1 Promoting Proactive Transparency & Accountability Project (PPTAP) Final Evaluation Final Performance Evaluation Report Phanol Philippe & Ulrick Jean-Claude July 2016 This Evaluation Report was produced for review by the United States Agency for International Development. Prepared by BRIDES 2 USAID/HAITI Promoting Proactive Transparency & Accountability Project (PPTAP) - Final Evaluation Final Performance Evaluation Report Phanol Philippe & Ulrick Jean-Claude July 2016 BRIDES 35, Rue Borno, Pétion-Ville, Haïti DISCLAIMER The authors’ views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for International Development or the United States Government. CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................................................... 5 1 INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................................................10 2 THE PPTAP PROGRAM..........................................................................................................................................10 2.1 PPTAP GOAL............................................................................................................................................................... 10 2.2 PPTAP OBJECTIVES....................................................................................................................................................... 11 3 EVALUATION QUESTIONS.......................................................................................................................................13 4 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY................................................................................................................................13 4.1 RESEARCH DESIGN CONSIDERATION ......................................................................................................................... 13 4.2 USE OF DIFFERENT DATA COLLECTION METHODS...................................................................................................... 13 4.3 DATA COLLECTION ................................................................................................................................................... 14 4.3.1 Preliminary meetings with project key staff ................................................................................................... 14 4.3.2 In depth review of documentation................................................................................................................... 15 4.3.3 Semi-structured interview with key informants .............................................................................................. 15 4.3.4 Focus Group (FG) Discussions...................................................................................................................... 15 4.4 GENDER SENSITIVE APPROACH CONSIDERATIONS ..................................................................................................... 16 4.5 DATA COLLECTION PROCESS .................................................................................................................................... 16 4.6 QUALITY MONITORING AND DATA CLEANING ......................................................................................................... 16 4.7 DATA ANALYSIS ....................................................................................................................................................... 17 5. LIMITATION............................................................................................................................................................17 6. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................18 6.1. TO WHAT EXTENT HAVE THE CIVIL SOCIETY WATCHDOG GROUPS ASSISTED BY LFHH EFFECTIVELY ENGAGED IN THE COMBAT AGAINST CORRUPTION? ........................................................................................................................................................................ 18 6.1.1. Findings on the civil society watchdog groups ............................................................................................... 18 6.1.2. Conclusion on the Civil Society Watchdog Groups.......................................................................................... 21 6.1.3. Recommendations on the Civil Society Watchdog Groups............................................................................. 22 6.2. TO WHAT DEGREE HAS LFHH BEEN SUCCESSFUL IN ESTABLISHING A NETWORK OF PRIVATE SECTOR ENTERPRISES THAT COULD ENGAGE IN THE FIGHT AGAINST-CORRUPTION? ......................................................................................................................................... 22 6.3. TO WHAT EXTENT WERE THE LOCAL COMMUNITY RADIO STATIONS EMPOWERED BY THE PROMOTING PROACTIVE TRANSPARENCY & ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT TO ENGAGE IN THE FIGHT AGAINST CORRUPTION? ..................................................................................... 23 4 6.3.1. Findings on the radio stations empowered by the PPTAP .............................................................................. 23 6.3.2. Conclusion on the radio stations empowered by the PPTAP .......................................................................... 24 6.3.3. Recommendations on the radio stations empowered by the PPTAP.............................................................. 25 6.4. TO WHAT DEGREE HAS THE LFHH-OIG HOTLINE BEEN SUCCESSFUL IN SUPPORTING THE EFFORTS OF THEOIG IN DETECTING AND PROSECUTING FRAUD? ............................................................................................................................................................. 25 6.4.1. Findings on the establishment of an anti-corruption Hotline......................................................................... 25 6.4.2. Conclusions on the hotline’s implementation................................................................................................. 29 6.4.3. Recommendations on the hotline’s implementation...................................................................................... 30 APPENDIX A. BIBLIOGRAPHY...........................................................................................................................................31 APPENDIX B. LIST OF KEY INFORMANTS ..........................................................................................................................33 APPENDIX C. KEY INFORMANTS AND FG GUIDES.............................................................................................................35 5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In Haiti, according to various authors* , the origin of corruption goes back to the time following the country’s independence. Today, corruption continues to take a heavy toll on both the public and private sectors. It is evident that the problem of corruption tends to increase after serious humanitarian crises, such as the earthquake that struck Haiti in January 2010. After this tragedy, Haiti received massive assistance and the emergency needs demanded immediate action, most of the time without any control mechanisms. Such a situation favors the increase of corruption. Consequently, USAID awarded a Cooperative Agreement to “La Fondation Héritage pour Haiti” (LFHH) in order to support the Promoting Proactive Transparency & Accountability Project (PPTAP), an anti-corruption program that promotes transparency, accountability and the development of appropriate laws in Haiti. LFHH is a private, non-profit foundation in Haiti dedicated to fighting corruption and promoting transparency, accountability and good governance. LFHH has been an accredited chapter of the global network of Transparency International (TI) since 2005 and has already gained recognition at both local and international levels. The PPTAP project is a six-year Cooperative Agreement (CA: 521-A-00-10-00014-00) during the period of April 28, 2010 to April 29, 2016. At the end of PPTAP, USAID awarded a contract to BRIDES to conduct a final evaluation of the Proactive Promoting Transparency & Accountability Project. The purpose of the final evaluation is to determine the impact of PPTAP. This evaluation needs to provide pertinent information to USAID and its partner on the overall impact of the LFHH project, and lessons learned from its implementation shall guide future programming in the area of anti￾corruption. The goal of PPTAP is to catalyze anti-corruption commitment within Haiti’s private sector, civil society organizations and grassroots groups, engendered by LFHH’s public awareness and training activities during the last 6 years, into effective anti-corruption actions for reform by improving access to information, by building coalitions and by providing tools, training and incentives to combat corruption and foster progress and stability. The PPTAP project was designed around five (5) objectives: ● Reinforce the capacity of citizens, grassroots groups, civil society and the private sector to effectively engage in combat against corruption in Haiti by providing the motivation, the tools (knowledge, training, legal advice) and by building coalitions and networks. * Yves-François Pierre, Jean-François Tardieu, Lionel Laviolette, Frantz Piard & Frantz Moïse Pierre. Etat des lieux de la lutte contre la corruption en Haïti et de la mise en application de la convention des Nations-Unies contre la corruption (CNUCC) 2010-2011 6 ● Encourage the participation of youth in the fight against corruption by providing motivation, training and tools. ● Accelerate the implementation of the United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC) ratified by the Government of Haiti (GoH). ● Empower community radio stations throughout Haiti to engage in the fight against corruption. ● Operate the LFHH-OIG anti-corruption hotline that enables USAID project’s workers, beneficiaries and other concerned individuals to lodge confidential corruption and fraud complaints and allegations pertaining specifically to USAID–funded projects that LFHH redirects to the OIG for investigation. Through PPTAP’s public awareness and training activities during the last six years, USAID has fostered progress and stability by improving access to information, building coalitions and providing tools, trainings, mechanisms and incentives to combat corruption. The project also included support to the USAID Office of Inspector General (OIG) in its mandate to detect and prevent fraud, waste and abuse and to support the integrity, efficiency, and effectiveness of USAID assistance in Haiti. This is accomplished by operating the PPTAP-OIG Anti-Fraud Hotline that enables witnesses and victims of corruption to lodge confidential complaints pertaining to corrupt practices within USAID projects and prompt OIG investigations. The final evaluation seeks to determine: 1. To what extent have the Civil Society Watch dog groups assisted by LFHH effectively engaged in the combat against corruption? 2. To what degree has LFHH been successful in establishing a network of private sector enterprises that could engage in the fight against-corruption? 3. To what extent were the local community radio stations empowered by the Promoting Proactive Transparency & Accountability Project to engage in the fight against corruption? 4. To what degree has the LFHH-OIG hotline been successful in supporting the efforts of the OIG in detecting and prosecuting fraud? To address the above questions, the evaluation has been based solely on a combination of qualitative techniques. Data collection methods included: In-depth project document review, Key Informant Interviews (KII) and Focus Groups. Data collected in the field led to the following main findings: ● LFHH established and strengthened Civil Society Watchdog groups to fight against corruption. The LFHH project establishes networks of private sector actors and youth, namely the “Collectif Haïtien pour la Transparence, l'Intégrité et l'Ethique” (CHATIE), the “Réseau National des Camps Oubliés” (RENACO), the Committees of Citizens Against Corruption (CCACO), the 7 “Federasyon Komite Kan” (FEKOK) and “Jeunes Haitiens Contre la Corruption” (JHACCO). They participated in several workshops and trainings on the fight against corruption. ● The Civil Society Watchdog groups assisted by LFHH contributed to the establishment of an environment that deterred corruption in Haiti. The project contributes to the development of four (4) draft bills of law, including "Access to Information", "Whistleblower Protection", "Lobbying" and "Financing of Political Parties. None is ratified by parliament. LFHH, during the life of the project, has conducted several advocacy activities in order to obtain the ratification of those laws. The Law on the Prevention and Punishment of Corruption was developed in 2007, well before the project, but the project greatly contributed to its ratification in 2014, according to the LFHH and former ULCC director. ● The Civil Society Watchdog groups are not sustainable. They were ad hoc groups, or groups working directly in IDP camps after the January 12, 2010 earthquake, or based in universities. They were not taking initiative outside the project, and before the end of the project most of them no longer existed. ● Despite LFHH efforts through the Civil Society Watch dog groups, corruption perception has not decreased in Haiti. The Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI), published annually since 1995 by Transparency International, highlights the state of corruption in several countries from the pre-established criteria and identified sources. It shows that corruption perception has been on the rise in Haiti in 2015.The index reaches the lower score of 17 after being steady at 19 for three years. As an example, in 2015, Denmark comes first with a score of 91, while Somalia arrives 168 out of 168 with a score of 8. Haiti is among the dark red countries and according to Transparency International, this color on their map indicates a highly corrupt public sector. ● LFHH claims to have failed in a first initiative to bring together private sector enterprises to build a network. In other words, no network was formed in this regard. Of the many invitations extended by LFHH, most representatives of private sector enterprises did not respond. Of those who did, a second appeal was made for them to commit to the network. Unfortunately, the members were represented by third parties who did not have the authority to engage companies. ● At the beginning of the project, training workshops for journalists and local community radio station directors were performed. The most important training workshop was conducted in September 2010 and twenty-four (24) journalists and media directors, from them two (2) women, participated. 8 ● Also, a public awareness spot on the fight against corruption in Haiti aired through the media, especially community radio stations across the RAMAK* network. However, journalists were not very well informed about other aspects or project activities. ● As part of this anti-corruption initiative, the project, with the support of OIG, established a hotline and secure e-mail address in order to receive complaints regarding possible corruption cases in USAID-funded projects in Haiti. Between January 2013 and April 2016, 18 complaints have been retained by LFHH against USAID projects. The number of calls received over a period of more than three years is insignificant. ● The hotline is an appropriate tool in the fight against corruption. In Haiti, its use must take into account some contextual elements like the weakness of the judicial system. People are usually reluctant to report for fear of possible retaliation or for fear of demonic attack through all sorts of superstitions The main recommendations are: ● Make the networks and coalitions more sustainable by establishing a committee, allowing them to have an action plan and giving them training for trainers and a mandate to reproduce additional cells. It is also important to institutionalize “Collectif Haïtien pour la Transparence, l'Intégrité et l'Ethique” (CHATIE), to avoid duplication and make it more effective in publicizing cases of corruption. ● The fight against corruption might be more effective if a coalition is built between ULCC, NGOs and the private sector and if this coalition is sustained through the autonomy and the strengthening of ULCC and “Unité Centrale de Renseignements Financiers” (UCREF) in order to provide autonomy to do its job. ● The environment for the fight against corruption continues through improving the legal framework, adopting the laws already drafted and drafting other laws, including the bill for protection of whistleblowers. Citizens should be educated as well about their rights. ● The judiciary system must uphold the fight against corruption in Haiti by setting legal precedent. This would be a major deterrent to corruption. ● Set up a transparent information system. The current system perpetuates corruption through limited access and awareness. Citizens, taxpayers and users of public services benefit by receiving information on what is happening and how the processes are in the public sector. * RAMAK: Rasanbleman Medya pou Aksyon Kominotè 9 ● Send messages through community media that are closest to the people and continue to spread awareness through other means after a project and when community radio has ceased airing the messages. ● Empower community media journalists, by training, coaching or other ways, to conduct sound investigations on corruption cases to maintain fact-based reporting. Too often, they are satisfied with what they heard and will report without investigation and documentation. ● Design and implement project activities that are intended to strengthen the capacity of journalists and media networks for activities over a longer period. LFHF should expand work with community media by developing a partnership with RAMAK to ensure systematic sustainability through involvement of community media in actions beyond the duration of projects. This strategy would expand RAMAK’s regular operations and strengthen the fight against corruption through raised awareness. ● Design other means to raise the awareness of a larger audience, i.e. other institutions not funded by USAID but working in the humanitarian sector. Since people come and go through such institutions, training needs to be refreshed. ● Involve both private and public sectors in the fight against corruption. In particular, the strengthening of the judicial system should be supported concurrently to discourage corruption by setting examples and punishing those found guilty. ● Consider anonymous and confidential reporting mechanisms to help foster a climate whereby employees are more likely to report or seek guidance regarding potential or actual wrongdoing without fear of retaliation. Currently, the public doesn’t feel safe. Employees should be able to make whistleblower tips anonymously* . In 2013, 60% of internal fraud tips within US companies were reported anonymously. * From the Elements of an Effective Whistleblower Hotline (Harvard Law School Forum) Posted by Kobi Kastiel, Co-editor, HLS Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation, on Saturday, October 25, 2014. 10 1 INTRODUCTION In Haiti, according to various authors* , the origin of corruption goes back to the time following the country’s independence. Today, corruption continues to take a heavy toll on both the public and private sectors. It is evident that the problem of corruption tends to increase after serious humanitarian crises, such as the earthquake that struck Haiti in January 2010. The volume of mass donations received during this period and special procedures set up to simplify the procurement of goods and the achievement of activities often opened the door for corruption. In order to support an anti-corruption program that promotes transparency, accountability and the development of appropriate laws in Haiti, USAID awarded a cooperative agreement to “La Fondation Héritage pour Haiti” (LFHH). USAID is conducting a final evaluation of the Proactive Promoting Transparency & Accountability Project (PPTAP) which comes to an end after a six-year performance period. The purpose of the final evaluation is to determine the impact of PPTAP. This evaluation will provide pertinent information to USAID and its partners on the overall impact of the LFHH project, and lessons learned from its implementation shall guide future programming in the area of anti￾corruption. This document presents the detailed methodology for the evaluation, the main findings, conclusions and recommendations and the tools that were used in the data collection phase. 2 THE PPTAP PROGRAM USAID funded LFHH to implement PPTAP. PPTAP is a six-year Cooperative Agreement (CA: 521-A-00- 10-00014-00) spanning the period of April 28, 2010 to April 29, 2016. Founded in 1998, LFHH is a private, non-profit foundation in Haiti dedicated to fighting corruption and promoting transparency, accountability and good governance. LFHH has been an accredited chapter of the global network of Transparency International (TI) since 2005 and has already gained recognition at both local and international levels. 2.1 PPTAP GOAL The goal of PPTAP is to strengthen anti-corruption commitment within Haiti’s private sector, civil society organizations, and grassroots groups and enable them to be effective anti-corruption catalysts * Yves-François Pierre, Jean-François Tardieu, Lionel Laviolette, Frantz Piard & Frantz Moïse Pierre. Etat des lieux de la lutte contre la corruption en Haïti et de la mise en application de la convention des Nations-Unies contre la corruption (CNUCC) 2010-2011. 11 for reform. Through PPTAP’s public awareness and training activities during the last six years, USAID has fostered progress and stability by improving access to information, building coalitions and providing tools, trainings, mechanisms and incentives to combat corruption. The project also included support to the USAID Office of Inspector General (OIG) in its mandate to detect and prevent fraud, waste and abuse and to support the integrity, efficiency, and effectiveness of USAID assistance in Haiti. This is accomplished by operating the PPTAP-OIG Anti-fraud Hotline that enables witnesses and victims of corruption to lodge confidential complaints pertaining to corrupt practices within USAID projects and prompt OIG investigations. 2.2 PPTAP OBJECTIVES Objective 1. To reinforce the capacity of citizens, grassroots groups, civil society and the private sector to effectively engage in combat against corruption in Haiti by providing the motivation, the tools (knowledge, training, legal advice) and by building coalitions and networks. Activity 1. To enlarge and reinforce the LFHH watchdog civil society and private sector coalition, the “Collectif Haïtien pour la Transparence, l'Intégrité et l'Ethique” (CHATIE) and increase its capacity to advocate for anti-corruption reforms, and monitor progress towards transparency and accountability. Activity 2. To establish a network of private sector enterprises that will commit to the fight against corruption, adhere to and apply the high anti-corruption standards defined in the 10th principle of the UN Global Compact and promote these principles among their peers. Activity 3. To maintain the LFHH Advocacy and Legal Advice Center (ALAC) operation to continue to empower citizens to make and pursue corruption related complaints to governmental agencies and monitor the outcomes of the complaints. Activity 4. To continue to develop tools in Creole and provide training to enable local leaders to educate their communities about the issues of corruption and empower them to monitor governance at both national and local levels. Activity 5. To establish and maintain a LFHH Transparency Haiti website to create awareness about corruption issues, develop interest in anti-corruption initiatives and multiply supports for the fight against corruption and the struggle to create an ethically sound society. Objective 2. To encourage the participation of youth in the fight against corruption by providing motivation, training and tools. Activity 1. To consolidate the work accomplished with the Youth against Corruption groups (JHACCO: “Jeunes Haitiens Contre la Corruption”) since 2010 by continuing to provide trainings towards the creation of a JHACCO task force to work and advocate on specific corruption issues. 12 Activity 2. To continue to develop and distribute outreach materials in French and Creole for the youth sector. Objective 3. To accelerate the implementation of the United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC) ratified by the Government of Haiti (GoH). Activity 1. To monitor the GoH’s progress toward the implementation of the UNCAC and to advocate toward the reforms and legislations required by the convention. Activity 2. To continue to campaign for the adoption of the four legislations drafted by the LFHH and submitted to the parliament in May, 2012. Objective 4. To empower community radio stations throughout Haiti to engage in the fight against corruption. Activity 1. To continue to train and engage the journalists of the RAMAK network of Community Radio Stations to include the new specific anti-corruption components in their daily programming. Objective 5. To operate the LFHH-OIG anti-corruption hotline that enables USAID project’s workers, beneficiaries and other concerned individuals to lodge confidential corruption and fraud complaints and allegations pertaining specifically to USAID–funded projects that LFHH redirects to the OIG for investigation. Activity 1. To maintain the OIG Hotline phone lines operation, manage the phone lines, monitor the incoming emails, receive complaints, document the cases, submit the reports to the OIG, and follow up on the cases. Activity 2. To implement the OIG Hotline publicity and public awareness campaign through radio and television messages, posters, stickers/vehicle decals, and brochures to inform project workers, beneficiaries and the population at large of this new initiative and to encourage them to lodge complaints. Activity 3. To implement a hotline outreach initiative to train USAID project staff and beneficiaries through at least 30 workshops conducted in the USAID development corridors on corruption in general and, more specifically, on the most prevalent corruption practices in aid and development projects in order to encourage the practice of responsible whistle-blowing. Activity 4. To coordinate with USAID/OIG in the development of fraud awareness materials to ensure the latest schemes are addressed and products are as timely as possible. Activity 5. To inform stakeholders, USAID, project workers and beneficiaries, the GoH and the general public through reports and press releases of the results of this initiative. 13 Activity 6. To prepare and submit monthly, quarterly, and annual reports providing quantitative and qualitative data about complaints made to the hotline, including trend analysis. 3 EVALUATION QUESTIONS The evaluation is expected to address the following questions: 1. To what extent were civil society watchdog groups assisted by LFHH effectively engaged in the combat against corruption? 2. To what degree has LFHH been successful in establishing a network of private sector enterprises that could engage in the fight against-corruption? 3. To what extent were the local community radio stations empowered by the Promoting Proactive Transparency & Accountability Project to engage in the fight against corruption? 4. To what degree has the LFHH-OIG hotline been successful in supporting the efforts of and OIG in detecting and prosecuting fraud? 4 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY 4.1 RESEARCH DESIGN CONSIDERATION The collection and analysis of information about the characteristics and outcomes of the PPTAP as a basis for judgments, to improve effectiveness, and/or inform decision making and future programming, has been applied as a post-test only design. For this evaluation, a baseline study was not conducted before the intervention began. Given the time, technical constraints and fixed resources devoted to the evaluation, the evaluation design was based solely on a combination of qualitative techniques to address the evaluation questions. 4.2 USE OF DIFFERENT DATA COLLECTION METHODS In this evaluation as in many cases, one data collection method is insufficient to answer all the questions included in the evaluation statement of work (SOW).Different methods were used to answer different parts of the same question. Data collection methods included: ● In-depth project document review, ● Key Informant Interviews (KII), ● Focus Group Discussions Above methods were used separately and the findings not integrated until after the data were analyzed. Most of the document review took place at the beginning and findings from this step used to produce the inception report and inform the design and implementation of key informant 14 interview and focus discussion methods. The same evaluation team was involved in implementing key informant interview and focus group methods, and the actual data collection and analysis happened over the same period of time. It is generally* recommended to continue conducting focus groups until the evaluator is able to predict how participants will answer. According to the magnitude of the research, the team chose to conduct Focus Groups or KII , not only at the level of all entities or institutions targeted by the project but also with other important stakeholders in the fight against corruption with which the project had not developed relationships. At least one KII by institution, three KII by coalition/group of institutions and two focus groups by JHACCO were needed. Therefore, 37 KII and 9 Focus Groups were planned as part of this study. With this number of KII and FG, content saturation could be reached. Details are presented in a table summarizing the data collection at the end of this document. FIGURE 1: Sequential combinations 4.3 DATA COLLECTION The following qualitative methods were used for data collection: In-depth review of project documentation, key informant interviews and focus groups. Based on the evaluation objectives and questions, semi-structured guides were developed in order to conduct data collection. Qualitative data helped better understand who the main stakeholders involved in the fight against corruption were, what kind of support they received, what actions they took and what the outcomes were. In addition, qualitative methods were used to understand the degree that the LFHH-OIG hotline was successful in supporting the efforts of OIG in detecting and prosecuting fraud. 4.3.1 Preliminary meetings with project key staff The team met with the USAID evaluation contract COR to ensure everything was clear regarding the evaluation’s expectations and results. During the meeting, discussions focused on the evaluation questions, key aspects of the project context and documents to be examined. The team leader and * Sharon Vaughn, Jeanne Shay Schumm, Jane Sinagub. 1996. Focus Group Interviews. In depth document review Inception report and planning Individual and Focus Group interview 15 assistant team leader attended this meeting for BRIDES. The evaluation team met with key PPTAP staff in order to better understand the implementation process and discuss the sharing of relevant documents. 4.3.2 In depth review of documentation The members of the evaluation team reviewed all relevant project documents and other related resources throughout the evaluation process. Archived material related to the whole project, and the initial material used in project preparation, approved project documents, project monitoring documents, beneficiary lists, quarterly reports, annual PMPs and any other available information were considered together with the qualitative primary data to answer the evaluation questions. The intensive review not only helped the members of the evaluation team better prepare for the field work but also facilitated the understanding of the cause-and-effect relationships behind the project design and environmental factors that affected project beneficiaries. This review also helped the team assess the project's achievements relative to expectations and level of efficiency. 4.3.3 Semi-structured interview with key informants Thirty (30) Key Informants Interviews (KII) were conducted with members of partner institutions directly involved in the implementation of the project as civil society and private sector coalition members, ULCC director, UCREF director, members of the Committees of Citizens against Corruption, members of the Advocacy and Legal Advice Center (ALAC), private sector enterprise owners or representatives, the LFHH hotline manager, etc. Other interviews were held similarly with some project management staff. These interviews, in addition to providing answers to the project evaluation questions, helped evaluate the role and level of participation of different stakeholders in the project’s implementation. Wherever possible, systems put in place to fight corruption, such as databases and hotlines, were visited. This technique was used to address all four (4) evaluation questions. An exhaustive list of planned KII is presented in the summary table of data collection. 4.3.4 Focus Group (FG) Discussions Specific groups considered for this data collection method included JHACCO and the reporters trained on issues related to corruption practices and their impact on development and good governance. In accordance with the number and location of these target groups, two (2) focus groups (FG) were conducted. A focus group guide was developed as the main tool for conducting the discussions; this guide included open questions revolving around relevant questions to be answered in the study. These questions were defined using the PMP and during brainstorming with LFHH Experts. This technique was applied to the youth and journalists in order to respond to the evaluation questions one and three. During focus groups, discussions were conducted under the leadership of a 16 facilitator. A note taker was responsible for data collection. An observer attended the focus groups to capture other significant information such as group dynamics, behaviors and reactions. 4.4 GENDER SENSITIVE APPROACH CONSIDERATIONS In gender-blind research, women’s experiences and contributions remain invisible, and, consequently, important aspects of an issue remain undocumented and underestimated and, therefore, may be misunderstood (Leduc* , 2009). To include a gender-sensitive approach in this evaluation, the evaluation team tried, wherever possible, to establish a balance in the choice of key informants. In the FG, the team ensured gender balance was met from the time invitations to participants were sent. 4.5 DATA COLLECTION PROCESS Once the step of designing the evaluation and identifying needs and data sources was completed by the approval of the evaluation plan and tools, the next step was to carry out data collection. In order to ensure high-quality data, several steps were taken. Six FGs and KII facilitators were selected through a competitive process and based on their experience. After recruiting facilitators, a one-day orientation session was organized to ensure that the team had a good understanding of interviewing techniques and note taking and that they were familiar with the interview guides developed for this purpose. The FG team needed 2 days to complete the Focus Groups. In general, the primary data was analyzed upon collection. This approach had the advantage of allowing time to adjust certain issues in order to deepen the new and different aspects of the first findings. This helped fill any gaps found. BRIDES also conducted in-depth KIIs with stakeholders and government entities in order to obtain a more accurate picture. 4.6 QUALITY MONITORING AND DATA CLEANING Data collection is a process of selective choice of empirical phenomena and their relevant attributes in relation to the research questions and it carries certain subjectivity. It is therefore imperative to ensure the quality of the data by ensuring that there is rigor in the design, collection, analysis and interpretation of data. Some aspects taken into account by the team to ensure data quality includes the following: • The evaluation team ensures that the instrument sufficiently addressed the research questions. • Ensure that the questions are clear. * Leduc, Brigitte. 2009. Guidelines for Gender Sensitive Research, November, ICIMOD. 17 • Ensure the internal coherence of the collection instrument. • Facilitators should ensure that they have knowledge of what was understood by the participant, if the analysis of data from these interview questions leads to erroneous conclusions. • The validity of the data will be checked during its gathering. This refers to the degree to which descriptive information such as events, subjects, setting, time and places are accurately reported. • Check whether there are biases that would be related to facilitators and eliminate them before the analysis and triangulation of data. • The data is triangulated using multiple sources and collection methods. 4.7 DATA ANALYSIS The analysis and interpretation of focus groups and key informant interviews were conducted using content analysis methods. The meaning of a focus group discussion at face value may not provide complete interpretation and insight. Rather, the content of the discussion was examined to discover the meaning and its particular implications for the evaluation questions. Every effort to interpret focus group/key informant interview data occurred through analysis of content. The main steps were the following: • Data making • Data reduction • Inference • Analysis • Validation 5. LIMITATION The nine (9) Focus Groups initially planned, especially those expected to take place outside the Metropolitan Area, were not able to be realized. The team conducted only two FGs. The absence or demobilization of the structures, especially JHACCO, is the basis of this problem. In the same manner, some key informants were not accessible. For some key informants represented on the list to visit, the team had to give up after three or four aborted appointments for lack of availability. The team did not replace those missed opportunities with others. These facts reduced the number of interviews and FG completed and limits data available for this report. 18 6. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 6.1. TO WHAT EXTENT HAVE THE CIVIL SOCIETY WATCHDOG GROUPS ASSISTED BY LFHH EFFECTIVELY ENGAGED IN THE COMBAT AGAINST CORRUPTION? 6.1.1. Findings on the civil society watchdog groups Data collected in the field led to the following findings: - The LFHH established and strengthened Civil Society Watchdog groups to fight against corruption. - The Civil Society Watchdog groups assisted by LFHH contributed to the establishment of an environment that deters corruption in Haiti. - The Civil Society Watchdog groups are not sustainable. - Despite LFHH efforts through the civil society watchdog groups, corruption perception has not been decreased in Haiti. The following facts and qualitative data collected in the field support the findings: A. The LFHH established and strengthened Civil Society Watchdog groups to fight against corruption The LFHH project engaged Civil Society Watchdog groups in the combat against corruption by establishing networks of private sector actors and youth namely the “Collectif Haïtien pour la Transparence, l'Intégrité et l'Ethique” (CHATIE), the “Réseau National des Camps Oubliés” (RENACO), the Committees of Citizens Against Corruption (CCACO), the “Federasyon Komite Kan” (FEKOK) and “Jeunes Haitiens Contre la Corruption” (JHACCO). For example, several workshops were organized for CHATIE to sensitize stakeholders in the fight against corruption. A minor example is that LFHH used the texts of Maurice Sixto* to show young people how he denounced corruption in Haiti. In many cases, meetings were held to determine opportunities or to draft legislation on specific themes to combat corruption in Haiti. Activities under CHATIE were scheduled ad hoc to meet specific needs related to the fight against corruption in Haiti. It should be noted that while the partners constituting CHATIE knew the * Maurice Alfredo Sixto was a professor of literature, a storyteller, and a humorist in Haiti. Born in Gonaives in 1919 and died in 1984 in the USA, he left unforgettable works that make him, with Theodore Beaubrun said Languichatte, one of the greatest Haiti comedians. The foundation Maurice Sixto, founded in 2004, perpetuates his works and promotes education and Haitian culture. His main works such as sentaniz, Gro Moso and zabelbok painted Haitian reality and denounced corruption in the Haitian society. 19 foundation and admit that there were meetings in connection with the anti-corruption fight, they deny being aware of the overall project and its objectives. They were not briefed about the project in the meetings. They were not invited to the meetings to be part of CHATIE and to be involved in the fight against corruption as an organization. December 9th is dedicated Global Anti-Corruption day. LFHH took advantage, December 9, 2014, to officially launch the JHACCO movement at the University of Port-au-Prince (UofP) in the metropolitan area and in provincial towns. A core of two or three people constituted JHACCO cells with the objective of raising awareness about the evils of corruption. Through this movement, training courses were organized for young people in universities to know what corruption is, be aware of the evils of corruption and how to combat it. During these workshops, materials such as books and flyers were distributed to young people. Other groups established or supported by the PPTAP project (such as RANACO, FEKOK or CCACO) worked within camps erected around the metropolitan area of Port-au-Prince after the earthquake that devastated the country on January 12, 2010. These groups participated in several training sessions on the fight against corruption, i.e. how to identify and relate the alleged cases of corruption, etc. and were engaged alongside those who ran the camps. They had not really denounced corruption at the time, but they attracted the attention of authorities on cases of rape and abuse recorded in the camps. Today, these groups no longer exist, but some of the former members are still active in motivating youth before the elections or as observers of electoral contests. These entities supported by the project, by their nature and their scope of activities, did not last. B. The Civil Society Watchdog Groups assisted by LFHH contributed to the establishment of an environment that deters corruption in Haiti The project, through the activities carried out in collaboration with its partners, contributed to the adoption of laws to create an environment that discourages corruption in Haiti. Indeed, the project contributed to the drafting of four (4) bills of law, including "Access to Information", "Whistleblower Protection", "Lobbying" and "Financing of Political Parties. However, none has yet been ratified by parliament. LFHH, during the life of the project, conducted several advocacy activities in order to obtain the ratification of those laws. But it should also be noted that during much of the time of implementation of the project, there was no parliament in place. The Law on the Prevention and Punishment of Corruption was drafted in 2007, well before the project. But the project has greatly contributed to its 2014 ratification, according to the LFHH and former ULCC director. The Parliament, in its mission to monitor government-priority actions, has legal provisions to ensure transparent and accountable governance. The project added the establishment of anti-corruption committees in the Haitian parliament in 2015. The parliament, through these commissions, became much more active in the fight against corruption in Haiti. For instance, recently in the beginning of the year 2016, the Ethics committee and the Anti-Corruption committee in the Senate initiated an inquiry to shed light on the management of Petrocaribe funds by the administration of former 20 Presidents Preval and Martelly. The committee heard several senior officials of former administrations, including the former Ministers of Economy and Finance. Young people sensitized through JHACCO activities have become true agents in the fight against corruption. They say they have a better understanding of what corruption is, and swear to fight it by all legitimate means. C. The Civil Society Watchdog groups are not sustainable During the span of the project, youth were trained and participated informally in the spreading of awareness among their peers. Some JHACCO members who constituted the cells within universities graduated and are now in the workforce with their knowledge and sensitivity regarding anticorruption. After almost 3 years, all traces of JHACCO disappeared on university campuses. These individuals can certainly continue to raise awareness against corruption in the workplace, but they are no longer at the universities. JHACCO did not renew the staff constituting the cells and, currently, JHACCO no longer exists. The youth currently on campuses do not benefit from the existence and operation of JHACCO. CHATIE did not work in a structured and regular manner. Activities were organized under the invitation and the leadership of LFHH to meet specific needs relating to the fight against corruption. Meeting participants were often chosen by the foundation. Participants varied with the sectors concerned and the themes or activities treated. The sustainability of such a structure was closely linked to the existence of the project. D. Despite LFHH efforts through the civil society watchdog groups, perception of corruption has not decreased in Haiti In addition to the Civil Society Watchdogs, the LFHH has worked in collaboration with state entities such as parliament and the ULCC, in the fight against corruption. For example, LFHH has been working with the ULCC to create an environment that discourages corruption through drafting four bills of law. The project developed a petition asking Parliament to ratify pending legislation. LFHH developed, in partnership with the ULCC, a parallel report by a civil society task force on the implementation of the United Nations Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC). Most of the time, cases of corruption are identified and the corrupt individuals are arrested only to be released later without a trial, according to one of the RNDDH representatives. With this type of impunity, corruption is far from decreasing in Haiti. No progress is recorded at the level of the perception index measured annually by Transparency International. The CPI, published annually since 1995 by Transparency International, highlights the state of corruption in numerous countries from pre-established criteria and identified sources. A country or territory’s score indicates the perceived level of public sector corruption on a scale of 0 (highly 21 corrupt) to 100 (very clean). A country's rank indicates its position relative to the other countries in the index. In table 1 below it shows that corruption perception rose in Haiti between 2014 and 2015. The index reaches the lower score of 17 after being steady at 19 for three years, indicating a greater perception of corruption. As an example, in 2015, Denmark comes first with a score of 91, while Somalia arrives 168 out of 168 with a score of 8. Haiti is among the dark red countries and according to Transparency International, this color on their map indicates a highly corrupt public sector. The World Bank in its 2015 Haiti diagnostic reported that in Haiti there is no social contract between the Government and its citizens. There never was a tradition of provision of public services or maintaining an environment conducive to sustainable growth. Corruption affects all of the workings of the state, in the form of bribes, extortion, illicit enrichment, laundering of monies from economic crimes, abuse of office, influence trafficking, embezzlement, tax fraud, billing fraudulently to personally collect revenue, under-invoicing in an attempt to curry favors, nepotism, and illegal procurement of public works. Corruption is an obstacle to the development of the country and the establishment of the rule of law; it undermines public confidence in public institutions, projects a negative image of the country to the outside world, and discourages investors (World Bank, 2015). The table below shows the evolution of the CPI in Haiti from 2010 to 2015. Table 1: Evolution of the CPI for Haiti Year Rank Number of countries CPI 2010 146 178 22 2011 175 183 18 2012 165 174 19 2013 163 175 19 2014 161 175 19 2015 158 167 17 6.1.2. Conclusion on the Civil Society Watchdog Groups The evaluation team concluded that significant efforts have been made in reducing corruption in Haiti through the LFHH project and its partner civil society watchdog groups. LFHH and CHATIE worked together with the ULCC to fight corruption in Haiti. An environment that deters corruption has been created with the law on the prevention and the punishment of corruption, and with the anti￾corruption commission in the parliament. 22 Despite these efforts, the fight against corruption still looks long and arduous. The PPTAP project has just begun the fight by starting to create a favorable climate to discourage corruption. The recommendations are in line with the improvement of the climate for strengthening institutions already engaged in the fight against corruption, raising awareness about the evils of corruption, and encouraging people to not tolerate corruption. 6.1.3. Recommendations on the civil society watchdog groups Specifically, the recommendations are: • Make JHACCO branches/sections more sustainable by structuring the committee and giving them training for trainers and a mandate to reproduce additional branches. • Build a coalition between ULCC, NGOs and the private sector and sustain this coalition through the institutionalization of CHATIE to avoid duplication and make it more effective in the awareness-denouncing -deterrence chain. • Civil society groups should be strengthened to be able to better advocate towards/engage with ULCC and UCREF. • The environment for the fight against corruption will be bettered by improving the legal framework, adopting the laws already drafted and drafting other laws, including the protection of whistleblowers. Citizens should be educated as well about their rights. Civil society groups should put pressure on the judicial system to enforce the law. • The judiciary system should be seen as the leading government entity in the fight against corruption in Haiti through establishing precedent for criminal prosecutions for high level corruption cases, and it should enforce the law properly. This would be a major deterrent to corruption. • Set up a transparent information system to facilitate the active inclusion of citizens in the business of government and NGOs as emphasized in UNCAC. • This kind of project should expand throughout the country. 6.2. TO WHAT DEGREE HAS LFHH BEEN SUCCESSFUL IN ESTABLISHING A NETWORK OF PRIVATE SECTOR ENTERPRISES THAT COULD ENGAGE IN THE FIGHT AGAINST-CORRUPTION? One of the components of the first PPTAP objective was to develop a network of private sector enterprises. It was intended that this network, once established, would engage in the fight against corruption. It was also expected to adhere to and apply high anti-corruption standards set in the 10th principle of the UN Global Compact, which states that businesses should work against corruption in all its forms, including extortion and bribery. With that goal, LFHH launched training sessions to encourage enterprises to apply high anti-corruption standards. For example, a training session was 23 conducted for the benefit of the National Association of Haitian Business Women. In addition, 40 representatives from businesses participated in the first meeting held at the Montana hotel to launch the initiative leading to the establishment of the network. At the second follow-up meeting launched as part of that initiative, only three representatives responded to the invitation. LFHH has concluded that there was a lack of interest. According to the business leaders from the private sector, they were actually invited to take part in a meeting with the LFHH, but did not know it was going to lead to a network as part of any fight against corruption. In general, they were unaware of the existence of the project and its goals. LFHH claims to have failed in this first initiative to bring together private sector enterprises to build a network. In other words, no network was formed in this regard. Of the many invitations extended by LFHH, most representatives from private sector enterprises did not respond. Of those that did, a second appeal was made for them to commit to the network. Unfortunately, the members were represented by third parties who did not have the authority to engage companies. The reasons for the problems with this initiative are unclear. While it is believed that the invitation was clear, it seems that the members were not able to accomplish what they were invited to do. Unfortunately, the network of private sector enterprises could not be established as planned. Despite setbacks, LFHH should continue to insist not only to establish this network but also to encourage the implementation of an anti-corruption system within each enterprise with a supporting legal system. 6.3. TO WHAT EXTENT WERE THE LOCAL COMMUNITY RADIO STATIONS EMPOWERED BY THE PROMOTING PROACTIVE TRANSPARENCY & ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT TO ENGAGE IN THE FIGHT AGAINST CORRUPTION? 6.3.1. Findings on the radio stations empowered by the PPTAP One of the PPTAP objectives was to empower community radio stations throughout Haiti to engage in the fight against corruption. The project chose to work with the pre-established network of community radio stations to train journalists and radio station directors on the issues about corruption. The goal is to involve community leaders and those who influence public opinion in the fight against corruption in Haiti. At the beginning of the project, training workshops for journalists and local community radio station directors were performed. The most important training workshop was conducted in September 2010 and twenty-four (24) journalists and media directors participated, among them two (2) women. Also, a public awareness spot on the fight against corruption in Haiti aired through the media, especially community radio stations across the RAMAK network. The evaluation team was able to meet with six (6) journalists who participated in the training, two (2) media directors and two (2) RAMAK network national executives. 24 With the PPTAP project, journalists are better informed, educated and imbued in the phenomenon of corruption in Haiti. They are more engaged in the fight against corruption by producing radio programs aimed at raising awareness about the phenomenon and what can be done in the fight. ● A community media manager in Miragoâne interviewed explained that the training received in the PPTAP allowed him to fully understand what corruption is. He cited as an example his surprise that direction of funds from one community project to another community project that clearly met a need of the community was an example of fraud or malpractice. ● Some community media directors and journalists who participated in the PPTAP training workshops continue today (May, 2016) to disseminate public awareness spots on the fight against corruption despite the fact that contract that linked the LFHH and RAMAK only lasted for a month in 2010. For the journalists with whom we spoke, there is commitment of community media and journalists who are closest to the people in promoting transparency and the fight against corruption. Listeners hear the very important awareness spots as they tune in for community radio programs. ● Some community radio journalists have used the training provided by PPTAP to investigate suspected cases of corruption. A journalist from Nippes reported having conducted a survey that 22 million gourdes were released to fund ten (10) projects, yet only two (2) of these projects were completed at term. He therefore took the initiative to seek information and broadcast a show to present the results of the investigation to the population. Almost all of the journalists with whom we spoke were not aware of other aspects or activities of PPTAP. None of them could say anything about CHATIE and youth associations / networks against corruption that LFHH / PPTAP helped set up. Journalists and media were informed of the work of the Hotline. Five out of the six journalists we interviewed said that they believe the hotline was a good approach and worked well. For them, the fact that the ALAC hotline was anonymous gave more trust and confidence to the population who were fearful in the past to report cases of corruption. 6.3.2. Conclusion on the radio stations empowered by the PPTAP We can say that, to a large extent, the PPTAP actions with community journalists and media managers had positive effects on awareness of journalists and media and what they can do in the fight against corruption in Haiti. Also, the continued work of journalists and community media following the work done with LFHH in the PPTAP (training, broadcast spots, etc.) has helped to raise additional awareness. The reported facts and opinions of journalists and media who participated in the project activities also show that the approach of working with the network RAMAK was good. All journalists said they had been contacted by RAMAK leaders to participate in training workshops and the MEDIACOM firm that handled the distribution of awareness spots used the same network. One of our interviewees 25 thought that the spot aired by community radio stations at the same time as a USAID-funded project spot somehow alerted the attention of local authorities and dissuaded them from additional corruption. The training theme and approach were also much appreciated. One of the representatives of RAMAK said the theme "How to make programs to raise awareness on the fight against corruption" has attracted the interest of journalists. They are, in his opinion, the techniques learned and the linking of journalists in the communities that make that community media still continue to engage in the fight against corruption. 6.3.3. Recommendations on the radio stations empowered by the PPTAP • Our interviewees were unanimous in saying that such a project must be delivered primarily through community media that are closest to the people. They say spreading awareness spots continues despite the broadcasting contract’s completion. • In similar projects, it would be important to better train and equip community media journalists to conduct professional investigations of corruption cases. Currently, some journalists report suspicions as fact. • Projects must not be confined to Port-au-Prince, intimating that it is only the level of central government where we find corruption. It is necessary to work with local authorities, civil society sector, state control structures and the media in the departments and municipalities as well. • Ensure that activities with community media are not reduced to the formation and distribution of spots over a short period during the project. RAMAK wishes, for example, to have the opportunity to develop a partnership with a project that can strengthen the capacity of journalists and the media network for activities over a longer period. This would ensure systematic sustainability through involvement of community media in actions beyond the projects. 6.4. TO WHAT DEGREE HAS THE LFHH-OIG HOTLINE BEEN SUCCESSFUL IN SUPPORTING THE EFFORTS OF AND OIG IN DETECTING AND PROSECUTING FRAUD? 6.4.1. Findings on the establishment of an anti-corruption Hotline A. Implementation of the hotline As part of this anti-corruption project, LFHH, with the support of OIG, established a hotline and secure e-mail address in order to receive complaints regarding possible corruption cases in USAID￾funded projects in Haiti. In fact, according to the previous hotline coordinator, the line was working pretty well, especially in the beginning, and people were calling anytime during the day or night. There was an inauguration ceremony in January 2013, at the Montana Hotel, where the hotline was introduced to partners and their attention drawn to corruption practices identified in the workplace. The hotline is a phone number, *550, and three phone lines available to respond to the various calls. 26 It was set up in a way that if the first extension is not able to receive the call, it is automatically transferred to the second one and so on. The person who receives the complaint first writes the report’s preliminary draft. Based on the strategy established, anonymous calls are not accepted but there is an emphasis on their confidentiality. Before stating the details of the complaint, callers were to identify themselves, provide the name of the project or institution concerned by the complaint and additional details required to fill out the pre-established forms designed for the process. Based on the facts reported, a report is written and directly submitted to OIG/USAID following the approval of the LFHH director. Then OIG was responsible for the follow-up of the recorded complaints. Complaints had to do, among other topics, with service contracting, non-compliance with procurement procedures, unpaid workers, nepotism, etc. The hotline’s primary purpose is USAID-funded projects, i.e. project managers, project staff and members of communities where such projects are implemented. To inform the public about this hotline, two aspects have been given priority: publicity in the media, and sensitization of USAID project staff. In fact, radio advertisements, especially on community radios, encourage people to complain using the *550 line in a non-anonymous but confidential manner. Joint training sessions between PPTAP and OIG/USAID have been planned and held to benefit all project staff for USAID-funded projects. This happened within the institutions and the whole staff received two presentations: one directly made by PPTAP and another one by OIG representatives. During the training sessions, corruption is presented under all its forms, examples of corruption cases from other countries are provided, and people are sensitized on the zero tolerance principle enforced against corruption. Training sessions were well received by participants. Participants understood that corruption was not going to be tolerated. According to key staff from PSI Haiti, project personnel should be easily able to identify corruption cases following these presentations. Besides the two aspects that have already been mentioned, the PPTAP project also gave out stickers, posters, pens, key chains, etc. to help people know about the hotline. In addition to the hotline, the public was informed that a confidential e-mail address was also available to receive complaints even though the e-mail had not really been used. The assumption was that, if the message did not go through the target population, the hotline would not succeed. In that sense, it appears that the work was accomplished since several sensitization methods were used to reach the target population. In conjunction with this hotline, jointly managed with USAID, LFHH was also managing another hotline together with ULCC as part of the Advocacy and Legal Advice Center (ALAC): with the number 3118-8701. In fact, it is important to mention that LFHH has managed that other hotline since 2008, before the launch of the anti-corruption project funded by USAID. This line gave the public the opportunity to report alleged corruption cases in the Haitian public administration, or private sector, outside of USAID projects. Just like the OIG hotline, calls received were analyzed and then a report was drafted and submitted for the Director’s approval. Following the approval, the report is 27 submitted to the Unité de Lutte Contre la Corruption (ULCC) for the required follow-up. Keeping in mind that LFHH is the Haitian branch of Transparency International, this ALAC hotline is a Transparency International requirement and is therefore implemented in the different countries where the institution operates. The ULCC was established in 2004 out of the UNCAC, the United Nations Convention Against Corruption and the OAS’ CICC (Commission Interaméricaine Contre la Corruption). Then, the concern was to find tools that would effectively stop the race towards the misuse of government funding within Latin America and the Caribbean, through the decrease of non-essential spending, a more rational use of funding, and more beneficial interventions for the population. While corruption existed in 2004, there was no law against it and, therefore, it was not considered a crime. In the Penal Code, for example, there are only brief references to the misuse of public funding dating from 1835. In 2007, BRIDES, in a ULCC-funded assessment, referred to a few institutions that had been the most weakened due to corruption. In this list, one can especially see the judicial system and government money collection institutions such as DGI* and those managing public funding such as APN, OAVCT and ONA† . This parallel hotline was therefore established in such a context and gave people the opportunity to confidentially report alleged corruption cases. B. The hotline, a very appropriate tool in the fight against corruption After reflecting on using hotlines operated by NGOs in several other countries (including Pakistan) successfully, the decision was made by USAID’s OIG to establish the hotline in Haiti within the overall efforts to rebuild the country in the aftermath of the January 12, 2010 earthquake. According to the key stakeholders met, the hotline was appropriate according to the needs identified and challenges faced in the US government-funded projects. The hotline was established in compliance with OIG and LFHH policies and strategies in the fight against corruption. According to the evidence found through the evaluation, the hotline is a rather relevant and appropriate tool in the fight against corruption under certain conditions. The hotline establishes a direct link between LFHH, an institution committed to fighting against corruption, and people who have witnessed or suffered alleged corruption cases. They have the opportunity to make a toll-free call and alert decision-makers to excesses occurring. C. Not so satisfying results * DGI : « Direction Générale des Impôts » † APN : « Autorité Portuaire Nationale » OAVCT : « Office Assurance Véhicule Contre Tiers » ONA : « Office National D’Assurance » 28 Between January 2013 and April 2016, 18 complaints have been retained by LFHH against USAID projects. The parallel hotline managed in conjunction with ULCC shows little difference with 16 complaints for the 2013-2016 period and a total of 41 between 2008 and 2016. The 18 complaints have been processed and forwarded to OIG for the necessary follow-up. In the meantime, there was an incident with FAES (“Fonds d’Assistance Économique et Sociale”) that got the hotline number and disseminated it through advertisements for people to call and report excesses in the Haitian public administration, a misuse of its purpose. Over this period, the line received more than a hundred calls on a daily basis. According to the different stakeholders we consulted, including OIG/USAID staff, the number of calls received over a period of more than three years is insignificant. One must note, however, that most of the complaints retained were followed up by OIG. Silence or a low volume of calls may not necessarily imply that all is well in the projects and unethical or unlawful conduct is not occurring, but rather may be indicative of an inadequate hotline. For example, the advertising strategy used to make it known and the non-anonymous call system may not be culturally appropriate. According to the hotline’s managers, more complaints could have been received but, when people find out they have to provide their name and other details, they become fearful. According to the OIG hotline coordinator, this is a cultural issue that keeps the hotline from operating very well. People are usually reluctant to report for fear of possible retaliation or spiritual attacks. Beyond the cultural issue, RNDDH* touches on the weakness of the Haitian judicial system, in the case of the line managed jointly with ULCC. In fact, according to one of the RNDDH coordinators, to effectively fight corruption, the Haitian judicial system should be sending clear signals and showing examples, i.e. corruption cases proven to be true, following investigations, should be the object of fair trials and conviction in accordance with current legislation. This opinion on this issue is also shared by the former ULCC Director. On the basis of call reports received from LFHH (for about 40% of the cases) and their own complaint system, ULCC, between 2004 and 2015, has processed and forwarded about thirty proven corruption cases to the judicial system along with relevant recommendations. No follow-up was done by the judicial * RNDDH: Réseau Haïtien de Défense des Droits Humains To effectively fight corruption, the Haitian judicial system should be sending clear signals and showing examples 29 system. Because of that, and since it is anticipated that there will be no prosecution, relevant people are not encouraged to report corruption. The bill on witness and expert protection, waiting to be passed by the Haitian Parliament will hopefully help bring up the number of complaints received in both systems. In addition, it seems that the line is not always available. In fact, according to a key informant, he tried to call several times to test the hotline. Unfortunately, none of his calls were answered. However the USAID-funded project staff is affected by key messages. People interviewed at the projects financed by USAID are very satisfied with the content of the presentations on corruption and the existence of the hotline. They believe that they are now better equipped to identify and report cases of corruption in the environment of the respective projects. D. The viability of the OIG-hotline is threatened Several studies* have revealed that the two predictors having the most impact on sustainability are: the diversity of funding sources and the commitment and support of the program’s main initial donor. To a lesser extent, we may also add community participation. The main donor, in this case USAID, has provided all the necessary support for the hotline’s implementation, as acknowledged by the LFHH director. In addition to the project’s funding in itself, USAID regularly met with LFHH. The PowerPoint slides received feedback from OIG. The Port-au￾Prince-based OIG agents have had several working sessions with LFHH in their facilities. Considering this specific aspect, LFHH was able to utilize materials developed to raise the institutions’ and the public’s awareness in reporting alleged corruption cases, even after the end of USAID funding. On the other hand, it first needs to be specified that both lines (OIG and ALAC) are exclusively funded by USAID. ALAC existed well before, but was financially supported by the project during the project’s lifetime. One must then anticipate that the sustainability of such a process is therefore threatened in the absence of USAID funding unless another donor is found. 6.4.2. Conclusions on the hotline’s implementation The hotlines, established to receive complaints regarding alleged cases of corruption, certainly addresses the needs. According to testimonies collected following the training sessions, sensitized people will be stricter. However, the results of such a pilot experience are rather weak, especially with regard to the low number of calls received. Among the most important challenges identified, the weakness of the judicial system is the one that is most often mentioned. Because of the fear of retaliation, complaints are rare. To resolve this problem, ULCC accepts, for example, anonymous complaints within the institution, which are considered as leads to initiate investigations. This * Riki Savaya and Shimon E. Spiro. Mai 2011. Predictors of Sustainability of Social Programs 30 approach has yielded very good results. The anonymous line receives complaints on a daily basis. However, the operation of the hotline does not guarantee it will be able to survive without USAID￾funding. In fact, the line operates with only one source of funding and it does not seem fully owned by relevant stakeholders. 6.4.3. Recommendations on the hotline’s implementation • The public was not sufficiently informed about the existence of the hotline. An improved advertising plan might increase calls from people. Design other means to raise the awareness of a larger audience, i.e. other institutions not funded by USAID but working in the humanitarian sector. Staff turnover warrants refreshing the training. • Broaden the scope: some firms doing audits for USAID were targeted but other firms/cooperatives could have been added. A few institutions without USAID funding requested the training and were added to the target list. • Involve the private and public sectors. In particular, the reinforcement of the judicial system should be supported concurrently. • Activities were somewhat limited to the larger metropolitan area of Port-au-Prince, which was another challenge. The hotline would be effective in targeting the different regions of the country. • Plan for continued training sessions to strengthen the message over time. According to the trainings participants, one session is not enough. • Create creative, attractive, and relevant presentations. The PowerPoint presentations were not always appropriate and sometimes too long. • Consider anonymous and confidential reporting mechanisms to help foster a climate whereby employees would be more likely to report or seek guidance regarding potential or actual wrongdoing without fear of retaliation. Currently, the public doesn’t feel safe. Employees should be able to make whistleblower tips anonymously* or, at the very least, confidentially, as research indicates that employees are more comfortable reporting suspected wrongdoing when such options are available. In 2013, 60% of internal fraud tips within US companies were reported anonymously. In addition, for example, the complaints tripled when ULCC decided to receive them anonymously. * From the Elements of an Effective Whistleblower Hotline (Harvard Law School Forum) Posted by Kobi Kastiel, Co-editor, HLS Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation, on Saturday, October 25, 2014. 31 APPENDIX A. BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. Award letter LFHH 2. BRIDES. 2005. Etude de perception sur la gouvernance en Haïti. 3. GoH. 2007. Constitution de la République d’Haiti 4. USAID. 2005. Anti-corruption Strategy. 5. UNDP.2010. Fighting corruption in post-conflict and recovery situations. Learning from the past. 6. LFHH quarterly progress report. Sept 2010-Jan 2011 7. LFHH quarterly progress report. Jan –April 2011 8. LFHH quarterly progress report. April-June 2011 9. LFHH quarterly progress report. July-Sept 2011 10. LFHH quarterly progress report. Sept-Dec 2011 11. LFHH quarterly progress report. Jan –April 2012 12. LFHH quarterly progress report. April-June 2012 13. LFHH quarterly progress report. July-Sept 2012 14. LFHH quarterly progress report. Sept-Dec 2012 15. LFHH quarterly progress report. Jan –April 2013 16. LFHH quarterly progress report. April-June 2013 17. LFHH quarterly progress report. July-Sept 2013 18. LFHH quarterly progress report. Sept-Dec 2013 19. LFHH quarterly progress report. Jan –April 2014 20. LFHH quarterly progress report. April-June 2014 21. LFHH quarterly progress report. July-Sept 2014 22. LFHH quarterly progress report. Sept-Dec 2014 23. LFHH quarterly progress report. Jan –April 2015 24. LFHH quarterly progress report. April-June 2015 25. LFHH quarterly progress report. July-Sept 2015 26. LFHH quarterly progress report. Sept-Dec 2015 27. LFHH Fully executed Mod 5 28. LFHH Fully executed Mod 6 29. RNDDH. www.rnddh.org/ 30. ULCC. 2009. Stratégie Nationale de lutte contre la corruption 31. ULCC annual report. 2012-2013 32. ULCC annual report. 2013-2014 33. World Bank. 2015. Haiti: Opportunity for all- Systematic Country Diagnostic 34. McGee R. and J. Gaventa.2010. Synthesis report. Impact and effectiveness of transparency and accountability initiatives 32 35. Pierre Y.F., Tardieu J.F, Piard F., and F.M. Pierre. 2012. Etat des lieux de la lutte contre la corruption en Haïti et de la mise en application de la convention des nations unies contre la corruption (CCNUCC). 36. Kobi Kastiel, Co-editor, HLS Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation, on Saturday, October 25, 2014. Elements of an Effective Whistleblower Hotline (Harvard Law School Forum). 37. Riki Savaya and Shimon E. Spiro. Mai 2011. Predictors of Sustainability of Social Programs 33 APPENDIX B. LIST OF KEY INFORMANTS Institution/category Name Position ULCC (Unité de Lutte Contre la Corruption) 1. Antoine Atouriste Former Director ULCC (Unité de Lutte Contre la Corruption) 2. Bourgouin Lionel Constant Current Director LFHH (LA Fondation Héritage pour Haïti 3. Mrs. Maryline Allien Program Director LFHH (LA Fondation Héritage pour Haïti 4. Lydie Jean-Baptiste Hotline Coordinator LFHH (LA Fondation Héritage pour Haïti 5. Claudie J. Philippe ALAC Coordinator CEDH/CHATIE 6. Me Jean Joseph Exumé AgriSuppy/ CHATIE 7. Pierre Léger Program Director RNDDH/ CHATIE 8. Marie Yolène Gilles Program Coordinator Fondation Maurice Sixto/ CHATIE 9. Gertrude Séjour Program Director DCPJ (Direction Centrale de la Police Judiciaire) 10. Bertrand Ludwidge Chef de cabinet à DCPJ RENACO (Réseau National des Camps oubliés) /CCACO 11. Jean Louis Élie Joseph Président CONHSEDE / CCACO 12. Avril Johnson Président BID / IDB 13. Gilles Damais Chef des Opérations de la BID en Haïti USAID 14. Asta Maria Zinbo, Deputy Office Chief/ Democracy and Governance Office USAID 15. Frantzdy Hervé, Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist/ Democracy and Governance Office USAID (Washington DC) 16. Jon Schofield Special Agent in Charge, Office of the Inspector General (OIG) CAH 17. Armand Philippe Olivier Director 1000 Jobs Haiti 18. Frednel Isnac Director USAID 19. Hannah Maconey OIG USAID 20. Robyn Blount OIG 34 USAID 21. Max Cayo OIG PSI-Haiti 22. Dr Benoit, Yvette Manager Senior du programme de Malaria JHACCO - PAP 23. Wilner Romulus Former Coordinator JHACCO - PAP 24. Mikalle Morency Member JHACCO - PAP 25. Emmanuel Anne Solange Member FEKOK 26. Mme Ismarthe Laurore Director RAMAK 27. Jean Edy Leblanc Founder-Director RAMAK 28. Marie Esther Jean￾Baptiste Journalist RAMAK 29. Vladimir Victor Journalist RAMAK 30. Carl H Joses Chéry Journalist RAMAK 31. Francy Innocent Journalist 35 APPENDIX C. KEY INFORMANTS AND FG GUIDES Key Informant Interview - LFHH Director Thank you for agreeing to participate. We are very interested in hearing your views on the Promoting Proactive Transparency & Accountability Project also known as LFHH. We hope to learn things that will orient interventions for future programming. All that will be said during our interview has great value and we would like your opinion on each question. If you do not want to answer a question, it is your right not to respond. We want to assure you that your responses are completely anonymous. Responses to anonymous surveys cannot be traced back to the respondent. Additionally, your responses are combined with those of many others and summarized in a report to further protect your anonymity. With your permission, we will take note of everything that is said during the interview. 1. What did the PPTAP do regarding the fight against corruption in Haiti? 2. To what extent was the design of the PPTAP based on a needs assessment and a context analysis? 3. To what extent was the design of the PPTAP the most appropriate to meet the needs identified? (Alternative objectives?) 4. To what extent is the project aligned with the National Anti-Corruption strategy? 5. In your opinion, what has been accomplished by the CHATIE (Collectif Haïtien pour la Transparence, l'Intégrité et l'Ethique) established by LFHH in the combat against corruption? What are the results? 6. According to you, after the training sessions with the radio stations, what has really changed in terms of engagements from journalists/reporters? What are the results? 7. What did the PPTAP do to establish a network of private sector enterprises that will commit to the fight against corruption? What are the results? 8. What did the program do to encourage youth participation in the fight against corruption? What are the results? 9. In your opinion, what has been done by the organization LFHH to monitor the implementation of the UNCAC? To what extent did the project advocate for the reforms and legislations required by the Convention? 36 10. What is the current status of the fight against corruption legal framework? What did the project do to enforce it? 11. How does the hotline works? (Type of service available? Type of inquiries? Complaints (corruption, fraud, waste and abuse)? Information recorded? Follow-up?) 12. To what extent did the hotline comply with all relevant OIG guidelines related to the handling of fraud allegations? 13. Has the project contributed or is likely to contribute to long-term social, economic, technical changes for individuals, communities, and institutions related to the project? 14. Do you think the project has better results in certain places of the country? Why (if yes)? 15. What worked very well and what could be done better (PPTAP)? 16. What are the challenges and opportunities of such a project in Haiti? 17. To what extent are the project results (impact if any, and outcomes) likely to continue after the project? 18. What are some suggestions for improving this kind of project in the future? 37 Key Informant Interview - PPTAP Hotline manager Thank you for agreeing to participate. We are very interested in hearing your views on the Promoting Proactive Transparency & Accountability Project also known as LFHH. We hope to learn things that will orient interventions for future programming. All that will be said during our interview has great value and we would like your opinion on each question. If you do not want to answer a question, it is your right not to respond. We want to assure you that your responses are completely anonymous. Responses to anonymous surveys cannot be traced back to the respondent. Additionally, your responses are combined with those of many others and summarized in a report to further protect your anonymity. With your permission, we will take note of everything that is said during the interview. 1. What do you know about the Promoting Proactive Transparency & Accountability Project? How did you find out this information? 2. How do you involve in the project? / Which activities were implemented? Work schedule? Staff? 3. What do you do throughout Haiti to let people know that hotline phones and Email exist? Have you done everything that was planned in this regard, if not, why? 4. What kind of support did you receive from USAID OIG? 5. How does it work? (Type of service available? Type of inquiries? Complaints (corruption, fraud, waste and abuse)? Information recorded? Follow-up?) 6. To what extent did the hotline comply with all relevant OIG guidelines related to the handling of fraud allegations? 7. How was your experience with the USAID project managers? 8. What results were achieved? How satisfied are you with performance? (Total calls? Average calls and follow-up per month?) 9. What worked very well and what could be done better? 10. What are the biggest challenges that the project faces? 11. In your opinion, what has been accomplished by the CHATIE (Collectif Haïtien pour la Transparence, l'Intégrité et l'Ethique) established by LFHH in the Combat against corruption? 12. According to you, after the training sessions with the radio stations, what has really changed in terms of engagements from journalists/reporters? What are the results? 38 13. What are some suggestions for improving the project in the future? 14. To what extent has the intervention contributed to positive changes in the community? 15. Have there been any unintended or negative changes that can be attributed to the intervention? 39 Key Informant Interview –OIG/USAID Key Personal (1) Thank you for agreeing to participate. We are very interested in hearing your views on the Promoting Proactive Transparency & Accountability Project also known as LFHH. We hope to learn things that will orient interventions for future programming. All that will be said during our interview has great value and we would like your opinion on each question. If you do not want to answer a question, it is your right not to respond. We want to assure you that your responses are completely anonymous. Responses to anonymous surveys cannot be traced back to the respondent. Additionally, your responses are combined with those of many others and summarized in a report to further protect your anonymity. With your permission, we will take note of everything that is said during the interview. 1. To what extent was the design of the LFHH-PPTAP based on a needs assessment and a context analysis? 2. To what extent was the design of the LFHH-PPTAP the most appropriate to meet the needs identified? (Alternative objectives?) 3. What kind of support did the OIG/USAID provide to LFHH to help with the implementation of the PPTAP? 4. How does the hotline work? (Type of service available? Type of inquiries? Complaints (corruption, fraud, waste and abuse)? Information recorded? Follow-up?) 5. To what extent did the hotline comply with all relevant OIG guidelines related to the handling of fraud allegations? 6. How was the experience with the USAID project managers? 7. What results were achieved? How satisfied are you with performance? Was the information recorded useful? 8. What worked very well and what could be done better? 9. What are the biggest challenges that the project faces? 10. Have there been any unintended or negative changes that can be attributed to the intervention? 11. To what extent are the project results (impact if any, and outcomes) likely to continue after the project? 12.What are some suggestions for improving the project in the future? 40 Key Informant Interview – CHATIE member (Civil society and private sector coalition) Thank you for agreeing to participate. We are very interested in hearing your views on the Promoting Proactive Transparency & Accountability Project also known as LFHH. We hope to learn things that will orient interventions for future programming. All that will be said during our interview has great value and we would like your opinion on each question. If you do not want to answer a question, it is your right not to respond. We want to assure you that your responses are completely anonymous. Responses to anonymous surveys cannot be traced back to the respondent. Additionally, your responses are combined with those of many others and summarized in a report to further protect your anonymity. With your permission, we will take note of everything that is said during the interview. 1. What do you know about the LFHH Promoting Proactive Transparency & Accountability Project? How did you find out this information? 2. What did the LFHH-PPTAP do regarding the fight against corruption in Haiti? 3. How were you selected as a partner? 4. How were you involved in the project? / What is the status of CHATIE (Collectif Haïtien pour la Transparence, l'Intégrité et l'Ethique)? Which activities were implemented by your organization? / and by CHATIE? 5. Do you have access to the required information from the government or from the civil society to effectively engage in the Combat against corruption? 6. Were the planned objectives and outcomes in the project document achieved? (Give examples) 7. How do you qualify support received from LFHH? 8. According to you, after the training sessions with the radio stations, what has really changed in terms of engagements from journalists/reporters? What are the results? 9. What did the PPTAP do to establish a network of private sector enterprises that will commit to the fight against corruption? What are the results? 10. What did the program do to encourage youth participation in the fight against corruption? What are the results? 11. What do you know about the hotline? How does it work? (Type of service available? Type of inquiries? Complaints (corruption, fraud, waste and abuse)? Information recorded? Follow￾up?) 41 12. Do you think the project has better results in certain places of the country? Why (if yes)? 13. Has the project contributed or is likely to contribute to long-term social, economic, technical changes for individuals, communities, and institutions related to the project? 14. What worked very well and what could be done better (PPTAP)? 15. To what extent are the project results (impact if any, and outcomes) likely to continue after the project? 16. According to you, did corruption increase or decrease in Haiti during the past five years? Why? Did the volume of complaints on corruption increase in Haiti? Why? 17. Did the functioning of different government corruption oversight mechanisms increase/decrease? Why? 18. In your opinion, did the number of prosecutions/punishments for corruption decrease or increase? Why? 19. What are some suggestions for improving this kind of project in the future? 42 Key Informant Interview – Committees of Citizens against Corruption (CCACO) Thank you for agreeing to participate. We are very interested in hearing your views on the Promoting Proactive Transparency & Accountability Project also known as LFHH. We hope to learn things that will orient interventions for future programming. All that will be said during our interview has great value and we would like your opinion on each question. If you do not want to answer a question, it is your right not to respond. We want to assure you that your responses are completely anonymous. Responses to anonymous surveys cannot be traced back to the respondent. Additionally, your responses are combined with those of many others and summarized in a report to further protect your anonymity. With your permission, we will take note of everything that is said during the interview. 1. What do you know about the Promoting Proactive Transparency & Accountability Project? (The LFHH or PPTAP project)/ How did you find out this information? 2. What did the LFHH-PPTAP do regarding the fight against corruption in Haiti? 3. How were you selected as a partner? 4. How were you involved in the project? / What is the status of CCACO? Which activities were implemented by your organization? / and by CCACO? 5. Do you have access to the required information from the government or from the civil society to effectively engage in the Combat against corruption? 6. In your opinion, what are the results of the activities implemented by the CHATIE (Collectif Haïtien pour la Transparence, l'Intégrité et l'Ethique) established by LFHH in the combat against corruption? 7. According to you, after the training sessions with the radio stations, what has really changed in terms of engagements from journalists/reporters? What are the results? 8. What did the PPTAP do to establish a network of private sector enterprises that will commit to the fight against corruption? What are the results? 9. What did the program do to encourage youth participation in the fight against corruption? What are the results? 10. What do you know about the hotline? How does it work? (Type of service available? Type of inquiries? Complaints (corruption, fraud, waste and abuse)? Information recorded? Follow￾up?) 11. Do you think the project has better results in certain places of the country? Why (if yes)? 43 12. Has the project contributed or is likely to contribute to long-term social, economic, technical changes for individuals, communities, and institutions related to the project? 13. What worked very well and what could be done better (PPTAP)? 14. To what extend are the project results (impact if any, and outcomes) likely to continue after the project? 15. According to you, did corruption increase or decrease in Haiti during the past five years? Why? 16. According to you, did corruption increase or decrease in Haiti during the past five years? Why? Did the volume of complaints on corruption increase in Haiti? Why? 17. Did the functioning of different government corruption oversight mechanisms increase/decrease? Why? 18. In your opinion, did the number of prosecutions/punishments for corruption decrease or increase? Why? 19. What are some suggestions for improving this kind of project in the future? 44 Key Informant Interview – Donors and Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) Thank you for agreeing to participate. We are very interested in hearing your views on the Promoting Proactive Transparency & Accountability Project also known as LFHH. We hope to learn things that will orient interventions for future programming. All that will be said during our interview has great value and we would like your opinion on each question. If you do not want to answer a question, it is your right not to respond. We want to assure you that your responses are completely anonymous. Responses to anonymous surveys cannot be traced back to the respondent. Additionally, your responses are combined with those of many others and summarized in a report to further protect your anonymity. With your permission, we will take note of everything that is said during the interview. 1. What do you know about the Promoting Proactive Transparency & Accountability Project? (The LFHH or PPTAP project) 2. How did you find out this information? 3. What did the LFHH-PPTAP do regarding the fight against corruption in Haiti? 4. How were you selected as a partner? 5. How were you involved in the project? / Which activities were implemented by your organization? What are the results? 6. In your opinion, what are the results of the activities implemented by the CHATIE (Collectif Haïtien pour la Transparence, l'Intégrité et l'Ethique) established by LFHH in the combat against corruption? 7. According to you, after the training sessions with the radio stations, what has really changed in terms of engagements from journalists/reporters? What are the results? 8. What did the PPTAP do to establish a network of private sector enterprises that will commit to the fight against corruption? What are the results? 9. What did the program do to encourage youth participation in the fight against corruption? What are the results? 10. What do you know about the hotline? How does it work? (Type of service available? Type of inquiries? Complaints (corruption, fraud, waste and abuse)? Information recorded? Follow￾up?) 11. Do you think the project has better results in certain places of the country? Why (if yes)? 12. What worked very well and what could be done better (LFHH-PPTAP)? 13. According to you, did corruption increase or decrease in Haiti during the past five years? Why? 14. How do you qualify support received from LFHH? 15. According to you, did corruption increase or decrease in Haiti during the past five years? Why? Did the volume of complaints on corruption increase in Haiti? Why? 45 16. Did the functioning of different government corruption oversight mechanisms increase/decrease? Why? 17. In your opinion, did the number of prosecutions/punishments for corruption decrease or increase? Why? 18. What are some suggestions for improving this kind of project in the future? 46 Key Informant Interview: - LFHH ALAC (Advocacy and Legal Advice Center) Thank you for agreeing to participate. We are very interested in hearing your views on the Promoting Proactive Transparency & Accountability Project also known as LFHH. We hope to learn things that will orient interventions for future programming. All that will be said during our interview has great value and we would like your opinion on each question. If you do not want to answer a question, it is your right not to respond. We want to assure you that your responses are completely anonymous. Responses to anonymous surveys cannot be traced back to the respondent. Additionally, your responses are combined with those of many others and summarized in a report to further protect your anonymity. With your permission, we will take note of everything that is said during the interview. 1. What were your roles and responsibilities in the LFHH-PPTAP implementation? 2. What did the PPTAP do regarding the fight against corruption in Haiti? 3. What do you do throughout Haiti to let people know that ULCC-LFHH hotline phone exist? Have you done everything that was planned in this regard, if not, why? 4. What kind of support did you receive from USAID OIG? 5. How does it work? (Type of service available? Type of inquiries? Complaints (corruption, fraud, waste and abuse)? Information recorded? Follow-up?) 6. In your opinion, what has been accomplished by the CHATIE (Collectif Haïtien pour la Transparence, l'Intégrité et l'Ethique) established by LFHH in the combat against corruption? What are the results? 7. According to you, after the training sessions with the radio stations, what has really changed in terms of engagements from journalists/reporters? What are the results? 8. What did the PPTAP do to establish a network of private sector enterprises that will commit to the fight against corruption? What are the results? 9. What did the program do to encourage youth participation in the fight against corruption? What are the results? 10. How does the hotline works? (Type of service available? Type of inquiries? Complaints (corruption, fraud, waste and abuse)? Information recorded? Follow-up?) 11. To what extent did the hotline comply with all relevant OIG guidelines related to the handling of fraud allegations? 12. Do you think the project has better results in certain places of the country? Why (if yes)? 13. What worked very well and what could be done better (PPTAP)? 14. According to you, did corruption increase or decrease in Haiti during the past five years? Why? 15. What are some suggestions for improving this kind of project in the future? 16. To what extent has the intervention contributed to positive changes? 47 Key Informant Interview – ULCC Director Thank you for agreeing to participate. We are very interested in hearing your views on the Promoting Proactive Transparency & Accountability Project also known as LFHH. We hope to learn things that will orient interventions for future programming. All that will be said during our interview has great value and we would like your opinion on each question. If you do not want to answer a question, it is your right not to respond. We want to assure you that your responses are completely anonymous. Responses to anonymous surveys cannot be traced back to the respondent. Additionally, your responses are combined with those of many others and summarized in a report to further protect your anonymity. With your permission, we will take note of everything that is said during the interview. 1. What kind of activities are carried out by the ULCC in the fight against corruption? 2. What do you know about the Promoting Proactive Transparency & Accountability Project? How did you find out this information? 3. What are the links between ULCC and PPTAP? How did you participate in the project? /Which activities were implemented with the LFHH-PPTAP? 4. In your opinion, what has been done by the LFHH to monitor the implementation of the UNCAC? To what extent did the project advocate for the reforms and legislations required by the Convention? 5. What is the current status of the fight against corruption legal framework? What did ULCC do to enforce it? (Bills of law/ Advocacy/Campaign?) 6. In your opinion, what has been accomplished by the CHATIE (Collectif Haïtien pour la Transparence, l'Intégrité et l'Ethique) established by LFHH, the youth associations or the radio stations in the combat against corruption? What are the results? 7. Have you heard about the hotline set up by LFHH? To what extent can we say that this approach has had positive results? 8. What worked very well in the implementation of the PPTAP and what could be done better? 9. What are the biggest challenges that the project faces? 10. According to you, did corruption increase or decrease in Haiti during the past five years? Why? Did the volume of complaints on corruption increase in Haiti? Why? 11. To what extent was the design of the PPTAP the most appropriate to meet the needs identified? (Alternative objectives?) 12. In your opinion, did the number of prosecutions/punishments for corruption decrease or increase? Why? 13. What are some suggestions for improving this kind of project in the future? 48 Key Informant Interview – UCREF Director Thank you for agreeing to participate. We are very interested in hearing your views on the Promoting Proactive Transparency & Accountability Project also known as LFHH. We hope to learn things that will orient interventions for future programming. All that will be said during our interview has great value and we would like your opinion on each question. If you do not want to answer a question, it is your right not to respond. We want to assure you that your responses are completely anonymous. Responses to anonymous surveys cannot be traced back to the respondent. Additionally, your responses are combined with those of many others and summarized in a report to further protect your anonymity. With your permission, we will take note of everything that is said during the interview. 1. What kind of activities are carried out by the UCREF in the fight against corruption? 2. What do you know about the LFHH - Promoting Proactive Transparency & Accountability Project? How did you find out this information? 3. What are the links between UCREF and PPTAP? How did you participate in the project? Which activities were implemented with the PPTAP? 4. In your opinion, what has been done by the LFHH to monitor the implementation of the UNCAC? To what extent did the project advocate for the reforms and legislations required by the Convention? 5. What is the current status of the fight against corruption legal framework? What did UCREF do to enforce it? (Bills of law/ Advocacy/Campaign?) 6. In your opinion, what has been accomplished by the CHATIE (Collectif Haïtien pour la Transparence, l'Intégrité et l'Ethique) established by LFHH, the youth associations or the radio stations in the combat against corruption? What are the results? 7. Have you heard about the hotline set up by LFHH? To what extent can we say that this approach has had positive results? 8. What worked very well in the implementation of the PPTAP and what could be done better? 9. What are the biggest challenges that the project faces? 10. To what extent was the design of the PPTAP the most appropriate to meet the needs identified? (Alternative objectives?) 11. According to you, did corruption increase or decrease in Haiti during the past five years? Why? Did the volume of complaints on corruption increase in Haiti? Why? 12. To what extent was the design of the PPTAP the most appropriate to meet the needs identified? (Alternative objectives?) 13. In your opinion, did the number of prosecutions/punishments for corruption decrease or increase? Why? 14. What are some suggestions for improving this kind of project in the future? 49 Key Informant Interview – Private sector enterprises owners or representatives Thank you for agreeing to participate. We are very interested in hearing your views on the Promoting Proactive Transparency & Accountability Project also known as LFHH. We hope to learn things that will orient interventions for future programming. All that will be said during our interview has great value and we would like your opinion on each question. If you do not want to answer a question, it is your right not to respond. We want to assure you that your responses are completely anonymous. Responses to anonymous surveys cannot be traced back to the respondent. Additionally, your responses are combined with those of many others and summarized in a report to further protect your anonymity. With your permission, we will take note of everything that is said during the interview. 1. What do you know about the Promoting Proactive Transparency & Accountability Project? (The LFHH or PPTAP project) 2. What did the PPTAP do regarding the fight against corruption in Haiti? 3. How did you find out this information? 4. How were you selected as a partner? 5. How were you involved in the project? / Which activities were implemented by your enterprise in the fight against corruption? 6. According to you, why did the LFHH succeed (or not) in establishing a network of private sector enterprises that will commit to the fight against corruption? 7. In your opinion, what has been accomplished by the CHATIE (Collectif Haïtien pour la Transparence, l'Intégrité et l’Ethique) established by LFHH, the youth associations or the radio stations in the combat against corruption? What are the results? 8. Have you heard about the hotline set up by LFHH? To what extent can we say that this approach has had positive results? 9. Do you think the project has better results in certain places of the country? Why (if yes)? 10. What worked very well and what could be done better (PPTAP)? 11. How do you qualify support received from LFHH? 12. According to you, did corruption increase or decrease in Haiti during the past five years? Why? Did the volume of complaints on corruption increase in Haiti? Why? 13. To what extent was the design of the PPTAP the most appropriate to meet the needs identified? (Alternative objectives?) 14. In your opinion, did the number of prosecutions/punishments for corruption decrease or increase? Why? 15. What are some suggestions for improving this kind of project in the future? 50 Key Informant Interview – USAID-Haiti COR and M&E for the PPTAP Thank you for agreeing to participate. We are very interested in hearing your views on the Promoting Proactive Transparency & Accountability Project also known as LFHH. We hope to learn things that will orient interventions for future programming. All that will be said during our interview has great value and we would like your opinion on each question. If you do not want to answer a question, it is your right not to respond. We want to assure you that your responses are completely anonymous. Responses to anonymous surveys cannot be traced back to the respondent. Additionally, your responses are combined with those of many others and summarized in a report to further protect your anonymity. With your permission, we will take note of everything that is said during the interview. 1. To what extent was the design of the PPTAP based on a needs assessment and a context analysis? 2. To what extent was the design of the PPTAP the most appropriate to meet the needs identified? 3. What were your roles and responsibilities in the PPTAP implementation? 4. What are the challenges and opportunities of such a project in Haiti? 5. What did the PPTAP do regarding the fight against corruption in Haiti? 6. In your opinion, what has been accomplished by the CHATIE (Collectif Haïtien pour la Transparence, l'Intégrité et l’Ethique) established by LFHH, the youth associations or the radio stations in the combat against corruption? What are the results? 7. In your opinion, what has been done by the LFHH to monitor the implementation of the UNCAC? To what extent did the project advocate for the reforms and legislations required by the Convention? 8. How does the hotline works? To what extent can we say that the information provided in the database help to follow up identified cases? 9. To what extent did the hotline comply with all relevant OIG guidelines related to the handling of fraud allegations? 10. Has the project contributed or is likely to contribute to long-term social, economic, technical changes for individuals, communities, and institutions related to the project? 11. What worked very well and what could be done better (PPTAP)? 12. What are some suggestions for improving this kind of project in the future? 13. To what extent has the intervention contributed to positive changes? 14. Do you think that there are key stakeholders that the evaluation team should absolutely interview as part of this evaluation and which are not included in our list? 51 Key Informant interview- Local leaders that received training to educate their Communities on issues of corruption Thank you for agreeing to participate. We are very interested in hearing your views on the Promoting Proactive Transparency & Accountability Project also known as LFHH. We hope to learn things that will orient interventions for future programming. All that will be said during our interview has great value and we would like your opinion on each question. If you do not want to answer a question, it is your right not to respond. We want to assure you that your responses are completely anonymous. Responses to anonymous surveys cannot be traced back to the respondent. Additionally, your responses are combined with those of many others and summarized in a report to further protect your anonymity. With your permission, we will take note of everything that is said during the interview. 1. What do you know about the Promoting Proactive Transparency & Accountability Project? (The LFHH or PPTAP project) 2. What did the PPTAP do regarding the fight against corruption in Haiti? / How did you find out this information? 3. How were you selected to benefit training? 4. What kind of training did you receive and in what extent are you still using what you learned from the training? 5. Overall, how satisfied are you with the training that you received? What are the results? 6. In your opinion, what has been accomplished by the CHATIE (Collectif Haïtien pour la Transparence, l'Intégrité et l’Ethique) established by LFHH, the youth associations or the radio stations in the combat against corruption? What are the results? 7. Have you heard about the hotline set up by LFHH? To what extent can we say that this approach has had positive results? 8. What worked very well and what could be done better? 9. What are the biggest challenges that the project faces? 10. According to you, did corruption increase or decrease in Haiti during the past five years? Why? Did the volume of complaints on corruption increase in Haiti? Why? 11. To what extent was the design of the PPTAP the most appropriate to meet the needs identified? (Alternative objectives?) 12. In your opinion, did the number of prosecutions/punishments for corruption decrease or increase? Why? 13. What are some suggestions for improving this kind of project in the future? 52 Key Informant interview: USAID project managers trained Thank you for agreeing to participate. We are very interested in hearing your views on the Promoting Proactive Transparency & Accountability Project also known as LFHH. We hope to learn things that will orient interventions for future programming. All that will be said during our interview has great value and we would like your opinion on each question. If you do not want to answer a question, it is your right not to respond. We want to assure you that your responses are completely anonymous. Responses to anonymous surveys cannot be traced back to the respondent. Additionally, your responses are combined with those of many others and summarized in a report to further protect your anonymity. With your permission, we will take note of everything that is said during the interview. 1. What do you know about the Promoting Proactive Transparency & Accountability Project? (The LFHH or PPTAP project) 2. What did the PPTAP do regarding the fight against corruption in Haiti? / How did you find out this information? 3. How were you selected to benefit training? 4. What kind of training did you receive and in what extent are you still using what you learned from the training? 5. Overall, how satisfied are you with the training that you received? What are the results? 6. In your opinion, what has been accomplished by the CHATIE (Collectif Haïtien pour la Transparence, l'Intégrité et l’Ethique) established by LFHH, the youth associations or the radio stations in the combat against corruption? What are the results? 7. Have you heard about the hotline set up by LFHH? To what extent can we say that this approach has had positive results? 8. What worked very well and what could be done better? 9. According to you, did corruption increase or decrease in Haiti during the past five years? Why? 10. What are the biggest challenges that the project faces? 11. What are some suggestions for improving the project in the future? 53 Key Informant interview- Radio station/media directors of the RAMAK network Thank you for agreeing to participate. We are very interested in hearing your views on the Promoting Proactive Transparency & Accountability Project also known as LFHH. We hope to learn things that will orient interventions for future programming. All that will be said during our interview has great value and we would like your opinion on each question. If you do not want to answer a question, it is your right not to respond. We want to assure you that your responses are completely anonymous. Responses to anonymous surveys cannot be traced back to the respondent. Additionally, your responses are combined with those of many others and summarized in a report to further protect your anonymity. With your permission, we will take note of everything that is said during the interview. 1. What do you know about the Promoting Proactive Transparency & Accountability Project? (The LFHH or PPTAP project) 2. What did the PPTAP do regarding the fight against corruption in Haiti? / How did you find out this information? 3. How were your radio/media selected to benefit training? 4. What kind of training did you receive and to what extent are you still using what you learned from the training? 5. Overall, how satisfied are you with the training that you received? What are the results? 6. In your opinion, what has been accomplished by the CHATIE (Collectif Haïtien pour la Transparence, l'Intégrité et l’Ethique) established by LFHH, the youth associations or the radio stations in the combat against corruption? What are the results? 7. Have you heard about the hotline set up by LFHH? To what extent can we say that this approach has had positive results? 8. What worked very well and what could be done better? 9. To what extend are the project results (impact if any, and outcomes) likely to continue after the project? 10. According to you, did corruption increase or decrease in Haiti during the past five years? Why? 11. What do you think are the real obstacles to such a project in Haiti? 12. What are some suggestions for improving this kind of project in the future? 54 FOCUS GROUP: Jeunes Haïtiens Contre la Corruption (JHACCO) Thank you for agreeing to participate. We are very interested in hearing your views on the Promoting Proactive Transparency & Accountability Project. We hope to learn things that will orient interventions for future programming. All that will be said during the one-hour meeting has great value and we would like the opinion of each of you on each question. If you do not want to answer a question, it is your right not to respond. However, be certain that the information provided is completely confidential and will only be used for one purpose: to help us understand the situation of your institution/group. With your permission, we will take note of everything that is said during the meeting. We strongly wish that you attend the meeting. You just have to raise your hand. 1. What do you know about the Promoting Proactive Transparency & Accountability Project? (The LFHH or PPTAP project) 2. How did you find out this information? 3. How were you selected as a beneficiary? 4. How do you participate in the project? (Meetings, trainings?) / Which activities were implemented? 5. What kind of training did you receive and in what extent are you still using what you learned from the training? (give examples) 6. Overall, how satisfied are you with the training that you received? 7. In your opinion, what has been accomplished by the CHATIE (Collectif Haïtien pour la Transparence, l'Intégrité et l’Ethique) established by LFHH, the youth associations or the radio stations in the combat against corruption? What are the results? 8. Have you heard about the hotline set up by LFHH? To what extent can we say that this approach has had positive results? 9. What worked very well and what could be done better? 10. What are the biggest challenges that the project faces? 11. What are some suggestions for improving the project in the future? 12. To what extent has the intervention contributed to positive changes in your life? 13. Have there been any unintended or negative changes that can be attributed to the intervention? 55 FOCUS GROUP: Journalists trained Thank you for agreeing to participate. We are very interested in hearing your views on the Promoting Proactive Transparency & Accountability Project. We hope to learn things that will orient interventions for future programming. All that will be said during the one-hour meeting has great value and we would like the opinion of each of you on each question. If you do not want to answer a question, it is your right not to respond. However, be certain that the information provided is completely confidential and will only be used for one purpose: to help us understand the situation of your institution/group. With your permission, we will take note of everything that is said during the meeting. We strongly wish that you attend the meeting. You just have to raise your hand. 1. What do you know about the Promoting Proactive Transparency & Accountability Project? (The LFHH or PPTAP project) 2. What did the PPTAP do regarding the fight against corruption in Haiti? / How did you find out this information? 3. How were you selected to benefit training? 4. What kind of training did you receive and in what extent are you still using what you learned from the training? 5. Overall, how satisfied are you with the training that you received? What are the results? 6. Do you have access to the required information from the government or from the civil society to effectively engage in the Combat against corruption? 7. In your opinion, what has been accomplished by the CHATIE (Collectif Haïtien pour la Transparence, l'Intégrité et l’Ethique) established by LFHH, the youth associations or the radio stations in the combat against corruption? What are the results? 8. Have you heard about the hotline set up by LFHH? To what extent can we say that this approach has had positive results? 9. What worked very well and what could be done better? 10. What are the biggest challenges that the project faces? 11. What are some suggestions for improving the project in the future? 56 FOCUS GROUP: USAID project staff (beneficiaries?) trained on the most prevalent corruption practices Thank you for agreeing to participate. We are very interested in hearing your views on the Promoting Proactive Transparency & Accountability Project. We hope to learn things that will orient interventions for future programming. All that will be said during the one-hour meeting has great value and we would like the opinion of each of you on each question. If you do not want to answer a question, it is your right not to respond. However, be certain that the information provided is completely confidential and will only be used for one purpose: to help us understand the situation of your institution/group. With your permission, we will take note of everything that is said during the meeting. We strongly wish that you attend the meeting. You just have to raise your hand. 1. What do you know about the Promoting Proactive Transparency & Accountability Project? (The LFHH or PPTAP project) 2. What did the PPTAP do regarding the fight against corruption in Haiti? / How did you find out this information? 3. What kind of training did you receive and in what extent are you still using what you learned from the training? 4. Overall, how satisfied are you with the training that you received? What are the results? 5. Do you have access to the required information to effectively engage in the Combat against corruption? 6. In your opinion, what has been accomplished by the CHATIE (Collectif Haïtien pour la Transparence, l'Intégrité et l’Ethique) established by LFHH, the youth associations or the radio stations in the combat against corruption? What are the results? 7. Have you heard about the hotline set up by LFHH? To what extent can we say that this approach has had positive results? 8. What worked very well and what could be done better? 9. What are the biggest challenges that the project faces? 10. According to you, did corruption increase or decrease in Haiti during the past five years? Why? Did the volume of complaints on corruption increase in Haiti? Why? 11. To what extent was the design of the PPTAP the most appropriate to meet the needs identified? (Alternative objectives?) 12. In your opinion, did the number of prosecutions/punishments for corruption decrease or increase? Why? 13. What are some suggestions for improving this kind of project in the future? 57 APPENDIX D. SCOPE OF WORK Adobe Acrobat Document