center and trained Parliament-Secretariat-assigned staff member to operate the media center’s equipment. TAF supported to broadcast the 30-minute radio program “Hamro Kanoon” on over 25 different FM radio stations across the country. To promote dialogue between Elected Members and their constituencies, public hearings, community dialogues and roundtable discussions and community dialogue are organized at the field level. Hypothesis: Electoral Process – IFES: Strong electoral institutions and processes are fundamental to an inclusive and stable democracy and lasting in Nepal. Legislative Parliament and Political Parties Development Assistance – NDI: Development hypothesis 1: If political parties are more representative of Nepali Citizens and political parties more effectively implement competitive electoral campaigns and citizens have more information and analysis on the policy difference across political parties, then political parties will more effectively contribute to democratic processes in Nepal Development Hypothesis 2: If non-partisan election monitoring efforts are more comprehensive and systematic, and media is better informed to cover election related issues at the national and district levels, than, civil society initiatives more effectively contribute to transparent electoral processes Development hypothesis 3: If the CA/Legislative parliament effectively reviews and deliberates bills under consideration, and MPs incorporate constituent input into legislative processes and CA/Legislative Parliament proceedings Page | A4 SPPELP MID-TERM EVALUATION are more transparent, then the CA/Legislature Parliament will more effectively fulfill its democratic functions 3. The Evaluation: Purpose, Audience & Use A. Purpose USAID/Nepal seeks the services of a qualified, international organization or individual with expertise in monitoring and evaluating development projects to conduct a mid-term evaluation (Feb-Mar 2013) for USAID/Nepal’s Strengthening Political Parties, Electoral and Legislative Processes (SPPELP) program operated by the Consortium of Elections and Political Processes Strengthening (CEPPS). This external evaluation will come at the chronological mid-point of the SPPELP program. It is a mid-term, evaluation to assess the overall functioning of the project and progress towards stated goals. It is intended to assist the Mission in making modifications if necessary, and to help guide SPPELP through program completion. The evaluation will help all involved to better understand the initial results achieved, and help to re-focus and strengthen the program. The evaluation team should tailor recommendations so that they help to future programming for the Agency. The evaluation will provide direction that should improve achievement of results and also reduce the risk of unintended consequences. The evaluation team will also need to consider the external environment, project methodology, and the escalation of activities when assessing opportunities and threats. The focus of the evaluation is defined by the evaluation questions in the next section. B. Audience and Intended Use The audience of this evaluation report will be the USAID/Nepal Mission, specifically the Democracy and Governance Office (DGO), the Asia Bureau, and the implementing partners, NDI and IFES. An executive summary and recommendations will be provided to the CA (Constituent Assembly) secretaries, ECN and major political parties which have been working with NDI. USAID will use the report to shape any follow-on activity. Both NDI and IFES will learn about their strengths and weaknesses, adjusting their programs accordingly. 4. Evaluation Questions The evaluation must be framed in order to answer the key evaluation questions listed below. Common Questions: Political Parties, Electoral and Legislative Processes 1. Given two-and-half years of the program, do the objectives of the project remain relevant to Nepal’s political development? Are there new challenges to political development and electoral administration which is not addressed by the program? What adjustments to the program are recommended? 2. To what extent is the project on track to reach its intermediate results? Overall goals? What are the primary obstacles to achieving intermediate results and goals (Programmatic and operational/Administrative)? 3. How effective is the program in engaging women, youth, Dalits and other marginalized groups to contribute to development of national politics? Are there any unintended results from the engagement by CEPPS partners of historically marginalized communities? 4. How effective is the relationship between the CEPPS partners and key stakeholders? Questions for Political Parties and Legislative Processes 1. In light of the negative role of political parties as cast in the DGA, are NDI’s programmatic efforts relevant and effective? Is NDI working with the right parties? Should the number of parties be increased or reduced? SPPELP MID-TERM EVALUATION Page | A5 2. How effective was the Constitute Assembly (CA)/Legislature Parliament component of the program? Are they any success cases in CA that we can learn in future in CA and legislative Parliament? What can be done in the absence of CA and legislative parliament? What approach should follow in the future? 3. Did NDI's technical assistance to the Legislative Parliament/CA result in increased technical capacities of staff members of parliament and committees and how what modifications would be useful in future engagement of Nepal’s legislative branch? 4. How effective was the mechanism for public participation in polities such as public hearing, community dialogues, round table discussion and town hall consultations? How have MPs utilized community dialogues to gather and aggregate constituent input on local issues of concern? How effective do district-level NGOs feel their advocacy efforts have been? Do they feel their voices / concerns have been heard by MPs? How effective are the community dialogues perceived to be in highlighting and/or resolving local issues of citizen concern? By MPs? By district-level monitoring committees? 5. How effective was the Next Generation Parliamentary Group (NGPG), Inter Party Alliance (IPWA) and Future Leadership Program (FLA)? To what extent are participants utilizing FLA materials within their parties? How prepared do participants feel to engage in the party; to take on leadership roles? 6. To what extent do participating parties demonstrate steps taken toward implementing competitive electoral campaigns? Specifically, steps towards: a. Building or reach consensus on rules of electoral competition b. Effective participation in issue-based candidate debates c. Implementing strategic campaigns Questions for Electoral Process 1. How effective is the design and production of training and education materials by the ECN and IFES' sub awardees led to increased knowledge of ECN staff and potential voters? Has it led to enhanced ECN and CSO sub awardees' capacities to develop and produce effective training and information materials? 2. In what ways has IFES technical assistance to the ECN resulted in increased technical capacities of ECN staff and/or improved quality of their electoral planning and management? 3. Is IFES support for CSO sub awardees resulting in improvement in the CSOs' planning, management, control and reporting capacities? Are these improvements sustainable? 5. Evaluation Method This evaluation will be a rapid appraisal and evaluators must employ a participatory (between USAID/Nepal, implementing partners and beneficiaries) approach when possible. The evaluators must use a wide range of methods and approaches for collecting and analyzing the information required to assess the evaluation objectives and answer the presented questions. Information can be collected through a review and analysis of secondary information paired with collection and analysis of primary information. Triangulation of findings will be required to address inherent bias. The evaluation team must also be prepared to conduct interviews with key informants, as well as conducting site visits and team planning meetings. The evaluation team must make a presentation of its evaluation methodology to the technical team in the DGO of USAID/Nepal before finalizing the methodology. As a lessons learned from previous Page | A6 SPPELP MID-TERM EVALUATION evaluations, the mid-term evaluation needs to be carried to the extent possible in a positive and participatory approach. It is anticipated that the evaluation team leader, assisted by the one evaluation members, will facilitate and conduct a day-to-day team planning meeting before starting the evaluation. USAID/Nepal’s focal person will participate in the team planning meeting and other DGO staff may be involved as appropriate. The agenda will include, but not be limited to the following items:  Clarify team members’ roles and responsibilities;  Establish a team atmosphere, share individual working styles, and agree on procedures for resolving differences of opinion;  Finalize a work plan for the evaluation;  Review and develop final evaluation questions;  Review and finalize the assignment timeline and share with USAID;  Finalize data collection plans and tools;  Review and clarify any logistical and administrative procedures for the assignment;  Develop a preliminary draft outline of the team’s report; and  Assign drafting responsibilities for the final report. Collection of primary data must emphasize a participatory approach with stakeholders and beneficiaries. Semi-structured interviews with focus groups and key informants can be interspersed for flexibility and efficiency. Roundtables and short workshops might also be appropriate for assessment and learning with implementing partners, USAID/Nepal staff, NGOs, relevant donors and Government of Nepal. Evaluators must rely on a number of sources and techniques to answer the evaluation questions. Evaluators must select the sites and activities independently. 6. Data Collection Methods and Sources SPPELP program evaluation team must: - Review SPPELP project documents, work plans, M&E plan, annual and semi-annual reports, performance monitoring plan, and other SPPELP related technical documents and studies. - Interview key stakeholders including donors, government counterparts, political parties, and civil society representatives - Interview NDI, IFES, TAF and Internews network key staff - Conduct specific field visits and observe the activities in actions - Review additional documents/reports made available by the DG Team 7. Data Analysis Methods Prior to the start of data collection, the evaluation team must develop and present, for USAID review and approval, a data analysis plan that details how stakeholder interviews will be transcribe and analyzed; what procedures will be used to analyze qualitative data from key stakeholder interviews; and how the evaluation will weigh and integrate qualitative data from these sources with quantitative data from project monitoring records to reach conclusions. 8. Timeline and Deliverables(s) A. Timeline: The timeline for this SOW is April 1 to May 15, 2013 if the selected Offeror hasn’t DUNS number otherwise May 1, 2013 – June 15, 2013. Given the 30-day period for the consultancy, this timeline includes some flexibility for unexpected interruptions or non-working days if needed. SPPELP MID-TERM EVALUATION Page | A7 Activities Estimated Number of Days Documentation review, planning, and initial Kathmandu-based interviews 1-7 Field work (including travel to and from field sites) 8-13 Internal team review of findings and debriefing; prepare and deliver a separate presentation, as scheduled by USAID/Nepal, to outline major findings / recommendations 14-20 Finalization of draft report 21-30 The evaluation timeline provided above is a guide that will need to be refined. Submission of the final draft report will be made no later than 20 days after field work is completed. USAID/Nepal will provide comments within 7 working days of the submission of the draft report. A revised final draft will be submitted within 7 working days after receipt of comments from USAID/Nepal. The evaluation report will be final only after it is cleared in writing by USAID/Nepal. B. Deliverables To make the field time as efficient as possible, preparation must include completing a majority of the documentation review, establishing interview guides, developing team protocol and responsibilities, and establishing the evaluation schedule. Deliverables include a presentation and a final evaluation report with recommendations, as outlined below. 1. Presentation of evaluation methodology to the technical team in the Democracy and Governance Office before beginning the evaluation 2. Power Point Presentation or Word Document with key preliminary findings & recommendations 3. The final report should contain a summary of best practices promoted by the project 4. Two hard copies of evaluation report, 25-30 pages, excluding graphs, diagrams, tables, annexes, cover pages, and table of contents, with good quality spiral binding 5. A soft copy of evaluation report, in MS Word and PDF format. 6. Raw data and records of the evaluation report (e.g. interview transcripts, survey responses etc.) in electronic form (CD-ROM) collected by the evaluation team separately from the report. The evaluation report must demonstrate a clear line of analysis between findings, conclusions and recommendations. The report must be in concise and clear English with visual summaries such as graphics, charts and summary data tables. The evaluation report should meet the criteria outlined in reporting guidelines mention in next section number 9. 9. Reporting Guidelines USAID/Nepal requires that the team review USAID’s Criteria to Ensure the Quality of the Evaluation Report, which can be accessed online at: http://transition.usaid.gov/evaluation/USAIDEvaluationPolicy.pdf As mentioned above, findings from the evaluation will be presented in a draft report at a full briefing with USAID/Nepal. The format for the evaluation reports are as follows: 1. Executive Summary – concisely state the most salient findings and recommendations (2-3pp); 2. Table of Contents (1pp); 3. Introduction – purpose, audience, and synopsis of task (1-2pp); Page | A8 SPPELP MID-TERM EVALUATION 4. Background – brief overview of CRS in Nepal, USAID program strategy and activities implemented to improve the institutional sustainability of CRS and also to increase availability and accessibility of health products in hard-to-reach rural areas, purpose of the evaluation (2-3pp); 5. Methodology – describe evaluation methods, including constraints and gaps (1-2p); 6. Findings/Conclusions (10-15pp); 7. Recommendations/Future Directions (2-5pp) 8. References (including bibliographical documentation, meetings, interviews and focus group discussions); 9. Annexes – annexes that document the evaluation methods, schedules, interview lists and table – should be succinct, pertinent and readable The final report must be clear and grammatically correct to be accepted by USAID/Nepal. It is required that the mid-term evaluation report be prepared and orally presented by a native or highly proficient English speaker. A full version of the evaluation report must be submitted to USAID/Nepal in hard copy as well as electronically. The report format must be restricted to Microsoft products and 12-point type font should be used throughout the body of the report, with page margins 1” top/bottom and left/right. The report should not exceed 30 pages, excluding references and annexes. The evaluation team leader must also submit one electronic or hard copy of the mid-term evaluations no later than 30 days after completion to the Development Experience Clearinghouse (DEC) with a cover sheet indicating the type of evaluation and the design. The DEC evaluation submission must also include a 3-5 pages summary of the purpose, background of the project, main evaluation questions, methods, findings, conclusions, recommendations and lessons learned (if applicable) from the evaluation. Mailing address: Document Acquisitions USAID Development Experience Clearinghouse (DEC) 8403 Colesville Road, Suite 210 Silver Spring, MD 20910-6368 Telephone: 1-301-562-0641 Fax: 1-301-588-7787 Online (preferred): Send e-mail to docsubmit@dec.cdie.org 10.Composition of the Evaluation Team; Conflicts of Interest The evaluation team must be made up of 2 non-USAID development professionals with expertise in democracy and governance. Team Leader: The Team Leader must have a minimum of Master’s degree; Ph.D. is preferable, in the areas of political science or social science or a related subject area or equivalent years of relevant experience. He/She must have broad technical experience with the function and operation of political parties, legislative parliament and electoral systems. Monitoring and evaluation Team leaders should have extensive analytical experience, which equips him/her to conduct high-quality and in-depth analysis of the political, preferably with specific knowledge of these issues in Nepal. The Team Leader should also have in-depth experience assessing political change, identifying barriers to democratization, and developing DG strategies and programming options. Knowledge of DRG transition literature would be useful. Team Member: A political or social scientist, preferably with an advanced degree Ph.D. is preferable. At least five years of experience in democracy and governance research and programming is required. Specific and extensive Nepal knowledge is required. An ability to conduct interviews and discussions in Nepali and English is required. SPPELP MID-TERM EVALUATION Page | A9 The offeror must disclose in its proposal any real or potential conflicts of interest, such as those identified in Attachment 4, on the part of the offeror or any member of the evaluation team. 11. Source and Nationality Requirements for Procurement of Commodities and Services Financed by USAID Foreign Assistance Act Section 604(a) authorizes procurement “from the United States, recipient country or developing countries,” which is implemented by 22 CFR Part 228 and USAID's Automated Directives System Chapter 310 ("ADS 310"). The authorized source for this procurement is Geographic Code 937, as defined in ADS 310. Suppliers with a nationality outside of the United States, the recipient country or developing countries will only be considered for this procurement if a waiver is authorized under 22 CFR Part 228 Subpart D. 12. Logistics and USAID participation The evaluation team is responsible for managing all logistics required for completing the evaluation. This includes but is not limited to arranging for transportation, meeting venues and appointments for meetings. NDI and IFES or its sub-contractor staff may assist in organizing meeting meetings. USAID/DGO will provide key documents and background materials for reading and help arrange the in-briefing and debriefing. Exact participation of USAID will be determined after the selection of the consultants, but someone from USAID/Nepal may accompany in key meetings with Senior GON officials and with select stakeholders and possibly attend some field visits. The USAID/Nepal DGO staff will provide contacts for meetings and a list of the suggested site visits for the team to arrange meetings. Ramesh Adhikari, Election, Legislative and Political Processes Specialist will work as mission contact point for this task. 13. Budget The Offeror is expected to submit a proposed budget along with proposed team members. The items in the proposed budget should include daily rate, per diem, in-country airfare, vehicle rental, and other direct cost such as stationery, photocopy, utilities/venue rental, IT, etc. The group accident insurance is compulsory for the members and is the responsibility of the contractor. Total estimated cost of the award is between $40,000 to $50,000. Cost proposal should be submitted in both US$ and local currency using $1:Rs. _____ exchange rate. Offerors are expected to submit a cost estimate as per the template below. S.N. Cost Element Unit No. of Unit Rate Amount 1 Consultancy Fees Team Leader Days Team Member Days 2 Perdiem (In-country) Days for 2 persons 3 Airfare (In-country) Round Trip 4 Perdiem Days 5 Airfare Round Trip 6 Vehicle Rental (In Field) Days 7 Group Accident Insurance Person Page | A10 SPPELP MID-TERM EVALUATION 8 Other Direct Costs* Total Direct Costs 9 Overhead Costs (10% of total direct costs) Grand Total 13.Evaluation Criteria The evaluation criteria for the selection of proposals are provided in Attachment 3. SPPELP MID-TERM EVALUATION Page | A11 Attachment 1: Resources and approaches for data collection Implementing organizations: The Consortium of Elections and Political Processes Strengthening (CEPPSIII) as the Prime Recipient implementing the through its two prime partners namely the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs (NDI/Institute), the International Foundation for Election System (IFES), and second-tier sub-partners The Asia Foundation and Internews Network to achieve the objectives of USAID program entitled “Strengthening Political Parties, Electoral and Legislative Processes (SPPELP). Implementing Organizations: Meetings will be held with implementing partners and sub-contractors who are engaged in implementing and/or monitoring activities. If possible, some work should be observed in action. Any training, community meetings or ongoing construction will provide an opportunity to compare perception of informants with reality of implementation. Beneficiaries and Affiliated Implementing Partners: Meetings in the field will be held with direct beneficiaries, political parties, former CAs, staff of ECN, youth, men and women from CBOs, local leaders, and people who have been affiliated with the implementation process. Meetings can be a combination of individual and focus group interviews, group discussions. Interviews with the other implementers: To gain a different perspective of implementation approaches and issues, the evaluation team will need to meet with other USAID/Nepal contractors or other donors who are implementing similar programs in the Terai, including agriculture, small￾scale infrastructure, social inclusion, and community capacity building. Local government representatives: To look at the ties the program helped build with the local communities and the government, the evaluation team will need to meet local branch of political parties, District Election Office (DEO) and some CSO that implementing electoral activities at grass roots level. Page | A12 SPPELP MID-TERM EVALUATION Attachment 2: Non-Disclosure Agreement PRECLUSION FROM FURNISHING CERTAIN SERVICES AND RESTRICTION ON USE OF INFORMATION. With respect to proposal submitted dated ________ in response to solicitation of USAID/Nepal’s evaluation of USAID-CEPPS dated ________, the undersigned hereby agrees and certifies to the following: (a) This SOW calls for the contractor to furnish important services in support of the evaluation of the USAID/Nepal Strengthening Political Parties, Electoral and Legislative Processes (USAID￾SPPELP). In accordance with the principles of FAR Subpart 9.5 and USAID policy, the contractor shall be ineligible to furnish, as a prime or subcontractor or otherwise, implementation services under any contract or task order that results in response to findings, proposals, or recommendations in the evaluation report within 18 months of USAID accepting the report, unless the head of the contracting activity, in consultation with USAID’s competition advocate, authorizes a waiver (in accordance FAR 9.503) determining that preclusion of the contractor from the implementation work would not be in the government's interest. (b) In addition, by accepting this contract, the contractor agrees that it will not use or make available any information obtained about another organization under the contract in the preparation of proposals or other documents in response to any solicitation for a contract or task order. (c) If the contractor gains access to proprietary information of any other company in performing this evaluation, the contractor must agree with the other company to protect the information from unauthorized use or disclosure for as long as it remains proprietary, and must refrain from using the information for any purpose other than that for which it was furnished. Contractor must provide a properly executed copy of all such agreements to the contracting officer. Signature: ________________________ Name Typed or Printed: ________________________ Date: ________________________ SPPELP MID-TERM EVALUATION Page | A13 Attachment 3: Evaluation Criteria a) Technical proposal will be more important than cost in the best value decision however the cost proposal submitted by the Offerers will also be an important factor in determining the best value. The evaluation criteria are as follows: The technical proposal will be scored by a technical evaluation committee using the criteria shown in nos. 1, 2 and 3. b) The criteria below are presented by major category, with relative order of importance, so that Offerors will know which areas require emphasis in the preparation of proposals. The criteria below reflect the requirements of this particular solicitation. Offerors should note that these criteria: (1) serve as the standard against which all proposals will be evaluated, and (2) serve to identify the significant matters which Offerers should address in their proposals. The selection of the Offerers will be based on below evaluation criteria. The proposal will not be evaluated if it does not meet all the criteria, the evaluation criteria are as follows: 1. Technical Competence: (35%) o Qualification and experience of evaluation team members; o Composition of the team with expertise on political processes, election and legislative parliament o Expertise in evaluation of programs and projects o Legal and professional status of the firm or individual o Organizational strengths of the firm or individual 2. Mobilization Potential: (25%) o Ability and readiness to take-over the assignment effective on February, 2013; and o Ability to make timely payments for Travel and Daily Allowance and manage logistics support to the evaluation team members 3. Experience: (40%) o Past experience on evaluation of projects and programs including experience of evaluating political processes, election and legislative parliament o Experience managing logistics for conducting such evaluations o Number of evaluations conducted with USAID or other donor implemented programs and projects within the last two years. Page | A14 SPPELP MID-TERM EVALUATION Attachment 4: Disclosure of Real or Potential Conflict of Interest for USAID Evaluations Instructions: Evaluations of USAID projects will be undertaken so that they are not subject to the perception or reality of biased measurement or reporting due to conflict of interest. 29 For external evaluations, all evaluation team members will provide a signed statement attesting to a lack of conflict of interest or describing an existing conflict of interest relative to the project being evaluated.30 Evaluators of USAID projects have a responsibility to maintain independence so that opinions, conclusions, judgments, and recommendations will be impartial and will be viewed as impartial by third parties. Evaluators and evaluation team members are to disclose all relevant facts regarding real or potential conflicts of interest that could lead reasonable third parties with knowledge of the relevant facts and circumstances to conclude that the evaluator or evaluation team member is not able to maintain independence and, thus, is not capable of exercising objective and impartial judgment on all issues associated with conducting and reporting the work. Operating Unit leadership, in close consultation with the Contracting Officer, will determine whether the real or potential conflict of interest is one that should disqualify an individual from the evaluation team or require recusal by that individual from evaluating certain aspects of the project(s). In addition, if evaluation team members gain access to proprietary information of other companies in the process of conducting the evaluation, then they must agree with the other companies to protect their information from unauthorized use or disclosure for as long as it remains proprietary and refrain from using the information for any purpose other than that for which it was furnished. 31 Real or potential conflicts of interest may include, but are not limited to: 1. Immediate family or close family member who is an employee of the USAID operating unit managing the project(s) being evaluated or the implementing organization(s) whose project(s) are being evaluated. 2. Financial interest that is direct, or is significant/material though indirect, in the implementing organization(s) whose projects are being evaluated or in the outcome of the evaluation. 3. Current or previous direct or significant/material though indirect experience with the project(s) being evaluated, including involvement in the project design or previous iterations of the project. 4. Current or previous work experience or seeking employment with the USAID operating unit managing the evaluation or the implementing organization(s) whose project(s) are being evaluated. 5. Current or previous work experience with an organization that may be seen as an industry competitor with the implementing organization(s) whose project(s) are being evaluated. 6. Preconceived ideas toward individuals, groups, organizations, or objectives of the particular projects and organizations being evaluated that could bias the evaluation. Disclosure of Conflict of Interest 29 USAID Evaluation Policy (p. 8); USAID Contract Information Bulletin 99-17; and Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) Part 9.5, Organizational Conflicts of Interest, and Subpart 3.10, Contractor Code of Business Ethics and Conduct. 30 USAID Evaluation Policy (p. 11) 31 FAR 9.505-4(b) SPPELP MID-TERM EVALUATION Page | A15 Name Title Organization Evaluation Position Evaluation Award Number (contract or other instrument) USAID Project(s) Evaluated (Include project name(s), implementer name(s) and award number(s), if applicable) I have real or potential conflicts of interest to disclose. Yes No If yes answered above, I disclose the following facts: Real or potential conflicts of interest may include, but are not limited to: 1. Close family member who is an employee of the USAID operating unit managing the project(s) being evaluated or the implementing organization(s) whose project(s) are being evaluated. 2. Financial interest that is direct, or is significant though indirect, in the implementing organization(s) whose projects are being evaluated or in the outcome of the evaluation. 3. Current or previous direct or significant though indirect experience with the project(s) being evaluated, including involvement in the project design or previous iterations of the project. 4. Current or previous work experience or seeking employment with the USAID operating unit managing the evaluation or the implementing organization(s) whose project(s) are being evaluated. 5. Current or previous work experience with an organization that may be seen as an industry competitor with the implementing organization(s) whose project(s) are being evaluated. 6. Preconceived ideas toward individuals, groups, organizations, or objectives of the particular projects and organizations being evaluated that could bias the evaluation. I certify (1) that I have completed this disclosure form fully and to the best of my ability and (2) that I will update this disclosure form promptly if relevant circumstances change. If I gain access to proprietary information of other companies, then I agree to protect their information from unauthorized use or disclosure for as long as it remains proprietary and refrain from using the information for any purpose other than that for which it was furnished. Signature Date Page | A16 SPPELP MID-TERM EVALUATION Attachment 5: Checklist for Evaluation Report Review Title of study being reviewed: __________________________________ GOOD PRACTICE ELEMENTS OF AN EVALUATION REPORT32 Keyed to USAID’s 2011 Evaluation Policy EVALUATION REVIEW FACTOR 1 2 3 4 5 Comments STRUCTURE OF THE REPORT 1. Does the evaluation report have a cover sheet attached indicating the type of evaluation conducted (e.g. performance evaluation or impact evaluation) and general design? 2. If a performance evaluation, does the evaluation report focus on descriptive and normative evaluation questions? 3. If the evaluation report uses the term “impact evaluation,” is it defined as measuring the change in a development outcome that is attributable to a defined intervention (i.e. impact evaluations are based on models of cause and effect and require a credible and rigorously defined counterfactual)? 4. Regardless of the type of evaluation, does the evaluation report reflect use of sound social science methods? 5. Does the report have a Table of Contents (TOC)? 6. Do Lists of Figures and Tables follow the TOC? 7. Does the report have a Glossary of Terms? 7.1.1 Are abbreviations limited to the essential? 8. Is the date of the report given? 9. Does the body of the report adhere to the 20 page guide? 10. Is the report well-organized (each topic is clearly delineated, subheadings used for easy reading)? 11. Does the report’s presentation highlight important information in ways that capture the reader’s attention? 12. Is the report well written (clear sentences, reasonable length paragraphs, no typos, acceptable for dissemination to potential users)? 13. Does the evaluation report focus on the essential issues concerning the key questions, and eliminate the “nice to know”, but not essential information? 14. Does the evaluation report disclose either lack of a conflict of interest by all evaluation team members and/or describe any conflict of interest that existed relative to the project being evaluated? 32 In addition to the USAID 2011 Evaluation Policy, good practices in evaluation reporting have also been drawn from: Morra Imas, Linda and Ray C. Rist. 2009. The Road to Results: Designing and Conducting Effective Development Evaluations. Washington, DC: The World Bank. Scriven, Michael. 2005. Key Evaluation Checklist. Stufflebeam, Daniel L. 1999. Program Evaluations Metaevaluation Checklist. SPPELP MID-TERM EVALUATION Page | A17 EVALUATION REVIEW FACTOR 1 2 3 4 5 Comments 15. As applicable, does the evaluation report include statements regarding any significant unresolved differences of opinion on the part of funders, implementers and/or members of the evaluation team? EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 16. Does the evaluation report begin with a 3- to 5-page stand-alone summary of the purpose, background of the project, main evaluation questions, methods, findings, conclusions, recommendations and lessons learned (if applicable) of the evaluation? 17. Does the Executive Summary concisely state the main points of the evaluation? 18. Does the Executive Summary follow the rule of only saying what the evaluation itself says and not introducing new material? INTRODUCTION 19. Does the report introduction adequately describe the project? 20. Does the introduction explain the problem/opportunity the project was trying to address? 21. Does the introduction show where the project was implemented (physical location) through a map? 22. Does the introduction explain when the project was implemented? 23. Are the “theory of change” or development hypotheses that underlie the project explained? (Does the report specify the project’s inputs, direct results (outputs), and higher level outcomes and impacts, so that the reader understands the logical structure of the project and what it was supposed to accomplish?) 24. Does the report identify assumptions underlying the project? 25. Does the report include sufficient local and global contextual information so that the external validity and relevance of the evaluation can be assessed? 26. Does the evaluation report identify and describe any critical competitors to the project that functioned at the same time and in the project’s environment? 27. Is USAID’s level of investment in the project stated? 27.1. Does the evaluation report describe the project components funded by implementing partners and the amount of funding? 28. Is the purpose of the evaluation clearly stated? 29. Is the amount of USAID funding for the evaluation indicated? 30. Are all other sources of funding for the evaluation indicated as well as the amounts? 31. Does the report identify the evaluation team members and any partners in the evaluation? 32. Is there a clear statement of how the evaluation will be used and who the intended users are? 33. Are the priority evaluation questions presented in the Page | A18 SPPELP MID-TERM EVALUATION EVALUATION REVIEW FACTOR 1 2 3 4 5 Comments introduction? 34. Does the evaluation address all evaluation questions included in the Statement of Work (SOW)? 34.1. Are any modifications to the SOW, whether in technical requirements, evaluation questions, evaluation team composition, methodology or timeline indicated in the report? 34.2. Is the SOW presented as an annex? 34.3. If so, does the annex include the rationale for any change with the written sign-offs on the changes by the technical officer? SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY 35. Does the report provide a clear description of the evaluation’s design? 35.1. Is a design matrix or similar written tool presented in an annex that shows for each question/sub question the measure(s) or indicator(s) used to address it, the source(s) of the information, the type of evaluation design, type of sampling if used, data collection instrument(s) used, and the data analysis plan? 36. Does the report state the period over which the evaluation was conducted? 37. Does the report state the project time span covered by the evaluation? 38. Does the evaluation report indicate the nature and extent of consultation on the evaluation design with in￾country partners and beneficiaries? 39. Does the evaluation report indicate the nature and extent of participation by national counterparts and evaluators in the design and conduct of the evaluation? 40. Does the report address each key question around which the evaluation was designed? 41. Is at least one of the evaluation questions directly related to gender analysis of outcomes and impacts? 42. Are data sex-disaggregated? By age? By ethnic and religious group? Geographical location ? 43. In answering the questions, does the report appropriately use comparisons made against baseline data? 44. If the evaluation is expected to influence resource allocation, does it include information on the cost structure and scalability of the intervention, as well as its effectiveness? 45. As appropriate, does the report include financial data that permits computation of unit costs and analysis of cost structure? 46. Is there a clear description of the evaluation’s data collection methods (summarized in the text with the full description presented in an annex)? 46.1. Are all tools (questionnaires, checklists, discussion guides, and other data collection SPPELP MID-TERM EVALUATION Page | A19 EVALUATION REVIEW FACTOR 1 2 3 4 5 Comments instruments) used in the evaluation provided in an annex? 46.2. Does the evaluation report include information, as appropriate, on the pilot testing of data collection instruments? 46.3. Does the evaluation report include information, as appropriate, on the training of data collectors? 47. Are all sources of information properly identified and listed in an annex? 48. Does the evaluation report contain an section describing the “strengths” and “limitations” associated with the evaluation methodology (e.g. selection bias, recall bias, unobservable differences between comparator groups, small samples, only went to villages near the road, implementer insisted on picking who the team met with, etc.)? 49. Does the evaluation report indicate the evaluation methodology took into account the time, budget, and other practical considerations for the evaluation such as minimizing disruption and data burden? 50. Does the report have sufficient information to determine if the evaluation team had the appropriate methodological and subject matter expertise to conduct the evaluation as designed? 51. If an impact evaluation was designed and conducted, does the evaluation report indicate that experimental methods were used to generate the strongest evidence? Or does the report indicate that alternative methods for assessing impact were utilized and present the reasons why random assignment strategies were not feasible? 52. Does the evaluation report reflect the application and use to the maximum extent possible of social science methods and tools that reduce the need for evaluator￾specific judgments? 53. Does the evaluation scope and methodology section address generalizability of the findings? ANALYSIS 54. Are percentages, ratios, cross-tabulations, rather than raw data presented, as appropriate? 55. When percentages are given, does the report always indicate the number of cases used to calculate the percentage? 56. Is use of percentages avoided when the number of cases is small (<10)? 57. Are whole numbers used or rounding-off numbers to 1 or 2 digits? 58. Are pictures used to good effect? 58.1. Relevant to the content 58.2. Called out in the text and placed near the call-out 59. Are charts and graphs used to present or summarize Page | A20 SPPELP MID-TERM EVALUATION EVALUATION REVIEW FACTOR 1 2 3 4 5 Comments data, where relevant? 59.1. Are the graphics easy to read and simple enough to communicate the message without much text? 59.2. Are they consistently numbered and titled? 59.3. Are they clearly labeled (axis, legend, etc.) 59.4. Is the source of the data identified? 59.5. Are they called out in the text and correctly placed near the call-out? 59.6. Are the scales honest (proportional and not misleading by virtue of being “blown-up”)? FINDINGS 60. Are FINDINGS specific, concise and supported by strong quantitative and qualitative evidence? 60.1. As appropriate, does the report indicate confirmatory evidence for FINDINGS from multiple sources, data collection methods, and analytic procedures? 61. Are adequate data provided to address the validity of the “theory of change” or development hypothesis underlying the project, i.e., cause and effect relationships? 62. Are alternative explanations of any observed results discussed, if found? 63. Are unplanned results the team discovered adequately described? 64. Are opinions, conclusions, and recommendations kept out of the description of FINDINGS? CONCLUSIONS 65. Is there a clear distinction between CONCLUSIONS and FINDINGS? 66. Is every CONCLUSION in the report supported by a specific or clearly defined set of FINDINGS? 67. Are the CONCLUSIONS credible, given the FINDINGS the report presents? 68. Can the reader tell what CONCLUSIONS the evaluation team reached on each evaluation question? RECOMMENDATIONS 69. Are RECOMMENDATIONS separated from CONCLUSIONS? (Are they highlighted, presented in a separate section or otherwise marked so that the reader sees them as being distinct?) 70. Are all RECOMMENDATIONS supported by a specific or clearly defined set of FINDINGS and CONCLUSIONS? (Clearly derived from what the evaluation team learned?) 71. Are the RECOMMENDATIONS practical and specific? 72. Are the RECOMMENDATIONS responsive to the purpose of the evaluation? 73. Are the RECOMMENDATIONS action-oriented? 74. Is it clear who is responsible for each action? 75. Are the RECOMMENDATIONS limited/grouped into a SPPELP MID-TERM EVALUATION Page | A21 EVALUATION REVIEW FACTOR 1 2 3 4 5 Comments reasonable number? LESSONS LEARNED 76. Did this evaluation include lessons that would be useful for future projects or programs, on the same thematic or in the same country, etc.? 77. Are the LESSONS LEARNED highlighted and presented in a clear way? 78. Does the report indicate who the lessons are for? (e.g., project implementation team, future project, USAID and implementing partners, etc.) BOTTOM LINE 79. Does the evaluation report give the appearance of a thoughtful, evidence-based, and well organized effort to objectively evaluate what worked in the project, what did not and why? 80. As applicable, does the evaluation report include statements regarding any significant unresolved differences of opinion on the part of funders, implementers and/or members of the evaluation team? 81. Is the evaluation report structured in a way that will promote its utilization? 82. Does the evaluation report explicitly link the evaluation questions to specific future decisions to be made by USAID leadership, partner governments and/or other key stakeholders? 83. Does the evaluation report convey the sense that the evaluation was undertaken in a manner to ensure credibility, objectivity, transparency, and the generation of high quality information and knowledge? Page | A22 SPPELP MID-TERM EVALUATION ANNEX II: EVALUATION QUESTIONS Evaluation Questions The evaluation must be framed in order to answer the key evaluation questions listed below. Common Questions: Political Parties, Electoral and Legislative Processes 1. Given two-and-half years of the program, do the objectives of the project remain relevant to Nepal’s political development? Are there new challenges to political development and electoral administration which is not addressed by the program? What adjustments to the program are recommended? 2. To what extent is the project on track to reach its intermediate results? Overall goals? What are the primary obstacles to achieving intermediate results and goals (Programmatic and operational/Administrative)? 3. How effective is the program in engaging women, youth, Dalits and other marginalized groups to contribute to development of national politics? Are there any unintended results from the engagement by CEPPS partners of historically marginalized communities? 4. How effective is the relationship between the CEPPS partners and key stakeholders? Questions for Political Parties and Legislative Processes 1. In light of the negative role of political parties as cast in the DGA, are NDI’s programmatic efforts relevant and effective? Is NDI working with the right parties? Should the number of parties be increased or reduced? 2. How effective was the Constitute Assembly (CA)/Legislature Parliament component of the program? Are they any success cases in CA that we can learn in future in CA and legislative Parliament? What can be done in the absence of CA and legislative parliament? What approach should follow in the future? 3. Did NDI's technical assistance to the Legislative Parliament/CA result in increased technical capacities of staff members of parliament and committees and how what modifications would be useful in future engagement of Nepal’s legislative branch? 4. How effective was the mechanism for public participation in polities such as public hearing, community dialogues, round table discussion and town hall consultations? How have MPs utilized community dialogues to gather and aggregate constituent input on local issues of concern? How effective do district-level NGOs feel their advocacy efforts have been? Do they feel their voices / concerns have been heard by MPs? How effective are the community dialogues perceived to be in highlighting and/or resolving local issues of citizen concern? By MPs? By district-level monitoring committees? 5. How effective was the Next Generation Parliamentary Group (NGPG), Inter Party Alliance (IPWA) and Future Leadership Program (FLA)? To what extent are participants utilizing FLA materials within their parties? How prepared do participants feel to engage in the party; to take on leadership roles? 6. To what extent do participating parties demonstrate steps taken toward implementing competitive electoral campaigns? Specifically, steps towards: a. Building or reach consensus on rules of electoral competition b. Effective participation in issue-based candidate debates c. Implementing strategic campaigns Questions for Electoral Process 1. How effective is the design and production of training and education materials by the ECN and IFES' sub awardees led to increased knowledge of ECN staff and potential voters? Has it led to enhanced ECN and CSO sub awardees' capacities to develop and produce effective training and information materials? 2. In what ways has IFES technical assistance to the ECN resulted in increased technical capacities of ECN staff and/or improved quality of their electoral planning and management? SPPELP MID-TERM EVALUATION Page | A23 3. Is IFES support for CSO sub awardees resulting in improvement in the CSOs' planning, management, control and reporting capacities? Are these improvements sustainable? Page | A24 SPPELP MID-TERM EVALUATION ANNEX III: DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENTS Focused Group Discussion Guidelines Mid Term Evaluation for USAID/Nepal Strengthening Political Parties, Electoral and Legislative Processes (SPPELP) This Guideline is For Focused Group Discussions Background USAID Nepal’s Strengthening Political Parties, Electoral and Legislative Processes (SPPELP) has commissioned Organization Development Center (ODC) to conduct a mid-term evaluation of program implemented by the Consortium of Elections and Political Processes Strengthening (CEPPS). The main implementers of the CEPPS are the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs (NDI) and the International Foundation for Election System (IFES). The three dimensions of SPPELP are to:  Promote and strengthen democratic political processes through political party Development Assistance;  Strengthen institutions involved in electoral processes, either as actors or participants; and  Improve the democratic functioning of the Constituent Assembly (CA)/Legislature Parliament. Purpose of the Evaluation The mid-term evaluation has been commissioned to:  Assess the overall functioning of the project and progress towards stated goals;  Assist the mission in making modifications if necessary; and  Help guide SPPELP through program completion. The evaluation is intended to help all involved to better understand the initial results achieved, and help to re-focus and strengthen the program. Main Focus The evaluation will focus on activities implemented by the CEPPS, during the first half of the current Cooperative Agreement (August 2010 – April 2013). The main focus is to:  Examine the process of application, implementation, and effectiveness of completed and ongoing interventions;  Investigate intended and unintended consequences of the program; and  Determine what are the activities taking place, and based on those lessons, recommend what adjustments can be made to the program to maximize improve impact project effectiveness and be sustainable. This guideline is prepared and administered to solicit information from the grassroots communities for the preparation of the Mid-Term Evaluation Report. Discussion Topics  The importance of elections SPPELP MID-TERM EVALUATION Page | A25  The process of voter registration  The requirements for registration  What do they get after registering?  CSOs’ activities related to elections in the community  Involvement of community people in the CSOs’ activities  What materials and methods were used by CSOs?  Did CSOs really help?  How can CSOs help further? What sort of elections related programs does the community need in future? Page | A26 SPPELP MID-TERM EVALUATION ECN Questionnaire Mid Term Evaluation for USAID/Nepal Strengthen Political Parties, Electoral and Legislative Process (SPPELP) Questionnaire Guideline For ECN Staff Background USAID Nepal’s Strengthening Political Parties, Electoral and Legislative Processes (SPPELP) has commissioned The Organization Development Center (ODC) to conduct a mid-term evaluation of program implemented by the Consortium of Elections and Political Processes Strengthening (CEPPS). The main implementers of the CEPPS are the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs (NDI) and the International Foundation for Election System (IFES) The three dimensions of SPPELP are to: a. Promote and strengthen democratic political processes through political party Development Assistance; b. Strengthen institutions involved in electoral processes, either as actors or participants; and c. Improve the democratic functioning of the Constituent Assembly (CA)/Legislature Parliament. Purpose of the Evaluation The mid-term, evaluation has been commissioned to:  assess the overall functioning of the project and progress towards stated goals.  assist the Mission in making modifications if necessary, and to  help guide SPPELP through program completion. The evaluation is intended to help all involved to better understand the initial results achieved, and help to re-focus and strengthen the program. Main Focus The evaluation will focus on activities implemented by the CEPPS, during the first half of the current Cooperative Agreement (August 2010 – April 2013). To: a. Examine the process of application, implementation, and effectiveness of completed and ongoing interventions; b. Investigate intended and unintended consequences of the program; and c. Determine what are the activities taking place, and based on those lessons, recommend what adjustments can be made to the program to maximize improve impact project effectiveness and sustainability. This questionnaire is prepared and administered to solicit information from the ECN staff for the preparation of the Mid-Term Evaluation Report. Information on Respondent Organization being assessed: Respondent name: Designation: Number of years working with IFES: Date of interview: SPPELP MID-TERM EVALUATION Page | A27 Evaluation Questions Common Questions 1. Please share with us the relationship between ECN and IFES over the last two and half years. 2. In what areas do ECN collaborate with IFES? What support does IFES provide? Does it support in the right areas? 3. How has IFES’ support improved the ECN’s overall performance in its mandate to improve electoral processes? 4. What, in your opinion, are the major challenges of working with IFES? 5. What have been the effects of CA dissolution and the announcement of new CA elections on the collaboration between IFES and ECN? 6. How do you see the voter education programs that different CSOs are carrying out with support from IFES? Do you think CSOs’ activities have been supportive to the overall electoral process? 7. Do you see any room for improvements in the IFES’ approaches and activities so that ECN can carry out its electoral campaigns more effectively and efficiently in future? 8. How do you see the ECN-IFES relationship developing in future? Page | A28 SPPELP MID-TERM EVALUATION Questionnaire guidelines for former CA members: Mid Term Evaluation for USAID/Nepal Strengthening Political Parties, Electoral and Legislative Processes (SPPELP) This Questionnaire Guideline is For Ex-CA Members (CSO Program) Background USAID Nepal’s Strengthening Political Parties, Electoral and Legislative Processes (SPPELP) has commissioned Organization Development Center (ODC) to conduct a mid-term evaluation of program implemented by the Consortium of Elections and Political Processes Strengthening (CEPPS). The main implementers of the CEPPS are the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs (NDI) and the International Foundation for Election System (IFES). The three dimensions of SPPELP are to: a. Promote and strengthen democratic political processes through political party Development Assistance; b. Strengthen institutions involved in electoral processes, either as actors or participants; and c. Improve the democratic functioning of the Constituent Assembly (CA)/Legislature Parliament. Purpose of the Evaluation The mid-term evaluation has been commissioned to:  Assess the overall functioning of the project and progress towards stated goals;  Assist the mission in making modifications if necessary; and  Help guide SPPELP through program completion. The evaluation is intended to help all involved to better understand the initial results achieved, and help to re-focus and strengthen the program. Main Focus The evaluation will focus on activities implemented by the CEPPS, during the first half of the current Cooperative Agreement (August 2010 – April 2013). The main focus is to: a. Examine the process of application, implementation, and effectiveness of completed and ongoing interventions; b. Investigate intended and unintended consequences of the program; and c. Determine what are the activities taking place, and based on those lessons, recommend what adjustments can be made to the program to maximize improve impact project effectiveness and be sustainable. This questionnaire is prepared and administered to solicit information from the Ex-CA Members (CSO Program) for the preparation of the Mid-Term Evaluation Report. SPPELP MID-TERM EVALUATION Page | A29 Evaluation Questions 1. Please share with us a broad overview of NDI’s CSO program activities. Why was the program needed? How long did the program go? 2. What were the key components covered in the CSO program? What supports does NDI provide? 3. Which aspect of the program was very useful to you? 4. How has your involvement in CSO program helped/benefited you? Your party? 5. How relevant is the CSO program in the current political environment? Specially, in the absence of CA/ Legislature Parliament? 6. How has the issue of social inclusion been incorporated into the CSO program? 7. Should the CSO program be started again? Information on Respondent Organization being assessed: Respondent name: Designation: Number of years working with NDI: Date of interview: Page | A30 SPPELP MID-TERM EVALUATION Questionnaire guidelines for FLA members: Mid Term Evaluation for USAID/Nepal Strengthening Political Parties, Electoral and Legislative Processes (SPPELP) This Questionnaire Guideline is For The Partners/Beneficiaries of NDI (FLA) Background USAID Nepal’s Strengthening Political Parties, Electoral and Legislative Processes (SPPELP) has commissioned Organization Development Center (ODC) to conduct a mid-term evaluation of program implemented by the Consortium of Elections and Political Processes Strengthening (CEPPS). The main implementers of the CEPPS are the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs (NDI) and the International Foundation for Election System (IFES). The three dimensions of SPPELP are to: a. Promote and strengthen democratic political processes through political party Development Assistance; b. Strengthen institutions involved in electoral processes, either as actors or participants; and c. Improve the democratic functioning of the Constituent Assembly (CA)/Legislature Parliament. Purpose of the Evaluation The mid-term evaluation has been commissioned to:  Assess the overall functioning of the project and progress towards stated goals;  Assist the mission in making modifications if necessary; and  Help guide SPPELP through program completion. The evaluation is intended to help all involved to better understand the initial results achieved, and help to re-focus and strengthen the program. Main Focus The evaluation will focus on activities implemented by the CEPPS, during the first half of the current Cooperative Agreement (August 2010 – April 2013). The main focus is to: a. Examine the process of application, implementation, and effectiveness of completed and ongoing interventions; b. Investigate intended and unintended consequences of the program; and c. Determine what are the activities taking place, and based on those lessons, recommend what adjustments can be made to the program to maximize improve impact project effectiveness and be sustainable. This questionnaire is prepared and administered to solicit information from the partners/beneficiaries of NDI for the preparation of the Mid-Term Evaluation Report. SPPELP MID-TERM EVALUATION Page | A31 Evaluation Questions 1. Please share with us a broad overview of NDI’s FLA program activities. Why was the program needed? How long did the program go? 2. What are the key components covered in the FLA? What supports does NDI provide? 3. Which aspect of the program was very useful to you? 4. How has your involvement in FLA helped/benefited you? Your party? 5. How relevant is the FLA in the current political environment? Specially, during the pre-election time? 6. How has the issue of social inclusion been incorporated into the FLA program? 7. What improvements can be made in FLA program so that it can be more useful? 8. How do you think can the FLA be sustained in future? Information on Respondent Organization being assessed: Respondent name: Designation: Number of years working with NDI: Date of interview: Page | A32 SPPELP MID-TERM EVALUATION Questionnaire guidelines for IFES partners Mid Term Evaluation for USAID/Nepal Strengthening Political Parties, Electoral and Legislative Processes (SPPELP) This Questionnaire Guideline is For The Collaborators of IFES Background USAID Nepal’s Strengthening Political Parties, Electoral and Legislative Processes (SPPELP) has commissioned Organization Development Center (ODC) to conduct a mid-term evaluation of program implemented by the Consortium of Elections and Political Processes Strengthening (CEPPS). The main implementers of the CEPPS are the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs (NDI) and the International Foundation for Election System (IFES). The three dimensions of SPPELP are to: a. Promote and strengthen democratic political processes through political party Development Assistance; b. Strengthen institutions involved in electoral processes, either as actors or participants; and c. Improve the democratic functioning of the Constituent Assembly (CA)/Legislature Parliament. Purpose of the Evaluation The mid-term evaluation has been commissioned to:  Assess the overall functioning of the project and progress towards stated goals;  Assist the mission in making modifications if necessary; and  Help guide SPPELP through program completion. The evaluation is intended to help all involved to better understand the initial results achieved, and help to re-focus and strengthen the program. Main Focus The evaluation will focus on activities implemented by the CEPPS, during the first half of the current Cooperative Agreement (August 2010 – April 2013). The main focus is to: a. Examine the process of application, implementation, and effectiveness of completed and ongoing interventions; b. Investigate intended and unintended consequences of the program; and c. Determine what are the activities taking place, and based on those lessons, recommend what adjustments can be made to the program to maximize improve impact project effectiveness and be sustainable. This questionnaire is prepared and administered to solicit information from the Collaborators of IFES for the preparation of the Mid-Term Evaluation Report. SPPELP MID-TERM EVALUATION Page | A33 Evaluation Questions 1. How long have you been working in collaboration with IFES? 2. What is your understanding of IFES’ programs under the broad SPPELP program? How relevant do you find IFES’ efforts? 3. In what areas do your outfit and IFES collaborate? 4. How easy do you find it to work with IFES? Are there any challenges? 5. Do you think IFES is focusing on the right areas, given the changed political context? 6. What suggestions do you have for improvements in IFES’ work? 7. What suggestions do you have for USAID Nepal? Information on Respondent Organization being assessed: Respondent name: Designation: Number of years working with NDI: Date of interview: Page | A34 SPPELP MID-TERM EVALUATION Questionnaire Guideline for IFES Management and Staff Mid Term Evaluation for USAID/Nepal Strengthen Political Parties, Electoral and Legislative Process (SPPELP) Questionnaire Guideline For Management and Staff of IFES Background USAID Nepal’s Strengthening Political Parties, Electoral and Legislative Processes (SPPELP) has commissioned The Organization Development Center (ODC) to conduct a mid-term evaluation of program implemented by the Consortium of Elections and Political Processes Strengthening (CEPPS). The main implementers of the CEPPS are the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs (NDI) and the International Foundation for Election System (IFES). The three dimensions of SPPELP are to: a. Promote and strengthen democratic political processes through political party Development Assistance; b. Strengthen institutions involved in electoral processes, either as actors or participants; and c. Improve the democratic functioning of the Constituent Assembly (CA)/Legislature Parliament. Purpose of the Evaluation The mid-term, evaluation has been commissioned to:  assess the overall functioning of the project and progress towards stated goals.  assist the Mission in making modifications if necessary, and to  help guide SPPELP through program completion. The evaluation is intended to help all involved to better understand the initial results achieved, and help to re-focus and strengthen the program. Main Focus The evaluation will focus on activities implemented by the CEPPS, during the first half of the current Cooperative Agreement (August 2010 – April 2013). To: a. Examine the process of application, implementation, and effectiveness of completed and ongoing interventions; b. Investigate intended and unintended consequences of the program; and c. Determine what are the activities taking place, and based on those lessons, recommend what adjustments can be made to the program to maximize improve impact project effectiveness and sustainability. This questionnaire is prepared and administered to solicit information from the management and staff of IFES for the preparation of the Mid-Term Evaluation Report. Information on Respondent Organization being assessed: Respondent name: Designation: Number of years working with IFES: SPPELP MID-TERM EVALUATION Page | A35 Evaluation Questions Common Questions 1. Please share with us a broad overview of your program’s activities over the last two and half years (Your expectations, optimism, initial success and challenges). 2. Given the two-and-half years of supporting the strengthening of political parties, do the objectives of the project remain relevant to current Nepal’s political development? 3. What new challenges do IFES faces in view of the current political development and electoral administration which is not addressed by the program? a. What adjustments to the program are recommended to ensure that the program achieve its defined goal? 5. To what extent is the project on track to achieve its intermediate results? Please provide tangible evidence of achievements. 6. What are the primary obstacles that may prevent IFES from achieving its intermediate results and goals (Programmatic and operational/Administrative)? 7. How effective is the program in enhancing social inclusion (engaging women, youth, Dalits and other marginalized groups) in order to contribute to development of national politics? Date of interview: Page | A36 SPPELP MID-TERM EVALUATION 8. Have there been any unintended results from the engagement by IFES partners of historically marginalized communities? 9. Describe your working relationships with your working partners (Projects) (Excellent, Very good, Good, Bad and very bad). How has such relation affect your work and productivity? Questions related to Electoral Process 1. How effectively has the design and production of training and education materials by the ECN and IFES' sub awardees led to increased knowledge of ECN staff and potential voters? 2. In your opinion has the training led to enhanced ECN and CSO sub awardees' capacities to develop and produce effective training and information materials? 3. In what ways has IFES technical assistance to the ECN resulted in increased technical capacities of ECN staff and/or improved quality of their electoral planning and management? a. What specific technical capacity increase has been significant in improving quality of ECN’s electoral planning and management? 4. Has IFES support for CSO sub awardees resulted in improvement in the CSOs' planning, management, control and reporting capacities? SPPELP MID-TERM EVALUATION Page | A37 a. If yes to question 4 above, please provide some examples of these improvements? b. Are these improvements sustainable? CUMULATIVE ACHIEVEMENTS a. Please share with us the achievements of the partners you are working with, in the context of the challenging political situation, as a result of the support you have provided over the last two and half years? b. In your opinion, are your partners willing and able to continue with the planned programs (with modification as a result of current political uncertainties) in order to achieve the defined goals even under challenging political circumstance? c. Do you have any plans in place (which on implementation) will ensure that your partners’ achievements are sustained at the end of the project? d. Is the capacity building of local actors prominent enough in the projects that you are familiar with? e. Describe in general how you plan to sustain the cumulative achievements of your partners. LESSONS LEARNT a. In what measure have your partners’ activities contributed to ease the current political stalemate to pave the way for a sustainable political solution including a future peaceful CA election? Page | A38 SPPELP MID-TERM EVALUATION b. Please share with us what lessons IFES has learned in the two and half years of its support to electoral process. FUTURE PLANS Does IFES have plans in place to support partners to enhance their future programs and to ensure that these programs are effective in the light of current political uncertainties? SPPELP MID-TERM EVALUATION Page | A39 Questionnaire Guideline for IPA Members Mid Term Evaluation for USAID/Nepal Strengthening Political Parties, Electoral and Legislative Processes (SPPELP) This Questionnaire Guideline is For The Partners/Beneficiaries of NDI (IPA) Background USAID Nepal’s Strengthening Political Parties, Electoral and Legislative Processes (SPPELP) has commissioned Organization Development Center (ODC) to conduct a mid-term evaluation of program implemented by the Consortium of Elections and Political Processes Strengthening (CEPPS). The main implementers of the CEPPS are the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs (NDI) and the International Foundation for Election System (IFES). The three dimensions of SPPELP are to: a. Promote and strengthen democratic political processes through political party Development Assistance; b. Strengthen institutions involved in electoral processes, either as actors or participants; and c. Improve the democratic functioning of the Constituent Assembly (CA)/Legislature Parliament. Purpose of the Evaluation The mid-term evaluation has been commissioned to:  Assess the overall functioning of the project and progress towards stated goals;  Assist the mission in making modifications if necessary; and  Help guide SPPELP through program completion. The evaluation is intended to help all involved to better understand the initial results achieved, and help to re-focus and strengthen the program. Main Focus The evaluation will focus on activities implemented by the CEPPS, during the first half of the current Cooperative Agreement (August 2010 – April 2013). The main focus is to: a. Examine the process of application, implementation, and effectiveness of completed and ongoing interventions; b. Investigate intended and unintended consequences of the program; and c. Determine what are the activities taking place, and based on those lessons, recommend what adjustments can be made to the program to maximize improve impact project effectiveness and be sustainable. This questionnaire is prepared and administered to solicit information from the partners/beneficiaries of NDI for the preparation of the Mid-Term Evaluation Report. Page | A40 SPPELP MID-TERM EVALUATION Evaluation Questions 1. Please share with us a broad overview of NDI’s IPA program activities. Why was the program needed? How long did the program go? 2. What are the key components covered in the IPA? What supports does NDI provide? 3. Which aspect of the program was very useful to you? 4. How has your involvement in IPA helped/benefited you? Your party? 5. How relevant is the IPA in the current political environment? 6. How has the issue of social inclusion been incorporated into the IPA program? Information on Respondent Organization being assessed: Respondent name: Designation: Number of years working with NDI: Date of interview: SPPELP MID-TERM EVALUATION Page | A41 7. What improvements can be made in IPA program so that it can be more useful? 8. How do you think can the IPA be sustained in future? For example, like IPWA is doing? Page | A42 SPPELP MID-TERM EVALUATION Questionnaire Guideline for IPWA members Mid Term Evaluation for USAID/Nepal Strengthening Political Parties, Electoral and Legislative Processes (SPPELP) This Questionnaire Guideline is For The Partners/Beneficiaries of NDI (IPWA) Background USAID Nepal’s Strengthening Political Parties, Electoral and Legislative Processes (SPPELP) has commissioned Organization Development Center (ODC) to conduct a mid-term evaluation of program implemented by the Consortium of Elections and Political Processes Strengthening (CEPPS). The main implementers of the CEPPS are the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs (NDI) and the International Foundation for Election System (IFES). The three dimensions of SPPELP are to: a. Promote and strengthen democratic political processes through political party Development Assistance; b. Strengthen institutions involved in electoral processes, either as actors or participants; and c. Improve the democratic functioning of the Constituent Assembly (CA)/Legislature Parliament. Purpose of the Evaluation The mid-term evaluation has been commissioned to:  Assess the overall functioning of the project and progress towards stated goals;  Assist the mission in making modifications if necessary; and  Help guide SPPELP through program completion. The evaluation is intended to help all involved to better understand the initial results achieved, and help to re-focus and strengthen the program. Main Focus The evaluation will focus on activities implemented by the CEPPS, during the first half of the current Cooperative Agreement (August 2010 – April 2013). The main focus is to: a. Examine the process of application, implementation, and effectiveness of completed and ongoing interventions; b. Investigate intended and unintended consequences of the program; and c. Determine what are the activities taking place, and based on those lessons, recommend what adjustments can be made to the program to maximize improve impact project effectiveness and be sustainable. This questionnaire is prepared and administered to solicit information from the partners/beneficiaries of NDI for the preparation of the Mid-Term Evaluation Report. SPPELP MID-TERM EVALUATION Page | A43 Evaluation Questions 1. Please share with us a broad overview of IPWA’s relationship with NDI. Why was the program needed? How did it start? How long did the program go? 2. What are the key activities you do under the IPWA? 3. What supports did NDI provide? 4. Which aspect of the NDI’s support was very useful to you? 5. How has your involvement in IPWA helped/benefited you? 6. How relevant is the IPWA in the current political environment? 7. What improvements can be made in IPWA so that it can be more useful? 8. Is there any possibility of NDI and IPWA’s collaboration in future? What improvements in part of NDI do you wish to see should you decide to work with NDI again? Information on Respondent Organization being assessed: Respondent name: Designation: Number of years working with NDI: Date of interview: Page | A44 SPPELP MID-TERM EVALUATION Questionnaire Guidelines for Management and Staff of NDI Mid Term Evaluation for USAID/Nepal Strengthening Political Parties, Electoral and Legislative Processes (SPPELP) This Questionnaire Guideline is For The Management and Staff of NDI Background USAID Nepal’s Strengthening Political Parties, Electoral and Legislative Processes (SPPELP) has commissioned Organization Development Center (ODC) to conduct a mid-term evaluation of program implemented by the Consortium of Elections and Political Processes Strengthening (CEPPS). The main implementers of the CEPPS are the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs (NDI) and the International Foundation for Election System (IFES). The three dimensions of SPPELP are to: a. Promote and strengthen democratic political processes through political party Development Assistance; b. Strengthen institutions involved in electoral processes, either as actors or participants; and c. Improve the democratic functioning of the Constituent Assembly (CA)/Legislature Parliament. Purpose of the Evaluation The mid-term evaluation has been commissioned to:  Assess the overall functioning of the project and progress towards stated goals;  Assist the mission in making modifications if necessary; and  Help guide SPPELP through program completion. The evaluation is intended to help all involved to better understand the initial results achieved, and help to re-focus and strengthen the program. Main Focus The evaluation will focus on activities implemented by the CEPPS, during the first half of the current Cooperative Agreement (August 2010 – April 2013). The main focus is to: a. Examine the process of application, implementation, and effectiveness of completed and ongoing interventions; b. Investigate intended and unintended consequences of the program; and c. Determine what are the activities taking place, and based on those lessons, recommend what adjustments can be made to the program to maximize improve impact project effectiveness and be sustainable. This questionnaire is prepared and administered to solicit information from the management and staff of NDI for the preparation of the Mid-Term Evaluation Report. SPPELP MID-TERM EVALUATION Page | A45 Evaluation Questions Common Questions 1. Please share with us a broad overview of your program’s activities over the last two and half years (Your expectations, optimism, initial success and challenges). 2. Given the two-and-half years of supporting the strengthening of political parties, do the objectives of the project remain relevant to current Nepal’s political development? 3. What new challenges does NDI face in view of the current political development and electoral administration which is not addressed by the program? What adjustments to the program are recommended? 4. To what extent is the project on track to achieve its intermediate results? Overall goals? 5. What are the primary obstacles that may prevent NDI from achieving its intermediate results and goals (Programmatic and operational/Administrative)? 6. How effectively is the program enhancing social inclusion (engaging women, youth, Dalits and other marginalized groups) in order to contribute to development of national politics? 7. Have there been any unintended results from the engagement by CEPPS partners of historically marginalized communities? Information on Respondent Organization being assessed: Respondent name: Designation: Number of years working with NDI: Date of interview: Page | A46 SPPELP MID-TERM EVALUATION 8. How effective is the relationship between the CEPPS partners and other key stakeholders? Questions related to Political Parties and Legislative Processes 9. In light of the political uncertainties and the negative role of political parties as cast in the DGO, how have NDI’s programmatic efforts been received by its partners? 10. On the dissolution of the Constitution Assembly which brought constitution drafting to an uncertain closure, how have NDI adjusted its program to ensure that it responds to the needs of intended stakeholders? 11. In the current political environment, how is NDI ensuring that its programs are relevant to the needs of its partners (political parties)? 12. In your opinion, has NDI’s program contributed to improving the capabilities of its partners to help improve the political situation in the country? 13. In the current transitional political environment, does NDI believe that it is working with the relevant partners? 14. How effective was the Constitute Assembly (CA)/Legislature Parliament component of the program? 15. Can you share with us some success stories in the dissolved CA that lessons can learned from and that help improve future business in CA and the Legislature Parliament? 16. What can be done to keep your program on track even in the absence of CA and Legislature Parliament? SPPELP MID-TERM EVALUATION Page | A47 17. Did NDI's technical assistance to the Legislature Parliament/CA result in increased technical capacities of staff members of parliament and committees? 18. Did NDI modify its program and approach to prepare its partners to respond effectively to the challenges brought about by the changed political environment? 19. In view of the political uncertainty and the challenges facing the country, what strategy has NDI put in place to support Nepal’s legislative branch? 20. How effective have the mechanism for public participation in politics, such as public hearing, community dialogues, round table discussions and town hall consultations, been in creating heightened awareness among political parties so that they will be prepared for the next CA Elections? 21. How have ex-CA members utilized community dialogues to gather and aggregate constituents’ input on local issues of concern? 22. How effective do district-level NGOs feel their advocacy efforts have been? Do they feel their voices / concerns have been heard by politicians? 23. How effective are the community dialogues perceived to be in highlighting and/or resolving local issues of citizen concern? A) By politicians and B) By district-level monitoring committees? 24. Regarding the participation by the Next Generation Parliamentary Group (NGPG) and the Inter Party Women’s Alliance (IPWA) in the program by Future Leadership Academy (FLA) Phase -1 and 2: a) Has any assessment been made after the two programs to ascertain to what extent are the participants utilizing FLA materials to transfer knowledge and skills to other young and aspiring politicians within their parties? b) How prepared do the participants feel to engage in the party; to take on leadership roles? Page | A48 SPPELP MID-TERM EVALUATION 25. To what extent do participating parties demonstrate steps taken toward implementing competitive electoral campaigns? Specifically, steps towards: a. Building or reaching consensus on rules of electoral competition b. Effective participation on issue￾based candidate debates c. Implementing strategic campaigns SPPELP MID-TERM EVALUATION Page | A49 Questionnaire Guideline for the Partners/Beneficiaries of NDI (NGPG) Mid Term Evaluation for USAID/Nepal Strengthening Political Parties, Electoral and Legislative Processes (SPPELP) This Questionnaire Guideline is For The Partners/Beneficiaries of NDI (NGPG) Background USAID Nepal’s Strengthening Political Parties, Electoral and Legislative Processes (SPPELP) has commissioned Organization Development Center (ODC) to conduct a mid-term evaluation of program implemented by the Consortium of Elections and Political Processes Strengthening (CEPPS). The main implementers of the CEPPS are the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs (NDI) and the International Foundation for Election System (IFES). The three dimensions of SPPELP are to: a. Promote and strengthen democratic political processes through political party Development Assistance; b. Strengthen institutions involved in electoral processes, either as actors or participants; and c. Improve the democratic functioning of the Constituent Assembly (CA)/Legislature Parliament. Purpose of the Evaluation The mid-term evaluation has been commissioned to:  Assess the overall functioning of the project and progress towards stated goals;  Assist the mission in making modifications if necessary; and  Help guide SPPELP through program completion. The evaluation is intended to help all involved to better understand the initial results achieved, and help to re-focus and strengthen the program. Main Focus The evaluation will focus on activities implemented by the CEPPS, during the first half of the current Cooperative Agreement (August 2010 – April 2013). The main focus is to: a. Examine the process of application, implementation, and effectiveness of completed and ongoing interventions; b. Investigate intended and unintended consequences of the program; and c. Determine what are the activities taking place, and based on those lessons, recommend what adjustments can be made to the program to maximize improve impact project effectiveness and be sustainable. This questionnaire is prepared and administered to solicit information from the partners/beneficiaries of NDI for the preparation of the Mid-Term Evaluation Report. Page | A50 SPPELP MID-TERM EVALUATION Evaluation Questions 1. Please share with us a broad overview of NDI’s NGPG program activities. Why was the program needed? How long did the program go? 2. What are the key components covered in the NGPG? What supports does NDI provide? 3. Which aspect of the program was very useful to you? 4. How has your involvement in NGPG helped/benefited you? Your party? 5. How relevant is the NGPG in the current political environment? Specially, in the absence of CA/ Legislature Parliament? 6. How has the issue of social inclusion been incorporated into the NGPG program? 7. What improvements can be made in NGPG program so that it can be more useful? 8. How do you think can the NGPG be sustained in future? 9. The Challenges: Information on Respondent Organization being assessed: Respondent name: Designation: Number of years working with NDI: Date of interview: SPPELP MID-TERM EVALUATION Page | A51 CUMULATIVE ACHIEVEMENTS 1. Please share with us the achievements of the partners you are working with, in the context of the challenging political situation, as a result of the support you have provided over the last two and half years? 2. In your opinion, are your partners willing and able to continue with the planned programs (with modification as a result of current political uncertainties) in order to achieve the defined goals even under challenging political circumstance? 3. Do you have any plans in place (which on implementation) will ensure that your partners’ achievements are sustained at the end of the project? 4. Is the capacity building of local actors prominent enough in the projects that you are familiar with? 5. Describe in general how you plan to sustain the cumulative achievements of your partners. LESSONS LEARNT 1. In what measure have your partners’ political activities contributed to ease the current political stalemate to pave the way for a sustainable political solution including a future peaceful CA election? 2. Please share with us what lessons NDI has learned in the two and half years of its support to political parties. FUTURE PLANS 1. Does NDI have plan in place to support partners to enhance their future programs and to ensure that these programs are effective in the light of current political uncertainties? Page | A52 SPPELP MID-TERM EVALUATION ANNEX IV: SOURCES OF INFORMATION During the literature review the following documents, videos and web-sites were reviewed: Documents reviewed: CEPPS 2010-2011 Workplan CEPPS 2011-2012 Workplan CEPPS 2012-2013 Workplan CEPPS III – Program Description CEPPS Performance Management & Evaluation Plan, April 2012 CEPPS Quarterly Reports: January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2012 ECN Brochures ECN: Training Booklet for Election Education Resource Person Development, 2012 E-mail communication from IFES Country Director to different election followers with regular update on electoral processes IFES: Status of Voter Registration in marginalized communities of Nepal, March 2013 Internews: SPPELP 2nd Quarterly Report (April-June 2012) IPWA Checklist NDI: Committee Hearing Manual, 2011 NDI: Party Follow-on Training Record Sheet Paul Guerin: Final Report on BRIDGE Train-the-facilitator Workshop, Nov 23- Dec 4, 2012 Statement of Work (SOW) Mid Term Evaluation for USAID/Nepal Strengthening Political Parties, Electoral and Legislative Processes (SPPELP) Steve Powell: Baseline Assessment for the NDI program “Strengthening Political Parties, Electoral and Legislative Processes”, Nepal 2010-14, June 2011 Thapa, Lily & Neupane, Kapil: Impact and Sustainability Assessment: Elections BRIDGE Program in Nepal (2008-2012), December 2012 USAID Evaluation Policy, January 2011 Videos reviewed: Video of the Television Program ‘Apangata Aawaj’ Video of Voters Education Street Drama by NNDSWO Web-sites reviewed: http://www.ndi.org/ http://www.ifes.org/ http://www.usaid.gov/ http://www.election.gov.np/ SPPELP MID-TERM EVALUATION Page | A53 ANNEX V: LIST OF STAKEHOLDERS INTERVIEWED NDI Anamika Rai Senior Program Manager, NDI/Nepal Arjun Bishokarma Program Officer, NDI/Nepal Binny Subba Monitoring and Evaluation Manager, NDI/Nepal Kenza Aqertit Resident Country Director, NDI/Nepal Kripasur Niraula Program Officer, NDI/Nepal Neha Shrestha Program Assistant, NDI/Nepal Ram Guragain Senior Program Adviser, NDI/Nepal Sushmita Subba Manandhar Senior Program Manager, NDI/Nepal TAF Sagar Prasai, Ph. D. Deputy Country Representative, The Asia Foundation IFES Alan Wall Country Director, IFES Nepal Nilu P. Basnyat Deputy Country Director, IFES Nepal Radhika Regmi Training Advisor, IFES Nepal Shashank Pokhrel Public Information Specialist, IFES Nepal Suraj Sigdel Project Officer, CSO Program, IFES Nepal The Carter Center David Hamilton Field Office Director, The Carter Center Ghanashyam Ojha Political Analyst, The Carter Center UNDP ESP Andres Del Castillo Chief Technical Advisor/Project Manager, UNDP ESP Kundan das Shrestha Deputy Project Manager, UNDP ESP CSOs Paras Acharya Executive Director, Youth Initiative Sabitra Pariyar National Project Coordinator, DNF Suresh Bahadur Bishwakarma Senior Programmer Officer, NNDSWO ECN Bir Bahadur Rai Joint Secretary, ECN/Election Management Komal Dhamala Executive Director, ECN/EEIC Maheshwor Neupane Joint Secretary, ECN District Election Office Shambhu Chalise District Election Officer, Kathmandu Internews Madhu Acharya Project Director-Nepal, Internews Parliament Secretariat Manohar Bhattarai Secretary General, Parliament Secretariat Mukunda Sharma Jt. Secretary, Parliament Secretariat Political Parties Arjun Thapa IPA Member, MJF-N Astha Laxmi Shakya IPA Member, CPN-UML Basu Dev Chaudhary IPA Member, MJFN-D Bhuban Pathak IPA Member, RPP Bindaman Bista FLA Graduate, UCPN-M Binod Bhattarai IPA Member, NC Deepak Kumar Upadhyaya NC, Community Dialogue (CD) Program, NC, Ex-CA Member Page | A54 SPPELP MID-TERM EVALUATION Govinda Nepali CD Program, CPN-UML, Ex-CA Member Ishwori Bhatta FLA Graduate, UCPN-M Janak Chalise CSO Program, CPN-ML, Ex-CA Member Kapil Pokhrel IPA Member, CPN-ML Kunti Kumari Shahi NGPG Member, RPP Mahendra Paswan CD Program, CPN-M, Ex-CA Member Nani Maya Acharya FLA Graduate, RPP Pushpa Bhusal CSO Program, NC, Ex-CA Member Renu Chand NGPG Member, UCPN-M Shobhakhar Parajuli NGPG Member, NC Urmila Thapaliya FLA Graduate, NC List of stakeholders consulted/interviewed outside Kathmandu Chhatra Tailor ToT Master Trainer, NC Kailali Kukura Rana ToT Master Trainer, TMDP Kanchanpur Laxmi Prasad Joshi District Election Officer, Kailali Premwati Rana Tharu FLA Graduate, TMDP, Kanchanpur Focused Group Discussion with Dalit and Disabled Community in Malakheti, Kailali on August 29, 2013 Community Male Female Total Dalit 7 6 13 Disabled 6 4 10 Focused Group Discussion with Freed Kamaiyas in Dharampur, Daiji-03, Kanchanpur on August 30, 2013 Community Male Femal e Total CSO working for the Community Freed Kamaiyas (Bonded Laborers) 1 62 63 Nepal National Social Welfare Association (NNSWA), Kanchanpur SPPELP MID-TERM EVALUATION Page | A55 ANNEX VI: BUDGET ANALYSIS USAID Nepal’s Strengthening Political Parties, Electoral and Legislative Processes (SPPELP) program is implemented by the Consortium of Elections and Political Processes Strengthening (CEPPS). CEPPS as the prime recipient of the award (Cooperative Agreement No. AID-367- LA-10-00001) implements through two prime partners: the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs (“NDI” or “the Institute”) and the International Foundation for Electoral Systems (IFES). Through the CEPPS mechanism, NDI and IFES sub-grant portions of the project to The Asia Foundation (TAF) and Internews Network. USAID is supporting the SPPELP program with a total budget of USD 23,900,000 out of which, as can be seen from figure 1, the NDI budget is USD 14,422,000 and the IFES budget is USD 9,478,000. The SPPELP programs has 3 primary obejctives, (1) promote and strenghten democratic prolitical processes through political party assistance, (2) Strenghten the capacity of citizen oversight of the elctoral process, and (3) Support the instituional strengthening of the Constituent Assembly/Parliament and improve it capacity to address constituent needs. The two CEPPS partners have a clear delineation between the implementation areas where NDI is in charge of primary objective 1 and 3 (having a few activities in support of objective 2), and IFES is working exclusively on primary objective 2. The budget allocation of NDI is USD 7,627,940.00 in support of primary objective 1, USD 690,920.00 in support of primary objective 2 and USD 5,379,218.00 for primary objective three. The entire IFES allocation is in support of primary objective 2. The two EPPS partners at the end of 2012 had spent a combined USD 8,623,565.00 of the USD 23,900,000 budget. As can be seen from figure 2 below there was no indication that the dissolution of the Constituent Assembly on the May 28, 2012, had a negative impact on the CEPPS partner ability to spend the allocated funding. However, the spending pattern for the partner organization was not made available for the evaluation team for the full period where the CA was out of session so it is still to be seen if this trend continued in the first, second and third quarter of 2013. IFES $9,478,000 NDI $14,422,00 0 Figure A 2: Budget spending of the two CEPPS partner organizations Figure A 1: Funding of the two CEEPS partners 0 1000000 2000000 3000000 4000000 5000000 6000000 7000000 8000000 9000000 10000000 3 Q 2010 4 Q 2010 1 Q 2011 2 Q 2011 3 Q 2011 4 Q 2011 1 Q 2012 2 Q 2012 3 Q 2012 4 Q 2012 IFES NDI Page | A56 SPPELP MID-TERM EVALUATION ANNEX VII: THE NOVEMBER 19TH, 2013 ELECTION On Election Day November 19, 2013 Nepal conducted an election to the Constituent Assembly without major incidents. When voting closed it was clear that there had been a high turnout. The Chief Election Commissioner declared that the voter turnout at 78% of the over 12 million registered voters which was higher than 2008 and had set a new electoral record. Prior to the election the ECN carried out a successful registration of voters and candidates. The election results showed that the Nepali Congress Party had won 105 of the 240 directly elected seats. The Communist Party of Nepal (United Marxist Leninist) had won 91 seats and the United Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) had won 26 seats of the directly elected seats. Counting for the 240 directly elected seats was completed on Monday the 25th November 2013. The result of the proportional representation system also saw the Nepal Congress party winning 91 seats followed by UML 84 seats and the UCPN-Maoist’s 54 seats. Box 3: Election result from 19 Nov 2013 NC CPN (UML) UCPN (Maoist) Other parties Total Directly elected 105 91 26 18 240 Proportional 91 84 54 106 335 Total 196 175 80 124 575 pct 34 % 30 % 14 % 22 % 100 % The preparation for the November 19, 2013 was actively supported by USAID through SPPELP program. The five-year program which started in 2010 and implemented by the two CEPPES implementing Partners (NDI and IFES)was aimed at strengthening Nepal’s political Parties and it electoral processes. Prior to the election the two CEPPES partners have supported The Election Commission (EC) in its preparation for the election as a result registration of voters and registration of CA candidates were carried successfully. The threat from the CPN-M and 33 other small Political Parties did not prevent the electorate from casting their votes. Nepal's oldest political party won the most seats in the first set of results from last week's election ahead of two prominent communist parties, the country's election commission said on Monday. The success of the election is a clear indication of the growing confidence of the Nepalese electorate desire to exercise their franchise. The high voter turnout is also evidence of the result of voter education which was conducted by National and international development partners. The two CEPPES partners NDI and IFES provided significant support through their CSO partners and through political parties at national and local level. Independent observers, including former U.S. President Jimmy Carter, have said the election was free and fair of any irregularities. World Leaders notably the UN Secretary General and the United State sent Congratulations. The United States congratulates the people of Nepal on their Constituent Assembly elections held on Tuesday, the White House press secretary Jay Carney said on Wednesday. "These elections mark a vital step in the peace process that began in 2006”, Carney said in a statement. He said "Elections like these are a milestone not just for Nepal but for people around the world working to rebuild after conflicts and resolve disputes via constitutional and homegrown means" and "As Nepal's newly elected leaders turn to the important task of concluding a constitution, the United States will continue to support Nepal's progress along a peaceful, prosperous, inclusive and democratic path.” 33 33 Kuwait News agency “U.S. congratulates Nepal on Constituent Assembly elections” 20 November 2013 SPPELP MID-TERM EVALUATION Page | A57 ANNEX VIII: CLARIFICATIONS FROM CEPPS AND RESPONSE FROM THE EVALUATION TEAM Overall Clarifications 1. Findings, Conclusions & Recommendations On page 10 of the draft report, the evaluators recommend that the two CEPPS partners build a more formalized coordination mechanism to explore potential areas for synergy. CEPPS would like to note that NDI and IFES have discussed potential areas of collaboration, including electoral reform and legal frameworks (under sub-objective 2.A). Under its parliamentary program component, CEPPS/NDI will support relevant legislation introduced in this regard by the government, therefore linking up with pieces of legislation that CEPPS/IFES is supporting with ECN. Comments of the evaluation team: The evaluation team appreciate that the two main CEPPS partners have been discussing potential areas collaboration. However, it is the findings of the evaluation team that the SPPELP project could be strengthened if there was a more formalized coordination forum to explore more areas of synergy or at least areas where activities of the two partners could dovetail on each other. Especially in times of changes, as SPPELP saw during the period without a functioning CA, the partners might better support each other through a more formalized coordination body and might even formulate a stronger program through identification or more synergies. Page 13 of the report mentions structural issues within the CA due to understaffing and a focus on constitution-drafting. For clarification, CEPPS would like to know if there is an expectation that CEPPS partners can play a role in resolving these structural issues. CEPPS also requests additional information on the specific structural issues, as well as which organization the quarterly reports are referencing. The evaluation team’s comment: The CA mention of improving the structure refurbishment; improving the furniture and furnishing but also to upgrade the computers and other basic technologies that will enable the CA to function effectively including enabling ne CA member access to and where appropriate learn the use of computers to enhance their work. To create an environment where CA members have easy access to work and learning environment that will contribute to increase in their capacity to carry out their constitutional drafting and legislative processes efficiently and effectively. On page 13, the evaluators note that more clout, which would result from an increased donor base, would help to move forward support for drafting the electoral legislation and regulation. CEPPS/ IFES agrees with this and notes that throughout its electoral legal framework activities, it has ensured close coordination with UNDP ESP and International IDEA, both significant actors working on legal issues with the ECN. IFES has also secured Norwegian funding for legal reform work which fits well with this recommendation. Evaluation teams comments: The evaluation team finds that IFES working so closely together with ECN and being a central player of the BRIDGE program together with UNDP-ESP and IDEA could be instrumental in gathering an even wider donor coalition for the formulation of electoral legislation and regulation. On page 14 of the draft report, the evaluators write that the achievement of the SPPELP program may be endangered if the CA cannot come to a decision on state restructuring. However, CEPPS would like to note that an agreement will likely be reached on other issues, such as local governance. These agreements would also impact SPPELP; CEPPS recognizes that it would have to respond to the needs of the agreed upon system both at the parliamentary and political party level. Additionally, the program can be readjusted to still engage with members of parliament in their capacity as legislators in terms of moving economic and social development forward Evaluation Team comment: If anything is to be learned from the period of political instability and the Page | A58 SPPELP MID-TERM EVALUATION dissolution of the CA it should be that Nepali politics is unpredictable. It is still to be seen what the end of the discussion on decentralization/state restructuring will be and what reaction there will be from the political parties. Will the Maoist party accept a decentralization reform that is not state restructuring? How will they react if the other parties agree on a decentralization reform without including the Maoist party? What influence will this have on the workings of the CA? In itself, having an election has not solved the key issues that were discussed before the election. Additionally, CEPPS/NDI would like to suggest that the program work with civil society in a stronger, demand-driven role if the program needs to shift focus from its parliamentary component. Evaluation Team comment: The evaluation team understands that CEPPS might be better prepared to alter the program should it again be confronted with obstacles. However, the evaluation team would like to restate that these kinds of changes to program would be better done in coordination between the two CEPPS partners, preferable through a formalized body. On page 16, the evaluators suggest greater data collection to highlight double marginalized groups. CEPPS partners agree in the importance of highlighting double marginalization. On page 15, the evaluators give an example from JWAS’ work with Muslim women, which is a specific example highlighting double marginalization (religion and gender). In addition, sub-awardee work with marginalized communities consistently focuses on cases of double marginalization, for example of women from Dalit communities, religious minorities, and persons with disabilities. The CEPPS/IFES March 2013 CSO survey on voter registration provides data highlighting double marginalization. CEPPS partners request greater clarification as to what specifically the evaluators are seeking that is not captured through current activities. Evaluation Team comment: The evaluation team commends the CEPPS partners on the activities dealing with double marginalization. Like the comments to mainstreaming of marginalized groups the evaluation team would like to see a more active mainstreaming effort where double marginalization is taken into account in all activities and where modalities are developed to proactively include these groups. On page 17, it states that the compartmentalization of the SPPELP program discourages collaborative activities between the two CEPPS partners. However, following advice from USAID, CEPPS made increased efforts to engage with other partners across different program activities, including the use of IFES’ youth voter registration outreach jingles for youth wings of political parties and the call on IFES’ CSO partners to give presentations on their findings about the most effective ways to reach out to marginalized groups and political parties in relevant regions and districts. Evaluation Team comment: The evaluation team appreciate that the CEPPS partners have engaged partners across the program. However, the evaluation team would like to see further efforts to break down the compartmentalization of the program – in this effort more coordination could identify further areas for collaboration. The footnote on page 17 notes that the SPPELP program agreement does not include the formulation of a joint coordination body. CEPPS would like to note that this was not a program requirement but may include it going forward. Evaluation Team comment: The evaluation team recognizes that it was not a program requirement to have a coordination body. However, it is still a recommendation of this evolution. On page 35 of the draft report, the evaluators recommend an extension of the CEPPS program in Nepal. CEPPS notes this point and will work on taking this recommendation into account on both the demand and supply side. Both organizations have already identified additional areas for programmatic intervention in the post-election environment. SPPELP MID-TERM EVALUATION Page | A59 Clarifications Regarding CEPPS’ Approach 1. Executive Summary On page viii of the draft report, the evaluators found that “more efforts could be put into engaging the marginalized groups outside activities specifically targeted towards these groups.” CEPPS/NDI and CEPPS/IFES would like to note that ensuring inclusion of marginalized groups is a cross cutting theme across all programs and the CEPPS monitoring and evaluation (M&E) system is tracking participation of all these groups consistently. During planning and implementation phases of programming, both partners the participation of these marginalized groups (ethnicity/caste/persons with disabilities/geographic regions). When organizing activities, there is verbal and written communication to CEPPS stakeholders to ensure there is participation of marginalized groups, including youth. This is evident in the M&E system – individual tracking system as well as the different indicators in the PMEP survey data. Tracking data is available upon request. Evaluation Team comment: The evaluation team notes that CEPPS see marginalization as a cross cutting theme and therefore also include this in the M&E efforts. However, the evaluation team would like to see this result in a more proactive mainstreaming effort from the two CEPPS partner organizations where clear modalities are developed to ensure activities and inclusion of marginalized in all activities under the SPPELP. On page viii of the draft report, the evaluators recommend that the CEPPS partners need to clarify what role they can play in the discussion of possible state restructuring. CEPPS/NDI has sought opportunities to work on issues related to federalism with political parties (ToT modules) in the past. CEPPS/NDI is well positioned to with political parties to assist with this aspect during the life of the grant should state restructuring be decided upon. 2. Project Background Page seven mentions community dialogues held under the SPPELP program. CEPPS/NDI requests that the report specifically mention that these community dialogues are part of NDI’s parliamentary component. 3. Findings, Conclusions & Recommendations On page 10 of the draft report, the evaluators recommend that CEPPS increase efforts to engage marginalized groups. CEPPS/NDI notes that mainstreaming has been built into program components from its inception. The M&E system disaggregates data by marginalized groups. This data is available for reference. On page 11, the draft report states that program activities under principal objective three (institutional strengthening of the CA/Legislature Parliament) needed revision after the CA was dissolved in May 2012. The uncertain political landscape from May 2012 through November 2013 also affected primary objective one, where activities regarding electoral competitiveness of political parties could not be implemented due to delays in the electoral process. CEPPS/NDI would like to note that CEPPS/NDI did provide support to political parties in the areas of electoral competitiveness through a series of campaign management training implemented over the course of 12 months prior to the organization of elections. These trainings took place at the national and regional levels ahead of time, and some of them were replicated by the three major parties using their own resources. In the absence of an election date specified ahead of time, CEPPS/NDI wanted to ensure that it provided this assistance to the parties should elections be called on a short notice. Evaluation Team’s Comment: The evaluation Team notes that although the sudden dissolution of the CA in May 2013 affected the planned programs activities under principal objective three (institutional strengthening of the CA/Legislature Parliament) needed revision after the CA was NDI did adjust its programs to provide support to political parties outside of parliament in the areas of electoral competitiveness through a series of campaign management training which was implemented over the course Page | A60 SPPELP MID-TERM EVALUATION of 12 months prior to the holding of the November 19, 2013 CA2 election,. These training programs were at national and regional levels. Some training programs were replicated by the three major parties using their own resources. Page 11 of the draft report notes that political parties support larger community dialogues to enhance party interaction and focus on local issues. CEPPS/NDI requests more examples of particular issues of interest to aid in planning future activities. As noted in the above request for an additional paragraph, CEPPS/NDI provided technical support and training to political parties in the area of electoral competitiveness. Evaluation Team’s Comment: The evaluators note that the activities of groups which NDI supported in their creation (NGCG, IPA, IPWA and FLA) continued their various activities outside of the CA/legislative Parliament. They conducted activities at national and district level. These activities were continued at constituency level during the preparation for the November 19, Ca2 elections. Page 13 details the importance of CEPPS’ participation in future state restructuring discussions. CEPPS/NDI notes this point and will start working with political parties at the national and local level to ensure the CA continues its progress towards a new constitution. On page 13, in regards to advancing the drafting of electoral legislation and regulation, CEPPS notes that partners have discussed the possibility of joint ECN/IFES/NDI activities regarding the electoral framework. A series of regional and national electoral reform workshops and legal framework discussions are the first planned joint activities. The three partners will ensure other international donors and relevant stakeholders (including political parties, parliamentarians, and civil society organizations) participate in these events. (Noted by the Evaluation Team) On page 14, the evaluators recommend that the parliamentary internship program be abandoned if no progress has been made. It would be helpful if the evaluation team shares any additional details on this program based on insights received from the Parliament Secretariat. CEPPS/NDI raised this issue with the Parliament Secretariat on numerous occasions; the Parliament Secretariat wanted to keep this internship program in the year four work plan. Comments from the Evaluation team: In its discussion with the Parliament Secretariat it was pointed out to the evaluation team that some of the parties have shown reluctance to take in outside people as they found this to be political sensitive. Page 15 states that “the detailed data collection conducted for the Town Hall meetings can be seen as an example that should be following in all training activities conducted by SPPELP.” CEPPS/NDI respectfully notes that NDI implemented data aggregation by age, caste, gender and ethnicity for every program activity, including activities implemented by subgrantees Internews and TAF. Comments from the Evaluation team: The evaluation team notes that NDI is collecting data on this – it would be useful had analysis or this data or the date sets been made available for the evaluation team. It would also be helpful if this data is utilized in the quarterly reporting to a greater degree in future reporting. On page 17, the evaluators note that “it is important that the Nepali context is taken fully into account” when duplicating activities, such as the Future Leadership Academy (FLA) and parliamentary internship program. CEPPS/NDI requests more details regarding why these programs have not been contextualized to the Nepali context. Comments from the Evaluation team: Although the team appreciates the great international experience that CEPPS have from implementing activities similar to the activities implemented in under SPPELP in number of countries across the globe, the team cannot miss to see that a number of the same approaches are implemented in many of the programs. The evaluation team are not stating that CEPPS have SPPELP MID-TERM EVALUATION Page | A61 not been able to contextualize the approaches in Nepal. However, considering the problem of implementing the internship program in the CA, we think that CEPPS could analyze to the program to determine if the lack of success has anything to do with the Nepali context or the specific context of the CA at the time. In the next paragraph on page 17, the draft report states that the two partner organizations lost an opportunity to create programmatic synergies after the dissolution of the CA. CEPPS would like the evaluators to clarify whether the two partner organizations refer to NDI and TAF or NDI and IFES. Comments from the Evaluation team: The Evaluation team is referring to synergies between NDI and IFES – In dealing with the crises that the dissolution of the CA was, the evaluation team found that the lack of formal coordination between the two parties meant that no efforts were taken to formulate a joint response. Had there been a formalized coordination between NDI and IFES and had the two parties tried to jointly formulate their response to the altered reality that dissolution of the CA meant. Page 18 states that NDI should strive to engage the top political party leadership to increase the sense of ownership and support for NDI’s political parties programming. CEPPS/NDI would like to clarify that there are annual and individual training plans and memorandums of understanding reviewed and approved by the leadership of all party partners. This illustrates that party leaders are aware of programming areas and have a good degree of ownership of NDI programs. Comments from the Evaluation team: The evaluation team is aware of CEPP NDI’s engagement with political party leadership, The team is also conscious of the fact that increasing the regularity of such engagement and exchanging and sharing ideas through regular meetings (quarterly) reinforced by seminar/workshops of the leadership is likely to ensure not only awareness of the urgency of the programming but enhance their urgency utilizing any programs they have been engaged in. Further down on page 18, the evaluators note that the Parliament Secretariat suggested that NDI and its sub grantees review different activities with Secretariat officials to ensure prior approval. CEPPS/NDI regularly meets with the Parliament-Secretariat to ensure cooperation between both organizations when implementing program activities. Comments from the Evaluation Team: Perhaps cooperation and collaboration will be enhanced the secretariat be part of the planning process as well as maintaining regular consultations on substantial issues that are likely to affect effectiveness of the support provided by the secretariat to CA/Legislative Parliament members. On page 36 of the draft report, the evaluators recommend conducting need-assessments for the parliamentary internship program and the training of the new CA and IPA. CEPPS/NDI would like to clarify whether the evaluators are referring to the IPA or to the NGPG in this recommendation. Comments from the evaluation team: The team finds that a fine-tuning of possible activities could be beneficial for the training program for newly elected members of the CA as well as the IPA to ensure that all activities remain relevant – it is the suggestion of the evaluation team that a need assessment could help clarify this. Regarding the internship program it is the finding of the evaluation team that, in light of the startup problems of this activity, CEPPS need to assess if this activity is still needed by the CA committees and if it is still needed, what form it should take. A need assessment could help clarify this. Page | A62 SPPELP MID-TERM EVALUATION ANNEX IX: DISCLOSURE OF ANY CONFLICTS OF INTEREST Name Ken Afful Title Executive Chairman Organization Organisation Development Centre inc. Evaluation Position? Team Leader Team member Evaluation Award Number(contract or other instrument) USAID Project(s) Evaluated(Include project name(s), implementer name(s) and award number(s), if applicable) Nepal: Strengthening Political Parties, Electoral and Legislative Processes implemented by CEPPS members NDI and IFES under USAID Associate Cooperative Agreement no. AID-367- LA-10-00001 under Leader Cooperative Agreement DFD-A-00- 08-00350-00 I have real or potential conflicts of interest to disclose. Yes No If yes answered above, I disclose the following facts: Real or potential conflicts of interest may include, but are not limited to: 1. Close family member who is an employee of the USAID operating unit managing the project(s) being evaluated or the implementing organization(s) whose project(s) are being evaluated. 2. Financial interest that is direct, or is significant though indirect, in the implementing organization(s) whose projects are being evaluated or in the outcome of the evaluation. 3. Current or previous direct or significant though indirect experience with the project(s) being evaluated, including involvement in the project design or previous iterations of the project. 4. Current or previous work experience or seeking employment with the USAID operating unit managing the evaluation or the implementing organization(s) whose project(s) are being evaluated. 5. Current or previous work experience with an organization that may be seen as an industry competitor with the implementing organization(s) whose project(s) are being evaluated. 6. Preconceived ideas toward individuals, groups, organizations, or objectives of the particular projects and organizations being evaluated that could bias the evaluation. I certify (1) that I have completed this disclosure form fully and to the best of my ability and (2) that I will update this disclosure form promptly if relevant circumstances change. If I gain access to proprietary information of other companies, then I agree to protect their information from unauthorized use or disclosure for as long as it remains proprietary and refrain from using the information for any purpose other than that for which it was furnished. Signature Date 9 September 2013 SPPELP MID-TERM EVALUATION Page | A63 Name Henrik Schou Hansen Title Sr. Consultant Organization Organisation Development Centre inc. Evaluation Position? Team Leader Team member Evaluation Award Number(contract or other instrument) USAID Project(s) Evaluated(Include project name(s), implementer name(s) and award number(s), if applicable) Nepal: Strengthening Political Parties, Electoral and Legislative Processes implemented by CEPPS members NDI and IFES under USAID Associate Cooperative Agreement no. AID-367- LA-10-00001 under Leader Cooperative Agreement DFD-A-00- 08-00350-00 I have real or potential conflicts of interest to disclose. Yes No If yes answered above, I disclose the following facts: Real or potential conflicts of interest may include, but are not limited to: 7. Close family member who is an employee of the USAID operating unit managing the project(s) being evaluated or the implementing organization(s) whose project(s) are being evaluated. 8. Financial interest that is direct, or is significant though indirect, in the implementing organization(s) whose projects are being evaluated or in the outcome of the evaluation. 9. Current or previous direct or significant though indirect experience with the project(s) being evaluated, including involvement in the project design or previous iterations of the project. 10. Current or previous work experience or seeking employment with the USAID operating unit managing the evaluation or the implementing organization(s) whose project(s) are being evaluated. 11. Current or previous work experience with an organization that may be seen as an industry competitor with the implementing organization(s) whose project(s) are being evaluated. 12. Preconceived ideas toward individuals, groups, organizations, or objectives of the particular projects and organizations being evaluated that could bias the evaluation. I certify (1) that I have completed this disclosure form fully and to the best of my ability and (2) that I will update this disclosure form promptly if relevant circumstances change. If I gain access to proprietary information of other companies, then I agree to protect their information from unauthorized use or disclosure for as long as it remains proprietary and refrain from using the information for any purpose other than that for which it was furnished. Signature Date 9 September 2013 Page | A64 SPPELP MID-TERM EVALUATION Name Sagar Bhusal Title Associate Consultant Organization Organisation Development Centre inc. Evaluation Position? Team Leader Team member Evaluation Award Number(contract or other instrument) USAID Project(s) Evaluated(Include project name(s), implementer name(s) and award number(s), if applicable) Nepal: Strengthening Political Parties, Electoral and Legislative Processes implemented by CEPPS members NDI and IFES under USAID Associate Cooperative Agreement no. AID-367- LA-10-00001 under Leader Cooperative Agreement DFD-A-00- 08-00350-00 I have real or potential conflicts of interest to disclose. Yes No If yes answered above, I disclose the following facts: Real or potential conflicts of interest may include, but are not limited to: 13. Close family member who is an employee of the USAID operating unit managing the project(s) being evaluated or the implementing organization(s) whose project(s) are being evaluated. 14. Financial interest that is direct, or is significant though indirect, in the implementing organization(s) whose projects are being evaluated or in the outcome of the evaluation. 15. Current or previous direct or significant though indirect experience with the project(s) being evaluated, including involvement in the project design or previous iterations of the project. 16. Current or previous work experience or seeking employment with the USAID operating unit managing the evaluation or the implementing organization(s) whose project(s) are being evaluated. 17. Current or previous work experience with an organization that may be seen as an industry competitor with the implementing organization(s) whose project(s) are being evaluated. 18. Preconceived ideas toward individuals, groups, organizations, or objectives of the particular projects and organizations being evaluated that could bias the evaluation. I certify (1) that I have completed this disclosure form fully and to the best of my ability and (2) that I will update this disclosure form promptly if relevant circumstances change. If I gain access to proprietary information of other companies, then I agree to protect their information from unauthorized use or disclosure for as long as it remains proprietary and refrain from using the information for any purpose other than that for which it was furnished. Signature Date 9 September 2013 U.S. Agency for International Development 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20523