July 2018
This publication was produced at the request of the United States Agency for International Development. It was prepared independently 
by Karen Glenski, Team Leader, and Mark Brown, Democracy and Governance Expert, for International Business & Technical Consultants, 
Inc. under the Monitoring and Evaluation in Tunisia and Libya project, Contract No. AID-280-TO-17-00001.
EVALUATION
 
USAID/LIBYA: LIBYA ELECTIONS AND GOVERNANCE 
SUPPORT ACTIVITY AND THE SUPPORTING 
CONSENSUS BUILDING FOR THE NATIONAL 
DIALOGUE, CONSTITUTION DRAFTING AND 
GOVERNING PROCESS IN LIBYA ACTIVITY FINAL 
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT
MONITORING AND EVALUATION IN TUNISIA AND LIBYA 
(METAL) ACTIVITY 
USAID/LIBYA: LIBYA ELECTIONS AND GOVERNANCE 
SUPPORT ACTIVITY AND THE SUPPORTING CONSENSUS 
BUILDING FOR THE NATIONAL DIALOGUE, 
CONSTITUTION DRAFTING AND GOVERNING PROCESS 
IN LIBYA ACTIVITY FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION 
REPORT 
July 11, 2018
International Business & Technical Consultants, Inc. (IBTCI)
In the US: 
8618 Westwood Center Drive 
Suite 400 
Vienna, VA 22182 USA
Tel: +1.703.749.0100 
www.ibtci.com 
In Tunisia: 
Vital Cube Building, 2nd floor 
L'Ile de Tasmanie Street 
Les Berges du Lac 2 
Tunis, Tunisia 
On cover: Civil society organizations that are members of the Libyan Network for Democracy Development 
supported by the USAID Libya Elections and Governance Support activity, monitored local elections in Azzawya on 
May 12, 2018. PHOTO CREDIT: TAREK MSHAYEKH, BEDAYA MOVEMENT
DISCLAIMER 
This report is made possible by the support of the American people through the United States Agency 
for International Development (USAID). The contents are the sole responsibility of IBTCI and do not 
necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United States Government. 
ABSTRACT
International Business & Technical Consultants, Inc. conducted a final performance evaluation of two 
USAID activities: Libya Elections and Governance Support, implemented by the Consortium for Elections 
and Political Process Strengthening since October 2012, and Supporting Consensus Building for the 
National Dialogue, Constitution Drafting and Governing Process in Libya, implemented by the American 
Bar Association since August 2014. The purpose of the evaluation was to capture information from the 
inception of the activities through May 2018 on the diverse areas in which the two activities were able to 
achieve real impact and promote meaningful change despite the challenging operating environment. The 
evaluation questions addressed the following: a) progress made toward the activity objectives; b) 
achievements that were not part of the work plans; and c) program design for effectively adapting to local 
challenges. 
The evaluation used a non-experimental design that employed both qualitative and quantitative methods, 
including 64 semi-structured key informant interviews; 4 focus group discussions; and a face-to-face survey 
of 1192 households. 
The key conclusions were: 
 Relatively high public confidence in elections, in large part due to the capacity built by USAID of 
the High National Election Commission 
 Willingness among national and municipal legislators receiving USAID assistance to factor citizen 
input into their work 
 Although the concept of advocacy is still new, women’s and marginalized groups supported by 
USAID successfully advocated issues 
 Citizens effectively informed and engaged in the constitution drafting process 
 Dialogue fostered by USAID was used as an effective tool for forming recommendations on the 
draft constitution 
ACRONYMS 
ABA American Bar Association 
ABA ROLI American Bar Association Rule of Law Initiative 
AOR Agreement Officer Representative 
CDA Constitution Drafting Assembly 
CEPPS Consortium for Elections and Political Process Strengthening 
CL Community Liaison 
COP Chief of Party 
CSO Civil society organization 
DRC Democracy Resource Center 
DRG Democracy, Human Rights and Governance Office 
EMB Electoral management body 
EQ Evaluation question 
ET Evaluation team 
FGD Focus group discussion 
GNC General National Congress 
HNEC High National Election Commission 
HoR House of Representatives 
HSC High State Council 
IFES International Foundation for Electoral Systems 
iNGO International non-governmental organization 
IP Implementing partner 
IRI International Republican Institute 
KII Key informant interviews 
LCB Supporting Consensus Building for the National Dialogue, Constitution Drafting 
and Governing Process in Libya activity 
LEGS Libya Elections and Governance Support activity 
LNDD Libyan Network for Democracy Development 
MC Municipal council 
M&E Monitoring and evaluation 
MoLG Ministry of Local Government 
NDI National Democratic Institute 
NDPC National Dialogue Preparatory Commission 
PMP Performance Management Plan 
PWD Persons with disabilities 
TCN Third-country national 
UN United Nations 
UNDP United Nations Development Programme 
UNSMIL United Nations Support Mission in Libya
USAID United States Agency for International Development 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................................... 1
II. EVALUATION PURPOSE & EVALUATION QUESTIONS ........................................................................... 6
III. ACTIVITY BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................. 7
IV. EVALUATION METHODS & LIMITATIONS ................................................................................................. 10
V. EVALUATION QUESTION 1: PROGRESS MADE TOWARDS LEGS AND LCB OBJECTIVES ......13
VI. EVALUATION QUESTION 2: ACHIEVEMENTS BEYOND THE PLANNED OBJECTIVES ..............62
VII. EVALUATION QUESTION 3: MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONAL DESIGN FACTORS WHICH 
FACILITATED PROGRAM ADAPTATION TO THE LOCAL CONTEXT ...........................................66
ANNEX 1. EVALUATION STATEMENT OF WORK ......................................................................................72
ANNEX 2. SUPPLEMENT TO EVALUATION METHODS AND LIMITATIONS .....................................82
ANNEX 3. SOURCES OF INFORMATION ........................................................................................................92
ANNEX 4. DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENTS ..........................................................................................97
ANNEX 5. EVALUATION TEAM ....................................................................................................................... 155
ANNEX 6: DISCLOSURE OF ANY CONFLICTS OF INTEREST .............................................................. 156
TABLE OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Responses to survey question, “Have you heard or seen information about upcoming elections?”
..............................................................................................................................................................................................17
Figure 2: Responses to survey question, “Which sources of information about elections do you 
remember?” ......................................................................................................................................................................18
Figure 3: Responses to survey question, “Do you think that the High National Elections Commission is 
doing a good job of preparing for the elections?” ...................................................................................................19
Figure 4: Responses of “highly” or “moderately” to survey question, “To what extent do you trust the 
following institutions to improve Libya’s future?” ...................................................................................................19
Figure 5: Responses to survey question, “Have you heard or seen information about the process to adopt 
a new constitution, or the topics being discussed?” disaggregated by sex. .......................................................38
Figure 6: Responses to survey question, “Have you heard or seen information about the process to adopt 
a new constitution, or the topics being discussed?” disaggregated by region...................................................39
Figure 7: Responses to survey question, “…which sources of information [about the process to adopt a 
new constitution] do you remember?” ......................................................................................................................40
Figure 8: Responses to survey question, “What were the main themes you remember from these 
information sources?”.....................................................................................................................................................41
Figure 9: Those who responded "Yes" to survey question, “Do you feel engaged in debate and decisions 
about the new constitution?" ........................................................................................................................................48
Figure 10: Those who responded "To some extent" or “To a large extent” to survey question, “To what 
extent do you have confidence that the Constitution Drafting Assembly developed a constitution that you 
would approve of?" ..........................................................................................................................................................50
Figure 11: Responses of “highly” or “moderately” to survey question, “To what extent do you trust the 
following institutions to improve Libya’s future?” disaggregated by sex for the institutions of HoR, HSC, 
and MCs .............................................................................................................................................................................56
TABLE OF TABLES 
Table 1: LEGS Theory of Change and Intended Results .......................................................................................... 7
Table 2: LCB Intended Results ....................................................................................................................................... 9
Table 3: LEGS Indicator data relevant to HNEC capacity to conduct transparent and credible elections
..............................................................................................................................................................................................14
Table 4: Changes in project activities conducted under LEGS Objective 1 ......................................................20
Table 5: Progress in Meeting LEGS Indicator Targets relevant to HNEC Capacity to Conduct Transparent 
and Credible Elections ....................................................................................................................................................21
Table 6: Responses to interview question “Did the training provide MC members/staff with skills to better 
carry out their functions?”.............................................................................................................................................28
Table 7: Changes in project activities conducted under LEGS Objective 2 ......................................................30
Table 8: LEGS Indicator data relevant to increasing PWD inclusion and participation in governing and 
legislative processes ........................................................................................................................................................33
Table 9: Number of issues advocated by CSOs representing marginalized groups ........................................33
Table 10: Changes in project activities conducted under LEGS Objective 3 ....................................................35
Table 11: Progress in Meeting LEGS Indicator Targets relevant to Increasing PWD Inclusion and 
Participation in Governing and Legislative Processes .............................................................................................36
Table 12: LCB Indicator data relevant to informed citizens, inclusive local dialogue, and recommendations 
submitted to the CDA ...................................................................................................................................................38
Table 13: Changes in project activities conducted under LCB Objective 1 ......................................................44
Table 14: Progress in Meeting LCB Objective 1 Indicator Targets .....................................................................45
Table 15: LCB indicator data for Objective 2 ...........................................................................................................47
Table 16: KII respondents’ opinions on the prospects for a constitutional referendum ...............................50
Table 17: Changes in project activities conducted under LCB Objective 2 ......................................................52
Table 18: Progress in Meeting LCB Objective 2 Indicator Targets .....................................................................53
Table 19: LCB Indicator data relevant to Objective 3 ............................................................................................55
Table 20: Changes in project activities conducted under LCB Objective 3 ......................................................57
Table 21: Progress in Meeting LCB Objective 3 Indicator Targets .....................................................................58
Table 22: LEGS Indicator data relevant to capacity of judiciary sector to conduct transparent and credible 
elections .............................................................................................................................................................................63
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 1 
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
EVALUATION PURPOSE 
The purpose of this final performance evaluation was to capture information on the diverse areas in which 
the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) Libya Elections and Governance 
Support (LEGS) activity and the Supporting Consensus Building for the National Dialogue, Constitution 
Drafting and Governing Process in Libya (LCB) activity were able to achieve real impact and promote 
meaningful change despite the challenging operating environment. USAID sought to gain a better 
understanding of what activities were successful, how and why they were successful, and most importantly, 
where USAID should put future resources to aid the transition process and build democratic governance 
in Libya. 
ACTIVITY BACKGROUND 
For more than 40 years, Muammar Gaddafi rejected the principles of representative democracy, presiding 
over an idiosyncratic and personalized political system in Libya. After his overthrow, USAID awarded a 
cooperative agreement in October 2012 for LEGS, which is implemented by International Foundation for 
Electoral Systems (IFES), National Democratic Institute (NDI), and International Republican Institute (IRI). 
The agreement, which extends through October 2019 with a budget of $34,773,802, is intended to 
strengthen confidence in Libya’s elected government during a key political transition. The implementing 
partners (IPs) worked: (1) in collaboration with the High National Election Commission (HNEC) to 
improve the professionalism of HNEC and other institutions with election-related responsibilities to 
enhance the credibility of elections and to increase public confidence in elections as a vehicle for peacefully 
selecting leaders; (2) in collaboration with national and municipal legislative bodies to establish good 
precedents for effective governance, including stakeholder engagement; and (3) to increase women’s and 
marginalized groups’ inclusion in governing processes.
By 2014, there was great uncertainty about the status and timing of the constitutional reform process. In 
August 2014, USAID awarded a cooperative agreement for LCB, which is implemented by American Bar 
Association Rule of Law Initiative (ABA ROLI). The agreement, which extends through August 2019 with 
a budget of $11,493,426, is intended to contribute to the reconstruction of the social contract in Libya by 
providing all Libyans, including women, youth and other marginalized groups, with the opportunity to 
participate in the creation of a revised constitutional framework. The IP worked in collaboration with the 
Constitution Drafting Assembly (CDA) to: (1) inform citizens on key constitution issues, so that they can 
effectively inform the CDA; (2) build consensus through national dialogue; and (3) create consensus 
processes to inform Libya’s governing processes beyond passing the constitutional referendum.
EVALUATION DESIGN, METHODS, AND LIMITATIONS 
The evaluation used a non-experimental, mixed methods approach. Both qualitative and quantitative data 
collection methods were used concurrently, which included: (1) a systematic review of LEGS and LCB 
program documents and other relevant literature; (2) 64 semi-structured key informant interviews (KIIs); 
(3) four focus group discussions (FGDs); and (4) a face-to-face survey of 1192 households in three cities 
– one in the east, one in the south, and one in the west. Data limitations include recall bias, response bias, 
and selection bias, which were mitigated by triangulating information from multiple sources and by asking 
respondents for specific examples to demonstrate knowledge of the LEGS and LCB interventions. 
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 2 
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS 
Snapshot of EQ1 Conclusions 
LEGS OBJECTIVE 1 - INCREASING PUBLIC CONFIDENCE IN ELECTIONS
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS: HNEC officials credited IFES for the consistent assistance it provided in 
building capacity to manage outreach to citizens, voter registration, and electoral dispute resolution and in 
funding some of HNEC’s outreach. Ninety-five percent of those surveyed had seen or heard messages 
about possible upcoming elections, and seventy-two percent consider HNEC to be doing a good job 
preparing for upcoming elections. Less progress was noted by those interviewed in HNEC’s capability to 
implement campaign finance regulations. HNEC officials and others noted external challenges, such as the 
lack of Libyan government budget allocations to HNEC and political conflict within Libya. 
SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS: LEGS played an important role in building HNEC’s capacity. This is 
reflected in the high level of optimism expressed by Libyan citizens that they can elect leaders peacefully 
and democratically. While HNEC’s progress since its inception is impressive, it is not yet able to manage 
electoral processes independently of donor assistance. 
LEGS OBJECTIVE 2 - ESTABLISHING GOOD PRECEDENTS FOR EFFECTIVE 
GOVERNANCE, INCLUDING STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT, BY LEGISLATIVE BODIES
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS: Five out of the seven national legislators interviewed named examples of 
citizen input they have used in their work. Five out of nine civil society organizations (CSOs) interviewed 
named eight examples of input they have provided to either the House of Representatives (HoR) or the 
High State Council (HSC), and in at least three cases, their input resulted in the change they advocated. 
On the municipal level, eight of nine MCs interviewed gave 12 examples of projects they implemented in 
response to citizen requests. In interviews and focus groups, CSOs named eight projects they proposed 
to MCs, and at least two were implemented. Legislators also expressed appreciation for the training 
provided under LEGS in areas such as communication skills, which they have found useful. Impediments to 
further input from citizens to legislative bodies include the political divide within the HoR and within the 
country, the existence of two competing legislative bodies, lack of clear legislation defining the role of MCs, 
and lack of transfer payments to municipal budgets. 
SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS: CSOs that were supported by LEGS are actively engaging legislative 
bodies to advocate for issues of concern, and legislators who were supported by LEGS are acting upon 
these requests. However, the political divide in the country and the lack of legislation defining the role and 
authorities of MCs is hindering further advocacy efforts of CSOs.
LEGS OBJECTIVE 3 - INCREASING WOMEN’S AND MARGINALIZED GROUPS’ 
INCLUSION SUCH THAT THEIR INTERESTS ARE INCORPORATED INTO LIBYAN 
GOVERNING PROCESSES
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS: CSOs interviewed reported advocating six women’s issues to legislators; five 
related to persons with disabilities (PWDs); and four related to youth. Legislators, donors, and other 
LEGS
•HNEC has better capacity to conduct 
elections
•Targeted efforts to engage citizens with 
national and local legislatures were effective
•Advocacy by women’s and marginalized 
groups was successful
LCB
•Outreach to the public on the draft 
constitution was effective
•Citizens provided recommendations for the 
draft constitution
•The draft constitution passed by the CDA 
but a national referendum was not yet held
EVALUATION QUESTION (EQ) 1. WHAT PROGRESS WAS MADE TOWARDS ACHIEVING THE 
OBJECTIVES STATED IN THE LEGS AND LCB PROGRAM DESCRIPTIONS?
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 3 
organizations implementing projects in Libya noted that the lack of organizational capacity of CSOs is 
hindering further inclusion of women and marginalized groups in Libyan governing processes.
SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS: Although the practice of advocacy is new in Libya, CSOs supported 
by LEGS conducted successful campaigns advocating for women, PWDs, and youth. The LEGS approach to 
introduce the process of advocacy via non-controversial topics such as those related to PWDs and youth 
was effective in demonstrating the process and engaging both civil society and legislators. However, CSOs’ 
lack of capacity is limiting the inclusion of women and marginalized groups.
LCB OBJECTIVE 1 - INFORMED CITIZENS ARE ABLE TO DEVELOP CONSENSUS ON 
CONSTITUTION ISSUES AND EFFECTIVELY INFORM THE CDA
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS: Seventy-six percent of survey respondents had been informed about 
adopting a new constitution, and LCB was consistently cited as the most significant contributor to 
informing the public. Participants valued the community awareness events held by LCB, citing dialogue as 
more important than reaching consensus. All three LCB community liaisons (CL) interviewed confirmed 
sending community or CSO recommendations to the CDA.
SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS: LCB successfully informed many Libyans about the constitution.
Community awareness events were effective in fostering dialogue as a tool to help people form 
recommendations on the constitution. 
LCB OBJECTIVE 2 - THROUGH NATIONAL DIALOGUE, CITIZENS REPRESENTING 
MAJORITY AND MINORITY VIEWS ARE ABLE TO BUILD A CONSENSUS OF STATE, 
ECONOMY, AND SOCIETY
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS: LCB assisted the National Dialogue Preparatory Commission and CDA; 
convened experts and advocates to analyze issues and make recommendations to the CDA; distributed 
copies of the draft constitution; held consensus-building workshops; assisted CDA to develop and 
implement a public outreach strategy; analyzed court decisions about constitutional drafts; and organized 
press roundtables and conferences. Two of the four CDA interviewees said that citizens and professionals 
were important sources of recommendations. However, CDA members did not convey a sophisticated 
understanding of communication strategies. Other respondents were critical of CDA for not 
acknowledging recommendations submitted. Twenty-five percent of survey respondents said that they felt 
engaged in national dialogue, and women, PWDs, and youth reported this at higher levels than average. 
SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS: LCB assistance helped the CDA overcome a slow start and low 
capacity in raising public awareness about the draft constitution. Although the level of engagement reported 
by Libyans, and in particular women, PWDs, and youth, is encouraging, it probably would have increased if 
LCB assistance had been more strategic. Public trust in CDA likely would be higher if CDA had been more 
transparent in its public communications. 
LCB OBJECTIVE 3 - CREATE CONSENSUS PROCESSES TO INFORM GOVERNING 
PROCESSES BEYOND PASSING THE CONSTITUTION REFERENDUM IN ORDER TO 
STRENGTHEN THE POLITICAL TRANSITION
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS: LCB trained municipal and Ministry of Local Government (MoLG) legal staff, 
but respondents reported wide-ranging capacity gaps in MCs.
SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS: Although the constitution has not yet been passed, much more could 
have been done to prepare for the democratic transition. Given the importance of municipal and local 
councils, strategic planning, with a thorough examination of capacity gaps, priorities and opportunities, 
should have been undertaken to provide a foundation for wider local government capacity building. 
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR EQ1:
 HNEC: With presidential and legislative elections scheduled to be held in December 2018, USAID 
should continue supporting HNEC, especially by training those who will be hired in the field offices.
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 4 
 HoR/HSC: Until a legitimate and unified national legislature is in place, USAID should continue 
providing only very targeted support to HoR and HSC in order to sustain progress already achieved. 
 MCs AND LOCAL COUNCILS: USAID should broaden and deepen capacity building for MCs. 
Given the low starting point, there is a large body of potential trainees. Once the local administration 
structure is clear, USAID should help orient and train council members to execute their new roles 
and duties. 
 MoLG: USAID should coordinate and facilitate working groups of experts, MoLG, and legislators to 
analyze and define the legal framework for local administration. USAID should assist the groups with 
outlining transition strategies for ministries, MCs, and local councils. 
 CDA: If the draft constitution is re-opened, USAID should re-engage with CDA, but with a more 
strategic approach. 
 CSOs: USAID should consider starting up a broad program of support to strengthen CSOs. 
Snapshot of EQ2 Conclusions 
SUMMARY OF EQ2 FINDINGS: As part of achieving LEGS Objective 1, IFES worked with the judicial 
sector to increase its capacity to handle electoral dispute resolution, developed and installed a platform 
for information sharing within the judiciary, and held workshops to bring together HNEC and the Supreme 
Judicial Council to review and codify the electoral legal framework. 
Although LCB Objective 2 specifically addressed the National Dialogue, LCB shifted resources to a more 
general national dialogue and increased assistance to CDA when the National Dialogue Preparatory 
Commission failed.
SUMMARY OF EQ2 CONCLUSIONS: Judicial capacity to manage transparent and credible elections is 
an additional achievement of LEGS, but it was limited in scope.
LCB’s shift from National Dialogue to a general national dialogue was an appropriate tactic, in keeping with 
the larger program goal of contributing to the reconstruction of the social contract by providing all Libyans 
with the opportunity to participate in the creation of a new constitution. 
Considering the fluidity of the situation in Libya, with political divisions and shifts in political bodies, the 
limited number of additional key achievements of LEGS and LCB is a testament to how broad the LEGS 
and LCB objectives were, and the flexibility with which USAID and the IPs interpreted them to enable 
activities to remain relevant. 
SUMMARY OF EQ2 RECOMMENDATIONS: In future programs in Libya and other complex, fluid 
settings, USAID should design broad program objectives, and IPs should adapt their activities by periodically 
updating their work plans. 
LEGS
•The judiciary has minimally increased 
capacity to manage transparent and credible 
elections
•Broad program objectives allowed activities 
to stay relevant despite Libya’s fluid political 
and institutional environment
LCB
•Strategic shift of resources a more general 
national dialog helped Libyans to participate 
in drafting the new constitution
•Flexible interpretation of program objectives 
allowed activities to be relevant despite the 
fluid environment in Libya
EQ 2. WHAT ARE ACHIEVEMENTS OF THE PROGRAM WHICH WERE NOT PART OF THE WORK 
PLAN IN EACH OBJECTIVE/ACTIVITY?
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 5 
Snapshot of EQ3 Conclusions 
LEGS and LCB
● IPs have maintained security through careful 
planning and staying vigilant about risks.
● IPs have made additional efforts to monitor 
activities.
● Challenges with travel to Libya have been 
resolved by third-country nationals (TCN) 
leading activities in Libya or holding events 
outside Libya.
● IPs maintain good relationship with local 
officials to remain compliant with changing 
regulations.
● Remote management of the program was 
facilitated through frequent communications 
using Skype, having staff meetings in Tunis, 
and reliance on TCNs traveling to Libya.
SUMMARY OF EQ3 FINDINGS: IPs recognized numerous operating challenges: security risks; difficulties 
with travel; compliance with regulations on non-governmental organizations; and lack of cash liquidity. In 
addition, with most senior management of LEGS and LCB based outside of Libya, local staff are left to run 
the project offices in-country and be the face of the project to beneficiaries and government counterparts. 
Remote management of activities and staff was a challenge that all IPs mentioned. 
SUMMARY OF EQ 3 CONCLUSIONS: IPs have successfully maintained security by carefully planning 
the location of events and staying vigilant about risks. Travel challenges have been met by relying on TCNs
to travel to Libya and by holding events outside of Libya. Remote management has been managed through 
frequent communication via Skype, by holding all-staff meetings in Tunis, and by reliance on TCNs
intermittently working in Libya. As well, IPs have taken extra measures to monitor project activities. IPs 
have remained compliant with changing regulations by maintaining good relationships with officials in the 
Commission for Civil Society. Due to the lack of cash, IPs are holding events outside of Libya, and Libyan 
staff are coming to Tunisia to collect their salaries. However, the volume of work has been reduced because 
IPs cannot access adequate cash in Libya to pay vendors.
SUMMARY OF EQ3 RECOMMENDATIONS: Future USAID activities planned for Libya should include 
adequate budget for travel and operational staff. Timelines should be flexible to allow for known factors 
that can delay activities, as well as unanticipated factors. 
USAID should write agreements to allow flexibility and reduce the need for formal budget or contract 
modifications that would add to the delays.
IPs should develop robust and creative monitoring plans to ensure the quality of events that they are not 
able to attend in person. 
EQ 3. HOW CAN FUTURE PROGRAMMING BE DESIGNED TO BE MOST EFFECTIVE IN 
ADAPTING TO LOCAL CHALLENGES?
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 6 
II. EVALUATION PURPOSE & EVALUATION QUESTIONS
The United States Agency for International Development (USAID)/Libya commissioned the Monitoring 
and Evaluation in Tunisia and Libya (METAL) activity, implemented by International Business & Technical 
Consultants, Inc., to conduct an independent final evaluation of two USAID/Libya democracy and 
governance programs, the Libya Elections and Governance Support activity (LEGS) and the Supporting 
Consensus Building for the National Dialogue, Constitution Drafting and Governing Process in Libya 
activity (LCB). The evaluation was designed in March - April 2018. 
This section explains the purpose of the evaluation and the evaluation questions that were answered. 
Following this section is the Activity Background, which describes the two activities that were evaluated. 
The evaluation methodology is then presented. Finally, a section is devoted to each evaluation question, 
laying out the findings, conclusions, and recommendations. Each objective of the two projects is addressed 
separately under evaluation question 1.
EVALUATION PURPOSE 
Through this evaluation, USAID is seeking to capture information on the diverse areas in which LEGS and 
LCB were able to achieve real impact and promote meaningful change despite the challenging operating 
environment. A key factor in USAID-funded programming in Libya has been flexibility and dynamism as 
activities had to be adjusted due to security concerns and changing political contexts and opportunities. 
USAID seeks to understand how these programs evolved and to gain a better understanding of what 
activities were successful, how and why they were successful, what hasn’t worked and why, and most 
importantly, where USAID should put future resources to aid the transition process and build democratic 
governance in Libya. Given the dynamic nature of the work environment, the evaluation is also intended 
to document what work has actually occurred to provide grounded recommendations for future work. 
EVALUATION QUESTIONS 
The evaluation answers the following questions:
1) What progress was made towards achieving the objectives stated in the LEGS and LCB 
program descriptions? Review, analyze and evaluate the performance of LEGS and LCB against the
assumptions and results throughout their implementation. Identify and characterize factors 
(anticipated and unanticipated) that promoted or impeded the success of LEGS and LCB activities, 
including attention to both intended and unintended outcomes.
Determine whether changes were made to achieving objectives, taking into consideration any changes 
in the work plans with a focus on LEGS’s work on legislative bodies and capacity-building support 
provided to municipal councils (MCs), as well as the support LEGS and LCB programs are providing 
to civil society and other elected bodies. Specific recommendations on priority areas for future 
programming should be provided.
2) What are achievements of the program which were not part of the work plan in each 
objective/activity? Determine additional key achievements. It is understood that the changing Libyan 
context often led to shifts in planned activities and work plans. The evaluation will identify and 
document these unanticipated achievements. 
3) How can future programming be designed to be most effective in adapting to local 
challenges? What were specific management and operational design factors which facilitated program 
adaptation to the local context? How can these critical factors be designed into a follow-on activity?
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 7 
III.ACTIVITY BACKGROUND 
LIBYA ELECTIONS AND GOVERNANCE SUPPORT ACTIVITY
DEVELOPMENT PROBLEM 
For more than 40 years, Muammar Gaddafi presided over an idiosyncratic and personalized political 
system in Libya. On July 7, 2012 following his overthrow in 2011, Libyans elected members to the General 
National Congress (GNC). However, the High National Election Commission (HNEC) had been formed 
only shortly before the elections, and regulations for electoral dispute resolution, campaigning, and 
campaign finance had been formulated shortly before the elections. HNEC and the judiciary had little 
capacity to manage these aspects of the elections. There was widespread confusion amongst the public 
regarding the electoral systems, distribution of GNC seats, and the actual exercise of voting. Newly￾elected political party representatives and individual members began serving in the GNC with no prior 
experience in leadership or forming decision-making bodies such as caucuses or developing internal 
communication and coordination structures and protocols. While the number of independent news 
outlets rapidly increased after the end of the Gaddafi regime, the media sector had an extremely low 
understanding of the mechanics of political processes, and journalists lacked the requisite skills and 
knowledge to build audiences, produce reliable reporting and analyses, or operate and manage financially 
sustainable organizations. 
USAID’S RESPONSE
LEGS, under the Consortium for Elections and Political Process Strengthening (CEPPS) Leader with 
Associates Cooperative Agreement No. DFD-A-00-08-00350-00, was awarded by USAID/Libya on 
October 1, 2012 and was modified twice to extend the agreement to October 31, 2019, with a budget of 
$34,773,801.50. It is implemented by the International Foundation for Electoral Systems (IFES), National 
Democratic Institute (NDI), and International Republican Institute (IRI). Table 1 below shows the theory 
of change, intended outcomes, and assumptions of LEGS. 
Table 1: LEGS Theory of Change and Intended Results 
Program 
Theory of 
Change
Improving the professionalism of the election management body and institutions with election￾related responsibilities will enhance the credibility of elections as a vehicle to affect change. 
Additionally, instituting best practices for national legislative bodies to better represent their 
constituencies will establish good precedents for effective governance in Libya. Further, as 
municipal councilors are equipped with tools that enable them to meet the challenge of their 
new offices, they will be better positioned to fulfill their duties as democratically elected officials, 
and effectively identify and respond to citizen concerns. Through the conduct of citizen outreach, 
MCs will gain legitimacy among constituents as their representatives, which will help to rebuild 
citizen confidence in government. This increased confidence will restore good governance, and 
stabilize Libya while allowing the national government time to consolidate state institutions. 
The genuine inclusion of underrepresented groups will ensure their interests and rights are 
incorporated into the political system. This includes the empowerment and integration of women 
as leaders, increased access for persons with disabilities, and engagement of the youth population 
in formal, rather than informal, political and economic structures. If women, youth groups, and 
persons with disabilities are given the skills to advocate for their interests in their communities 
and to communicate and coordinate on their advocacy, then they will engage community leaders 
on issues relevant to these marginalized populations. This will enhance transparency and 
legitimacy of a political process in which more citizens can confidently participate. This will in 
turn reduce the risk of violence as a means to air grievances, and allow the Libyan government 
to control and mediate security conditions on the ground.
Program 
Goal
To strengthen citizen confidence in Libya’s elected government during a key political transition 
in the country.
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 8 
Program 
Objectives
USAID Objective 1: Increasing public and stakeholder confidence in the integrity of elections as 
a vehicle for peacefully and democratically selecting leaders
 CEPPS Objective 1.1 (IFES): Professionalism and transparency of government 
institutions with election-related responsibilities are increased through technical advice 
and support
 CEPPS Objective 1.2 (IFES): Civic engagement is increased through higher levels of 
public understanding of processes related to Libya’s political transition
USAID Objective 2: Establishing good precedents for effective governance, including stakeholder 
engagement, by legislative bodies
 CEPPS Objective 2.1 (NDI): The House of Representatives (HoR) or National 
Legislature’s understanding and implementation of best practices in legislative 
functioning and procedure is enhanced
 CEPPS Objective 2.2 (NDI): Representative political caucuses form and engage in 
informed, consultative policy discussions
 CEPPS Objective 2.3 (NDI): Assist the HoR or National Legislature to improve 
transparency and external communication
 CEPPS Objective 2.4 (IRI): Subnational level legislative decision-making processes are 
informed by, and are more inclusive of, grassroots citizen concerns
 CEPPS Objective 2.5 (IRI): Libyan local councilors fulfill their roles and responsibilities 
and engage in representative policy making
 CEPPS Objective 2.6 (IRI): Ministry of Local Government (MoLG) establishes and 
utilizes structures for intra-governmental communication, administrative functions and 
service delivery
USAID Objective 3: Increase women’s and marginalized groups’ genuine inclusion and 
participation such that their views and interests are incorporated into Libyan governing and 
legislative processes
 CEPPS Objective 3.1 (IFES): Increase women’s and marginalized group’s genuine 
inclusion and participation such that their views and interests are incorporated into 
Libyan governing and legislative processes
 CEPPS Objective 3.2 (NDI): Assist organizations representing women and other 
marginalized groups to contribute to national policy-making
 CEPPS Objective 3.3 (IRI): Libyan youth engage local leaders to advocate for issues of 
interest to their communities
Program 
Assumptions
 The HNEC is willing to exercise its full authority and responsibilities in accordance with 
the Constitutional Declaration and/or a new peace agreement;
 The HNEC continues to be willing to work with international assistance providers;
 MCs continue to be the basis of local governance in Libya and provide public service to 
constituencies; 
 MoLG unifies and begins to operate under a sole entity;
 Tunisian authorities continue to allow international implementers to conduct activities 
in Tunisia;
 Restrictive regulations on international non-governmental organizations (iNGOs) are 
not promulgated and iNGOs are able to continue program activity;
 The security environment remains permissive for carrying out activities in Libya and/or 
allows for travel of program beneficiaries, particularly civil society participants from
eastern Libya;
 While there is still no clear electoral timeline, the new United Nations Special 
Representative of the Secretary-General has just launched a new “action plan” for Libya, 
which might result in a series of elections within the next 12-18months;
 Sufficient political space exists for civil society to conduct advocacy. The announcement 
of elections or progress toward ratifying a constitution will greatly impact the focus of 
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 9 
civil society advocacy efforts; however the groups should still be able to conduct 
national or sub-national advocacy without either;
 The political and security situation remains stable enough to provide technical assistance 
to members and staff of the HoR and High State Council (HSC) so as not to jeopardize 
the safety of CEPPS/NDI national staff and balance CEPPS/NDI’s relationships across 
the political spectrum;
 CEPPS/NDI is able to identify suitable HoR staff members to engage with, given that the 
HoR is split between its seat in Tobruk and members who are working out of Tripoli.
Participant selection will require careful navigation through internal HoR disputes and
dynamics. It should also be noted that the Egyptian government’s support of the eastern
administration also raises issues about to what extent CEPPS/NDI will be able to
positively engage with HoR staff. Initial concerns have been raised by HoR staff regarding 
international organizations work with the institution, but these have, so far, been 
overcome by HoR members whom have been trained.
The target populations for LEGS’s interventions are the HNEC, HoR, HSC, MoLG, MCs, and civil society 
organizations (CSOs). 
SUPPORTING CONSENSUS BUILDING FOR THE NATIONAL DIALOGUE, 
CONSTITUTION DRAFTING AND GOVERNING PROCESS IN LIBYA ACTIVITY 
DEVELOPMENT PROBLEM 
Surveys of the Libyan people conducted by NDI in 2013 revealed that Libyans were concerned about their 
country’s deteriorating situation. Security was declining, and there was great uncertainty about national 
leadership, as well as the status and timing of the constitutional reform process and the National Dialogue. 
The “Operation Dignity” campaign launched by General Khalifa Haftar in May 2014 had created further 
volatility. Libyans were at a critical point in the development of their political and social governance when 
they had to make vitally important decisions about the structure, authority, power, and resources of their 
national and local governments, and the treatment of and protections for citizens. 
USAID’S RESPONSE
LCB, under Cooperative Agreement No. AID-OAA-LA-14-00009, was awarded to Freedom House by 
USAID/Libya on August 27, 2014 and was extended to August 26, 2019 with a budget of $11,493,426. It 
is implemented by the American Bar Association Rule of Law Initiative (ABA or ABA ROLI). Table 2 below 
shows the intended outcomes of LCB. 
Table 2: LCB Intended Results 
Program 
Goal
Contribute to the reconstruction of the social contract in Libya by providing all Libyans, 
including women, youth and other marginalized groups, with the opportunity to participate in 
the creation of a revised constitutional framework, effective national institutions, and the social, 
economic and security conditions necessary for Libyans’ well-being.
Program 
Objectives
USAID Objective 1: Informed citizens are able to develop consensus on key constitution issues 
and effectively inform the constitution drafting body
USAID Objective 2: Through National Dialogue, citizens who fairly represent majority and 
minority views of groups including but not limited to women, ethnic groups, and youth from 
across Libya, are able to build a consensus of state, economy, and society and the relationship 
between them
USAID Objective 3: Create consensus processes that will incorporate outputs from the 
National Dialogue processes and constitution drafting to inform Libya’s governing processes 
beyond passing the constitution referendum in order to strengthen the political transition
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 10 
Program 
Assumptions
 A political and security environment that permits Libyans to freely travel, assemble, 
and express viewpoints without consequence.
The target populations for LCB’s interventions are the Constitution Drafting Assembly (CDA), MoLG, 
Ministry of Justice, Supreme Judicial Council, citizens, and civil society organizations.
OTHER DONOR-FUNDED ACTIVITIES 
Several other donor-funded democracy and governance activities are being implemented in Libya. 
The USAID Office of Transition Initiatives (OTI)-funded activity implemented since 2011 fosters stability 
and public confidence in public institutions, aiming to reinforce Libyan resilience and prevent further 
political fragmentation. The intent is to help move development funding from conflict resolution to longer￾term programs promoting democracy and governance. This activity builds on the training provided under 
LEGS by assisting local governing bodies to improve service delivery. The activity also works to counter 
violent extremism in select communities.
The Middle East Partnership Initiative (MEPI)-funded Community-Driven Grants Program II supports local 
good governance through small grants and training focused on strategies for using advocacy and 
government partnerships to increase government accountability at the national and local levels. It also 
encourages linkages and coalition-building among regionally disparate CSOs.
The United Nations Support Mission in Libya’s (UNSMIL’s) Electoral Support Team has been providing 
support and advice to Libyan authorities on organizing elections since 2011. Efforts have focused on 
technical and operational advice to HNEC during the GNC elections of July 7, 2012, CDA elections on 
February 20, 2014, and the HoR elections on June 25, 2014. In between, and following these elections, the 
UNSMIL electoral team focused on consolidating capacity and raising awareness of the HNEC on electoral 
matters and systems; participation of women, youth, and minorities; and voter registration systems. 
UNSMIL has the lead in coordinating electoral support provided by other international organizations. 
Another implementing partner works with the Ministry of Planning to implement the Stabilization Facility 
for Libya and the Support to the Resilience of Local Communities, which support local communities in 
resilience and recovery, especially for communities hosting large numbers of migrants. The stabilization 
activities aim to connect central government with municipalities and both levels of government with 
citizens. The stabilization and resilience activities also assist municipalities to optimize the use of capital 
investments through a consultation process. This IP also works on national dialogue processes, mostly by
funding travel. 
IV. EVALUATION METHODS & LIMITATIONS 
The evaluation methodology was designed using a non-experimental, mixed-methods approach to answer 
the three evaluation questions (EQ). Both qualitative and quantitative data collection methods were used 
concurrently. Quantitative data was enriched and contextualized by qualitative information from key 
informant interviews (KII) and focus group discussions (FGD) with open-ended questions to probe for 
the story behind the numbers. 
FOCUSED OUTCOME HARVESTING 
A focused approach to Outcome Harvesting was developed to answer EQ1 and EQ2. The evaluation team 
(ET) condensed the Outcome Harvesting process because conducting wide-ranging, iterative interviews 
was deemed infeasible owing to limitations in the timeframe of this evaluation, security risks, and the 
difficulty of meeting with informants in dispersed locations. Annex 2 contains more details on the 
methodology used for this evaluation. 
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 11 
The initial document review was used to identify a set of outcomes deemed to represent the purpose and 
objectives of each project. These proposed outcomes helped focus the team’s enquiries on the important 
high-level results and the implementing partners’ (IPs’) contributions to them. 
Various methods, as described below, were selected to validate and substantiate each identified outcome, 
estimate IP contributions, dig into cause and effect relationships, understand the significance of outcomes, 
and explore consequences. Specific questions were developed to generate evidence or to test the results 
reported. Additional questions were developed to prompt for outcomes that were not part of the work 
plans, missed opportunities, and misplaced priorities. 
DATA COLLECTION 
The ET collected data for the three EQs using the methods described below. 
DOCUMENT REVIEW
The ET conducted a desk review of existing documents and data sources, including LEGS and LCB work 
plans, monitoring and evaluation plans, and programmatic reports from start-up through the first quarter 
of fiscal year 2018. The “Mid-term Evaluation of Democracy, Human Rights and Governance (DRG) 
Programming in Libya and Results from a National and Urban DRG Survey” and other background 
documentation relevant to understanding the specifics of the projects were also reviewed. A list of the 
documents reviewed can be found in Annex 3. Additionally, the ET relied on USAID evaluation policy and 
guidance. 
SEMI-STRUCTURED KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWS 
The ET drew informants from a range of stakeholder types to conduct KIIs, including USAID staff, IP staff, 
LCB Community Liaisons (CL), HNEC staff; HoR elected members; HSC elected members and staff; 
MoLG staff; CDA elected members; LEGS Democracy Resource Centers (DRC); partner CSOs; MC 
elected members and staff; LCB legal training participants; and other donors and implementers operating 
in Libya. The ET used purposive sampling to prioritize interviewees with the most information about LEGS 
and LCB activities combined with stratified random sampling to maximize representativeness. The ET 
conducted a total of 64 (36 men, 28 women) KIIs in the three major regions of Libya (east, south, and 
west), where LEGS and LCB implemented activities. 
FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS 
The ET conducted FGDs in three locations (Awal, Ghadamis, and Tripoli) with three target groups (MC 
members, CLs, and CSOs). Four FGDs were held in total including 30 participants (23 men, 7 women). 
The ET selected the sites based on USAID and IP recommendations regarding where IPs could identify an 
adequate number of participants based on where their activities were concentrated and also based on 
logistics, considering the insecurity in Libya. Eight MC members (six men; two women) participated in a 
focus group in Tripoli to discuss and provide input on the training they received from IRI. A second focus 
group was held with eight male Arab community dialogue participants in Ghadamis. A third focus group 
was held with eight (five men, three women) Touareg community dialogue participants in Awal. These 
two groups of participants in outreach events that Community Liaisons had organized provided insight 
into the effectiveness of those events and how they used the information and skills they received. A fourth 
FGD was held with six (four men, two women) CSO staff in Tripoli to draw out information on how they 
engaged with the HoR, HSC, and MCs and to learn about their advocacy for issues, including for disability 
rights and women’s rights. 
SURVEY 
The ET conducted a face-to-face household survey to obtain evidence of HNEC capacity to manage 
transparent elections, to determine the effectiveness of LCB efforts to inform citizens about key 
constitutional issues, and to better understand the level of public confidence in government. The survey 
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 12 
was conducted in one city in the east, one in the south, and one in the west. In the east, the survey was 
conducted in Tobruk because it is a mid-sized city where IRI engaged with the MC and where the HoR 
meets. In the south, the survey was conducted in Ghat because it is a mid-sized city in which CL activities 
took place; also, it allows for an understanding of how messaging about elections and the draft constitution 
is penetrating less populated locations outside of the capital. In the west, Suq Aljumaa was selected 
because, as part of the Tripoli metropolitan area, it was considered to be more representative of the 
population as a whole in order to allow for an understanding of whether messages about elections and 
the draft constitution stand out in places with more congested media space. 
A random sample of about 400 households was taken within each area based on population sizes of each 
city, which ensured representativeness with a 95% confidence level and 5% margin of error. Starting from 
a randomly-selected household in each mahalat, Libyan administrative unit, of the three cities, a skip 
pattern was used to select subsequent households. The Kish method was used to select a respondent 
within each household, which ensured that each household member above the age of 17 had an equal 
chance of being selected. Each selected household was visited up to three times to attempt to interview 
the member of the household selected. If after three attempts the individual within the household was 
not available, the selected household was replaced with another. 
DATA ANALYSIS 
Qualitative analytical techniques were used to code, collate, and interpret data captured through 
interviews and discussion groups. The ET used response themes and relational content analysis to identify 
response categories and patterns as well as to elucidate emergent themes, contextual factors, and trends. 
The ET analyzed quantitative data, including responses to Likert scale questions, with Microsoft Excel. 
The ET compared data from the document review, KIIs, FGDs, and survey against one another to 
determine whether findings were divergent or convergent. When multiple informational streams provided 
consistent information, these were included as findings. The ET drew conclusions by reflecting on the key 
findings for each EQ. Analysis accounted for gender and geographic regions wherever relevant. 
LIMITATIONS 
The ET encountered several risks and limitations during data collection detailed below. 
RECALL BIAS 
Informants may have had difficulty accurately recalling changes, improvements, or sources of assistance, 
especially for those LEGS and LCB activities that were completed some time ago, since the evaluation 
covered a six-year period. Respondents possibly attributed results incorrectly to the programs, 
confounding them with results from other interventions. Alternatively, respondents may have been 
unaware that LEGS or LCB conducted some interventions leading to results. 
Data was not collected from two stakeholder groups: the GNC and the National Dialogue Preparatory 
Commission (NDPC). Because the GNC was replaced by the HoR in August 2014, the ET did not believe 
that reliable data could be collected for analysis. The NDPC became dysfunctional during the first year of 
LCB, and no longer exists. 
RESPONSE BIAS 
Informants may have formed their responses based on personal motivation rather than the most accurate 
information. For example, informants may have given the ET positive remarks about the program because 
they would like to receive more assistance in the future. In some cases, informants may have thought that 
a negative evaluation could mean the end of future program opportunities. 
SELECTION BIAS 
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 13 
People available for interviews, focus groups, and the survey may not necessarily have been representative 
of the population because they had more free time, higher social status, or have been better connected. 
Due to time constraints, purposive sampling was used to select respondents from several stakeholder 
groups for KIIs in order to prioritize those who were most directly involved in the LEGS and LCB 
activities, and thus able to provide the most in-depth information to the ET. The IPs may have been more 
likely to guide the evaluators to those people who had positive experiences with the activities. Likewise, 
focus groups were held in sites where the volume of activity interventions was higher. Details on specific 
incidents of potential selection bias encountered in conducting this evaluation can be found in Annex 2. 
To mitigate these potential biases, the ET relied on multiple sources of data to triangulate information 
relevant to EQs. Combining information from multiple sources found in documents, interviews, focus 
groups, and the survey reduced the risk that any one piece of biased data would significantly skew the 
analysis. Another approach that the ET used was to ask respondents for specific examples to demonstrate 
knowledge of the LEGS and LCB interventions. When drawing conclusions and recommendations, the 
team took into consideration the sampling methodology used for data collection. 
A more detailed breakdown of informants by type, geography, and sex can be found in Annex 3, although 
their names have been withheld to maintain confidentiality, especially important considering the security 
risks in Libya. See Annex 4 for the data collection tools and interview protocols used during this evaluation. 
V. EVALUATION QUESTION 1: PROGRESS MADE TOWARDS LEGS 
AND LCB OBJECTIVES 
In approaching EQ1, the ET used a focused outcome harvesting approach to preliminarily identify 
outcomes under the three objectives of LEGS and the three objectives of LCB. The ET then tested the 
hypothesized outcomes for each objective. Following are the findings and conclusions for each objective. 
Recommendations for EQ1 are based on the consolidated findings and conclusions of all the objective of 
both activities. 
FINDINGS ON PROGRESS TOWARDS LEGS OBJECTIVE 1 
KEY FINDINGS OF LEGS OBJECTIVE 1
Those interviewed credited IFES support for increased HNEC capability, especially in:
o Outreach and awareness campaigns
o Voter registration
o Election dispute resolution
HNEC was considered to be lacking in its capacity to implement campaign finance regulations and 
needs additional assistance in all areas 
Citizens surveyed said they think HNEC is doing a good job and expressed trust in HNEC
Most citizens surveyed have seen election-related messages, which has made them more likely to vote
Those interviewed cited external factors preventing transparent, credible elections:
o Lack of budget allocations
o Political conflict
o Lack of a constitution
LEGS Objective 1: Increasing public and stakeholder confidence in the integrity of elections as a 
vehicle for peacefully and democratically selecting leaders
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 14 
The ET looked for progress along two main factors: HNEC capacity to manage transparent and credible 
elections, and public confidence in elections. Utilizing the outcome harvesting approach, the ET supposed 
that if HNEC exhibited capability in managing electoral events, it would increase public trust. An IFES staff 
member interviewed confirmed this connection, stating that, “HNEC has been relatively successful in being 
transparent, which has built trust.” As well, the ET directly measured public confidence through a 
household survey and queried stakeholders about their views on the level of public confidence in elections. 
HNEC CAPACITY TO MANAGE TRANSPARENT AND CREDIBLE ELECTIONS 
IFES provided direct support to increase HNEC capacity in many areas. In addition to the LEGS 
programmatic reports, interviewees from HNEC, IFES, and USAID informed the ET that IFES supported 
HNEC with long-term planning; assisted the HNEC Outreach Committee with outreach and awareness 
campaigns by holding workshops to develop and later refine its outreach strategy; supplemented HNEC’s 
budget with direct funding for advertising; provided technical assistance with procurement of a vendor to 
design campaign materials; conducted a citizen survey as a model for HNEC to understand how to obtain 
feedback and respond to citizens; and developed staff capacity to use both traditional and social media. 
IFES drafted regulations on elections and reviewed election legislation and the draft constitution. After the 
elections in 2012 and 2014, IFES worked closely with HNEC, in particular the Legal Department, on 
compliance with electoral dispute resolution and campaign finance regulations. HNEC reported that IFES 
also provided technical support and procured software for voter registration. IFES provided support 
through staff embedded in HNEC, through mentoring, and through training. IFES provided HNEC staff 
with comparative examples from other countries of how electoral processes are handled. An HNEC 
official commented in an interview that IFES remained in the background in its support to HNEC, so that 
the public was aware only of HNEC’s handling of electoral events; outreach, for instance, was branded in 
HNEC’s name. 
Support for election processes was not limited to HNEC. An HNEC official interviewed also reported 
that IFES held workshops for judges and the High Judicial Institute and published a guide for courts. 
Table 3 below shows the indicator data relevant to capacity to implement transparent and credible 
elections reported in the LEGS Performance Management Plan (PMP) for fiscal year 2018. This document 
includes targets and actual achievements for fiscal year 2017 but no prior years. 
Table 3: LEGS Indicator data relevant to HNEC capacity to conduct transparent and credible elections 
INDICATOR
FY1 (2016-17)
TARGET ACTUAL
CEPPS Objective 1: Increasing public and stakeholder confidence in the integrity of elections as a 
vehicle for peacefully and democratically selecting leaders
Indicator 0.0.0.2: Number of civil or electoral 
stakeholders trained on formal or informal aspects 
of the electoral and/or political process
IFES: 75
NDI: 80
IRI: 
IFES: 728
NDI: 
IRI:
Indicator 0.0.0.3: Number of civil or electoral 
stakeholders participating in formal or informal 
electoral and civic workshops, forums, or 
presentations
IFES: 100
NDI: 100
IRI:
IFES: 1138
NDI: 
IRI:
Indicator 1.1.1.1: HNEC produces strategic 
plan/vision through support provided by IFES
N/A No strategic plan in place
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 15 
Indicator 1.1.1.3: Number of actionable 
recommendations adopted by HNEC to improve 
electoral processes 
3 11 total
3 on Internal 
Communication
7 on Public Outreach
1 on Social Media
Indicator 1.1.1.6: Number of election officials 
trained with USG assistance
40 88 total
76 men
12 women
INTERMEDIATE RESULT 1.1.4: Improved gender integration in electoral processes and 
institutions
Indicator 1.1.4.1: Number of IFES-supported 
initiatives undertaken by electoral management 
bodies that work towards increased gender 
inclusion/integration
3 2
In interviews with four USAID, four IFES, and five HNEC staff (in total 13), respondents credited IFES 
support for increased HNEC capability. Most often cited were HNEC capability to manage: 
 Awareness and outreach to citizens, 
 Voter registration, and 
 Electoral dispute resolution. 
Out of the 13 respondents asked about HNEC capability, 8 (62 percent) said that HNEC has demonstrated 
competence with outreach and awareness campaigns. An HNEC official said that there is now better 
awareness about elections on all levels of the community from youth to the elderly. HNEC officials and 
USAID both emphasized the neutrality of the messages. 
Seven interviewees (54 percent) cited voter registration as an area in which HNEC has built capability. In 
late 2017, HNEC undertook a campaign to register voters, even though no elections were scheduled at 
that time, as a way to prepare in advance. One HNEC official said that after some past complaints about 
the difficulty in registering to vote, they tried to simplify the procedure for citizens by offering registration 
through SMS. This official said that when he questioned people about whether it was difficult, they replied 
that it had been easy, requiring just one text message. An IFES employee cited the large number of voters 
registered, over one million, as evidence that the outreach campaign was successful. 
The third, most-commonly cited area in which HNEC was reported to have built capacity was in election 
dispute resolution, mentioned by 6 out of the 13 interviewees (46 percent). An HNEC official interviewed 
explained that after the elections in 2012 and 2014, HNEC resolved many of the complaints that were 
filed, such as a complaint that a certain city had no polling center. However, other complaints filed were 
outside of HNEC’s purview, such as a complaint that security was inadequate at one polling center, so in 
accordance with procedures, HNEC submitted those to the judiciary for further action. An IFES staff 
member noted that over the three elections that HNEC has overseen, it has grown to understand the 
importance of this function. This was reflected in the statement of another HNEC official, who noted that 
as a result of its experience with electoral dispute resolution during the last elections, HNEC set up 
internal procedures for recounting votes in case of an appeal, to ensure that the process would be more 
expedient. 
The most commonly-mentioned area in which HNEC lacks capability was in implementing campaign 
finance regulations, mentioned by three of the 13 interviewees (23 percent). An IFES staff member 
explained that these regulations are complex, and it would take more than just three election cycles for 
HNEC to master the procedures. He also noted that this area of HNEC’s work is controversial so HNEC 
is resistant to implementing the regulations. But he nevertheless believes that IFES must continue to 
emphasize the importance of implementing campaign finance regulations. 
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 16 
The impediments to HNEC’s ability to manage transparent, credible elections most often cited by 
interviewees (22 in total: four USAID, four IFES, five HNEC, three HoR, four HSC, and two DRCs) were: 
 Lack of Libyan government budget allocations 
 Political conflict 
 Lack of a constitution 
 Insecurity 
All the major impediments noted by interviewees are factors external to HNEC. 
The impediment most often cited (eight of the 22 interviewees or 36 percent) was the lack of operating
funds. An HNEC official noted that, as of May 2018 when the interview took place, the 2018 budget 
allocations to HNEC had not yet been released. Another HNEC staff member reported that it does not 
have the electronic equipment it needs to perform its functions, and a third staff member noted that lack 
of funds has resulted in inadequate outreach to citizens. One USAID staff member noted that HNEC does 
not have the financial resources to meet staff payroll, and another USAID staff member mentioned the 
inability of HNEC to pay its electric bill. 
The second, most-often cited impediment (seven interviewees or 31 percent) was the political conflict 
dividing the country. A member of the HSC explained that the political division in the government results 
in the lack of a quorum in Parliament. Thus legislation on election law has not been voted on. 
Five of the 22 interviewees (23 percent) stated that a constitution should be in place first before 
transparent, credible elections can take place. One HoR member stated that a political agreement must 
be reached and reflected in the constitution to stipulate one unified parliamentary body before credible 
elections could take place. 
An equal number of interviewees, five of the 22 (23 percent), said that insecurity is preventing credible 
elections. An HoR member noted the proliferation of weapons throughout the country. 
The ET queried four USAID, four IFES, five HNEC, three HoR, four HSC, two DRCs, two other donors, 
and one other implementer (25 in total) about the remaining gaps in HNEC capacity to manage elections. 
The most common gap, cited by five interviewees, was outreach and awareness. Even though outreach 
and awareness were also cited as an area where HNEC capacity has developed the most, interviewees 
believe HNEC has not yet reached a point where it is able to conduct outreach independently without 
further training. One HNEC official stated that it still needs guidance to conduct events, organize 
conferences, and design campaigns. A USAID official explained that public outreach requires consistent 
and ongoing guidance, in particular because HNEC officials are not as skilled at this as politicians often 
are. As well, three interviewees (12 percent) cited the gap in outreach to certain regions of Libya. One 
DRC respondent said that the reason for this is that there are not enough CSOs in some regions through 
which to disseminate messages. The other DRC respondent reported that outreach efforts had been 
concentrated in Tripoli, Benghazi, and Sebha, to the exclusion of other areas of the country. 
Four of the 25 interviewees (16 percent) identified training for a fairly large number of long-term and 
temporary field office staff as another need for further donor support for HNEC. A USAID staff member 
stated that HNEC would not have the capacity to train the cadre of temporary staff by the time of 
elections, currently scheduled for December 2018. An IFES staff member suggested that HNEC will need 
to develop an internal training program for this purpose. One of the DRC respondents emphasized the 
importance of competent staff to avoid the perception that election personnel are hired only because of 
their connections to a certain tribe or because they are related to city officials; he attributed a past attack 
in Sebha to such a situation, where an unqualified teacher was supervising an election center. 
Although UNSMIL also has supported HNEC, an IFES staff member stated, “HNEC was able to rely on 
IFES’s steady provision of assistance, even when there were gaps in UNSMIL support.” Two USAID officials 
interviewed stated that HNEC has publicly stated that IFES is its prime partner, and that it has repeatedly 
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 17 
expressed a preference for working with IFES. Two HNEC officials corroborated USAID’s statements. An 
HNEC official interviewed stated, “IFES is our main partner. Since our very first steps with the GNC 
elections in 2012, they have been working very closely with us." Another HNEC official stated, “IFES 
played the biggest role, and they are doing excellent work with us.” 
PUBLIC CONFIDENCE IN ELECTIONS 
Both IFES and NDI worked through CSOs to build public confidence in elections. Through a competitive 
bidding process, IFES awarded four sub-grants to CSOs to be designated as DRCs to partner with IFES in 
expanding public awareness and understanding of electoral issues. A USAID interviewee mentioned events 
held by DRCs to discuss topics such as voter registration. One DRC established a project called 
“Democratic Saturday,” which aims to build a network of CSOs to promote and carry out civic education 
with a focus on youth; the project works in close cooperation with HNEC. One of the DRC interviewees
attributed IFES’s persistence and open communication to its success in overcoming the initial resistance 
and skepticism it received from CSOs in the south. In addition, one USAID staff member noted that NDI 
has been training CSOs to monitor elections. The ET found no data reported in the LEGS fiscal year 2018 
PMP relevant to public confidence in elections. 
A survey was conducted as part of the evaluation to measure the level of confidence in elections among 
the public. In Suq Aljumaa, 387 out of 397 citizens surveyed (97 percent) stated that they had seen or 
heard information about upcoming elections. All 401 citizens surveyed in Tobruk said they had. And 350 
out of 394 people surveyed in Ghat (89 percent) had seen or heard messages. See Figure 1 below. 
Figure 1: Responses to survey question, “Have you heard or seen information about upcoming elections?”
There were no significant differences in responses between the men and women, or in the responses of 
the persons with disabilities (PWDs) or youth compared to the wider group. 
LEGS supported outreach on elections through events (workshops, dialogue sessions, forums, panel 
discussions, training); radio; printed information (flyers, guides); videos; and social media. Some of these 
outreach efforts were conducted directly by IFES, some through DRCs, and some by HNEC. In all three 
cities, the most-commonly cited source of information about elections was television. In Suq Aljumaa, 323 
out of 397 citizens surveyed (81 percent) stated that they had seen or heard information about elections 
on television. In Tobruk, 397 out of 401 citizens (99 percent) surveyed said they had seen messages on 
television. And 305 out of 394 people surveyed in Ghat (77 percent) had seen or heard messages on 
television. See Figure 2 below. 
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 18 
Figure 2: Responses to survey question, “Which sources of information about elections do you 
remember?”
There were some small differences in the sources of information cited by men and women in Tobruk. 
For instance, in Tobruk, 97 out of 202 men (48 percent) cited radio as a source of their information, while 
only 71 out of 199 women (36 percent) remembered receiving information from the radio. As well, 102 
out of 202 men (50 percent) in Tobruk reported receiving information from online sources, while only 
79 out of 199 women (40 percent) did. 
The election topic most often remembered by those surveyed was voter registration, recalled by 1138 
out of the 1192 people surveyed (95 percent). This is most likely because voter registration efforts took 
place in early 2018, while the last election event prior to this was in 2014. Only 40 out of 57 people with 
disabilities who were surveyed (70 percent) recalled receiving information about voter registration. Yet 
30 of the 57 PWDs (52 percent) recalled receiving information about the accessibility of PWDs to the 
electoral process, versus 266 out of the total surveyed (22 percent) who remembered receiving such 
information. There were no significant differences regarding the topics of information recalled by those in 
different cities; by men and women; or by youth and those who are not young. 
It cannot be confirmed if the information about elections recalled by those surveyed were messages 
disseminated by HNEC or IFES partner organizations as opposed to other sources unrelated to LEGS 
interventions. 
Out of the total of 1192 persons surveyed, 716 (60 percent) said that they were more likely to vote after 
having received the messages. In Ghat, 215 out of 394 (55 percent) reported that they were more likely 
to vote; 193 out of 397 (49 percent) of those in Suq Aljumaa said they were; and 308 out of 401 citizens 
(77 percent) surveyed in Tobruk said that they were more likely to vote after receiving the information. 
There were no significant differences in the responses of men and women, or PDWs or youth compared 
to the wider groups. 
When asked if HNEC is doing a good job preparing for upcoming elections, a majority of survey 
respondents responded positively. The geographic breakdown is as follows: 
 Ghat: 213 out of 394 (54 percent) 
 Suq Aljumaa: 286 out of 397 (72 percent) 
 Tobruk: 354 out of 401 (88 percent) 
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 19 
See Figure 3 below for all of the responses to the question. PWDs were more likely than average to agree 
that HNEC is doing a good job, with 47 out of 57 (82 percent) saying yes to this question. 
Figure 3: Responses to survey question, “Do you think that the High National Elections Commission is 
doing a good job of preparing for the elections?”
In answer to the question, “To what extent do you trust the following institutions to improve Libya’s 
future?” 703 out of the 1192 (59 percent) survey respondents answered “highly” or “moderately” 
regarding HNEC. This compares with 57 percent in 2015 when the same question was asked in a USAID￾funded DRG survey.1 See Figure 4 below. 
Figure 4: Responses of “highly” or “moderately” to survey question, “To what extent do you trust the 
following institutions to improve Libya’s future?”
 
1 “Mid-term Evaluation of Democracy, Human Rights and Governance (DRG) Programming in Libya and Results from a National 
and Urban DRG Survey” USAID/Libya. January 2016.
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 20 
HNEC was rated most highly among all the institutions, and is the only institution to have improved its 
popular trust since 2015. The geographic breakdown of those who said that they moderately or highly 
trust in HNEC is as follows: 
 Ghat: 143 out of 394 people (36 percent) 
 Suq Aljumaa: 267 out of 397 (67 percent) 
 Tobruk: 293 out of 401 (73 percent) 
Trust among youth was lower than average, with only 152 out of 287 (53 percent) placing a moderate or 
high level of trust in HNEC. There were no notable differences in the responses of men and women or 
in the responses of the disabled versus those not disabled. 
Three out of four USAID staff and three of four IFES staff interviewed believe that the public perceives 
the planning for possible upcoming elections to be fair. Two respondents attributed this to HNEC’s 
capacity, especially with outreach and voter registration, which has helped to build credibility. Two others 
concluded this based on the success of the recent voter registration campaign. Reasons given – HNEC 
capacity and the success of the voter registration campaign - are both internal factors. 
The two DRC respondents were considerably more negative in their assessment of public perception of 
the fairness of planning for elections. One explained that after the last elections, political divisions had split 
the country, insecurity had grown, and the economy had weakened. Therefore, he supposed that the 
public would not expect the executive or legislative branches to effect any improvement in the situation 
after the next elections, regardless of the outcome or fairness with which elections are conducted. He 
also cited the low turnout at recent municipal elections as an indicator of the public’s perception of 
upcoming national elections. He further said that people think that elections are just a way to attain power 
and money without any consequences or accountability. The other DRC respondent said that people are 
simply confused about which elections will be held. Considering the DRCs’ role to raise civic awareness 
and engagement, the ET is unclear as to why the perceptions voiced by the DRC representatives differ so 
much from those collected directly from the public. 
CHANGES MADE TO ACHIEVE LEGS OBJECTIVE 1 
Table 4 below summarizes the changes in project activities made since the mid-term evaluation was 
conducted in order to achieve LEGS Objective 1. The information in the first column of the table was 
taken from Figure 7 of the mid-term evaluation.2 Changes noted in the middle column indicate whether 
an activity was continued from before the mid-term evaluation; added since the mid-term; or, discontinued
since the mid-term. 
Table 4: Changes in project activities conducted under LEGS Objective 1 
MID-TERM 
EVALUATION: 
ACTIVITIES 
(ORIGINAL WORK 
PLAN)
CHANGES (IF 
ANY) MADE TO 
ACHIEVE 
OBJECTIVES
NOTES
Result 1.1 Professionalism and transparency of government institutions with election￾related responsibilities are increased through technical advice and support
Technical support to HNEC Activities Continued
Technical support to 
Judiciary
Activities Continued
Capacity build gov. political 
finance bodies
Activities Continued
 
2 “Mid-term Evaluation of Democracy, Human Rights and Governance (DRG) Programming in Libya and Results from a National 
and Urban DRG Survey” USAID/Libya. January 2016.
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 21 
Result 1.2 Civic engagement is increased through higher level of public understanding 
of processes related to Libya’s political transition
Creation of Democracy 
Resource Centers
Activities Modified Also maintain DRCs already created
Access for PWDs Activities Discontinued Such activities were reported under 
Objective 3.
Information CSOs on 
Elections/Political Process
Activities Continued
Result 1.3 Support is provided to citizen-led oversight of electoral and political 
processes (Result Added)
Activities Added Election Monitoring
Activities Added Electoral Reform Advocacy initiate
A new result was introduced since the mid-term evaluation. Result 1.3: Support is provided to citizen-led 
oversight of electoral and political processes was added with two major types of activities, support to CSOs 
for election observation and monitoring and advocacy for electoral reform. 
CONCLUSIONS ON PROGRESS TOWARDS LEGS OBJECTIVE 1 
HNEC CAPACITY TO MANAGE TRANSPARENT AND CREDIBLE ELECTIONS 
Indicator data reported by LEGS in its PMP (as shown in Table 3 above) could neither be directly 
corroborated nor disputed based on evaluation data collected. However, the PMP output data for 
indicators 0.0.0.2, 0.0.0.3, 1.1.1.1, 1.1.1.3, and 1.1.1.6 (regarding numbers of trainees, workshop 
participants, and recommendations adopted by HNEC) appear plausible based on the evaluation data, 
which measured the higher-level results achieved. The ET did not collect data to cross-check LEGS 
indicator 1.1.4.1 (regarding gender integration). Table 5 reflects LEGS progress toward meeting its 
indicator targets. 
Table 5: Progress in Meeting LEGS Indicator Targets relevant to HNEC Capacity to Conduct Transparent 
and Credible Elections 
INDICATOR FY1 (2016-17)
CEPPS Objective 1: Increasing public and stakeholder confidence in the integrity of elections as 
a vehicle for peacefully and democratically selecting leaders
Indicator 0.0.0.2: Number of civil or electoral stakeholders trained on formal 
or informal aspects of the electoral and/or political process Exceeded
Indicator 0.0.0.3: Number of civil or electoral stakeholders participating in 
formal or informal electoral and civic workshops, forums, or presentations Exceeded
Indicator 1.1.1.1: HNEC produces strategic plan/vision through support 
provided by IFES Not Met
Indicator 1.1.1.3: Number of actionable recommendations adopted by HNEC 
to improve electoral processes Exceeded
Indicator 1.1.1.6: Number of election officials trained with USG assistance Exceeded
INTERMEDIATE RESULT 1.1.4: Improved gender integration in electoral processes and 
institutions
Indicator 1.1.4.1: Number of IFES-supported initiatives undertaken by electoral 
management bodies that work towards increased gender inclusion/integration Not Met
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 22 
Since the inception of LEGS, HNEC has considerably increased its capacity to manage transparent and 
credible elections. HNEC’s comprehension of the importance of its role to inform citizens, handle 
electoral disputes, and register voters to ensure free and fair elections is strong. However, its ability to 
manage these processes, as well as other responsibilities such as handling campaign finance regulations, 
has not yet reached a point at which it can do so independently of donor assistance. In addition to lacking 
sufficient staff capacity, it is lacking adequate funding to discharge its duties. 
The fact that few players support Libyan elections management, and that IFES has consistently supported 
HNEC since the inception of the project, LEGS is likely to have played a significant role in helping HNEC 
to reach this point of development. Further, the transparency with which HNEC has conducted its work 
has likely increased public trust in this institution and increased the likelihood that election results will be 
accepted.
PUBLIC CONFIDENCE IN ELECTIONS 
A high percentage of Libyan citizens have received information about the elections, although somewhat 
less in the south of the country. Television was most effective in reaching large numbers of people. Citizens 
across Libya are quite optimistic that leaders can be elected peacefully and democratically. However, 
people who were surveyed in the south hold less trust in HNEC, and fewer believed that HNEC is doing 
a good job preparing for possible upcoming elections. Youth tended to hold less trust in HNEC than older 
people. PWDs were more likely than average to remember information disseminated about access to 
voting, and they were more likely than average to consider that HNEC is doing a good job in planning for 
possible upcoming elections. While donors, implementers, and CSOs were less optimistic, the ET has 
weighed the data collected directly from citizens more strongly.
In addition, information disseminated about elections was effective in building confidence among the public 
in the integrity of the elections and in increasing their likelihood of voting and engaging in the democratic 
process to select leaders.
CHANGES MADE TO ACHIEVE LEGS OBJECTIVE 1 
Since the mid-term evaluation, LEGS continued activities under sub-IR 1.1 Professionalism and transparency 
of government institutions with election-related responsibilities are increased through technical advice and support. 
However, the focus was almost exclusively on technical support to HNEC, with very little technical 
support to the judiciary or capacity building of political finance bodies. Support to HNEC was successful 
in contributing to Objective 1, but additional efforts with other governmental bodies would have also 
contributed to achieving the objective and should have been a larger focus. 
Under sub-IR 1.2, activities were appropriately modified to assist existing DRCs after the initial support 
to create them. Access to PWDs largely continued but was considered under Objective 3 instead. 
Informing CSOs on elections and political processes continued, primarily through supporting HNEC to 
perform this function, which was an appropriate approach for sustainability. 
A new result was introduced since the mid-term evaluation, Result 1.3: Support is provided to citizen-led 
oversight of electoral and political processes. Activities under this result contributed more broadly to achieving 
LEGS Objective 1. 
FINDINGS ON PROGRESS TOWARDS LEGS OBJECTIVE 2 
KEY FINDINGS OF LEGS OBJECTIVE 2
 HoR, HSC, and MC members interviewed are listening to and acting upon citizen input.
LEGS Objective 2: Establishing good precedents for effective governance, including stakeholder 
engagement, by legislative bodies
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 23 
 CSOs interviewed are advocating issues before HoR, HSC, and MCs.
 MC members interviewed stated that they are utilizing training on professional and 
management skills and on budget, finance, and revenue generation in their work.
 Those interviewed cited insecurity and political conflict as limiting the effectiveness of the 
HoR and HSC.
 Those interviewed cited the unclear legal status for local administration and lack of 
budgetary funds as limiting the effectiveness of MCs.
In considering the progress made toward LEGS Objective 2, Establishing good precedents for effective 
governance, including stakeholder engagement, by legislative bodies, the ET looked for progress at the national 
level with the HoR and HSC, as well as the local level with MCs. The ET primarily reviewed progress 
toward establishing local stakeholder engagement as a precedent for effective governance, although other 
aspects of effective governance were also evaluated. 
HOR AND HSC UTILIZATION OF CITIZEN INPUTS 
According to background information reviewed by the evaluation team, NDI and IRI supported the GNC 
from the outset of the LEGS activity until its replacement by the HoR through elections held in August 
2014. Initially NDI provided information sessions for the GNC. NDI hosted roundtables between the 
GNC and civil society to improve public understanding of the GNC and organized radio broadcasts with 
GNC members. NDI provided GNC members, staff, committees, caucuses, and the Diwan with 
consultations to help them fulfill their roles. They trained committees, caucuses, and constituency 
assistants. As well, NDI provided technical assistance through developing a GNC Members' User Guide, 
drafting job descriptions for committee support staff, providing comparative examples of ethics codes and 
conflict of interest legislation, and proposing amendments to clarify Law 59. 
NDI initially worked with the HoR, but by late 2014 political conflict had divided the body, and NDI did 
not resume assistance until late 2016. Meanwhile, the HSC was formed and met for the first time in early 
2016. NDI began providing assistance to HSC in September 2017. A USAID staff member noted in an 
interview that NDI had made a point to work with both HoR and HSC in order to maintain political 
neutrality. 
HoR members interviewed affirmed that they had attended training offered by NDI. An HSC member 
noted that the methodology used in the NDI training he attended was brainstorming, which he said was 
an effective way to engage parliamentarians. A USAID staff member stated that NDI had worked with 
HSC sub-committees such as Energy, Finance, Auditing, and Security. NDI provided one-on-one advisory 
services to committee chairs and staff as well as peer-to-peer events where individuals from the British 
Parliament engaged directly with HSC, according to an NDI staff member interviewed. The NDI staff 
member went on to explain that the approach that NDI took was to work with a small number of people 
in HoR and HSC who recognize the importance of serving constituents. 
Throughout the LEGS activity, NDI has worked on the demand side of stakeholder engagement, 
supporting CSOs with training and guidance on advocacy campaigns. An NDI staff member explained that 
NDI’s approach was to help CSOs focus their efforts and take specific, tangible steps but not to dictate 
or to run campaigns on their behalf. 
The ET found no data reported in the LEGS PMP 2018 for indicators on establishing good precedents for 
effective governance, including stakeholder engagement, by governing and representative bodies at the 
national level. 
Two out of the three HoR members and three of the four HSC members interviewed cited examples of 
citizen input they used in their work. The examples given were: 
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 24 
 Liquidity problem in banking sector 
 Law on salaries in education sector 
 Equipping a kidney center 
 Draft law to mandate elections on constitution 
 Individual complaints of constituents on medical issues 
Elected members stated that they get citizen input through CSOs and political parties. Mechanisms they 
said they use to gather citizen input are media reports, face-to-face contact with constituents or face-to￾face contact between their deputies and constituents, written proposals, field visits, telephone, and social 
media. NDI reported that it has delivered proposals developed at workshops it held for CSOs to elected 
members. 
Out of nine CSO respondents interviewed, five said that they had provided input to HoR or HSC on the 
following topics: 
 Draft amendments to law terminating salaries of disabled women 
 Draft law guaranteeing a percentage of seats in HoR and MCs for women 
 Rights for disabled to participate in elections 
 Ratification of United Nations (UN) Convention 
on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities 
 Draft amendments to law prohibiting citizenship 
for children with Libyan mothers and foreign 
fathers 
 Draft amendments to election law 
 Draft amendments to laws terminating social 
welfare benefits for disabled men after they marry 
 Domestic violence 
In at least three of these cases, the CSOs stated that their 
advocacy inputs had been incorporated in legislation or 
amendments to legislation or regulations. See Box 1 for an 
example. 
The FGDs held with CSOs corroborated these findings, 
where participants cited examples of advocacy campaigns 
directed toward HoR or HSC. One focus group participant 
stated that the organization regularly attends HSC hearings 
that cover an issue on which they are advocating. 
While the evaluation team did not verify that LEGS 
provided direct support in each of the cases cited by HoR, 
HSC, or CSOs, it certainly has provided training and 
technical assistance to these entities to understand how to 
interact with constituents on one hand and how to 
effectively advocate on the other hand. Therefore, the 
evaluation team finds this data to be valid in that the aim of 
NDI support was capacity building. It should be noted, 
however, that one CSO interviewed that was drawn through stratified random sampling from the list 
provided by NDI of CSO stakeholders indicated that it had not worked with NDI. This could be the result 
of recall bias, considering the length of the LEGS activity, or it could be the result of staff turnover within 
the CSO. 
Box 1: LEGS Support to CSOs for 
Advocacy of Libya’s Ratification of the 
U.N. Convention on the Rights of 
Persons with Disabilities
One CSO representing the rights of PWDs 
reported success in its efforts advocating with 
the HoR, after having attended meetings and 
workshops provided by LEGS. “When the 
HoR was considering the United Nations 
Convention on the Rights of Persons with 
Disabilities, we advocated for its ratification, 
and the HoR voted to adopt it.” LEGS 
quarterly reports show that NDI assisted 14 
CSOs to first draft letters to women HoR 
Members, follow up to ensure that it got on 
the HoR’s agenda, then follow up with the 
Social Affairs Committee, the Legislative 
Committee, and individual elected 
members1, until it was ratified in early 2018. 
A CSO participant in the focus group, which 
also worked towards ratification of the 
convention added, “Our goal is to change the 
stereotype about disabled people in society, 
and ratification of the convention is a 
significant achievement.”
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 25 
Regarding other efforts made by NDI to establish good governance within HoR and HSC, beyond the 
inclusion of stakeholder input, no two elected members interviewed named the same training when asked 
which were most useful. The interviewees cited the following as the most useful training: 
 leadership 
 negotiation 
 dialogue 
 internal communication 
 women’s participation
 communications, media, and public speaking 
 coalition building 
 conducting an election campaign 
One member said that the internal communication training had resulted in improved communications 
with departments in the Diwan. The member who named the training on conducting election campaigns 
said that she had learned how to approach her constituents from a neutral perspective and that people 
should vote based on the qualifications of the candidate and not their affiliation. She added that she had 
learned how to analyze demographic and geographic data and was using this in planning. A third member 
said that she was using what she learned in the training on dialogue in her work, including work with the 
CDA on reconciliation, but also in her personal life. She also said that she had seen great benefits of the 
training provided by NDI to secretaries, coordinators, and other administrative staff as well as escorts, 
where they had become more professional, and she had seen their work proceed more smoothly. 
The impediments most often cited by three HoR, four HSC, three IPs, and four USAID staff as limiting 
progress toward effective governance were: 
 Lack of security 
 Political conflict 
 Low level of public trust in HoR and HSC 
 Inability to travel to, from, and within Libya 
Seven of the 14 interviewees mentioned security risks as an obstacle to effective governance. One elected 
member stated that she had to close her Facebook account. An NDI staff member explained that many 
elected members cannot meet with constituents and certainly cannot hold public hearings. Some cannot 
safely travel to the district they represent or to NDI events held in Libya or abroad. A USAID staff member 
noted that some Libyans cannot get permission to travel abroad and can be questioned regarding the 
parties they are meeting with. Another USAID staff member stated that assassination attempts have been 
made on legislators. A USAID staff member stated that NDI was once threatened over YouTube and had 
to close its office in Benghazi, which limits the support that NDI can offer to the legislative bodies. 
Four interviewees blamed political divisions as limiting the effectiveness of governance. One elected 
member stated that NDI assistance to the HoR is limited due to the political division within the HoR, 
where some members were boycotting the institution. She added that because the HoR is located in 
Tobruk, while NDI operates primarily out of Tripoli, NDI is not dealing with the HoR on an institutional 
basis but only with individual members. An NDI staff member noted that HSC cannot conduct oversight 
of the executive branch or the budget because the situation between the east and the west is too 
politicized. A USAID staff member noted that the frequent changes in the legislative bodies in Libya, 
where NDI has worked with three over the life of LEGS, means that NDI is continually working with new 
counterparts, limiting the overall capacity that can be built. 
Three interviewees mentioned the lack of trust in HoR and HSC as limiting the effectiveness of 
governance. A USAID staff member stated that he has not seen any evidence that anything the HoR is 
doing is guided by constituents, and he does not even think that it functions as a legislative body. This 
attitude is corroborated by the evaluation survey as depicted in Figure 4 above. Out of all 1192 citizens 
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 26 
surveyed, 190 (16 percent) moderately or highly trust the HoR. This compares with 30 percent reported 
in 2015 in the USAID/Libya DRG survey,3 showing that trust in the HoR has decreased. Among the 57 
PWDs surveyed, 18 (32 percent) currently trust the HoR. Out of all 1192 citizens surveyed, 134 (11 
percent) trust the HSC moderately or highly. Again, PWDs placed higher trust in the HSC, with 13 of the 
57 (23 percent) saying that they moderately or highly trust the HSC. Citizens in Tobruk placed much 
lower trust in the HSC, with only 8 out of 401 (2 percent) stating that they moderately or highly trust the 
HSC. 
Travel restrictions were also mentioned by three interviewees as limiting the effectiveness of governance. 
NDI staff stated that they are currently able to access Tripoli and Tobruk, but flights are infrequent. A 
USAID staff member noted that while NDI’s Country Director is a third-country national (TCN) and is 
currently able to travel to Tripoli, this has not always been the case throughout the life of the project. 
Further, local NDI staff are not able to travel freely to all parts of Libya. Another USAID staff member 
noted that this requires the expatriate NDI staff to remotely manage local staff much of the time, which 
reduces efficiency. Work with the HoR and HSC is slower because of the difficulty with travel. 
When the three HoR, four HSC, three NDI, and four USAID staff members were asked what support the 
HoR and HSC need from USAID, no two respondents said the same thing. They mentioned training on 
reconciliation, electoral law, legislative drafting, leadership, and gender issues. An NDI staff member said 
that peer-to-peer training was particularly useful. Others suggested online training or training in locations 
outside of Libya as a way to reduce security risks. An HoR member stated that a USAID-funded program 
needs to associate closely with the Diwan of both the HoR and HSC to establish efficient working 
mechanisms. 
MUNICIPAL COUNCILS’ RESPONSE TO CITIZEN INPUTS 
LEGS progress reports identify a range of activities designed to foster stakeholder engagement. These 
include training for civil society activists, municipal councilors and council staff; organizing international 
exchanges and participation at regional workshops; consultation with the MoLG on issues of local 
administration reform; convening workshops and conferences on topics of interest to MCs; consulting 
with MCs on specific tasks such as developing a municipal website; assisting with establishment of the 
Mayors’ Association and Women’s Elected Officials Network; and hosting outreach events for MC 
members and constituents, including CSOs. The ET found no data reported in the LEGS fiscal year 2018 
PMP relevant to MCs’ response to citizen inputs. 
The focus of the field enquiry on local stakeholder engagement was to ask MC and CSO members whether 
MCs respond to CSOs’ inputs or advocacy initiatives.
Eight of ten MC members interviewed (80 percent) gave 12 examples of projects implemented in response 
to citizen requests. The projects they mentioned include: 
Infrastructure Projects Non-Infrastructure Projects
 water supply (2 projects)
 solid waste removal
 airstrip project
 road maintenance
 maintenance of public parks
 reconciliation between local groups
 monitoring of bakeries
 work with courts and tax offices (2 initiatives)
 work with banks to ration scarce cash reserves
 preparing for festivals
One of the USAID staff interviewed mentioned that IRI had arranged meetings between MCs and CSOs, 
and cited a beach-cleaning project as a positive outcome. Another corroborating example of stakeholder 
engagement was provided in the focus group for MC members held in Tripoli, where it was reported that 
 
3 “Mid-term Evaluation of Democracy, Human Rights and Governance (DRG) Programming in Libya and Results from a National 
and Urban DRG Survey” USAID/Libya. January 2016.
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 27 
the MC 
“met with community members and representatives of local public services… to discuss their 
needs and the issues they faced. Every person had the right to speak and discuss their opinion 
freely. By the end of the [2015] workshop, we made recommendations and designed both short￾and long-term strategic plans for the Municipal Council. We did it again in 2016 and 2017.”
Nine out of ten MC members interviewed (90 percent) said the MC communicates or cooperates with, 
or responds to citizen inputs. Several of them said the activity was small or slight. The tenth said, “People 
don’t communicate with us as they know we have no resources.” 
All three IP staff and three out of four USAID staff (75 percent) who were asked about IRI’s contribution 
to stakeholder engagement gave strong positive responses. One IP staff member cited IRI’s “excellent job 
compared to other NGOs and very positive impact.” Another said that before working with IRI, the Suq 
Aljumaa MC had never taken citizens’ suggestions into account. When they started to do so, they 
prioritized funding for road maintenance, based on citizen inputs. One of the USAID respondents said 
that MCs have “come a long way in understanding their representative role” thanks to IRI’s work, which 
was called “some of the best work USAID has done in Libya.”
Although none of the MC members interviewed directly answered a KII question about IRI’s specific 
contributions to stakeholder engagement, LEGS progress reports document many such activities. For 
example, IRI: 
 trained municipal councilors to understand their roles and responsibilities and to conduct 
community outreach4 
 held workshops for councilors on strategic communications, citizen outreach and social media 
techniques… to facilitate engagement5
 held a workshop in 2017 with the Mayor, MC Members and executive officers, CSOs and experts 
from Sirt; participants built a comprehensive vision for reconstruction, defining the interim 
objectives for realizing the vision6
On the other side of the engagement “equation,” seven of nine CSO interviewees (78 percent) cited eight 
projects they had proposed to MCs. The projects they mentioned include: 
 reconciliation – implemented (implied by the answer) 
 trained MC members about election law – implemented 
 family charity – implemented (implied by the answer) 
 rugby field – started, partially implemented 
 PWD election access – partially implemented 
 hospital – no result 
 (unspecified project) – no response from MC 
 “many projects, including a school for PWDs” – not implemented 
Three of the nine CSO representatives interviewed about stakeholder engagement (33 percent) had 
participated in IRI training workshops. One (11 percent) was aware that the municipality received IRI 
training, and three (33 percent) reported they had not received IRI training. (Two did not know.) 
When asked about other organizations that have assisted MCs, USAID and IP respondents mentioned the 
Asia and Middle East Economic Growth Best Practices Activity (on public financial management), 
Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit, ACTED, and Institute for War and Peace Reporting. One 
IP respondent mentioned that IRI was the only one to focus on developing capacity of individual MC staff 
members. Another said that IRI was the first to prioritize work with MCs and that other donors followed 
 
4 Libya Elections and Governance Support Quarterly Report for the period July 1-September 30, 2015 
5 Libya Elections and Governance Support Quarterly Report for the period July 1-September 30, 2016 
6 Programmatic Spotlight “USAID supports Sirte Community Reconciliation Conference” (July 25, 2017)
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 28 
once LEGS had demonstrated positive results. Two USAID staff members cited strong positive benefits 
of IRI’s “seminal work in Sirte” to resolve conflicts, guide the basic functioning of the MC, and to help 
“prepare a citizen-informed road map for Sirte’s development.” 
For an additional perspective on IRI’s contribution to stakeholder engagement, the ET asked ten out of 
the 118 MC members that were IRI beneficiaries and 3 IP staff about training provided by IRI. Table 6 
shows how respondents evaluated and used the skills they learned at these events. Respondents were 
allowed to give multiple responses. The ET does not know how many of the MC members attended which 
training events.
Table 6: Responses to interview question “Did the training provide MC members/staff with skills to better 
carry out their functions?”
NUMBER OF
MC “YES” 
ANSWERS
TRAINING TOPIC
HOW WAS THE TRAINING 
USED? (ANSWERS FROM 3 
IP STAFF)
6 Professional and Management Skills Report writing (2 respondents)
6 Budget, Finance, and Revenue Generation Open public budget meetings
Budget posted online
4 Leadership Skills
Better administrative mailing
Better report writing (2)
Women are more respected
4 Conducting Public Awareness Campaigns
4 Crisis Management and Conflict Resolution MCs interacted and forged 
regional peace treaties
4
Skills in Municipal Sectors (health, education, housing, 
etc.) 
3 Proposal Writing
3 GIS Technology
Urban planning
Licensing
Taxation proposals
2 Creative Thinking and Change Management Tobruk mayors began to empower 
office directors
All of the participants in the focus group held in Tripoli for MC Members cited “applicable,’ “good,” “very 
strong,” “very important” workshops held by IRI. However, one criticism made at this FGD with MCs 
was that IRI offers workshops for CSOs not councils. Two suggestions were made at this FGD with MCs 
- one that IRI consult with the MCs in order to provide workshops tailored to their needs, and another 
that trainers should be more experienced in practical rather than theoretical methodologies. 
Thirteen KII and focus group respondents stated that MC members’ and staff skills are nascent or that 
they have low capacity, little knowledge, and lack discipline. Six respondents said that council members 
and staff have limited understanding of the nature of MCs’ work, roles, job descriptions, responsibilities 
and authorities, and legal framework for their work. Four respondents said that MCs' internal dialogue, 
consensus building processes, and skills are weak, and two said the MCs are not cooperative or responsive 
to constituents. 
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 29 
Results reported in quarterly reports give an incomplete but overall positive picture. Relevant indicators 
in the Quarterly Report for the period April 1 – June 30, 2017 include: 
Regarding Indicator 2.4.1.6, IRI explained that its Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Department did not 
have enough information in advance of training to develop pre- and post-tests. Although they asked the 
participants to complete a survey at the end of the training self-evaluating the knowledge they had gained, 
they did not rely on that data for reporting and thus reported zero. 
KII and FGD participants from MCs and CSOs noted various internal and external obstacles to effective 
local governance. The most frequently mentioned constraint was the uncertain legal basis for local 
administration. The 17 February Revolution (in 2011) raised expectations of decentralized governance, 
and the Libyan GNC passed Law 59 concerning the local administration system in 2012, but it reportedly 
does not delegate specific duties or rights to municipalities. Also, its legal status is uncertain pending the 
overall political solution. Six MC members interviewed referred specifically to the “inactivation” of Law 
59 as an obstacle, while two others complained that the central government has not given powers to MCs. 
Without Law 59 “we are not working and don't exist because we have no authorities to let us work more 
freely,” said one MC member. CSOs and IP members echoed this crippling constraint, noting for example 
that mayors or councils that take initiative can – and have – faced criminal charges for exceeding their 
authorities. 
Numerous other constraints to effective local governance were cited: 
 MCs lack budgets, funds and resources 
 capacity, performance or leadership of the MoLG 
 MCs lack capacity and do not get support from Government 
 Insecurity and instability decrease the scope for MC work and citizen cooperation 
The lack of municipal budget funds stems in large part from the lack of a local administration law (unclear 
status of Law 59). Without well-defined responsibilities and powers, the typical funding sources of local 
governments – local own-source revenues and state transfer payments – are weak or dysfunctional. 
Problems mentioned with MoLG included: weak structure and staff capacities; “MoLG not working 
Indicator 2.4.1.6 Number of municipal council member participants who demonstrate an increased 
understanding of good governance
Zero; Although CEPPS/IRI worked with Municipal Council Members this quarter to improve governance 
performance, CEPPS/IRI Libya did not conduct pre- and post-tests with MCMs that could attest to demonstrable 
knowledge gained 
Indicator 2.4.1.10 Number of meetings held that support interaction between government officials and 
constituents
Seventeen; CEPPS/IRI conducted eleven Advocacy and Partnership Building workshops for elected government 
officials and Libyan constituents… hosted six Ramadan Iftar events, which provided an open forum for informal 
discussion between MCs and Libyan citizens on issues of interest to members of the community and ongoing 
challenges faced by municipal councils across the country. 
Indicator 2.4.1.11 Number of elected officials who engage in constituent outreach
Fifty-one (including 5 women); eleven Advocacy and Partnership Building workshops [at which] elected officials 
communicated directly with Libyan constituents and civil society organizations regarding ongoing community 
concerns, subnational political obstacles, community development projects and strategies for coalition building.
Indicator 2.4.1.1 Number of individuals receiving public advocacy training to enhance their ability to 
engage with elected officials
One hundred sixty-nine (39 women); CEPPS/IRI conducted eleven Principles of Advocacy and Partnership 
Building trainings for independent activists and CSO representatives.
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 30 
practically with MCs;” lack of MoLG honesty, transparency; “MoLG officials are the obstacles;” poor 
communication with MCs; MoLG lack of interest; corruption; and bias. 
The citizen survey conducted for this evaluation indicates there is widespread awareness of MCs – a good 
precedent for effective local governance. Fully 96 percent of Tobruk residents surveyed (386 out of 401) 
said they know who their mayor and MC members are; 62 percent gave the same positive answer in Suq 
Aljumaa (248 out of 397) and Ghat (246 out of 394). Fifty-nine percent of all survey respondents (705 out 
of 1192) said they know what services the municipality is responsible to provide. 
The survey also showed that 36 percent of Libyans (433 out of 1192 respondents) have high or moderate 
trust in local government. The geographic breakdown is as follows: 
 Ghat: 157 out of 394 (20 percent) 
 Suq Aljumaa: 251 out of 397 (44 percent) 
 Tobruk: 297 out of 401 (45 percent) 
This compares favorably to trust in the HoR (16 percent) and HSC (11 percent), but is well below trust 
in HNEC, the police, the judiciary, the Army/Libyan National Army and civil society, all of which poll above 
50 percent. (See Figure 4.)
CHANGES MADE TO ACHIEVE LEGS OBJECTIVE 2 
Table 7 below summarizes the changes in project activities made since the mid-term evaluation was 
conducted in order to achieve LEGS Objective 2. The information in the first column of the table was 
taken from Figure 7 of the mid-term evaluation.7 Changes noted in the middle column indicate whether 
an activity was continued from before the mid-term evaluation; added since the mid-term; or, discontinued
since the mid-term. 
Table 7: Changes in project activities conducted under LEGS Objective 2 
MID-TERM EVALUATION: 
ACTIVITIES 
(ORIGINAL WORK PLAN)
CHANGES MADE 
TO ACHIEVE 
OBJECTIVES
NOTES
Result 2.1 Enhanced representation and legislation in GNC (Result Modified to: Libyan Legislators 
are provided with support in fulfilling their roles and responsibilities and to engage in representative 
policy making.)
Engagement of GNC Leadership Activity Discontinued GNC replaced by HoR
Institutional Assessment Activity Discontinued GNC replaced by HoR
Seminars on Basic Legislative 
Practices Activity Discontinued
GNC replaced by HoR
Orientation Series for GNC 
Members and Staff
Activity Discontinued GNC replaced by HoR
Promote Understanding of Roles as 
Legislators
Activity Continued Activity resumed but with HoR instead of 
GNC 
Institutional Development 
Committee
Activity Discontinued GNC replaced by HoR
Building Constituent Outreach 
Capacity
Activity Discontinued GNC replaced by HoR
Result 2.2 Strengthened Policy Discussions (Result Discontinued)
Political Caucus Development and 
Outreach
Activity Discontinued
 
7 “Mid-term Evaluation of Democracy, Human Rights and Governance (DRG) Programming in Libya and Results from a National 
and Urban DRG Survey” USAID/Libya. January 2016. 
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 31 
MID-TERM EVALUATION: 
ACTIVITIES 
(ORIGINAL WORK PLAN)
CHANGES MADE 
TO ACHIEVE 
OBJECTIVES
NOTES
Result 2.2 Libyan staff working in parliament are provided with capacity-building support to help 
them fulfill their roles and responsibilities (Result Added)
Activity Added Consultations and Workshops for Women 
Members
Activity Added Online Engagement
Activity Added Support to HoR and HSC Members and staff
Result 2.3 GNC Increased Transparency
Public Relations Assistance Activity Discontinued GNC replaced by HoR
Assist GNC in handling the media Activity Discontinued GNC replaced by HoR
Sub-grant to IWPR Activity Discontinued GNC replaced by HoR
Result 2.4 Legislation informed by citizen concerns
Advocacy Trainings for Citizen 
Engagement
Activity Continued
Local Constituency Outreach 
Workshops
Activity Continued
Support Representative presence 
Constituencies
Activity Continued
Town Hall Meetings Activity Discontinued
Coordination Workshops: loc. and 
nat. officials
Activity Continued
Activity Added Sub-awards for CSO-community projects
Result 2.5 Support local councilors
Activity Added Municipal officials and staff capacity building
Activity Added Associations of government officials
Result 2.6 Strengthened MoLG structure
Training Activity Continued Training was reduced, then ended owing to 
national political divide
With the replacement of the GNC, Result 2.1 was modified to cover legislators without specifying the 
institution. However, nearly all activities ceased and only re-started near the end of the period covered 
by the evaluation. Result 2.2 was discontinued and replaced by a result aimed towards building capacity of 
parliamentary staff of both the HoR and HSC. Result 2.3 was discontinued entirely upon the replacement 
of the GNC. Activities towards result 2.5 began. 
CONCLUSIONS ON PROGRESS TOWARDS LEGS OBJECTIVE 2 
HOR AND HSC UTILIZATION OF CITIZEN INPUTS 
Many factors limited the amount of work implemented by NDI with the GNC, HoR, and HSC. The GNC 
was replaced by the HoR after elections in August 2014. The HoR and HSC were formed later in the 
project and have lacked legitimacy during much of their existence. Political divisions in the HoR have 
crippled its ability to function. A portion of members are boycotting the institution so that a quorum is 
not possible. Insecurity has limited NDI’s access to the HoR and HSC, and it has limited access of the 
members and staff of these legislative bodies to NDI events. Despite the limited assistance provided to 
the HoR and the HSC over the life of the project, those targeted as beneficiaries are actively engaging 
constituents. Considering the insecurity which limits elected members’ ability to meet freely with 
constituents, the results are even more impressive. The approach of identifying a small number of 
members with political will to effectively govern appears to have been effective. The assistance has not 
percolated widely within the institutions, but it has led to first steps in constituent relations. 
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 32 
Also considering that the HoR and HSC are not operating in a robust manner, the number of advocacy 
campaigns undertaken by the CSOs cited in interviews and the focus group are encouraging. Add to this 
the low level of trust placed in these institutions, and it seems that the efforts made by LEGS were effective, 
most especially since a good number of initiatives were acted upon by the legislative bodies, making the
advocacy campaigns successful.
MUNICIPAL COUNCILS RESPONSE TO CITIZEN INPUTS 
The training provided by IRI equipped MC members and staff with basic skills necessary for stakeholder 
engagement and contributed indirectly to introduce and improve stakeholder engagement. LEGS activities 
provided a leading and significant contribution to launch stakeholder engagement by MCs and CSOs. 
Examples of successful stakeholder engagement were found between CSOs and MCs. These examples 
show that stakeholder engagement is possible and can achieve positive results. 
Little evidence was found that training was provided on recognized best practices in stakeholder 
engagement, such as conducting public hearings; complaints processing; effective community dialogues; 
community mobilization events; and conducting issues-oriented working groups. The ET also saw no 
evidence of efforts to institutionalize engagement processes, for example by adopting council rules 
requiring public hearings. 
The lack of more advanced training and institutionalization of engagement processes should not detract 
from LEGS’ considerable achievements – essential and important first steps to orient the nascent MCs to 
their representative functions and acquire skills to fulfill them. 
Widespread citizen awareness of MCs and services suggests there is a positive foundation on which to 
develop stakeholder engagement with the goal of improving services and building trust in government. 
However, significant obstacles stand in the way of further progress, namely the political divisions on the 
national level, the lack of clarity in the powers of MCs, and a general lack of local government experience 
and capacity in Libya.
CHANGES MADE TO ACHIEVE LEGS OBJECTIVE 2 
With the replacement of the GNC, results and accordingly activities targeted on the national level largely 
ceased. LEGS continued to work with parliamentary staff of HoR, and as it became permissible, resumed 
support for HoR and HSC members. Activities under result 2.5 began and became a focus of IRI’s efforts. 
Although training activities under Result 2.6 were reduced owing to the national political divide, and appear 
to have stopped around the third quarter of fiscal year 2016, IRI continued occasional contacts with MoLG 
to better understand its needs and develop the working relationship. 
FINDINGS ON PROGRESS TOWARDS LEGS OBJECTIVE 3 
KEY FINDINGS OF LEGS OBJECTIVE 3
 CSOs interviewed are advocating issues related to women, PWDs, and youth with some 
successes noted.
 CSOs mentioned their lack of funds as limiting their effectiveness to advocate issues of 
women and marginalized groups; HoR, HSC, and MC members attributed this to CSOs’ 
inexperience; while USAID and IPs mentioned insecurity as the primary limiting factor.
LEGS Objective 3: Increase women’s and marginalized groups’ genuine inclusion and 
participation such that their views and interests are incorporated into Libyan governing and legislative 
processes
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 33 
In considering progress made toward LEGS Objective 3, the ET looked for progress with groups 
representing women’s, PWD, and youth issues because these were the marginalized groups said to be of 
particular interest to USAID. 
The initiatives implemented by IFES, NDI, and IRI toward achieving LEGS Objective 1 and 2 contributed 
simultaneously toward LEGS Objective 3 when partners or beneficiaries were CSOs dealing with 
women’s, PWD, or youth-related issues. 
Table 8 below shows the indicator data relevant to increasing women’s and marginalized groups’ inclusion 
and participation into governing and legislative processes that were reported in the LEGS PMP for fiscal 
year 2018. That document includes targets and actual achievements for fiscal year 2017 but no prior years. 
As can be seen, data was reported for PWD issues but no data was reported for women’s or youth 
related issues. 
Table 8: LEGS Indicator data relevant to increasing PWD inclusion and participation in governing and 
legislative processes 
INDICATOR
FY1 (2016-17)
TARGET ACTUAL
CEPPS Objective 3: Increase women’s and marginalized group’s genuine inclusion and 
participation such that their views and interests are incorporated into Libyan governing and 
legislative processes
Indicator 3.1.2.1 Number of recommendations 
produced by groups representing persons with 
disabilities to enhance electoral access for this 
population, based on IFES consultation
3 1
For this evaluation, data collected toward measuring results under this objective were the same data 
collected toward Objectives 1 and 2, disaggregated to identify achievements toward inclusion of women, 
inclusion of PWDs, and inclusion of youth. Out of the nine CSOs interviewed, all reported having missions 
to support one or more of these issues. Table 9 below shows the number of CSOs interviewed and the 
number of issues each group reported advocating on the national and sub-national levels.
Table 9: Number of issues advocated by CSOs representing marginalized groups 
GROUPS’ 
MISSIONS
# CSOs INTERVIEWED WITH 
MISSION TO PROTECT 
MARGINALIZED GROUPS*
# ISSUES ADVOCATED ON BEHALF OF 
MARGINALIZED GROUPS**
PWD 4
3 National 
2 Sub-national
Women 3
5 National 
1 Sub-national
Youth 4
2 National
2 Sub-national
* Nine CSOs were interviewed, but the total here is 11 because one group represents all 3 issues.
**Thirteen issues in total are reported to have been introduced, but two covered two marginalized groups. Therefore, the total 
number of issues advocated sums up to 15.
Focus group participants who had worked with LEGS all shared experiences with advocacy on issues 
related to women or marginalized groups, and some noted that the issues they advocated were enacted 
into law or amended legislation or regulations. 
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 34 
When asked about the impediments to CSO advocacy efforts, answers differed by respondent group. Of 
the nine CSOs queried, the most often mentioned impediment was lack of financial resources (mentioned 
by five or 56 percent). One CSO stated, “We don’t even have simple equipment needed to prepare 
advocacy campaign materials.” Another CSO raised an unintended consequence of the limited donor 
funding. She said that competition is growing among CSOs for the limited resources awarded by 
international donors. Considering that forming coalitions is often vital to successful advocacy efforts, such 
competition may be counterproductive. 
The impediments to CSO advocacy efforts most often cited by three HoR, four HSC, and ten MCs (in 
total 17) interviewees were: 
 Inexperience of CSOs; and 
 Lack of support for the issues advocated by CSOs. 
These are both internal issues. 
The impediment most often cited, by 11 of the 17 (65 percent) was the inexperience of CSOs. One HoR 
member opined that CSOs are just chasing available money. An MC member said that all the CSOs he 
had been in contact with are ignorant of their role in the community. He said that he spends a great deal 
of time in meetings and discussions with them, with no ultimate benefit to citizens. Interviewees from all 
respondent groups agreed that CSOs often don’t have a clearly defined mission, which adds to the 
perception that they are not sincere in their endeavors and that they are incompetent. 
Another impediment to CSO advocacy efforts mentioned by four of the 17 (24 percent) was simply that 
the officials didn’t agree with the issues advocated by these groups. Two national legislators expressed the 
belief that many CSOs are actually tools of political parties. This perception could also be driven by the 
lack of clearly defined missions of many CSOs. 
The impediments mentioned most often by four USAID, 13 IPs, and four other donors/implementers (21 
in total) were: 
 Insecurity; 
 Inexperience of CSOs; and 
 Lack of acceptance by government officials of CSOs. 
The impediment most often mentioned by four of the 21 (19 percent) was insecurity. A USAID staff 
member said, “If you want to advocate a political position, you are putting a death wish on your head.” In 
particular, women’s issues, human rights, and corruption were named as issues that would put CSOs at 
risk. While CSOs in the east were said to be most at risk, an IP staff member said that policing of CSOs 
had increased in both the east and west. He said that some CSO activists had been kidnapped, so there 
was growing hesitancy to be outspoken. He did note, however, that because there is no police force on 
the local level, local CSOs experienced less insecurity than national-level CSOs. 
Three out of the 21 respondents said that the inexperience of CSOs is an impediment to advocacy. One 
IP explained that they do not know how the MCs work and therefore cannot effectively advocate. One 
USAID interviewee said that CSOs do not know how to gain input from citizens and follow up over time 
to ensure that their advocacy efforts are relevant to societal problems. Another USAID staff member said 
that there are only a handful of competent CSOs, and as a result these few are getting all the donor funds, 
while the multitude of small, inexperienced CSOs have no resources and aren’t being given any support 
to develop. 
A third impediment mentioned by three of the 21 respondents was the lack of receptivity of government 
to the CSO sector. The Muslim Brotherhood opposes a civil society as do some in the government, 
especially in the east. 
The ET queried representatives of nine CSOs, three HoR members, four HSC members, thirteen IP staff, 
ten MC members, four other donors/implementers, and four USAID staff (in total 47) about what is 
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 35 
needed for participation and inclusion of women and marginalized groups’ views and interests in the 
governing and legislative process. Most often mentioned were: 
 Training of CSOs 
 Raising awareness of the public about the civil sector 
Out of the 47, eight suggested that training of CSOs was necessary in areas such as the role of civil society, 
organizational development, and strategic planning. Two respondents said that it would be helpful for 
peers from other countries to share their experiences with Libyan CSOs. One MC noted that training for 
CSOs should be done nationwide, and not just in a few scattered municipalities. 
Four respondents (9 percent) called for efforts to raise awareness among the public about the function of 
civil society. The public needs to better understand, for instance, how elections are conducted and how 
women’s rights can benefit society if the views of women and marginalized groups are to be included in 
the governing process. Two respondents said that youth should be targeted as recipients for such 
messages as a route to cultural change, and schools and universities can be good venues for such public 
awareness events. 
Table 10 below summarizes the changes in project activities made since the mid-term evaluation was 
conducted in order to achieve LEGS Objective 3. The information in the first column of the table was 
taken from Figure 7 of the mid-term evaluation.8 Changes noted in the middle column indicate whether 
an activity was continued from before the mid-term evaluation; added since the mid-term; or, discontinued
since the mid-term. 
Table 10: Changes in project activities conducted under LEGS Objective 3 
MID-TERM EVALUATION: 
ACTIVITIES 
(ORIGINAL WORK PLAN)
CHANGES (IF ANY) 
MADE TO ACHIEVE 
OBJECTIVES
NOTES
Result 3.1 Inclusion of women and marginalized
Activity Added Establishment of a HNEC Gender Unit
Activity Added Women’s Leadership Program
Activity Added Launch of the Rights Unite Campaign 
and Inclusive Media Competition
Activity Added Increase Participation of Traditionally 
Marginalized Communities
Activity Added Libyan Women’s Union 
Activity Added Election Access Working Group 
Documentary
Activity Added Media and Disability BRIDGE Training
Activity Added Developing MALE Allies for 
Leadership Equality
Result 3.2 Women contribute to nat. policy
Activity Added Women’s Organizations
Activity Added Marginalized Ethnic Groups
Activity Added PWD
Activity Added Capacity Building
Activity Added Support for Initiative Implementation
Activity Added Vision 2020
Activity Added Online Engagement
Result 3.3 Youth engage with local leaders
Activity Added Capacity building trainings for youth 
CSOs
 
8 “Mid-term Evaluation of Democracy, Human Rights and Governance (DRG) Programming in Libya and Results from a National 
and Urban DRG Survey” USAID/Libya. January 2016.
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 36 
Activity Added Network development
Activity Added Libyan youth engage local leaders to 
advocate for issues of interest to their 
communities
Activities under Objective 3 were planned and launched since the mid-term evaluation was conducted. 
CONCLUSIONS ON PROGRESS TOWARDS LEGS OBJECTIVE 3 
Relevant to the indicator listed in Table 5 above, the ET obtained evidence that at least one 
recommendation was produced and submitted on the national level and at least one recommendation was 
produced on the municipal level by groups representing PWDs to enhance electoral access for this 
population. One caveat is the wording of the indicator that considers recommendations based on IFES 
consultation. The ET did not verify whether LEGS or specifically IFES supported the groups interviewed 
through this evaluation to produce the recommendations, but the ET has no reason to doubt the figure 
reported. Table 11 reflects LEGS progress toward meeting its indicator targets.
Table 11: Progress in Meeting LEGS Indicator Targets relevant to Increasing PWD Inclusion and 
Participation in Governing and Legislative Processes 
INDICATOR FY1 (2016-17)
CEPPS Objective 3: Increase women’s and marginalized group’s genuine inclusion and 
participation such that their views and interests are incorporated into Libyan governing and 
legislative processes
Indicator 3.1.2.1 Number of recommendations produced by groups 
representing persons with disabilities to enhance electoral access for this 
population, based on IFES consultation
Not Met
Although the practice of advocacy is new in Libya, CSOs with missions related to issues of women, PWDs, 
and youth that have received support from LEGS conducted successful national and local advocacy 
campaigns. The LEGS approach to introduce the process of advocacy via non-controversial topics such as 
those related to PWDs and youth was a good way to demonstrate the process and engage both civil 
society and government and legislators in the process. The higher level of trust in the HoR and HSC by 
PWDs as compared with others likely reflects the success achieved in passing and amending legislation 
and regulations protecting the interests of these groups. Even more controversial issues related to women, 
however, also proved successful. 
The narrow focus on advocacy support offered to civil society in Libya to the exclusion of other areas of 
support represents a gap in the democracy and governance portfolio of international donors. The lack of 
CSO capacity limits their success with advocacy and more broadly reduces their acceptance in society 
and their legitimacy. 
Since the mid-term evaluation, activities under Objective 3 were added. However some of those activities 
were implanted prior to the mid-term evaluation but reported under other objectives.
LCB Objective 1: Informed citizens are able to develop consensus on key constitution issues and 
effectively inform the constitution drafting body
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 37 
FINDINGS ON PROGRESS TOWARDS LCB OBJECTIVE 1 
KEY FINDINGS FOR LCB OBJECTIVE I
 Seventy-six percent of citizens surveyed in Tobruk, Ghat and Suq Aljumaa reported they 
have received information about adopting a new constitution
 LCB – working in local communities and with the CDA -- was consistently cited as the most 
significant contributor to the successful outreach and awareness campaign
 Television was the most remembered source of information, followed by online news, and 
radio; community dialogue events organized by LCB were remembered by large numbers, in 
part because of radio and television coverage
 Efforts to include women, youth and PWDs were seen to be successful; it was reported to 
be harder to engage ethnic minorities or tribal groups
 Constitutional dialogue participants often sought to reach consensus but did not let the lack 
of consensus stop them from submitting recommendations to the CDA
 Respondents of all types broadly agreed that LCB played a significant role in formulating and 
submitting recommendations to the CDA
The CDA was created in 2014 by the popular election of 20 members each from the east, south and 
western regions that constitute modern Libya. Amazigh and Tebu communities boycotted the elections, 
which undermined the inclusivity of the Assembly. The CDA was charged with drafting a constitution that 
would then be put to a national referendum triggered by legislation to be passed in the HoR. In July 2017, 
43 of the 44 active CDA members voted to approve a draft constitution, but the decision was protested, 
then contested in the courts, which ruled in February 2018 to dismiss the challenges. 
The NDPC was formally established in 2013 to manage a National Dialogue process that would stimulate 
and shape inclusive debate and consensus on the national social contract and constitutional issues. 
However, the NDPC and National Dialogue never gained traction and were dysfunctional by the summer 
of 2014. 
Based on a review of IP reports, the ET focused its enquiry on validating three hypothesized outcomes 
deemed to represent the purpose of Objective 1: 
 Libyan citizens acquired new knowledge to participate more effectively in the national dialogue 
leading up to the adoption of a new constitution
 Diverse citizens engaged in community dialogues to build consensus on topics to be enshrined in 
the new national constitution 
 Communities, CSOs and citizens submitted recommendations or comments to inform the CDA 
LCB progress reports identify a range of activities designed to achieve these outcomes, including: 
establishing a network of CLs; community outreach and dialogue events; training to strengthen the 
knowledge and advocacy skills of CSOs; training of journalists and media professionals; dissemination of 
messages through social media, TV, SMS, radio, and online sources; convening expert groups to analyze 
drafts; and providing recommendations to the CDA on behalf of program beneficiaries. 
Table 12 below shows the indicator data relevant to informed citizens, inclusive local dialogue, and 
recommendations submitted to the CDA as reported in the LCB PMP (Quarter Four 2017). 
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 38 
Table 12: LCB Indicator data relevant to informed citizens, inclusive local dialogue, and recommendations 
submitted to the CDA 
The ET conducted KIIs, FGDs, and a citizen survey to inform its evaluation of progress toward LCB 
Objective 1. No analysis of targets versus actual figures or the reasons for changes in indicator values was 
found in LCB progress reports, PMPs, or outcome indicator reference sheets reviewed by the ET. 
CITIZENS INFORMED 
Many Libyans were informed about adopting a new constitution – 76 percent of all survey respondents 
(906 of 1192) reported they have seen or heard information. As illustrated in Figure 5 below, men (81 
percent, or 480 of 595) were somewhat more likely than women (71 percent, or 426 of 597) to have 
received information. 
Figure 5: Responses to survey question, “Have you heard or seen information about the process to adopt 
a new constitution, or the topics being discussed?” disaggregated by sex.
Figure 6 shows considerable regional differences. Tobruk respondents were the most likely to have 
received information (94 percent, or 378 of 401), compared to Ghat, which registered the lowest result 
(54 percent, or 212 of 394). 
No. Indicator Y1 Y2 Y3
Target 75% 75% 75%
Actual 95% 66% 68%
Target 10 10 0
Actual 150 71 8
Target 0 10 0
Actual 29 74 76
Target 0
800,000 
to 1,000,000
800,000 
to 1,000,000
Actual 1,116,788 5,168,191
1
2A
2B
3
The percentage of stakeholders engaged in ABA 
ROLI programming, who report increased 
knowledge about key constitution topics.
The number of recommendations originating 
from stakeholders’ consensus on key constitution 
topics communicated to CDA and other decision 
makers.
The number of recommendations identified in 
Indicator 2A that are reflected in the provisions of 
the most recent draft of the constitution.
Number of individuals receiving voter and civic 
education through USG-assisted programs 
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 39 
Figure 6: Responses to survey question, “Have you heard or seen information about the process to adopt 
a new constitution, or the topics being discussed?” disaggregated by region.
The LCB Monitoring and Evaluation Plan (Quarter Four 2017) Annex 7 Public Outreach Tracker, and 
Annex 10 Mapping Data list the following 1,769 awareness and consensus-building events or activities: 
 39 SMS Messages (860)
 Community Dialogues (>321)
 Workshops (>170)
 TV Events and Interviews (131)
 Online News Articles (124)
 Radio Events and Dialogues (91)
 Consensus-building Events (46)
 Social Media Posts (17)
 Roundtables (9)
 Constitution Printouts
The total number of events is assumed to be approximate, as the ET could not exclude the possibility of 
some double counting (e.g. community dialogue events that may also be Radio Dialogues, or workshops 
that may have been covered by TV). 
Two of the three CLs interviewed said they held at least 12 events that included CSOs, and all three CLs 
indicated the LCB activities were important information sources for CSOs. Two CLs, three IP staff and 
two USAID staff described LCB efforts to develop awareness of constitutional issues working with CSOs 
as “excellent,” “positive,” or “important.” However, two USAID informants felt they were not useful. 
ABA did not supply contact information for CSOs that participated in its awareness campaigns, so the ET
was unable to interview them. One of the nine CSOs interviewed (from CSO lists provided by LEGS) 
recalled receiving information about the constitution from an ABA workshop. Other respondents recalled 
IFES (2), NDI (3), European Union (1), and the CDA (1) as information sources. 
The LCB PMP (Quarter Two 2017) Annex 5 2017 Constitution Analysis Tracker reveals at least 46 
constitution dialogue events on women’s/gender issues; 22 events on youth issues; and 2 events on PWD 
issues. At least 14 of these 70 events specifically mention CSO involvement. It is reasonable to expect 
that the number of CSOs involved is higher since many participants in “expert groups” are likely also 
affiliated with women’s, youth or PWD CSOs. Furthermore, the list cites dozens of “human rights” 
dialogue events that likely included CSO participants (though not specifically identified as such in the 
tracker). 
CLs reported including MC members in community awareness events. All three CLs interviewed said they 
conducted a collective total of 11 awareness workshops, some of which included MC members. However, 
the CLs also said, “There was no communication with local councils, and I am sure that they didn't use 
anything we sent to them...,” and “MCs usage of information provided from activities and workshops is 
very weak.” Indeed, none of the 10 MC members interviewed said they had heard of constitution issues 
from the ABA CLs, although LCB’s monitoring data from the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2017 shows 53 
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 40 
awareness events, workshops or community dialogues held in those 10 communities. One MC member 
said he received information from the local CDA representative, and two said they received information 
from sources other than ABA. One MC member was aware of ABA from the legal training, not the 
constitutional awareness activities; another said he knew the Mayor had participated in an ABA workshop 
but had heard nothing about it from the Mayor. 
The ET finds that while the CLs did include MC members in some activities, LCB apparently did not 
strategically engage with the councils themselves (as bodies), nor were council and members enlisted as 
information ambassadors in their communities. 
Of the media campaigns, TV was the most remembered source of information, followed by online news, 
community events, and radio. (See Figure 7). 
Figure 7: Responses to survey question, “…which sources of information [about the process to adopt a 
new constitution] do you remember?”
Online news, community events and radio received roughly equal numbers of “yes” responses. 
Community events made a good showing amongst these sources, even though they were not primarily 
designed as mass media events and presumably engaged small numbers of face-to-face participants. Two 
factors may explain this result: participants are deemed likely to recall face-to-face events more readily 
than mass media campaigns; and IP and CL respondents said the reach of community events was magnified 
when TV or radio media broadcast or reported on some of those events. 
LCB reported that in all, 6,345,381 SMS (text messages) were sent to mobile phone subscribers across 
Libya. Tobruk respondents strongly recalled SMS as a source, as compared to Suq Aljumaa and Ghat. The 
data available to the ET does not allow this significant difference to be analyzed. 
Printed information books and copies of the draft constitution were also mentioned as useful by one IP 
respondent, one CL, and one USAID staff member. 
Figure 8 illustrates the frequency with which various themes were recalled by survey respondents. Multiple 
answers were allowed, generating a total of 2,790 responses (351 from Ghat, 1032 from Suq Aljumaa, 
1407 from Tobruk). 
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 41 
Figure 8: Responses to survey question, “What were the main themes you remember from these 
information sources?”
Forty-nine percent of survey respondents (441 of 949) answered “Yes” to the question, “Did the 
information you received help you understand the new constitution?” There was no difference in the 
percentage of men or women who answered “Yes.”
It was not possible for the ET to isolate LCB’s specific contribution to information dissemination through 
broadcast media such as TV, radio, and online news sources. However, LCB was consistently cited in KIIs 
as the major and most significant contributor to informing the public about the constitution. Several 
international IPs, the UN, and other iNGOs were mentioned but said to have focused on narrower issues. 
Two USAID and one IP respondent cited LCB’s “big role.” 
INCLUSIVE DIALOGUE AND CONSENSUS 
Twenty-five percent of survey respondents (303 of 1192) “feel engaged in the debate and decisions about 
the new constitution”. Men and women are almost equally “engaged”: 26 percent of all women (157 of 
597) and 25 percent of all men (146 of 595). A larger share of women in Ghat (29 percent, or 57 of 200) 
and Suq Aljumaa (31 percent, or 61 of 198) feel engaged than in Tobruk (20 percent, or 39 of 199). 
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 42 
Sixty percent of those surveyed (718 of 1192) said they “very much” or “somewhat” have a say in the 
constitution debate. This compares favorably to the 43 percent of respondents to the 2015 USAID/Libya 
DRG survey who said they “have a say in what the government does.”
9
The LCB PMP (Quarter Four 2017) Annex 10 Mapping Data lists at least 323 community dialogue events 
in approximately 80 locations. CSOs representing women, youth and PWD issues participated in 
community events, but the ET found less evidence that tribes and ethnic groups were effectively engaged 
by LCB. KII respondents and focus group participants were asked, “Did the dialogue activities manage to 
engage diverse groups?” One IP respondent said that, “Tebu have been a difficult community to reach,” 
and another said the Tebu warrant more attention in the future. One USAID respondent recalled “effort 
being put into making sure that minority groups were included,” but that the events “may not have gotten 
the participation hoped for from each of the groups.” Two USAID respondents called for more inclusion 
of marginalized and nomadic groups and people in the east and south. 
Some focus group participants in the Touareg community of Awal said they do not believe their priorities 
were represented in discussions about the constitution; others said they had no information about the 
constitution; and one said, “Yes, there are some points that really represent my priorities.” Most 
participants agreed that a real dialogue had taken place, while others disagreed, mentioning “unrealistic 
slogans” and that the “dialogue” was one-sided because “the Touareg delegation was unaware of modern 
dialogue methods.” The focus group participants said that the dialogues changed their perceptions about 
important topics, but they did not cite concrete examples. 
The wording of LCB Objective 2 implies that reaching consensus is a precursor to making 
recommendations to the CDA. The LCB work plans and progress reports echo this focus on reaching 
consensus. The ET sought to understand the role and importance of dialogue versus consensus because 
it can be hard to reach consensus, particularly in light of Libya’s divisive political tensions; because reaching 
consensus could suppress minority views; and because the ultimate responsibility for reaching consensus 
lies with the CDA. The ET sought to find out whether the desire for consensus became an obstacle to 
making recommendations to the CDA. 
KII respondents and focus groups participants uniformly endorsed community dialogue. Focus group 
participants from Awal spoke in strong positive terms about dialogue and emphasized its importance, 
saying, “We need similar events to solve our problems and improve our situation,” and “The event made 
me feel proud and hopeful.” 
The three CL respondents gave differing accounts about the role of consensus in the community dialogues. 
One said that consensus was reached on topics such as the name of the state and decentralization of 
powers to the provinces. Another CL said consensus was reached on some topics, and the third CL said 
there was no consensus. Of the two IP and two USAID staff who spoke about consensus, all four said it 
was not essential to reach consensus in the community dialogues. 
Concerning LCB’s contribution to community dialogue, the 211 recommendations reported as submitted 
by LCB sounds like a small share of the “thousands” or “maybe more than ten thousand” 
recommendations received by CDA. However, one USAID respondent said that while UNDP, Swiss, and 
Italian programs got involved from time to time, none of them equaled the “long momentum” of LCB. 
Another USAID respondent said that while Creative Associates and NDI had also contributed, “the credit 
is largely ABA’s.” A third USAID respondent said, “The 70 that made it into the draft were probably those 
that were most impactful.”
 
9 “Mid-term Evaluation of Democracy, Human Rights and Governance (DRG) Programming in Libya and Results from a National 
and Urban DRG Survey” USAID/Libya. January 2016.
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 43 
RECOMMENDATIONS MADE TO CDA 
One of the interviewed CDA members stated that thousands of recommendations were received from 
all parties in the country, including CSOs, citizens, the Parliament, GNC, government agencies, the Central 
Bank of Libya, HNEC, some municipalities from all parts of the country, and international organizations. 
Another CDA member confirmed that, “We received many recommendations from different parties like 
disabled and youth groups.” A third CDA member said, “We received about ten thousand or maybe 
more.” 
CLs played an important role in forwarding recommendations. All three CLs interviewed confirmed 
submitting community or CSO recommendations to the CDA on behalf of beneficiaries. LCB reports also 
contain references to recommendations submitted from non-CL events such as workshops and 
roundtables. LCB tracked the recommendations it forwarded to CDA: “…76 out of 211 
recommendations provided to the CDA under this USAID LCB Program are reflected in the July 2017 
draft constitution…”10 The three IP staff and four USAID staff interviewed expressed confidence in the 
validity of LCB’s tally of the recommendations. 
The ET sought to understand the mechanism for submitting recommendations to the CDA. All three CLs 
interviewed confirmed that recommendations were forwarded to the CDA in writing, passed directly to 
CDA members. 
Two of the three CLs confirmed that CSOs that were assisted by LCB also submitted their own 
recommendations directly to the CDA. The three CLs could not identify any formal submission 
mechanism operated by the CDA. One of the IP staff counted the forwarding of recommendations as 
significant “given the percentage of recommendations adopted [36 percent, or 76 adopted out of 211 
submitted].” 
One USAID respondent characterized the forwarding of recommendations as a “highlight” of LCB, but 
another USAID staff member said, “The project changed and morphed; they were supposed to be working 
on how citizens receive and judge the constitution, not influencing the constitution drafting process -- that 
was what the UN was supposed to do.”
CDA members spoke highly of LCB’s assistance. Quotes from interviews with CDA members confirmed 
the significance of LCB’s contributions. The Head of the CDA’s Outreach and Awareness Committee 
stated that, “ABA and Creative Associates are the only ones who helped and supported the CDA since 
2014 until the present day." Another CDA member said, 
I would really love to thank ABA for their amazing role, which supported us at CDA… and they 
still are. They were one of the strongest supporters of the Outreach and Awareness Committee 
[and] had a huge role providing expertise that helped us a lot in our work. 
CHANGES MADE TO ACHIEVE LCB OBJECTIVE 1 
Table 13 below summarizes the changes in project activities made since the mid-term evaluation11 was 
conducted in order to achieve LCB Objective 1. Activities listed in the first column were extracted from 
Work Plans for project years 2.5, 3.0, 3.5 and 4.0. Changes noted in the middle column indicate whether 
an activity was continued from before the mid-term evaluation; added since the mid-term; or, discontinued
since the mid-term. Activity status as shown in the table is approximate, not definitive, and some 
completed activities were later restarted (for example, to update a legal analysis). 
 
10 LCB Annual Report for the period October 1, 2016-September 30, 2017 
11 Workplan Year 2 for the period March 2016-September 2016. June 9, 2016; Workplan Year 3 for the period October 2016-
March 2017; Workplan Year 3 for the period April-September 2017; and Workplan Year 4 for the period October 2017-March 
2018
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 44 
Table 13: Changes in project activities conducted under LCB Objective 1 
RESULTS AND ACTIVITIES 
SINCE THE MID-TERM 
EVALUATION
CHANGES MADE 
TO ACHIEVE 
OBJECTIVE
NOTES
Result 1.1 Establish dialogue framework
Constitutional Dialogue Facilitation Guide Activity Continued
Training, mentoring for Community 
Liaisons, monitoring CL performance
Activity Added 
Result 1.2 Strengthen knowledge about constitution process
Awareness workshops for CSOs, media Activity Added
Analysis of court cases relating to the 
Constitutional Drafting Assembly
Activity Added
Analysis of July 2017 Constitutional 
Proposal (constitutional drafts)
Activity Added
Result 1.3 Dialogue on the Constitution at the community level
Support local community dialogues Activity Continued
Result 1.4 Build Consensus on Constitutional provisions
(no activities planned) Result reported as achieved prior to 
mid-term evaluation
Result 1.5 Support local councils and civil society for Constitutional Drafting Commission (CDA)
(no activities planned) Result reported as achieved prior to 
mid-term evaluation
Result 1.6 Inform communities of the constitution process
CDA public outreach strategic planning Activity Continued
CDA media engagement and social media 
training, mentoring and support
Activity Continued
Design, printing, distribution of 
infographics explaining Constitution
Activity Continued
Design, printing, and distribution of the 
[draft] Constitution
Activity Continued
Public outreach SMS campaign Activity Continued
Public outreach via radio liaisons Activity Added
Stakeholder consensus building events Activity Continued Completed. No need to continue after 
draft constitution approved by CDA
Development of a primer on the draft 
Constitution
Activity Added
Result 1.7 Partner communities understand draft Constitution during referendum period
Roundtable on the referendum Activity Continued
Support completion of Referendum Law Activity Added
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 45 
The results under Objective 1 were unchanged since the mid-term evaluation. Numerous 
activities were added or discontinued. 
CONCLUSIONS ON PROGRESS TOWARDS LCB OBJECTIVE 1 
The ET had no data from which to cross-check Indicator 1 listed in Table 7 above. While the ET noted 
the decrease reported for indicator 1 from year 1 to year 2, the data collected for this evaluation does 
not explain this. Furthermore, the outcome indicator reference sheets do not specify if the figures 
reported for this indicator are cumulative or if each year is reported separately from the other years. 
Similarly, the outcome indicator reference sheets do not explain how participants are counted – for 
example only once over the life of the project or some other period or whether participants are counted 
at each event regardless of how many they have attended. If the latter method was used, then it might be 
possible that participants who attended multiple events learned more at the first events and perceived 
that they learned less at later events. 
Indicators 2A and 2B concerning the recommendations forwarded to CDA, are supported by the findings 
of this evaluation. The ET found no reason to doubt that 211 recommendations were forwarded to the 
CDA or that 76 of those recommendations made their way into one or more drafts of the constitution. 
In both cases LCB greatly exceeded its target. One caveat is the wording of 2A, which specifies 
recommendations “originating from stakeholders’ consensus.” The ET finds that the recommendations 
originated from community dialogues and other events, but it seems unlikely that only consensus 
recommendations were forwarded – nor would that be a desirable outcome, in our opinion, for reasons 
outlined above. Table 14 reflects LCB progress toward meeting its indicator targets. 
Table 14: Progress in Meeting LCB Objective 1 Indicator Targets 
Indicator Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
1. Percentage of stakeholders engaged in ABA ROLI programming, 
who report increased knowledge about key constitution topics. Exceeded Not Met Not Met
2. Number of recommendations originating from stakeholders’ 
consensus on key constitution topics communicated to CDA 
and other decision makers
Exceeded Exceeded Exceeded
2B. Number of recommendations identified in Indicator 2A that are 
reflected in the provisions of the most recent draft of the 
constitution
Exceeded Exceeded Exceeded
3. Number of individuals receiving voter and civic education 
through USG-assisted programs n/a Exceeded Exceeded
Although the ET could not specifically verify the number of individuals who received information from 
LCB (Indicator 3B), it seems plausible and likely that LCB exceeded its targets, and the finding (above) 
that 75 percent of survey respondents reported receiving information about the Constitution generally 
corroborates the reported result. One caveat is that the major part of LCB’s result comes from SMS and 
broadcast media audiences, for which it is impossible to know if the message was “received.” People can
ignore SMS messages, and counting of TV/radio viewers versus potential audience requires sophisticated 
analysis that is not apparent from the available reports. 
From the data collected through this evaluation, the ET concludes that LCB successfully informed many 
Libyans about the constitution. It is plausible and likely that millions of citizens heard about the constitution 
and benefited from the knowledge they gained. TV reached the widest audience, but community awareness 
events, although attended by small numbers, were recalled by many. 
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 46 
That 25 percent of 2018 survey respondents “feel engaged” in the constitutional debate and 60 percent 
of respondents said that they “have a say in the constitutional debate” is a very good result. This compares 
to the 43 percent of respondents who said they “have a say in what the government does” in a USAID￾funded DRG survey12 done in 2015. Because the questions were different, the 2015 result serves only as 
a point of comparison. 
LCB informed and engaged CSOs, primarily on women’s, youth and PWD topics. Anecdotal information 
and IP reporting suggest that this was a successful activity. 
LCB missed opportunities to enlist CSOs and MCs to further spread information. MCs in particular, as 
leaders, are ideally positioned to help inform their communities but were not effectively or strategically 
enlisted to further spread information. It is likely that MC members exposed to LCB activities did share 
their knowledge in ad hoc ways, but if LCB had taken a more deliberate, strategic approach to harness 
their stature and respect in the communities, it may have amplified the awareness and dialogue efforts of 
the CLs, while building credibility of the MCs with constituents. 
The dialogue and debate that occurred through LCB were more important than reaching local consensus 
– it was OK to disagree. Consensus was ultimately the duty of the CDA. 
Taken together, the strong findings in each of the sub-topics – information, dialogue and recommendations 
– indicate that Objective 1 was achieved. The main counterfactual notes are: some tribal, ethnic or 
nomadic groups appear not to have been fully included; and some opportunities were missed that would 
have increased results by leveraging MCs and CSOs.
Since the mid-term evaluation, activities were continued or added as the process of constitutional 
awareness and dialogue evolved. Awareness and consensus building activities were discontinued once the 
CDA approved the draft constitution as they were no longer necessary. 
FINDINGS ON LCB OBJECTIVE 2
KEY FINDINGS FOR LCB OBJECTIVE 2
 While the NDPC became dysfunctional in 2014 and National Dialogue failed, the CDA was 
initially reluctant to take over outreach and awareness activities and only began to develop an 
awareness strategy in 2017. CDA members interviewed credited LCB for supporting their 
outreach and awareness efforts.
 25 percent of Libyans surveyed reported feeling engaged in the national dialogue; women, 
youth and PWDs reported higher levels of engagement
 Although the CDA approved a draft constitution, those interviewed said a lack of consensus 
in the HoR is obstructing legislation calling for a referendum.
In July 2017, the CDA approved a final draft constitution, signaling readiness for a national referendum 
that would confirm whether a national consensus has been reached. Since February 2018 when legal 
challenges were removed by the courts, the HoR has not yet resolved to put the draft to a national 
referendum. 
 
12 “Mid-term Evaluation of Democracy, Human Rights and Governance (DRG) Programming in Libya and Results from a National 
and Urban DRG Survey” USAID/Libya. January 2016.
LCB OBJECTIVE 2: Through National Dialogue, citizens who fairly represent majority and 
minority views of groups including but not limited to women, ethnic groups, and youth from across 
Libya, are able to build a consensus of state, economy, and society and the relationship between them.
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 47 
LCB’s initial counterpart for Objective 2 was the NDPC, which became dysfunctional in 2014 and failed 
to execute the planned National Dialogue on the constitution. LCB continued to report on work with the 
NDPC until mid-2016, but increasingly shifted its activities to the CDA in lieu of the NDPC. With the 
LCB Quarterly Report for the period October 1 – December 31, 2016, LCB stopped reporting activities 
under Result 2.1 “National Dialogue Preparatory Commission (NDPC) and delegates, along with other 
related consultative processes, formal or informal, have the capacity to plan and conduct a broad-based, 
inclusive and transparent dialogue process, and have a comparative perspective to apply best practices and 
lessons learned from similar processes in the region.” The shift away from NDPC and the National 
Dialogue to community dialogues and alternative initiatives to support national dialogue is documented in 
the Quarterly Report. 
Accordingly, although Objective 2 specifically refers to the NDPC’s National Dialogue, the ET understood 
that LCB activities were re-oriented to contribute to a general “national dialogue” in lieu of the formal
ND process. The ET narrowed its interest under Objective 2 to national-level dialogue and consensus, 
because local awareness and dialogue activities are evaluated under Objective 1, above. Accordingly, and 
based on a review of IP reports, the ET focused its enquiry on two outcomes that represent the purpose 
of Objective 2: 
 The CDA drafted the new constitution drawing upon inputs received through inclusive national 
dialogue 
 The Constitution reflects a national consensus 
LCB implemented a range of activities to achieve Objective 2, including: consulting with and training 
members of the NDPC; assisting NDPC to plan and implement the National Dialogue; convening groups 
of national experts and advocates to analyze issues and make recommendations to the CDA; sponsoring 
workshops to analyze proposed constitutional provisions; holding workshops to improve communication 
skills; developing a mobile phone-based information dissemination tool; organizing press conferences for 
CDA; printing and distributing copies of the draft constitution; holding national consensus-building 
workshops; assisting CDA to develop and implement a public outreach plan; training CDA members on 
communication skills; analyzing court decisions about constitutional drafts; organizing press roundtables 
and conferences; and organizing or otherwise supporting national dialogue events. 
Table 15 below shows the indicator data for Objective 2 reported in the LCB PMP (Quarter Four 2017). 
Table 15: LCB indicator data for Objective 2 
INCLUSIVE NATIONAL DIALOGUE 
The dialogues that fed recommendations to the LCB were inclusive of women, youth and PWDs. 
According to the survey, 25 percent of all respondents (303 of 1192) feel engaged in the debate or dialogue 
on the new constitution. A higher level of engagement than average was reported by women (26 percent, 
or 157 of 597 respondents); PWDs (37 percent, or 21 of 57); and youth (29 percent, or 82 of 287). Figure 
9 depicts these perceptions of engagement. 
No. Indicator Y1 Y2 Y3
Target 3 2 2
Actual 86 52 44
Target 5 30 65
Actual 7 53 79
Target N/A 50% 50%
Actual
Number of Groups Trained in Conflict 
Mediation/Resolution Skills or Consensus 
Building Techniques with USG-Assistance
4
5
6
Number of consensus building forums (multi￾party, civil/security sector, and/or civil/political) 
held with USG Assistance 
The % of local community members who believe 
their priorities are represented in dialogue 
processes
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 48 
Figure 9: Those who responded "Yes" to survey question, “Do you feel engaged in debate and decisions 
about the new constitution?" 
The level of detail in LCB annual reports did not allow the ET to disaggregate constitutional 
recommendations for women, youth, or PWD-related issues. It cites, for example, 22 recommendations 
incorporated in Chapter II: “Rights and Freedoms.”13 As discussed under Objective 1 above, the CDA 
incorporated (at least) 76 community recommendations from LCB-supported community and national 
dialogues into the 2017 draft constitution. 
As noted under Objective 1 above, KII respondents expressed concerns that ethnic, tribal or nomadic 
groups were underrepresented in the national dialogue. This echoes the challenge faced by the CDA itself 
in working with Amazigh, Tebu and Touareg minorities. Internal CDA relations were fractious, with tribal 
members boycotting or protesting the CDA at times. Document review and interviews suggest that LCB 
did focus more on including women, youth and PWDs than tribal or ethnic minorities. The evaluation 
survey did not collect information on respondents’ affiliation with ethnic, tribal, or nomadic groups, as this 
was considered a sensitive topic. 
When four CDA respondents were asked to identify which were “important sources of recommendations 
and comments received by the CDA,” they answered as follows: 
 Citizens, professionals, and others each received two “Yes” answers; 
 Communities, CSOs and business associations each received one “Yes” answer; and 
 Political parties received one “Yes” and one “No” answer. 
The ET also sought to understand CDA’s capacity to conduct a national publicity campaign as part of the 
dialogue and as a means to build consensus. A reading of LCB annual reports for the periods October 1, 
2014-September 30, 2015, October 1, 2015-September 30, 2016, and October 1, 2016-September 30, 
2017 shows that CDA’s outreach progressed from initial refusal to engage with political parties and the 
public to the development of a Public Outreach Plan (in 2016, with LCB input); and finally the establishment 
of an Outreach and Awareness Committee (in 2017) and a more comprehensive Public Outreach Strategy 
(in 2017, with LCB input). This evolution may have been prompted in large part by the decline and failure 
of the NDPC and National Dialogue during 2014 – 2016. 
 
13 LCB Annual Report for the period October 1, 2016-September 30, 2017 
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 49 
CDA members interviewed as part of the KIIs did not consistently convey a deep understanding of public 
communications. They spoke of: 
 Challenges of working with independent media rather than CDA’s initiatives and capacities; 
 Specific outreach activities by LCB (three responses) rather than a strategic approach or formal 
strategy (one response); and 
 Early CDA policies that kept citizens and media at arm’s length from CDA members. 
Four CDA members were asked whether they consider CDA’s media campaign to be successful. Two of 
them counted media campaigns as “successful” and “very successful.” One said “successful to some extent
but not what we hoped for.” The fourth noted that, “We don't have an [internal] media outlet… We feel 
that [the external] media hasn't reached all categories of people, has not conducted any active campaigns.”
One of the four elaborated that, “The media plays a big role in [people’s] absence from proper dialogue 
about the constitution… Now people do not know exactly what they want; the bad role played by many 
parties from the media caused distortion, abstention and intimidation of people in order to serve their 
own interests.” Another CDA member interviewed said, “We are being attacked instead of supported by 
media campaigns. We need the media to help us with different awareness campaigns and help in reaching 
everyone regardless of their age or living situations.”
Criticisms of CDA were mentioned by MCs, CSOs, HoR members, CLs and IP staff. These included: 
 CDA does not respond to comments and recommendations – noted by two MC members, two 
CLs, and two CSOs; 
 Flawed CDA communications -- cited by four IP staff, one CL, and two CSO members; 
 CDA lacks transparency – noted by one IP staff member; 
 CDA has low capacity (“quality and capabilities are lacking”) – stated by one CL; and 
 “Issues inside CDA” cited by one CSO respondent and “internal ethnic discord” cited by one 
HSC member. 
All KII respondents said they did not receive a reply or feedback from the CDA in response to 
recommendations they had submitted. Two CSO respondents who submitted comments received no 
response; one of them said, “We did hear some rumors that they included some of them, but we received 
no official reply.” Three MC members said they submitted recommendations but received no responses. 
One of those said the MC had submitted on behalf of a local CSO. A fourth MC member said he knows 
of a CSO that submitted but had no reply. One CL recalled, “Recommendations were sent through a 
Libyan organization, but they were not considered, which made them feel depressed… They had no 
response at all.” 
Concerning CDA’s “flawed communications” and “lack of transparency,” one IP respondent said: “There 
was a lack of transparency in the CDA. They didn’t hold public forums or have a website to show people 
what they were doing.” Another IP respondent said: “CDA has not used any [media] outlet… We have 
trained them to use their Facebook page for example, but they are not yet using any of these tools. They 
can't deliver the information in the right way to citizens.” A third IP staff member said the CDA 
“strategically closed themselves off out of fear that public engagement would lead to greater scrutiny and 
accusations that they were under foreign control….This could be counted as an unintended consequence 
– other implementers’ use of international, rather than Libyan experts, led to the perception that the 
CDA was under control of foreigners.” 
In reference to the final criticism listed above – internal issues or ethnic discord – the ET notes that the 
CDA is by design a deliberative body, set up to negotiate consensus amongst parties with different views. 
As such, internal debate and discourse should be expected. 
An important finding is that the CDA did not seem to have established a formal mechanism for the 
submission and publication of recommendations and comments. The lack of such a system may have 
contributed to criticisms about lack of response, poor communications, and lack of transparency. 
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 50 
In answer to the evaluation survey question about whether respondents have confidence that the CDA 
developed a constitution they would approve of, 57 percent (684 of 1192) answered “to some extent” or 
“to a large extent”. When disaggregated by location, both Suq Aljumaa and Tobruk significantly exceed 50 
percent (277 out of 397 in Suq Aljumaa and 271 out of 401 in Tobruk), but Ghat falls well below, at 35 
percent (136 of 394). These survey findings are shown in Figure 10. 
Figure 10: Those who responded "To some extent" or “To a large extent” to survey question, “To what 
extent do you have confidence that the Constitution Drafting Assembly developed a constitution that you 
would approve of?" 
To conclude the discussion of CDA criticisms, if the lack of transparency, poor communication and 
feedback are widely held perceptions, this would presumably undermine popular trust in the CDA. This 
may explain CDA’s middling “trust rating” of 34 percent (404 of 1192 survey respondents who report 
high or moderate trust in the CDA). (See Figure 4.) It is also noteworthy that trust in the CDA declined 
significantly from 54 percent as measured by the 2015 USAID/Libya DRG survey.14 
CONSTITUTION REFLECTS NATIONAL CONSENSUS 
The ultimate success of Objective 2 would be approval of the constitution by popular referendum, a 
threshold that has not been crossed yet. KII respondents were asked their opinions on prospects for 
holding the constitutional referendum in the near future. Table 16 summarizes their responses. (This 
open-ended question allowed multiple opinions to be expressed.)
Table 16: KII respondents’ opinions on the prospects for a constitutional referendum
Opinion USAID IP CDA HoR/HSC TOTAL
Referendum will happen in 2019 1 1 2 4
HoR won’t go ahead 1 2 3
Referendum is delayed by politics 1 2 3
Chances are not good (pessimism) 2 1 3
Lack of consensus on sequencing 1 1 2
 
14 “Mid-term Evaluation of Democracy, Human Rights and Governance (DRG) Programming in Libya and Results from a National 
and Urban DRG Survey” USAID/Libya. January 2016.
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 51 
Opinion USAID IP CDA HoR/HSC TOTAL
Referendum will happen before end of 
2018
1 1 2
People would like it tomorrow 1 1
The draft is well formed (optimism) 1 1
The draft needs more work 1 1
Lack of support in south and east 1 1
HoR support for the draft has turned 
positive
1 1
The July 2017 draft constitution reflects national consensus -- by definition, since it was approved by 43 
of 44 active CDA members representing citizens from across Libya, although the CDA’s approval is an 
imperfect proxy for a national referendum. An important caveat to this conclusion is that Amazigh and 
Tebu members boycotted some CDA activities and the vote on the draft Constitution. 
All four CDA KII respondents said they believe there is sufficient national consensus to hold a 
constitutional referendum. The national legislative bodies are less certain: 
 Two of three HoR respondents said the HoR is “not ready”. (One did not answer;) and 
 Three of four HSC respondents said “ready”. (One said “not ready”.) 
When 22 KII respondents (four USAID, four IFES, five HNEC, three HoR, four HSC, and two DRCs) 
were asked whether the constitutional referendum should precede or follow the presidential and 
legislative elections, five of them (23 percent) stated that a constitution should be in place before 
transparent, credible elections can take place. One HoR member stated that a political agreement must 
be reached and reflected in the constitution to stipulate one unified parliamentary body before credible 
elections can take place. 
The key obstacle to achievement of Objective 2 is lack of consensus in the HoR that obstructs legislation 
calling for the referendum. Some of the specific impediments are summarized in Table 9, above. They are 
beyond the influence of the LCB activity, and indeed, one of the USAID KII respondents said, “There is 
nothing ABA can do to help.” 
Respondents from IPs and the CDA named six other organizations that are assisting the CDA with 
training, information dissemination, and local dialogue. 
CDA members queried about LCB’s contribution recalled workshops, text messages, brochures, training 
on using online social media, logistical support for meetings and events, and radio broadcasting. The only 
negative comment was that brochures printed by LCB were not of high quality. Two CDA KII respondents 
said: “ABA supported the process of recommendations and comments on the constitution [with] 
municipal councils, CSOs, experts in law and human rights, youth, and local government” and “Comments 
about the constitution sent to the CDA were prepared with the help of ABA, of course.”
One CDA respondent said that LCB was “one of the strongest supporters of the Outreach and Awareness 
Committee… They played a huge role providing us with advice and expertise that helped us a lot in our 
work.”
When CDA members were asked to identify the most urgent and useful areas in which donors could help 
CDA move toward a successful referendum, respondents cited the following: a dedicated TV channel to 
conduct large-scale awareness campaigns (one CDA respondent); meetings with women, youth, media 
activists, those who support September and February revolutions, as well as Islamists (one CDA); and 
more extensive and concentrated awareness activities with HoR and HSC support (one CDA). Other 
suggestions for continued support include: continued dialogue sessions with a focus on social media (IP); 
broadening of the topics addressed by CLs (USAID); TV, radio and social media messages in local dialects 
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 52 
from credible influencers addressing the issues (USAID); community dialogue events in the east, and for 
Touareg and Tebu and nomadic groups in the south (2 IP, 3 USAID); targeting of rural areas where there 
has been less donor attention (USAID); and continued work with mayors and legal professionals (IP). 
CHANGES MADE TO ACHIEVE LCB OBJECTIVE 2 
Table 17 below summarizes the changes in project activities made since the mid-term evaluation15 was 
conducted in order to achieve LCB Objective 2. Activities listed in the first column were extracted from 
Work Plans for project years 2.5, 3.0, 3.5 and 4.0. Changes noted in the middle column indicate whether 
an activity was continued from before the mid-term evaluation; added since the mid-term; or, discontinued
since the mid-term. Activity status as shown in the table is approximate, not definitive, and some complete 
activities were seen to restart (for example, to update a legal analysis). 
Table 17: Changes in project activities conducted under LCB Objective 2 
RESULTS AND ACTIVITIES 
SINCE THE MID-TERM 
EVALUATION
CHANGES (IF ANY) 
MADE TO ACHIEVE 
OBJECTIVE
NOTES
Result 2.1 Support capacity of the NDPC
(no activities planned) Activities delayed by NDPC
Shift to Obj.1 activities
Result 2.2 Connect local council and civil society in National Dialogue
Community Liaison activities Activities Added
Support to UNSMIL Libyan national 
reconciliation efforts
Activities Added
Result 2.3 Support local councils and civil society recommendations
(no activities planned) National Dialogue/NDPC 
failed
Result 2.4 Inform communities on priorities of National Dialogue process
(no activities planned) National Dialogue/NDPC 
failed
The results under Objective 2 were unchanged since the mid-term evaluation. The lack of activity under 
Results 2.1, 2.3, and 2.4 are specific to the failure of the NDPC and its planned National Dialogue. Those 
activities were effectively shifted to Objective 1, Result 1.6 or combined with Result 1.6 (see above). 
CONCLUSIONS ON LCB OBJECTIVE 2 
The ET did not cross-check data reported for LCB indicators 4 and 5, but assumes the results reported 
by LCB are correct, based on anecdotal information in LCB progress reports and event trackers. Table 
18 reflects LCB progress toward meeting its indicator targets. 
 
15 Workplan Year 2 for the period March 2016-September 2016. June 9, 2016; Workplan Year 3 for the period October 2016-
March 2017; Workplan Year 3 for the period April-September 2017; and Workplan Year 4 for the period October 2017-March 
2018
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 53 
Table 18: Progress in Meeting LCB Objective 2 Indicator Targets 
Indicator Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
4. Number of Groups Trained in Conflict Mediation/Resolution 
Skills or Consensus Building Techniques with USG-Assistance Exceeded Exceeded Exceeded
5. Number of consensus building forums (multi-party, civil/security 
sector, and/or civil/political) held with USG Assistance Exceeded Exceeded Exceeded
LCB’s assistance to the NDPC and CDA has been largely successful, and it is encouraging that 25 percent 
of Libyans report feeling engaged in the national dialogue, while women, youth and disabled respondents 
exceed the average on this measure of engagement. Yet, without a referendum it is impossible to know if 
national consensus or a new “social contract” exists. 
After the demise of the NDPC, LCB shifted resources to assist CDA, which helped the Assembly to 
develop a more strategic approach to its awareness and outreach activities. The late, slow development 
of CDA’s communication capacity is understandable since the counterpart NDPC, which should have filled 
this role, never really got started. Despite the slow start, awareness and outreach activities were 
successful, as supported by the Objective 1 findings. 
CDA fell short on responding to citizens and groups that submitted recommendations. There was 
apparently no formal system set up to receive, host, and publicize recommendations. The ET does not 
have evidence that such a system was proposed and rejected. As such, this looks like a missed opportunity 
for LCB. 
Weak CDA communications, adversarial media relations, and lack of responsiveness may have 
undermined public perceptions of CDA transparency and integrity. LCB did make significant contributions 
to close the communication gap once it was clear that the NDPC initiative had failed. An earlier shift of 
resources to CDA may have built more public trust in the constitution drafting process and CDA. 
The draft constitution was approved by the CDA – a success demonstrating that consensus was built –
but LCB Objective 2 cannot be fully achieved unless the constitutional referendum is held and a new 
constitution approved. A caveat concerning consensus is that KII respondents said that ethnic 
minorities/tribes were excluded or excluded themselves, either from dialogue or by boycotting CDA. 
Time and resources did not allow the ET to adequately research this topic. 
The HoR still lacks consensus to call for a referendum, and it seems that this owes to political power 
struggles and unwillingness to cede interim powers rather than concerns about specific provisions in the 
draft constitution. The roadblock is therefore not a lack of awareness or dialogue, but political gridlock, 
primarily in the HoR.
Awareness and dialogue were necessary, but these alone have not been sufficient to push the constitution 
past the finish line. Other factors beyond the reach of CDA and LCB are impeding the referendum. 
Many of the activities to support CDA -- captured under Objective 1, Result 1.6 above -- appear to 
recognize the shift of role and responsibilities from the NDPC to the CDA. By shifting assistance from 
the failed NDPC to the CDA, LCB found a way to continue promoting a national awareness and outreach 
strategy despite the lack of a viable national counterpart (the NDPC). This approach of adding, 
discontinuing, and relocating work plan activities effectively replaced the NDPC with the CDA as owner 
of the national awareness and outreach campaigns and substituted a more general “national dialogue” for 
the specific “National Dialogue” that had been planned by the NDPC. This “re-interpretation” was a 
practical solution to an unfortunate external development. Another approach, not taken, would have been 
to formally revise the language of Objective 2 and its results to replace the specific references to NDPC 
and National Dialogue with more general, flexible wording. 
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 54 
FINDINGS ON LCB OBJECTIVE 3 
KEY FINDINGS FOR LCB OBJECTIVE 3
 Relatively little work was done under Objective 3, which was designed to ramp up after 
approval of the new constitution
 Training provided to MoLD and municipal legal officers was considered useful in providing 
knowledge and skills that will strengthen governance and the political transition
 Interviewees and FGD participants noted many capacity gaps within MCs
The ET understood that this objective was intended to address “strengthening the political transition after 
the constitution is passed.” This is corroborated by the LCB PMP (Quarter Four 2015) which states that 
achieving Objective 3 requires ensuring “that legislation and policy are consistent with the Libya’s 
constitution and that gaps in legislation or policy are addressed.” The PMP further indicates ABA’s 
interpretation of Objective 3 by stating that LCB “will conduct public awareness on provisions of the 
constitution, support community input to address legislation and policy, will enhance government capacity 
with regard to legislative drafting and understanding concepts such as decentralization, and will train legal 
professionals on constitutional law issues.”
16 Of these four, the first two clearly depend upon the prior 
approval of a new constitution. (The reference to legislation and policy is inferred to mean that which is 
required to implement the constitution, subsequent to its approval). The latter two activity areas do not 
seem to require an approved constitution and could precede the referendum. This is the assumed scope 
for LCB activities implemented to date. 
The ET understood the reference to the “political transition” as “consensus processes,” i.e. governance 
processes of bodies such as municipal or local councils, not meaning that LCB would engage with or build 
capacity of political parties or party political processes. 
USAID KII informants confirmed that, “The project was not intended to support the current government 
but a future government… to support a transition…LCB Objective 3 was intended to take place one year 
after the constitution was passed.” Another USAID informant said: “ABA did their best to implement 
their work plan, but the… political situation in Libya made those outcomes out of reach or difficult to 
reach at this moment.” A third USAID respondent advised that this was “reworked” to allow LCB to help 
establish methodologies for reaching agreement and build trust in government at the local level. 
LCB implemented few activities under Objective 3, including: several workshops and expert groups in 
Years 1 and 2; and a five-day training workshop for 15 lawyers from MoLG and seven MCs in Year 3. 
Table 19 below shows the indicator data relevant to LCB Objective 3 reported in the LCB PMP (Quarter 
Four 2017).
 
16 Performance Management Plan for the period August 27, 2016-February 26, 2016 (December 4, 2015) 
LCB OBJECTIVE 3: Create consensus processes that will incorporate outputs from the national 
dialogue and constitution drafting to inform Libya’s governing processes beyond passing the 
constitution referendum in order to strengthen the political transition.
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 55 
Table 19: LCB Indicator data relevant to Objective 3 
The indicator targets expect that 75 percent of trainees will report increased capacity, awareness, 
knowledge or understanding, as appropriate. 
The ET focused on reviewing the results of the legal training workshop, which was the only recent activity 
under Objective 3. A second outcome “trust in government” was examined only through a survey 
question that sought citizens’ perceptions of trust in government institutions. 
CONSENSUS PROCESSES CREATED BEYOND THE CONSTITUTIONAL REFERENDUM 
The stated purpose of the legal training was to help MoLG and municipal legal officers “develop systematic 
approaches to drafting sound legislation as well as develop the skills required for leading a legislative 
drafting process.”17 The topic was selected following a request from the MoLG, which had identified 
administrative law, contract law, and writing MOUs as a high-priority skills gap. 
The ET found that while this topic may not directly contribute to creating “consensus processes,” it 
nonetheless provides essential, fundamental knowledge and skills that will strengthen governance and 
political transition. One of the sub-topics – introduction to decentralization – fills a gap in Libyan 
experience, for example. As such, the legal training was deemed an appropriate activity for Objective 3. 
To evaluate the outcome of the training, the ET sought to interview one training participant each from 
MoLG and an MC. The MoLG beneficiary was unavailable, and time constraints prevented substitution 
with another beneficiary from MoLG, leaving the KII for the MC trainee as the only source of information. 
The MC legal training participant interviewed cited benefits of new knowledge about decentralization and 
gave examples of how new communication skills are being used on the job. The respondent said that the 
training was very helpful and led to improved communications between the mayor and Legal Department. 
The example cited was a change from previously informal verbal and written communications, to a new, 
more formal and official process of forming, documenting and approving communications and decisions. 
The respondent introduced the new procedures “immediately after getting back from the training.”
One USAID respondent commented that this training was “very beneficial and useful because everything 
in Libya is being built from scratch.”
TRUST IN GOVERNMENT 
This outcome is posed by the ET as a sort of capstone tied to the goal of LCB - to contribute to the 
reconstruction of the social contract in Libya. The ET understands, echoing USAID’s long, global 
experience, that improved consensus processes and a smooth transition to new local administrative 
structure(s) will make Libya’s government more responsive and transparent, while improved consensus 
processes will make it more responsive and accountable. These elements of good governance are key 
 
17 LCB Annual Report for the period October 1, 2016-September 30, 2017 
No. Indicator Y1 Y2 Y3
Target N/A 75% 75%
Actual 75%
Target N/A 75% 75%
Actual 73%
8
The % of local government stakeholders with 
greater awareness of the constitution, improved 
understanding of the decentralized governmental 
structure, and/or increased knowledge of their 
role in or skills necessary to support a 
decentralized government structure.
% of local government stakeholders with 
strengthened capacity to contribute to policy and 
legislation.
7
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 56 
contributors to people’s trust in government. Following the outcome harvesting approach, the ET 
therefore sought to gauge the outcome “Trust in Government” through the household survey. The goal 
“trust in government” stands in the future, since Libya’s political solution has so far proven elusive. The 
challenge ahead is highlighted by citizens’ low perceptions of trust as measured in the evaluation survey: 
 Trust in the HoR (16 percent, or 190 of 1192 respondents) and HSC (11 percent, or 134 of 1192) 
is very low in absolute terms and relative to all other institutions; and 
 Trust in local government (36 percent, or 433 of 1192) is modest. 
Figure 4 above illustrates the relative “trust rankings” of 13 government and civic institutions. Figure 11 
below disaggregates the findings by location and sex. 
Figure 11: Responses of “highly” or “moderately” to survey question, “To what extent do you trust the 
following institutions to improve Libya’s future?” disaggregated by sex for the institutions of HoR, HSC, 
and MCs 
The lack of an approved constitution is an obvious impediment to LCB’s work under Objective 3. The ET 
did not ascertain whether ABA had attempted to do more work on the sub-topics that could precede the 
constitution. It is understandable that some resources would be conserved by USAID and ABA for 
activities to follow the new constitution. 
LCB appears to be the only program providing legal training to MoLG and MCs. 
KII and focus groups respondents mentioned at least six capacity gaps in MCs: 
 Council and staff skills are nascent. They have low capacity, little knowledge, and lack discipline 
(mentioned by 13 respondents) 
 Council members and staff have limited understanding of the nature of MCs’ work, roles, job 
descriptions, responsibilities and authorities, and legal framework for their work (six respondents) 
 Constituent relations, citizen engagement, and communication are poor (five respondents) 
 Internal dialogue, consensus building processes, and skills are weak (four respondents) 
 MCs are not cooperative or responsive to constituents (two respondents) 
 Local-national relations are broken (one respondent) 
Local councils, where they exist, are likely to share these weaknesses. 
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 57 
CHANGES MADE TO ACHIEVE LCB OBJECTIVE 3 
Table 20 below summarizes the changes in project activities made since the mid-term evaluation18 was 
conducted in order to achieve LCB Objective 3. Activities listed in the first column were extracted from 
Work Plans for project years 2.5, 3.0, 3.5 and 4.0. Changes noted in the middle column indicate whether 
an activity was continued from before the mid-term evaluation; added since the mid-term; or, discontinued
since the mid-term. Activity status as shown in the table is approximate, not definitive, and some complete 
activities were seen to restart (for example, to update a legal analysis). 
Table 20: Changes in project activities conducted under LCB Objective 3 
RESULTS AND ACTIVITIES 
SINCE THE MID-TERM 
EVALUATION
CHANGES (IF ANY)
MADE TO ACHIEVE 
OBJECTIVE
NOTES
Result 3.1 Ensure legislature is responsive to civil society
Review of implementing regulations in Law 
59
Activity Added
Capacity building of MoLG and municipal
legal offices
Activity Added High priority request from 
MoLG
Awareness and advocacy roundtables on 
women's rights
Activity Added
Result 3.2 Ensure capacity of local councils
Conference on Social Accountability and 
Participatory Practices in Local 
Governance
Activity Added
Capacity building of MoLG and municipal 
legal offices (training workshop for legal 
officers)
Activity Added High priority request from 
MoLG
Result 3.3 Rule of Law institutions are engaged
Support CDA dissemination of information 
on constitutional principles and rights
Activity Added
Few activities were planned under Objective 3 in expectation that the constitution would be passed and 
that resources should be conserved for the post-constitution period. All three results clearly indicate this 
expected post-constitution phasing: 
Result 3.1 Legislature elected under Libya’s new constitution is responsive to the demands of civil 
society and local governments 
Result 3.2 Local councils have the capacity to build upon constitutional requirements of decentralized 
government and service delivery
Result 3.3 Rule of law Institutions are engaged in the analysis, monitoring and dissemination of 
information about constitutional principles and rights 
Each result clearly depends upon the constitution either to clarify roles, requirements, principles and 
rights, or to enable the election of new local and national legislative bodies. The addition of training for 
 
18 Workplan Year 2 for the period March 2016-September 2016. June 9, 2016; Workplan Year 3 for the period October 2016-
March 2017; Workplan Year 3 for the period April-September 2017; and Workplan Year 4 for the period October 2017-March 
2018
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 58 
legal officers is a case of a clear requirement for basic skills needed to prepare for the post-constitution 
activities of local councils and the Ministry. 
CONCLUSIONS ON LCB OBJECTIVE 3 
The ET was unable to cross-check the reported achievements of indicators 7 and 8 shown in Table 12 
above, but the one trainee interviewed cited increased capacity. Table 21 reflects LCB progress toward 
meeting its indicator targets. 
Table 21: Progress in Meeting LCB Objective 3 Indicator Targets 
Indicator Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
7. Percentage of local government stakeholders with strengthened 
capacity to contribute to policy and legislation n/a Not Met Met
8. Percentage of local government stakeholders with greater 
awareness of the constitution, improved understanding of the 
decentralized governmental structure, and/or increased knowledge 
of their role in or skills necessary to support a decentralized 
government structure
n/a Not Met Not Met
The LCB legal training was useful to participants and demonstrated a model for building capacities needed 
by MCs and MoLG. The model could be improved by supplementing training with follow-up, face-to-face 
consulting, or mentoring to help trainees apply their new skills to specific work tasks. The ET was not 
certain whether such a follow-up was planned, but it was not mentioned by the KII respondent. 
There is a huge need to build MCs’ capacities. Municipal and local councils are new bodies working without 
experienced support institutions such as professional associations or the benefit of experience from 
analogous democratic bodies such as unions or parent-teacher organizations. Local governance bodies are 
key elements of the social contract, as they are responsible for essential, local public services; constitute 
the “face of government” most seen by most citizens, and are incubators for public sector leaders and 
managers who may grow from local to regional and national stature. It is important to build them up. 
Although the constitution has not been passed, much could be done to prepare for the democratic 
transition. Useful preparatory work could be done now by MoLG with donor support, such as assisting 
municipal and local council members with assessing and planning and assisting with staff development 
(potential crossover or collaboration with LEGS Objective 2). Given the importance of municipal and local 
councils, a thorough examination of capacity gaps, priorities and opportunities seems warranted, but the 
ET did not see evidence of such strategic planning that could accelerate the launch of wider local 
government capacity building as a means to strengthen the political transition. 
Trust in government is likely to remain low until the national political solution is achieved, the new 
constitution is approved, and the roles, responsibilities and authorities at each level of government are 
clarified and promulgated. Once the local administrative structure is defined, and once municipal and local 
councils have the resources and skills they need to fulfill their duties, MCs are expected to demonstrate 
good governance practices, consensus processes are expected to improve, and trust in government should 
begin to increase. 
Few activities were planned or implemented under Objective 3 which was clearly designed to ramp up 
after the adoption of the new constitution, and election of new local and national legislative bodies. The 
initiative to provide legal training in advance of these missing milestones shows a model that could have 
been replicated, for example, by providing more capacity building on different topics to local councils and 
staff. However, this would have taken resources away from the post-constitution efforts. While the 
provision of more basic training would seem to contribute to Objective 3, which speaks of “strengthening 
the democratic political transition”, it is difficult to assess the relative merits of this approach versus 
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 59 
holding onto resources which could be more deliberately focused after the achievement of the external 
milestones. The LCB Quarterly Report for the period April 1 – June 30, 2017, for example, notes that, 
“this quarter, ABA ROLI was required to slow down or postpone implementation of several activities 
because of the risk of overspending its current USAID obligation.” This indirectly corroborates the 
conclusion that resources needed to be conserved for the post-constitution activities. 
RECOMMENDATIONS IN RESPONSE TO PROGRESS MADE TOWARDS LEGS 
AND LCB OBJECTIVES 
HIGH NATIONAL ELECTION COMMISSION
USAID should continue supporting HNEC at least until the conduct of the 
elections announced for December 2018.
Considering the announcement on May 29, 2018 that presidential and parliamentary elections will be held 
in December 2018, USAID should continue its steady, ongoing support for HNEC, at least until the 
elections and the follow-on tasks required of HNEC. It is critical to Libya’s future that the next elections 
be widely seen as having been conducted fairly and freely. 
To prepare for the upcoming elections, USAID should assist HNEC to train newly-hired staff in its field 
offices. In the longer term, USAID should support HNEC in establishing a training unit for staff, including 
field office hires. A curriculum and training materials should be developed for the various long-term and 
short-term field office positions. 
Following the elections, USAID should re-assess whether HNEC can successfully conduct future elections 
with less support, especially if the obstacles blocking the budgeting and allocations of operational funds to 
HNEC are resolved within the government. 
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND HIGH STATE COUNCIL
USAID should continue providing limited support for HoR and HSC while 
political conflict limits the ability of these bodies to function properly.
Although neither the HoR nor HSC is functioning to the extent they should, the efforts to encourage 
stakeholder input into their work have paid off. The data collected does not definitively tie the assistance 
provided by NDI to the results, but at a minimum, the extent to which HoR- and HSC-elected members 
targeted by NDI acted upon input from constituents indicates that there is a willingness to engage. USAID 
should continue working with the both the HoR and HSC, but limiting support to engagement with 
constituents and expanding the number of government counterparts. 
Once a legitimate and unified national legislature is in place, a comprehensive support program to promote 
and support good governance should be considered. Proper functioning of a democratic legislative body 
is not within the recent experience of Libyans, so it will be important to partner with a parliamentary 
body, both its elected members and Diwan, to ensure that their legislative, oversight, and representative 
responsibilities are carried out. 
MUNICIPAL AND LOCAL COUNCILS
USAID should assist Libyan stakeholders to more strategically reform the 
local administration framework; build general skills of municipal and local 
councils while waiting for the new constitution; and deliver specific 
knowledge and skills to implement local administration forms embodied in 
the new constitution and laws once they are adopted.
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 60 
USAID should broaden and deepen capacity building for municipal and local councils in coordination with 
other implementers and donors. Until the new constitution is approved and the local administration 
framework clarified (see MoLG Recommendations, below) capacity building should be focused on general, 
foundational skills for effective councils. This may include, for example, communication, leadership, 
negotiation, office automation, and management skills. In larger municipalities with more experienced staff,
it may include more advanced skills and skills specific to the services being delivered, such as planning, 
emergency services, budgeting, building controls, licensing, tax collection, billing and collection, and 
customer service. Given the low starting point, there is a large body of potential MC trainees. 
Simultaneous tracks of basic skills, plus targeted skills to address urgent needs and demonstrate tangible 
results, should be considered. 
Once the local administration structure is clarified in an approved constitution, USAID should assist MoLG 
and groups such as the Mayors’ Association to publicize the new roles and authorities assigned to 
government units, and orient and train council members, and ministry, governorate, and local staff to 
execute newly-assigned roles and duties.
In the interim, USAID should also consider assisting MoLG, selected other ministries, and leaders from a 
few representative municipalities to conduct strategic planning for the transition to the new local 
administration framework. This could be done through a series of occasional workshops. The goals would 
be to anticipate the content and sequencing of implementing regulations, major activities and resource 
requirements; to consider timelines for major actions; and to identify parties responsible for them. 
Improving preparedness in this way would facilitate the transition, would alert relevant stakeholders, and 
could be used to engage donors and identify critical areas for donor assistance.
In the interim, and if it can be done in a politically neutral fashion, USAID should also consider assisting 
Libyan stakeholders, experts, and legislators to articulate the new local administration framework. Key 
starting points would be the broad brush outlines contained in the Local Government chapter of the 
(draft) constitution and Law 59, which provides practical detail needed to implement the vision outlined 
in the constitution. The goal of this activity would be to revise or replace Law 59 with a local administration 
law adapted to the constitution, Libya’s unique circumstances, and popular expectations. Some dimensions 
of this dialogue may include the following questions:
 Which government functions and authorities should be centralized (e.g. owned and managed by a 
ministry or national service provider), deconcentrated (e.g. managed by a regional outpost of a 
central ministry or provider), or decentralized (owned and operated by local authorities, though 
typically subject to state regulation e.g. via quality and safety standards, or tariff controls)? A unique 
blend of central, deconcentrated, and decentralized functions evolves in each country -- Libya’s 
own model will need to be worked out by Libyans.
 How will political decentralization be achieved? (e.g. define the local political system, accountability 
of the council to the electorate, and council-executive power relationships)?
 How will administrative decentralization and de-concentration will be achieved (e.g. planning and 
regulating development; owning and managing people, public property and funds; and providing 
services)?
 How will fiscal decentralization will be achieved (e.g. define intergovernmental budgeting and fiscal 
transfers, expenditure and revenue assignments, powers to tax, and to borrow)?
 What will the respective roles of government, private industry, and civil society in providing 
services be?
USAID could assist such a national dialogue through activities such as convening expert groups; creating 
awareness in the national legislature, executive branch, and key municipalities; enabling dialogue, including 
advocacy to the legislature, which would ultimately be asked to pass a local administration law; and 
working with ministries to develop functional roadmaps that reallocate tasks and resources under the new 
local administration structure. 
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 61 
MINISTRY OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT
USAID should increase assistance to help the MoLG and other key 
stakeholders to analyze and plan local administration reforms.
USAID should coordinate and facilitate joint working groups of experts, MoLG leaders, mayors and 
legislators to analyze and define the local administration legal framework beyond what is likely contained 
in the draft constitution. The starting point should be a revision of Law 59 or its replacement with a new 
local administration law. The same group(s) could be tasked with outlining transition strategies for the 
most affected government units – ministries and municipal and local councils. Once the local administration 
structure is enacted in law, this assistance should extend to publicizing the results and implications, and
developing and promulgating the subordinate implementing regulations and policies. 
Adoption of a new constitution, electing a new unified government, or adopting a new local administration 
law may trigger new local elections followed by an influx of new, inexperienced local council members. 
They will need to be oriented to their roles, functions and powers, and trained. USAID should help to 
design and implement a nationwide capacity-building campaign and build sustainable training capacity under 
the auspices of MoLG or the Mayors’ Association, for example.
In the interim, USAID/IRI should provide limited assistance to MoLG to build capacity – basic skills of staff 
who are expected to survive any restructuring and changes of leadership that likely would follow elections 
and the constitutional referendum. Special attention could be given to skills that will help MoLG make the 
transition, such as strategic planning, organizational development, functional mapping and process re￾engineering, management of human resources, budgeting, and communication skills. 
CONSTITUTION DRAFTING ASSEMBLY
USAID should assist the CDA to inform citizens about the draft 
constitution in the lead-up to the referendum and about the new 
constitution once it is adopted.
USAID should continue LCB assistance to CDA’s Outreach and Awareness Committee to implement its 
Strategy up to the point of the referendum. USAID should assist CDA to review and refine its Strategy 
from time to time if the interim situation is prolonged or conditions change significantly.
If the CDA strategy includes a new round of community dialogue and recommendations, CDA and LCB 
should consider partnering with MCs and CSOs more strategically than before to expand local awareness 
and dialogue, and generate new recommendations. 
If the draft constitution is re-opened by CDA before the referendum or because of a failed referendum, 
USAID should assist CDA to convene experts, CDA members and others (as appropriate) to analyze and 
revise sections of the draft to resolve obstacles to votes by the CDA or HoR. The assistance to analyze 
and revise drafts should be repeated as long as it appears the CDA and legislature(s) are making progress 
toward a draft that reflects consensus and will usher in a unity government. 
Once the constitution is approved by referendum, USAID should assist CDA with follow-up tasks – if the 
CDA has any – such as raising public awareness about the contents and implications of the new 
constitution, and next steps in fulfilling the social contract it represents. 
CIVIL SOCIETY ORGANIZATIONS
USAID should consider designing and implementing a broad program of 
support to CSOs to fill a gap in Libya’s democracy and governance 
landscape.
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 62 
The concept of civil society is still new in Libya, yet CSO partners have vigorously undertaken advocacy 
campaigns. Without strengthening the sector more broadly, efforts pinpointed exclusively on advocacy 
will limit the potential results. In order to sustain the successes achieved under LEGS, USAID should 
consider starting up a broad program of support for CSOs. This sector will need guidance not only to 
further develop its capacity for advocacy but also with organizational capacity building to legitimize the 
sector and ensure that civil society remains a part of a democratic society in Libya. Such a program may 
not be possible in the east under the present conditions. A CSO strengthening program would fill a 
significant gap in the democracy and governance sector in Libya. 
A CSO strengthening program should include basic orientation on the role of civil society. It should also 
include training, practical workshops, and mentoring on developing a mission statement, strategic planning, 
organizational development, financial management, fundraising, leadership, management of staff and 
volunteers, membership development, and so forth. Advocacy efforts begun under LEGS and LCB to 
foster stakeholder engagement should be continued as well. 
While issues related to women, PWDs, and youth were successful in gaining traction, the range of issues 
supported by a CSO strengthening program should be widened to reflect the full spectrum of issues of 
concern to Libyans. 
VI. EVALUATION QUESTION 2: ACHIEVEMENTS BEYOND THE 
PLANNED OBJECTIVES 
FINDINGS ON ACHIEVEMENTS BEYOND THE PLANNED OBJECTIVES 
Using a focused outcome harvesting approach, the ET developed a set of outcomes that would be 
expected based on each program’s results framework. Respondents were then asked to substantiate and 
validate those outcomes, and the evidence collected was used to identify any additional outcomes. 
Through this process, the ET found the following instances of additional outcomes or achievements 
outside the LEGS and LCB results frameworks. 
JUDICIARY CAPACITY FOR ELECTIONS 
Under LEGS Objective 1: Increasing public and stakeholder confidence in the integrity of elections as a 
vehicle for peacefully and democratically selecting leaders, the ET had developed a set of two outcomes: 
 HNEC capacity to manage transparent and credible elections; and 
 Public confidence in elections. 
The ET theorized that if these two outcomes were achieved, it would lead to the achievement of the 
objective. However, through outcome harvesting, five respondents also mentioned the role of the 
judiciary. 
The role of the judiciary in shaping public confidence in elections was highlighted by one of the two DRCs, 
which said that public confidence in elections is low in part because, “Many candidates run in elections 
only because the judiciary can’t convict them or punish them if they do something wrong.” 
The ET compared this perception with the attitudes toward the judiciary expressed by citizens in the 
survey. In answer to the question, “To what extent do you trust the following institutions to improve 
Libya’s future?,” 670 out of the 1192 (56 percent) survey respondents answered “highly” or “moderately” 
regarding the judiciary. See Figure 4 above. There were no significant differences among cities, between 
sexes, among differing age groups, or between PWDs and those without disabilities. This compares with 
63 percent in 2015 when the same question was asked in a USAID-funded DRG survey.19
 
19 “Mid-term Evaluation of Democracy, Human Rights and Governance (DRG) Programming in Libya and Results from a National 
and Urban DRG Survey” USAID/Libya. January 2016.
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 63 
Three of the five HNEC officials interviewed raised the importance of the role that the judiciary plays in 
processing and archiving complaints filed after elections. One HNEC official noted, “We have really good 
judges, but this whole election process is new for them. They don’t know who to deal with or what the 
laws are.” Another HNEC official explained the assistance that IFES provided in holding workshops for 
HNEC and the Supreme Judicial Council to review, reform, and codify the electoral legal framework. He 
also credited the “Guidelines for Understanding, Adjudicating and Resolving Disputes in Elections” that 
was developed by IFES and shared with both HNEC and the judiciary. 
One IFES staff member noted the ongoing facilitation that IFES provided to ensure continued 
communication and cooperation between HNEC and the judiciary. He explained that the Libyan court 
system is highly localized, so communication on the national level is challenging. 
These statements are in keeping with the LEGS quarterly reports, which reflect that IFES provided support 
to the judicial sector through technical assistance, creation of a platform for information sharing, training, 
and workshops. IFES support for the judiciary in the area of electoral dispute resolution included technical 
assistance: development of a training plan; training in-country and a study tour abroad; sharing of lessons 
learned on election dispute resolution; developing a timeline for resolving complaints; providing an expert 
to oversee the judiciary’s handling of complaints from the elections; and facilitating coordination with 
HNEC. In particular, CEPPS requested approval to modify its work plan for the period April 2017 –
October 2017: “Building on IFES-led discussions in 2016, IFES will conduct an assessment and prepare a 
desk study of past [election dispute resolution] legislative frameworks and practices in Libya.”20 IFES also 
developed and installed Judgenet.ly, an internet platform to facilitate information sharing within the 
judiciary, and trained court clerks to use it. IFES assisted the judiciary on electoral law by providing 
information and advice; facilitating coordination between HNEC and the Supreme Judicial Council to 
review, reform, and codify the electoral legal framework; and holding workshops to develop draft 
legislation. In the area of out-of-country voting, IFES provided training and held workshops. 
Table 22 below shows the indicator data relevant to capacity of the judicial sector to implement 
transparent and credible elections reported in the LEGS Performance Management Plan for fiscal year 
2018. This document includes targets and actual achievements for fiscal year 2017 but no prior years. 
Table 22: LEGS Indicator data relevant to capacity of judiciary sector to conduct transparent and credible 
elections 
INDICATOR
FY1 (2016-17)
TARGET ACTUAL
CEPPS Objective 1: Increasing public and stakeholder confidence in the integrity of elections as a 
vehicle for peacefully and democratically selecting leaders
Indicator 1.1.2.1: Number of judicial personnel trained with 
USG assistance
N/A: 3 (all men)
SHIFT OF ACTIVITIES TO MUNICIPAL COUNCILS 
Objective 2 in the original LEGS Agreement is strongly focused on national institutions, saying very little 
about MCs. Yet IRI achieved significant success building capacities of MCs. One USAID staff member said 
the MCs have “…come a long way in understanding their representative role…” thanks to IRI’s work, 
which was called “…some of the best work USAID has done in Libya”. One of the IP respondents noted 
that this was “…the biggest change we made” and said that, “USAID was responsive to changing the Work 
Plan to focus only on sub-national government… We eliminated things we weren’t doing and changed 
from national to sub-national.” In this case, the “achievements beyond the planned objectives” were
 
20 Letter from CEPPS to USAID Agreement Officer Representative with Subject: Request for AOR Approval of Additional Activity 
(August 17, 2017) 
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 64 
increased MC capacity and projects implemented by MCs and stakeholders, which had been given a boost 
by IRI’s training. One example cited by an IP respondent was an MC making [structural] changes to 
accommodate PWDs when they moved to a new council building. USAID did then modify the Agreement 
to formally introduce sub-objectives for activities with sub-national government units (MCs). 
CONSENSUS VS. DIALOGUE ON THE CONSTITUTION 
LCB Objective 1 seems to prescribe that local citizens should reach consensus on constitutional 
recommendations before informing the CDA. In practice, while some local dialogue events did seek and 
achieve consensus, it is only the CDA that must reach consensus to approve a draft of the constitution. 
As a deliberative body, the CDA should be seeking to know the whole range of people’s recommendations 
and comments before making their decisions. Local dialogue has the positive effects of increasing people’s 
awareness and helping to shape their opinions and hone arguments in favor or against specific issues. 
Seeking local consensus, however, risks promoting only majority or unanimous views, to the exclusion of 
minority views. Comments on this from CLs and other informants are summarized above in the LCB 
Objective 1 Findings. 
NATIONAL DIALOGUE VS. NATIONAL DIALOGUE 
LCB Objective 2 provides an example of overly prescriptive language that was bypassed in favor of the 
general intent of the Objective. The Objective refers to a specific “National Dialogue” activity that was 
expected to be led by the NDPC. LCB worked with the NDPC for more than one year, but when the 
NDPC became dysfunctional, LCB shifted resources to a more general national dialogue and increased 
assistance to CDA, which filled the void left by the NDPC. 
The LCB Quarterly Report for the period April 1-June 30, 2016 states, “Because NDPC has been limited 
in its ability to implement programming at a sustained pace, ABA has continued to support local dialogues 
through its community liaison network and other dialogue and consensus building work under this 
program.” The ET found that reporting on Result 2.1 “Work with the NDPC” was dropped starting with 
the LCB Annual Report for the period October 1, 2016-September 30, 2017. 
One USAID respondent commented that the National Dialogue was shifted to community dialogue and 
that she felt it was “…ok to leave it in the Agreement, even though the focus shifted.” A second USAID 
staff member characterized this as “…a re-interpretation of the objective.” The ET concurs with a third 
USAID respondent, who said that “…the flexibility to adapt the situation is very important. IPs need the 
flexibility to shift activities to continue contributing…” in the face of changing circumstances. 
CONCLUSIONS ON ACHIEVEMENTS BEYOND THE PLANNED OBJECTIVES 
JUDICIARY CAPACITY FOR ELECTIONS 
The ET did not collect data directly from the judicial sector to validate data reported for LEGS Indicator 
1.1.2.1: Number of judicial personnel trained with USG assistance. 
Judicial capacity to manage transparent and credible elections is an outcome needed to achieve LEGS 
Objective 1: Increasing public and stakeholder confidence in the integrity of elections as a vehicle for 
peacefully and democratically selecting leaders. The judiciary holds a critical role in the electoral process. 
IFES played a role in supporting the judiciary with electoral dispute resolution during the elections in 2014. 
Overall, its support has been limited, however. By contrast, much more of the IFES efforts have been 
directed at building HNEC capacity. This represents a gap in the donor-funded democracy and governance 
portfolios. While the pessimistic comments from the DRC were not widely shared by other respondents, 
they may well represent the views of a sector of the population. The survey indicates that the judiciary is 
among the most highly trusted institutions in Libya, but it is noteworthy that the level of confidence among 
the public decreased slightly. An increase in the capacity of the judiciary as a vehicle for peacefully and 
democratically electing leaders is a necessary outcome to achieve an increase in public confidence in the 
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 65 
integrity of elections. A strengthening of judicial capacity represents an additional achievement, albeit 
limited in scope, of LEGS. 
SHIFT OF ACTIVITIES TO MUNICIPAL COUNCILS 
By shifting activities and resources to sub-national councils, LEGS exploited a new opportunity when 
progress with the national legislatures had slowed. The sub-national activities were outside the Objectives 
of the original Agreement. In this example the sub-objectives were formally modified, still in keeping with 
the overall Program Goal to strengthen citizen confidence in Libya’s elected government during a key 
political transition in the country. 
CONSENSUS VS. DIALOGUE ON THE CONSTITUTION
USAID wisely allowed the LCB team to follow the “spirit of the law” (dialogue), rather than the “letter of 
the law” (consensus). By stopping short of potentially exclusionary consensus, the activities as 
implemented were perhaps more inclusive and consistent with the Program Goal, to “Contribute to the 
reconstruction of the social contract in Libya by providing all Libyans… the opportunity to participate in 
the creation of a revised constitutional framework…”
NATIONAL DIALOGUE VS. NATIONAL DIALOGUE 
The shift from National Dialogue to a general national dialogue is not an example of an “achievement 
beyond the planned objectives,” but an instance where strict adherence to the objective would have 
curtailed the desired achievement. Again, reinterpreting the Objective enabled USAID and ABA to largely 
achieve the desired results. 
USAID and the IPs kept LEGS and LCB moving toward their goals despite changes in circumstances that 
might otherwise have prevented progress. They also made changes to exploit unforeseen opportunities. 
The LEGS and LCB objectives were ultimately broad enough, or were interpreted flexibly, to enable the 
programs to adapt activities to sustain progress. Only in the example of the shift in focus to work with 
MCs was a formal modification to the LEGS agreement necessary. In the other cases, time consuming and 
human-resource-intensive formal modifications were not necessary to keep the activities relevant and 
effective, despite the sometimes drastic changes that took place in Libya during the life of the projects. 
RECOMMENDATIONS ON ACHIEVEMENTS BEYOND THE PLANNED 
OBJECTIVES 
JUDICIAL SECTOR 
USAID should utilize the assessment being conducted under LCB to design 
and implement a program of support to the judicial sector to fill a gap in 
Libya’s democracy and governance landscape.
Judicial capacity represents a gap in donors’ democracy and governance portfolios. Electoral processes 
are still new to the judicial sector, and an electoral legal framework is still incomplete. The data collected 
through this evaluation regarding the judicial sector was limited to electoral and constitutional issues, 
however. The ET does not have sufficient data to fully lay out what a future USAID program should entail 
or how this should be prioritized in comparison with other democracy and governance funding. However, 
the LCB Quarterly Report for the period October 1 – December 31, 2017 indicates that ABA had begun 
an initiative “Assessing and Strengthening Libyan Justice Sector Capacity” under its Rapid Response Fund. 
The program components are to: (1) provide baseline knowledge of the effectiveness, challenges, 
and outline reform priorities of the justice sector through a Judicial Baseline Assessment; (2) 
provide technical assistance in targeted areas to promote judicial efficiency, accountability, 
independence, and effectiveness of the Libyan justice sector; and (3) train justice sector actors in 
the areas identified by the judicial baseline assessment. Components 2 and 3 will begin in April 
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 66 
2018, informed by and following completion of the Judicial Baseline Assessment.21 
Once the assessment is complete, USAID should have information to make a determination as to what 
the needs of the sector are for development in order to decide upon what future programs to prioritize. 
PROGRAM DESIGN AND WORK PLANS 
In fluid environments, USAID objective statements should be broad, not 
highly prescriptive; IP work plans should be specific but achieve needed 
flexibility from frequent, informed reviews and updates. 
USAID should design its programs in fluid settings like Libya using broad, flexible objective statements that 
speak to desired results while avoiding prescriptive language that may impede progress when overtaken 
by external events. 
Conversely, activities in the IP work plans should be specific and clearly defined. The flexibility needed by 
the IPs should be achieved through frequent work plan updates, approved by USAID. The ET endorses 
the practice of 6-monthly work plan reviews and updates that USAID/Libya is already using for LEGS and 
LCB. 
The ET recommends that USAID improve how its programs adapt to changing conditions by instituting 
annual mini-political economic analysis workshops scheduled, for example, after the IPs’ annual progress 
reports are drafted but before their work plans are finalized. It would make sense for USAID to sponsor 
such an activity that would inform all of its Libya IPs about the changing political environment and 
USG/USAID priorities for the year ahead. Such a workshop could involve two to three days of intensive 
debate and analysis by a core team of a few experts, drawn from Libyan academics or journalists, CSO 
leaders, and external gurus such as international “Libya watchers” and political affairs officers from the 
U.S. Department of State or Embassy. On the final day, the USAID Contracting Officer Representatives, 
AORs, and senior international and Libyan IP team leaders would be invited to join the group to hear their 
findings and predictions, and discuss the implications for program design and management. Involving 
multiple IPs would contribute to coordination and strategic planning. 
VII. EVALUATION QUESTION 3: MANAGEMENT AND 
OPERATIONAL DESIGN FACTORS WHICH FACILITATED 
PROGRAM ADAPTATION TO THE LOCAL CONTEXT 
Libya presents numerous operational challenges. The ET endeavored to identify the greatest and most 
complex of these challenges, understand how they affect program implementation, and learn the solutions 
that IPs have been able to find to manage these challenges. 
FINDINGS ON MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONAL DESIGN FACTORS 
All IPs interviewed recognized the following as obstacles impeding progress of their activities: 
 Security risks 
 Travel 
 Remote management 
 Compliance with regulations on CSOs and iNGOs 
 Lack of cash liquidity 
 
21 LCB Quarterly Report for the period October-December 2017 
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 67 
SECURITY RISKS 
One local staff member noted that they had a workshop scheduled in the south that had to be cancelled 
due to a conflict that erupted. Another local staff member noted that the insecurity prevents international 
experts from coming to Libya to provide technical assistance and training. A third local staff member 
reported that it is even difficult to move within Tripoli much of the time. One expatriate IP staff member 
said that they have had trouble with the intelligence services and police; their office is being surveilled 
electronically. As well, some of their CSO beneficiaries were harassed and detained by police, and a sub￾awardee was threatened on Facebook. Another expatriate IP staff member noted the frequency with 
which events get cancelled because of security risks. 
IPs manage these risks in various ways. One local staff member said that it is important to establish and 
maintain a network of local contacts. Another local staff member said that their approach is to keep a low 
profile. A third local staff member said that they have to carefully select neutral locations for their events. 
Two expatriates said that they rely on their professional security companies, which advise on risks, assist 
with travel, including both beneficiaries traveling to attend events abroad and expatriates within Libya, and 
secure accommodation for expatriates in Libya. Another expatriate noted that expatriates operate out of 
an office in Tunis while Libyan staff operate their office in-country. 
TRAVEL 
Insecurity is the cause of some of the challenges with travel. Many of these challenges have been discussed 
above under Evaluation Question 1, including the inability to bring beneficiaries from eastern Libya to 
Tripoli for events. As mentioned above, one local staff member noted that international experts do not 
come to Libya to deliver workshops. Two expatriates said that since February 2015, U.S. Government 
policy has prohibited U.S. nationals from going to Libya. Another expatriate noted that visas to enter Libya 
must be applied for in the traveler’s country of residence, while most expatriates are operating out of 
Tunis. This requires them to travel home to submit applications and receive visas, taking them away from 
their duties in the Tunis offices. 
One local staff member said that it is important to be registered as a not-for-profit organization to obtain 
travel visas. Another local staff member said that events are held in Tunis or Istanbul, in particular those 
events targeted for women. An expatriate noted that TCNs are traveling to Libya, while U.S. nationals 
cannot. 
One local staff member suggested that the U.S. Government should intervene with the Libyan government 
to assist contractors with obtaining visas. 
REMOTE MANAGEMENT 
With most senior management abroad, Libyan staff are entrusted to run the project offices and be the 
face of the project to beneficiaries and government counterparts. All expatriate staff, but only two out of 
eight local staff, found remote management to be an impediment to their activities. A local staff member 
mentioned that their work is delayed by the difference in time zones between Tripoli and Washington, 
DC, as well as by different holiday schedules. An expatriate staff member remarked that she misses out 
on nuances of events and regular feedback from counterparts and beneficiaries, reducing her ability to 
monitor the project and verify results. 
A local staff member and an expatriate staff member both said that senior leadership is regularly present 
in Libya, reducing the extent to which the activities must be managed remotely. One expatriate said that 
they invite media to their events and occasionally follow up events with phone calls to participants as ways 
to monitor their activities. One expatriate said that Libyan staff meet in Tunis two to three times per year. 
Two expatriates said that frequent communication using Skype, especially with video, is vital. Another 
expatriate said that he measures staff productivity rather than trying to validate the number of hours 
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 68 
Libyan staff spend in the office. He also said that all financial transactions are approved by senior leadership 
and signed by two Libyan staff to maintain financial controls. 
One HNEC official interviewed acknowledged the extended time needed to implement activities when 
the headquarters, with decision-making authority, is located in the U.S. 
One additional outcome likely due to remote management is the lack of Libyan staff capacity. While donor 
funded projects are relatively new in Libya, local staff generally do not have experience managing such 
projects. In this case, they do not have day-to-day contact with senior management to observe, discuss, 
and participate in management meetings. They are missing an important input from experienced expatriate 
leaders and managers that local staff in other more secure locations benefit from. Using the focused 
outcome harvesting approach to answer EQ1 and EQ2, the ET queried IPs on the higher-level results 
anticipated and actually achieved. Expatriates provided substantial insightful answers in nearly all cases, 
while local staff refrained from answering or gave very short answers about half of the time. In particular, 
to the question, “What do you think will be the most lasting contribution of LEGS and LCB?”, all five 
expatriates provided detailed answers, while only two of eight local staff were able to answer the question. 
Even on operational questions such as insecurity and remote management, local staff had far less to 
contribute. Two local staff even maintained that insecurity does not affect program activities. Six of the 
eight do not believe that remote management affects their activities. Two expatriate staff credited the 
success of their activities in part to the capacity of their local staff, however. 
COMPLIANCE WITH REGULATIONS ON CSOS AND INGOS 
One local staff said that the regulations of the Commission for Civil Society are unclear and change often. 
One expatriate reported that they are unable to offer sub-grants under the current regulations. Another 
expatriate noted that their CSO partner in Benghazi has to have all training events approved by authorities 
in advance and some topics, such as elections, were prohibited. A third expatriate said that even in the 
west, compliance is getting more complicated and time consuming. 
One local staff member said that hiring an experienced consultant has allowed them to navigate the 
changing regulations. One expatriate stressed how important it is to comply with all regulations and pay 
taxes. By staying above reproach, they were able to decline an illegal request from the security services 
to provide information on their staff. Another expatriate stated that he nurtures his relations with the 
Commission for Civil Society. 
LACK OF CASH LIQUIDITY
The monetary crisis in Libya, where cash for operations and events taking place in Libya is difficult to 
obtain, is negatively impacting activities. Two local staff members said that their activities are limited or 
cancelled because they cannot access cash. One expatriate explained that there are limits to the amount 
of cash that can be withdrawn. She went on to say that mobile banking has not been adopted yet in Libya, 
and the amount of cash that can be withdrawn from banks in Tunis is tightening up, as well. Another 
expatriate said that private companies are prohibited from transferring cash. 
One local staff member stated that they are working with a new bank in hopes that they will be able to 
access funds. One expatriate said that they are using wire transfers and certified checks. Two expatriates 
said that they are carrying large amounts of cash into country, which puts them at risk. Libyan staff come 
to Tunis to collect their salaries. 
One expatriate suggested that a solution should be sought by high-level U.S. Government officials with 
their Libyan counterparts to ensure that U.S. assistance can continue to be provided in Libya. 
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 69 
CONCLUSIONS ON MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONAL DESIGN FACTORS 
USAID and IPs have adapted well to the 
challenges arising from insecurity, travel, and 
compliance with regulations on not-for-profit 
organizations. Less successful solutions have 
been found for remote management and the 
liquidity crisis. 
SECURITY RISKS 
IPs have successfully kept their expatriate and 
local staff, partners, and beneficiaries safe with 
few incidents, and those incidents mainly 
involved CSO partners. Mitigating strategies 
that have been used successfully are: 
 Maintaining a network of contacts to stay 
apprised of and avoid security incidents; 
 Keeping a low profile and allowing local 
partners and counterparts to be the public face; 
 Selecting locations for events where security 
incidents are unlikely; 
 Hiring a professional, experienced security 
company; and 
 Operating an office for senior expatriate 
management in a nearby location, while local 
staff work in-country. 
The last solution listed introduces another set 
of challenges, however, linked to remote 
management. 
TRAVEL 
The operational and design factors that have 
allowed LEGS and LCB to overcome the 
limitations to travel are: 
 Maintaining registration as a not-for-profit so 
as to facilitate visas; 
 Holding events outside of Libya to ensure 
participation; and 
 Hiring a TCN in a senior management position who can travel frequently to Libya. 
REMOTE MANAGEMENT 
Remote management requires more time and resources, and introduces the risk of reduced quality. IPs 
have found many work-arounds to keep their activities moving ahead. However, there remains room for 
management improvements. Operational strategies that have partially been effective include: 
• Regular travel to Libya by third country national senior management; 
• Taking extra measures to monitor project activities; 
• Gathering all staff regularly in a location outside of Libya; 
• Frequent communication via Skype or other applications allowing camera as well as voice; and 
• Ensuring strict policies and procedures for financial management. 
Box 2: Remote Management Practices Used 
in Afghanistan
• To reduce delays in obtaining approvals from the 
Home Office, the Chief of Party (COP) was given 
increased authority to commit funds in the field, 
subject to robust monitoring.
• An internal audit unit was established, separate from 
the finance and accounting team, which reported 
directly to the COP and home office senior manager. 
This unit was responsible to test or audit procedures 
and implementation in areas such as: timekeeping, 
payroll, procurement, hiring, and monitoring and 
evaluation (M&E), including random visits to 
community projects and training events.
• Managers and M&E staff were issued cell phones 
and required to send photos with geographic 
coordinates during some site visits and training 
events, as a means of monitoring or verification. 
• Highly qualified and experienced Afghan staff were 
hired for senior management and leadership 
positions, and expatriate experts invested 
continuously in their training and mentoring.
• A monthly in-house capacity building event was 
conducted for all mid-level and senior staff. Topics 
alternated between (1) introducing new technical, 
management or communication skills and (2) 
presentations by Afghan team leaders on the role and 
activities of their unit. In the first category, staff 
members were encouraged to submit topics for 
future sessions and deliver training in their area of 
expertise. The second type gave the top tier program 
leaders opportunities to check how well managers 
and team leaders understood and communicated 
program goals, objectives, policies and activities.
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 70 
One consequence of remote management is that local staff are denied the opportunity for day-to-day 
mentoring and modeling by senior managers with experience implementing donor-funded projects. The 
ET found a lack of local staff capacity, where they were able to speak in detail about activities but largely 
lacked vision; an understanding of the larger goals, results, and achievements of the activities; and even a 
management capacity to handle operational issues. 
COMPLIANCE WITH REGULATIONS ON CSOS AND INGOS 
While regulations on CSOs and iNGOs are onerous and frequently change, IPs have stayed in compliance 
by hiring an experienced person with connections to stay on top of changes and ensure accurate 
paperwork and follow-up with authorities. 
LACK OF CASH LIQUIDITY
The monetary crisis in Libya and regulations prohibiting many alternative ways to access cash leave few
or no avenues for IPs to fund routine activities in Libya. Good solutions are not available to IPs. Libyan 
staff are traveling abroad to receive their salaries, but this does not work for local partners or vendors.
RECOMMENDATIONS ON MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONAL DESIGN 
FACTORS 
IPs have been creative and resourceful in resolving the challenges of operating in Libya. USAID has been 
flexible and supportive of the IPs. Much work has been successfully accomplished, albeit at a slower rate 
than is possible elsewhere. 
PROGRAM DESIGN
USAID should allocate ample financial and staff resources for activities 
and allow IPs more time to plan and implement activities in fluid political 
arenas and non-permissive locations.
Future USAID projects in Libya and other insecure environments should budget adequate financial 
resources and establish realistic timelines to ensure that both known and unanticipated factors can be 
addressed. An adequate level of effort should be included for experienced local staff to manage regulatory 
requirements and stay apprised of security incidents. This includes time to nurture relationships with a 
network of knowledgeable contacts. Budgets should include adequate funds for some portion of events 
to be held outside of the country, where participants’ travel costs must be included. This also affects the 
timeline, as do the frequent cancellations of events. Future activities in Libya also should include adequate 
budget and time for all-staff meetings outside of Libya. 
MONITORING
IPs should strengthen monitoring to assure quality under remote 
management.
To ensure high quality events, IPs should plan and budget for a higher level of monitoring than they might 
otherwise. They should utilize a variety of techniques to obtain information from various sources. They 
should follow up with beneficiaries after events. Box 2 above lists some remote management practices 
used in Afghanistan that may prove equally useful in Libya. 
LOCAL STAFF CAPACITY
IPs should devote more resources to develop local staff capacity over the 
life of the program to overcome challenges of remote management.
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 71 
Future USAID projects should include a plan to build local staff capacity. All-staff meetings should continue 
to take place, but perhaps more frequently. Local staff should be involved in planning, monitoring and 
learning opportunities to acclimate them to performance management. Senior-level staff should be sure 
to take the time to mentor local staff on programmatic as well as managerial aspects of donor-funded 
contracting. These extra measures are necessary to compensate for the lack of exposure that is naturally 
present in a unified office. Investing in staff capacity to manage donor funding will be important for Libya’s 
long-term development. Box 3 illustrates how local staff capacity was built through periodic training events 
in Iraq. 
Box 3: Capacity Building of Local Staff in Iraq
In Iraq, for example, another non-permissive environment, one USAID contractor had local staff based 
throughout the country. Senior-level expatriate staff could not travel to observe first-hand the local staff at 
work, and even Iraqi staff were limited as to which regions they could travel. Therefore, the national staff came 
to Baghdad quarterly for intensive and on-going training. Training lasted from one week to one half day. Over 
a five-year period, local staff skills gradually improved, and they developed a sensitivity for USAID priorities and 
perspectives.
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 72 
ANNEX 1. EVALUATION STATEMENT OF WORK 
(Note: Through mutual agreement between USAID/Libya and the contractor, changes were made to the following evaluation 
statement of work initially issued on March 9, 2018 in order to better meet the purpose of the evaluation. These changes 
were incorporated into the Design Plan that was approved by USAID/Libya on April 9, 2018.) 
SCOPE OF WORK 
Final Evaluation of USAID/Libya of Libya Elections and Governance Support (LEGS) 
activity and the Supporting Consensus Building for the National Dialogue, Constitution 
Drafting and Governing Process in Libya Activity (LCB). 
1. Purpose and Description of the Activity 
USAID is requesting a final evaluation for two of its democracy and governance programs in Libya. USAID 
is seeking to capture information on the diverse areas in which these programs were able to achieve real 
impact and promote meaningful change despite the challenging operating environment. USAID seeks to 
understand how these programs evolved and to gain a better understanding of what activities were 
successful and how and why they were successful, what hasn’t worked and why, and most importantly, 
where USAID should put future resources to aid the transition process and build democratic governance 
in Libya. Given the dynamic nature of the work environment, we are also interested in documenting what 
work has actually occurred in order to provide strong, grounded recommendations for future work. 
The two activities are the Associate Cooperative Agreement No. AID-OAA-LA-12-00006 Libya Elections 
and Governance Support (LEGS) under CEPPS III Leader with Associates Cooperative Agreement No. 
DFD-A-00-08-00350-00, and Cooperative Agreement No. AID-OAA-LA-14-00009, Supporting 
Consensus Building for the National Dialogue, Constitution Drafting and Governing Process in Libya 
(LCB). 
These two projects are implemented by four Implementing partners. CEPPS LEGS activity is 
implemented by the International Republican Institute (IRI), the National Democratic Institute (NDI), and 
the International Foundation for Electoral Systems (IFES). Freedom House’s LCB Program is implemented 
by the American Bar Association Rule of Law Initiative (ABA-ROLI). 
Purpose of activities: 
(1) Libya Elections and Governance Support (LEGS): 
The first LEGS cooperative agreement was awarded on October 1, 2012 and was modified twice to extend 
the agreement to October 31, 2019 with a current life of project budget of $34,773,801.5. LEGS 
objectives are to:
1) Increase public and stakeholder confidence in the integrity of elections as a vehicle for 
peacefully and democratically selecting leaders; 
2) Establish good precedent for effective governance, including stakeholder engagement, by 
governing and representative bodies at the national and subnational levels; and 
3) Increase women’s and marginalized group’s genuine inclusion and participation such that views 
and interests are incorporated into Libyan governing and legislative processes. 
(2) Supporting Consensus Building for National Dialogue, Constitution Drafting and 
Governing Process in Libya (LCB): 
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 73 
This is a five-year award in the amount of $11,493,426 that began in August 2017 and was extended to a 
current end date of August 26, 2019. LCB’s objectives are to:
1) Support an inclusive and transparent process to draft a legitimate constitution and promote 
stability by training Constitutional Drafting Assembly members and community liaisons, 
distributing nationwide SMS messages about the constitution, publishing copies/infographics 
of the draft constitution; 
2) Conduct an assessment of the current state of Libya’s justice sector; and
3) Improve Libyans’ capacity to build their own institutions through community dialogues and 
community liaisons, as well as community meetings on topics such as the constitution, 
decentralization, local development and women’s rights.
 
2. Background 
Political and Historical Context in Libya 
Libya's first democratic national elections in decades, held on July 7, 2012, marked a turning point in the 
country's history. For more than 40 years, Muammar Gaddafi rejected the principles of representative 
democracy, presiding instead over an idiosyncratic and personalized political system that limited public 
participation in decision-making processes. Following his overthrow in 2011, a group of self-appointed 
leaders formed the National Transitional Council (NTC). While NTC members enjoyed public support 
for their role in leading efforts to oust Gaddafi, the NTC's poor governance practices -which included 
opaque decision-making processes and limited attempts at public outreach and communication -led to 
growing citizen disaffection and frustration across the country. 
The USG, through its diplomacy and development programs, has supported the UN-led process that 
resulted in the December 2015 signing of the Libya Political Agreement (LPA) and formation of the 
Government of National Accord (GNA), a transitional government intended to lead the country to the 
adoption of a constitution and national elections. Despite broad U.S. and international support, the GNA's 
mandate has been contested by rival governments in eastern and western Libya. The GNA has struggled 
to establish effective control over most of Libya's territory, although its aligned armed groups have 
consolidated their position in Tripoli since early 2017. The Libyan National Army (LNA), with significant 
support from Egypt and the UAE, continues to defy the GNA through territorial takeovers. A liquidity 
crisis and electrical and water shortages have stirred discontent in Tripoli, where support for the GNA 
has eroded. Libya is quickly burning through its foreign reserves as oil production is on the recovery. 
On September 20, 2017, the UN Special Representative to the Secretary General Salamé rolled out an 
Action Plan that maintains the LPA as the basis for national reconciliation, while proposing negotiated LPA 
amendments as the first step to move Libya towards a constitutional referendum and inclusive national 
elections in 2018. Under Salamé's leadership, Libyan negotiators met twice, but did not reach consensus 
on such changes as reducing the Presidency Council (PC) to three members instead of nine, separating 
the Prime Minister's functions from the PC, and rearranging security structures to increase buy-in for the 
LPA throughout all regions of Libya. The Action Plan's second step is to bring a broader range of Libyan 
parties together for a National Conference, which could play the role of selecting individuals for senior 
leadership positions in a new transitional government. Salamé is also advocating for simultaneous efforts 
to finalize a new draft Libyan Constitution and lay the technical groundwork for a referendum and 
presidential/parliamentary elections, efforts which USAID supports through programs implemented by the 
partners to be evaluated. 
Tripoli has remained relatively calm for most of 2017, despite the occasional turf war between militias. As 
part of the Tripoli Security Plan (TSP), the GNA in consultation with UNSMIL continues to develop a 
comprehensive strategy to disarm, demobilize and reintegrate (DDR) the various armed groups that 
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 74 
currently hold sway around the city, including control of Matiga Airport, Libya's largest operational airport. 
GNA efforts to build a Presidential Guard and replace Tripoli militias with professional forces under 
governmental control have made slow and uneven progress.
Libya, an OPEC member, has Africa's largest and the world's ninth largest proven oil reserves. Libya's 
hydrocarbon-based economy is in recovery mode, with oil production hovering at 1.0 million bpd. 
However, militia-related shutdowns of strategic oil pipeline valves and productive fields and deficient 
funding of capital improvements has stalled greater productivity. A series of ISIS attacks in the oil-rich 
Sirte Basin in January 2017 damaged export facilities and highlighted the vulnerability of Libya's critical 
infrastructure to terrorist attack. U.S. oil companies with stakes in Libya - including ConocoPhillips, 
Marathon, Hess and Occidental - have suspended operations in country.
Finally, Libya is a primary transit country for migration to Europe, mostly from sub-Saharan African 
countries. As of August 2017, 122,343 migrants departed from Libya to cross the central Mediterranean 
en route to Europe. Nearly 2500 died on this journey and 75% of those who survived arrived on Italian 
shores. Hundreds of thousands of migrants are currently stranded in Libya, where they are subject to 
arbitrary detention and vulnerable to harassment and abuse by armed groups, corrupt officials, criminal 
networks and human smugglers. European partners are contributing funds to IOM and UNDP efforts to 
mitigate the immediate suffering in many of these detention areas; however the sheer number of migrants 
trapped as well as the tension caused by increased competition among gangs for a piece of the lucrative 
market has negatively impacted an already tenuous civil stability.
4. Evaluation Questions 
A key factor in USAID-funded programming has been flexibility and dynamism as activities had to be 
adjusted due to security concerns and changing political contexts and opportunities. USAID seeks to 
understand how LEGS and LCB have evolved and to get a better understanding of what activities have had 
success, what hasn’t worked and why, and most importantly, where USAID should put future resources 
to aid the transition process and build democratic governance in Libya. 
A Mid Term assessment was undertaken in July 2015. Main Findings from Midterm Evaluation are 
presented in Annex 1. The extent to which Mid-term Evaluation methods and sources may be followed 
to answer end of evaluation questions will assist with building an evidence base for the evaluation findings. 
We would like the evaluators to use the following three guiding questions to formulate their approach: 
1) What progress was made towards achieving the objectives stated in the LEGS and 
LCB program descriptions? Review, analyze and evaluate the performance of LEGS and LCB, 
against the assumptions and results, throughout its implementation. Identify and characterize 
factors (anticipated and unanticipated) that promoted or impeded the success of LEGS and LCB 
activities, including attention to both intended and unintended outcomes.
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 75 
<< >>
We would like the evaluators to look specifically at the progress figures from the Midterm 
evaluation and determine whether changes were made to achieving objectives, taking into 
consideration any changes in the work plans. We are also specifically interested in the work LEGS 
is doing focused on legislative bodies and capacity-building support provided to municipal councils, 
as well as the support LEGS and LCB programs are providing to civil society and other elected 
bodies. We would like the evaluation team to specifically tease out whether the focus on 
parliamentarians/legislators or legislative staff provided the any impact, and how effective the civic 
education methods employed by LCB were in informing and educating populations on the 
constitutional efforts through a public opinion survey. Finally, the evaluators should propose 
specific recommendations on priority areas for future programming. 
2) What are achievements of the program which were not part of the work plan in each 
objective/activity? Use an outcomes harvesting approach to survey and interview key 
informants to determine what are additional key achievements. It is understood that the changing 
Libyan context often led to shifts in planned activities and work plans, thus an outcomes harvest 
approach can help identify and document these unanticipated achievements. 
3) How can future programming can be designed to be most effective in adapting to 
local challenges? What were specific management and operational design factors which 
facilitated program adaptation to the local context? How can these critical factors be designed 
into a follow on activity? 
5. Methods 
The evaluation team will be required to propose a clear methodology to answer all the evaluation 
questions, utilizing both quantitative and qualitative methodologies such as focus groups, 
structured interviews and/or questionnaires, as appropriate. In addition to identifying how 
information will be collected, it is essential for the evaluation team specify where the data will be 
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 76 
collected (which of the 17 municipalities the program is currently operating, parliament, political 
parties, CSOs, etc.) in order to better understand the impact of programming interventions. As 
a participatory evaluation, feedback from USAID, implementing partners, sub grantees, program 
beneficiaries and other development partners are critical throughout the process. The Consultant 
should review relevant documentation and propose use of other tools to ensure that the findings 
are backed up with evidence and facts as much as possible. 
PUBLIC OPINION SURVEY 
The mid-term included a phone survey of 2,500 respondents using a Computer Assisted 
Telephone Interview (CATI) system involving 61,000 telephone calls. Data was then weighted to 
ensure a nationally representative sample. 
A more program-focused methodology will be developed for this final evaluation, including focus 
on geographic areas of specific USAID programming. The evaluation will also conduct key 
informant interviews (KII) targeting the same 61 individuals were interviewed in the mid-term, 
substituting similar roles where the same individuals are not available. 
With regard to data quality, the evaluation team is expected to be familiar with USAID data quality 
standards for objectivity, validity, reliability, precision, utility and integrity and be able to apply 
them in the final report, by identifying such data limitations as may exist with respect to these 
standards (ADS 78.3.4.2 - http://www.usaid.gov/policy/ads//500/578.pdf) and ADS 203.3.5.1- 
http://www.usaid.gov/policy/ads/200/203.pdf)
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 77 
6. Deliverable and Estimated LoE 
Stage Activities (deliverables in blue) Duration
(workdays)
LOE TL
(days)
LOE DG 
Expert
(days)
Local 
Libya 
Expert
Regional leads or
Data collection firm
(days)
Planning Desk review of relevant award info/ 
documents and mid-term evaluation
9 6 6 5
Evaluation work plan drafted
Evaluation work plan submitted and 
approved
Evaluation team meeting with USAID –
discussion of work plan, situation brief
Preparation Evaluation team and Libyan partner 
develop data collection tools and data 
analysis design 
13 4 4 4 4
Evaluation and data analysis design 
finalized and approved by USAID. 
Field coordinators/interviewers trained 
on tools
2 2 2
Evaluation team meeting with USAID to 
discuss fieldwork schedules, list of 
interviewees and data collection tools 
1 1
Finalize list of interviewees and site visit 
schedule
Introductory meeting with 
implementers
2 2
Field 
Implementation
Conduct evaluation fieldwork in Tunisia 
(KIIs)
45 
(data 
collection 
and analysis 
overlap)
6 6
Conduct evaluation fieldwork in Libya 
(KIIs and face-to-face surveys)
42
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 78 
Data Analysis Analyze data and findings 6 6 6
Reporting Key findings presented orally to USAID 1 1 1 1
Draft report finalized and submitted 6 6 6 1
USAID feedback provided, incorporated 
and final evaluation report submitted 
15 2 1
Total 89 33 32 17 53
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 79 
7. Team Composition 
The evaluation team will comprised one team leader, one democracy and governance (DG) expert 
and two to three regional/national experts. The evaluation team leadership will have a minimum 
of 20 years of relevant prior experience that focuses on the program components of the LEGS 
and LCB projects including: strengthening multiparty systems, strengthening electoral processes, 
civil society participation, good governance in post conflict settings, and the like. One staff 
member from USAID/Libya team will also participate in order to facilitate meetings with key 
informants in Libya. The team may be augmented by expert TCN contractor staff, particularly to 
provide substantive input and oversight to the data collection process for KIIs in Libya. 
The team should possess the skills and experiences below: 
(1) Team Leader (one)
● Demonstrated 10 years’ experience with governance and/or political process program 
evaluation experience in the Middle East. 
● Solid experience, quantitative and qualitative evaluation methods, in capacity building in 
developing countries covering one or more the following components: elections, 
constitution outreach, local governance, legislative bodies, justice work, youth issues, and 
civil society. 
● Solid understanding of the political environment in Libya and the Middle East. Thorough 
understanding of the Libyan historical and tribal context as well as recent political 
dynamics including the involvement of the United Nations. 
● Keen awareness of the complexity of local political challenges and context. 
● Excellent communication, team management, and leadership skills. 
● USAID programming experience is desirable. 
● Note* American contracted staff are not allowed to travel into Libya 
(2) DG Expert
 Demonstrated 10 years’ experience with governance and/or political process program 
evaluation experience. 
 Five years of knowledge of quantitative and qualitative evaluation methods including key 
informant interviews, focus group discussions and statistical analysis of survey findings.
 Solid experience in capacity-building and program development in developing countries 
covering one or more the following components: elections, constitution outreach, local 
governance, legislative bodies, justice work, youth issues, and civil society. 
 Solid understanding of the political environment in Libya and the Middle East. Thorough 
understanding of the Libyan historical and tribal context as well as recent political 
dynamics including the involvement of the United Nations. 
 Keen awareness of the complexity of local political challenges and context. 
 Excellent communication, team management, analytical and leadership skills. 
 USAID programming experience is desirable. 
 Note* American contracted staff are not allowed to travel into Libya 
(3) Libyan Regional/National Experts (3)
● Non-Americans in order to travel into Libya 
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 80 
● Ideally locally hired regional expert one from the Eastern Libya, Southern Libya and 
Western Libya 
● Solid experience in evaluating programming aimed at strengthening multiparty democracy 
institutions including parliament, constitution bodies, electoral processes and civil society 
participation. Demonstrated 5 years of in depth knowledge of quantitative and qualitative 
evaluation methods including key informant interviews, focus group discussions and 
statistical analysis of survey findings. 
● Solid understanding of the political environment in Libya and the Middle East. 
● Experience in program/project evaluation oversight and implementation. 
(4) Local Data collection firm for the public opinion survey* 
*The local data collection firm may provide the Libyan Regional/National Experts as long 
as they fulfill the knowledge and experience requirements detailed in (2) above. The 
number of experts used may depend on the geographic spread of the KIIs. 
8. Scheduling and Logistics 
The evaluation will begin on or before March 31, 2011 and will require approximately 78 working days in 
duration. In addition to time in the NDI/IRI/ IFES/ABA offices in Tunis, it is proposed that team members 
will spend time with each sub-grantee at their headquarters, and where appropriate, at selected field sites 
throughout the country. A draft report will be submitted to USAID prior to the departure of the 
evaluation team leader and a final report provided to USAID no later than 78 days from the date of the 
evaluation commencement. 
9) ROLES & RESPONSIBILITIES 
METAL: 
• Provide quality assurance of the process and products before delivered to USAID 
• Select and contract the evaluators 
• Manage the evaluation process 
• Provide briefings to team; organize consultant participation 
• Provide logistical support for the evaluation team including office space and transport 
• Submit evaluation report to USAID 
USAID: 
• Have a full time USAID staff member to participate in the evaluation 
• Appoint a point of contact for the assignment to coordinate USAID inputs 
• Approve the evaluation team, methodologies and work plan 
• Participate in briefings 
• Review inception and draft evaluation reports and provide feedback 
• Sign off on final report 
NDI/IRI/IFES/ABA: 
• Participate in final review of the inception, draft and final reports 
• Provide relevant documents as needed 
• Provide assistance with setting up meetings and interviews 
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 81 
PARTNERS/SUB GRANTEES: 
• Provide relevant documents as needed 
• Participate in meetings and interviews as needed 
• Other roles and responsibilities reviewed in line with the level of participation deemed as necessary. 
9. Budget 
A note on security: 
Since this Project is expected to be implemented in potentially high-risk regions, the proposal should 
include a section outlining the Recipient’s security plan in accordance with the operational security 
supplement to ADS 303 which indicates that “when implementing any USAID award, the implementing partner 
bears the ultimate responsibility for ensuring adequate steps are taken to safeguard the security and safety of its 
personnel and any USAID funded equipment/property/vehicles.” The supplement also states that to achieve an 
adequate level of security, USAID implementing partners must see security as a top priority. It must be 
an integral component of project design and project management. 
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 82 
ANNEX 2. SUPPLEMENT TO EVALUATION METHODS AND LIMITATIONS 
To supplement Section 4 above, additional details on the methodology used to conduct the evaluation are 
provided here. The ET designed the evaluation methodology primarily to capture information on the 
diverse areas in which LEGS and LCB were able to achieve impact and promote meaningful change despite 
the challenging operating environment encountered in Libya. USAID feedback and input were 
incorporated into the final design. 
The ET was comprised of an expatriate Team Leader, an expatriate Democracy and Governance Expert, 
and a Libyan subcontractor. The Libyan subcontractor provided an expert, who worked closely with the 
expatriates as a key member of the ET, and a team of experienced data collectors, who conducted some 
KIIs, all of the FGDs, and the survey. 
Document review took place over a one-week period of time. The ET found that the questions answered 
by the mid-term evaluation were different than the questions answered through this final evaluation. Thus 
the findings of the mid-term evaluation were not relevant to the data collected and analyzed for this final 
evaluation. However, several of the questions from the National and Urban DRG Survey were the same 
or similar to the questions in the survey administered for this final evaluation, and those findings were 
analyzed to help answer the questions for this evaluation. 
The ET used the documents to inform the data collection tools, sampling, and site selection as well as to 
identify key outcomes and evidence. The ET based its approach in answering EQ1 and EQ2 on Outcome 
Harvesting but in a more focused way to accommodate the time allotted for data collection. Table 23
below delineates the steps utilized. 
Table23: Focused Outcome Harvesting Process 
STEP NOTES
1. Develop Expected 
Outcomes Model
The Results Frameworks and Development Hypotheses were reviewed to 
develop a set of top-level outcomes that would be expected from a successful 
project. For example, if there is a development hypothesis (if "A" then "B"), the 
focused outcomes should be a manageable subset of all possible “B” outcomes.
2. Collect, Categorize 
Outcomes and 
Evidence from Reports
Key outcomes and evidence were extracted from review of reports. Evidence 
was categorized and organized.
3. Develop Validation 
Questions
Questions were developed for KIIs, FGDs, and a survey to substantiate and 
validate outcomes and evidence (and to answer other EQs). Types of questions 
include: (a) To confirm and sharpen the outcomes, confirm evidence, (is this 
the best evidence?), understand cause and effect relationships. (b) To explain 
any contradictions, gaps, confusion in the identified outcomes. (c) To identify 
any missing, key outcomes or evidence, including negative outcomes. (d) Non￾outcome questions about, for example, assumptions, context, management and 
operational factors. 
4. Substantiate and 
Validate Evidence and 
Outcomes
Interviews were conducted; FGDs were held; and a survey was administered 
to develop a better understanding of outcomes, contributions and their 
significance. Key items of evidence were compiled in a database. Preference was 
given to factual evidence such as brief quotes. Sources were recorded.
5. Analyze Validated 
Evidence to Develop 
The body of validated evidence was reviewed and synthesized to formulate 
findings in response to the EQs. An overview of the outcomes, contributors 
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 83 
Findings and 
Conclusions
and contributions, and their significance was compiled. Data was analyzed to 
create findings relevant to the EQs. Confidence levels were estimated.
6. Support Use of 
Findings
Briefings were provided. Feedback was obtained. Report was finalized to reflect 
inputs.
After completion of the document review, the ET collected data from April 10 – May 16, 2018. A total of 
64 people were interviewed. The stakeholder groups and the sampling methods used for each are shown 
below in Table 24. 
Table 24: Sampling Methods used for KIIs 
RESPONDENT GROUP # PEOPLE 
INTERVIEWED 
NOTES ON SAMPLING METHODS USED
USAID 4 Purposive sampling to maximize the information 
obtainable by focusing on those who were most
familiar with the activities. USAID recommended 
the respondents.
IPs 13 Purposive sampling to maximize the information 
obtainable by focusing on those who were most 
familiar with the activities. The ET interviewed the 
chiefs of party. USAID recommended that the 
DCOP of one IP also be interviewed. The IPs each 
recommended 2 Libyan staff members. 
CLs 3 Out of a population size of 63 CLs, 2 were selected 
through stratified random sampling to include one 
man and one woman; differing regions; and one
from a CSO and one from local government. A 
third CL was selected by purposive sampling, 
where the IP selected one of the most experienced 
CLs.
HNEC 5 Purposive sampling to maximize the information 
obtainable by focusing on those who were most 
familiar with the activities. The IP recommended 
the respondents.
HoR 3 Purposive sampling to maximize the information 
obtainable by focusing on those who were most 
familiar with the activities. The IP recommended 
the respondents out a population size of about 50.
HSC 4 Purposive sampling to maximize the information 
obtainable by focusing on those who were most 
familiar with the activities. The IP recommended 
the respondents out of a population size of about 
34.
MoLG 2 Purposive sampling to maximize the information 
obtainable by focusing on those who were most 
familiar with the activities. The IP recommended 
the respondents.
CDA 4 Purposive sampling to maximize the information 
obtainable by focusing on those who were most 
familiar with the activities. The IP recommended 
the respondents.
DRCs 2 Out of a population size of 4 DRCs, 2 were 
selected randomly.
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 84 
CSOs 9 Out of a population size of 360 CSOs, 8 were 
selected through stratified random sampling to 
include 1 representing women’s issues, 1 
representing PWD issues, and 1 representing 
youth issues. A ninth CSO was selected by 
purposive sampling, where the IP selected one of 
the most active members of LNDD.
MC Members 10 Out of a population size of 118, 10 were selected 
through stratified random sampling to include at 
least one man and one woman and differing 
regions.
LCB training participants 1 Out of a population size of 15, 1 was selected 
randomly.
Other donors/implementers 4 Purposive sampling to maximize the information 
obtainable by focusing on those who were most 
familiar with the activities. USAID recommended 
the respondents.
IBTCI jointly with USAID designed the methodology of the household survey to be conducted face-to￾face in three cities that were selected purposively to target specific areas where project activities were 
concentrated, to include both a large city and mid-sized cities, and to include three areas of the country. 
Face to face surveying was chosen because the contact success rate of the National and Urban DRG 
Survey, which was conducted by telephone, was only 4 percent.22 Also, it would have been difficult to 
determine a person’s residency by their telephone number in order to reach residents of the three cities 
selected. 
Some situations were encountered in conducting this evaluation that may have introduced selection bias.
 While a stratified random sample of CSOs for KIIs was drawn from a combined list of 
beneficiaries provided by three IPs, one IP did not share such a list. However, it is possible that 
some of its CSO beneficiaries were also beneficiaries of other IPs. In organizing the focus group 
with CSOs, this fourth IP did provide contact information for one, which did participate. 
 In one particular case where the ET attempted to interview MC members from all three regions, 
the ET was unable to reach the MC member selected from the south within the period allotted 
for data collection due to the remote location. 
 The ET attempted to interview two LCB training participants – one from MoLG and one 
municipal staff member. The MoLG staff member selected was unavailable, which was confirmed 
too late to assign a replacement. 
 The sample frame used for the survey was a census taken in 2006, which may be outdated. It may 
not capture demographic changes and displacement which have taken place since then. 
The expatriate members of the ET conducted KIIs with respondents outside of Libya while the 
subcontractor collected data from Libyan respondents. The Libyan key ET member trained the data 
collectors on the specifics of the data collection tools being used and the nature of the evidence sought 
through the questionnaires to answer the EQs. 
KIIs were conducted in a semi-structured format in which all relevant questions were asked in an 
appropriate order without exact wording required. A standard format was used for notes to facilitate 
cross-respondent and cross-site analysis. 
 
22 “Mid-term Evaluation of Democracy, Human Rights and Governance (DRG) Programming in Libya and Results from a National 
and Urban DRG Survey” USAID/Libya. January 2016.
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 85 
Quality control was maintained in numerous ways. The Libyan key ET member supervised the data 
collectors conducting KIIs and FGDs in Libya. She reviewed each transcript and shared them with the 
expatriate ET members within three days of the KII or FGD. The TL reviewed transcripts on a daily basis 
and immediately reverted to the Libyan ET member for clarifications when necessary. For the survey, the 
subcontractor’s area supervisor verified and audited the questionnaires completed by the data collectors. 
Afterwards, the subcontractor’s Quantitative Research Manager conducted a desk audit of 100 percent 
of the questionnaires before data entry. 
The relationship between the EQs, data sources, and methods used for data collection are shown below 
in Table 25. 
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 86 
Table 25: LEGS and LCB Evaluation Design Matrix 
EVALUATION 
QUESTIONS
EVALUATION SUB￾QUESTIONS
OUTCOMES TO 
VALIDATE
DATA
SOURCES
TYPE & SIZE OF 
SAMPLE INSTRUMENTS
EQ1. What progress was 
made towards achieving 
the objectives stated in 
the LEGS and LCB 
program descriptions?
LEGS Objective 1: 
Increasing public and 
stakeholder confidence in the 
integrity of elections as a 
vehicle for peacefully and 
democratically selecting 
leaders
LEGS 1.1 HNEC capable to 
manage transparent and 
credible electoral event
USAID; IFES; HNEC
Citizenry
(12) Purposive 
sample
(1192) Three
geographic regions 
selected 
purposively. 
Stratified random 
sampling within the 
regions.
KIIs
Survey
LEGS 1.2 Public confidence in 
elections
USAID; IFES
DRCs
Citizenry
(7) Purposive 
sample
(2) Stratified 
random sampling
(1192) Three
geographic regions 
selected 
purposively. 
Stratified random 
sampling within the 
regions.
KIIs
KIIs
Survey
LEGS Objective 2:
Establishing good precedents 
for effective governance, 
including stakeholder 
engagement, by governing and 
representative bodies at the 
national and subnational level
LEGS 2.1 HoR/HSC factors in 
citizen input
USAID; NDI; HoR; HSC
CSOs
CSOs
(14) Purposive 
sample
(9) Stratified 
random sampling
KIIs
KIIs
FGDs
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 87 
LEGS 2.2 MCs factor in 
citizen input
USAID; IRI
MCs; CSOs
MCs; CSOs
(7) Purposive 
sample
(19) Stratified 
random sampling
KIIs
KIIs
FGDs
LEGS Objective 3: Increase 
women’s and marginalized 
group’s genuine inclusion and 
participation such that their 
views and interests are 
incorporated into Libyan 
governing and legislative 
processes
LEGS 3.1 Issues introduced by 
organizations representing 
women introduced realized in 
national policy or other 
concrete government action
USAID; IFES; NDI; HoR; HSC
CSOs
MCs; CSOs
(17) Purposive 
sample
(9) Stratified 
random sampling
KIIs
KIIs
FGDs
LEGS 3.2 Issues introduced by 
organizations representing 
PWDs realized in local policy 
or other concrete 
government action
USAID; IRI
MCs; CSOs
MCs; CSOs
(7) Purposive 
sample
(19) Stratified 
random sampling
KIIs
KIIs
FGDs
LEGS 3.3 Issues introduced by 
organizations representing 
youth realized in local policy 
or other concrete 
government action
USAID; IRI
MCs; CSOs
MCs; CSOs
(7) Purposive 
sample
(19) Stratified 
random sampling
KIIs
KIIs
FGDs
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 88 
LCB Objective 1: Informed 
citizens are able to develop 
consensus on key 
constitution issues and 
effectively inform the 
constitution drafting body
LCB 1.1 Citizens informed 
about key constitutional 
issues and process
USAID; ABA ROLI
CLs; MCs; CSOs
Citizenry
( 7) Purposive 
sample
(20 ) Stratified 
random sampling 
(1192) Three 
geographic regions 
selected 
purposively. 
Stratified random 
sampling within the 
regions
KIIs
KIIs
Survey
LCB 1.2 Inclusive community 
dialogue and consensus on 
key constitutional issues
USAID; ABA ROLI
CLs; MCs; CSOs
Citizenry
Community dialogue 
participants; CSOs
(7) Purposive 
sample
(22) Stratified 
random sampling 
(1192) Three 
geographic regions
selected 
purposively. 
Stratified random 
sampling within the 
regions
KIIs
KIIs
Survey
FGDs
LCB 1.3 Communities inform 
CDA about priorities and 
consensus on key 
constitutional issues
USAID; ABA ROLI; CDA
CLs; MCs; CSOs
Citizenry
(11) Purposive 
sample
(22) Stratified 
random sampling 
(1192) Three 
geographic regions 
selected 
KIIs
KIIs
Survey
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 89 
CSOs
purposively. 
Stratified random 
sampling within the 
regions
FGDs
LCB Objective 2: Through 
National Dialogue, citizens 
who fairly represent majority 
and minority views of groups 
including but not limited to 
women, ethnic groups, and 
youth from across Libya, are 
able to build a consensus of 
state, economy, and society 
and the relationship between 
them.
LCB 2.1 Inclusive national 
dialogue on key constitutional 
issues
USAID; ABA ROLI; CDA
CLs
(11 ) Purposive 
sample
(3) Stratified 
random sampling 
KIIs
KII
LCB 2.2 Inclusive national 
dialogue on national issues of 
state, society, economy
USAID; ABA ROLI
Citizenry
(7) Purposive sample
(1192) Three 
geographic regions 
selected 
purposively. 
Stratified random 
sampling within the 
regions
KIIs
Survey
LCB 2.3 New constitution 
reflects national consensus on 
new social contract
USAID; ABA ROLI; CDA; 
HoR; HSC
(18) Purposive 
sample 
KIIs
LCB Objective 3: 
Create consensus processes 
that will incorporate outputs 
from the National Dialogue 
and constitution drafting to 
inform Libya’s governing 
processes beyond passing the 
constitution referendum in 
order to strengthen the 
political transition.
LCB 3.1 Enduring, inclusive 
consensus processes 
strengthen the political 
transition
USAID; ABA ROLI; MoLG
Legal training participants
(9) Purposive 
sample 
(1) Stratified 
random sampling
KIIs
KIIs
LCB 3.2 Citizens gain 
confidence in government.
USAID; ABA ROLI; CDA; 
HoR; HSC; HNEC
MCs
Citizenry
(23) Purposive 
sample
(10) Stratified 
random sampling
KIIs
KIIs
Survey
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 90 
(1192) Three 
geographic regions 
selected 
purposively. 
Stratified random 
sampling within the 
regions
EQ2. What are achievements 
of the program which were 
not part of the work plan in 
each objective/activity?
USAID, IRI, NDI, IFES, and 
ABA ROLI staff
(17) Purposive
sample
KIIs
EQ3. How can future 
programming can be designed 
to be most effective in 
adapting to local challenges?
USAID, IRI, NDI, IFES, and 
ABA ROLI staff
(17) Purposive
sample
KIIs
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 91 
The key ET conducted a debriefing upon completion of the field work to review together the evidence 
collected. The team disaggregated the qualitative data collected through KIIs and FGDs by sex and 
geographic region to capture differential outcomes among groups. Where purposive sampling was used 
to select respondents, data were not extrapolated to the entire population. Likewise, where the sample 
size of a respondent group was not statistically significant, the data were not extrapolated to the entire 
population. The ET used frequency, trend, theme, and pattern analysis to compare data across respondent 
groups. The ET analyzed data that is intrinsically quantitative, including survey data and responses to Likert 
scale questions, using Microsoft Excel to generate percentages of respondents in graphical and tabular 
formats. 
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 92
ANNEX 3. SOURCES OF INFORMATION 
Documents Reviewed 
Libya Elections and Governance Support Activity Documents 
Agenda for Libya 2020 Vision Conference held May 9-10, 2017 
Agenda for Women Elected Officials Network Meeting held May 16-17, 2017 
Annual Newsletter 2016 for IFES Libya Field Office 
AOR Site Visit Report on Geographic Information System Training held August 24-September 6 (year 
not mentioned in report) 
AOR Site Visit Report on Women’s Municipal Council Network, Women in Political Life Workshop 
held August 14-17, 2016 
AOR Site Visit Report on HNEC Finance Roundtable Training held November 30, 2016 
Assessment of HNEC-Affiliated Facebook Pages for the period July 16, 2017-February 15, 2018 
presentation materials (March 2018) 
Associate Cooperative Agreement № AID-OAA-LA-12-00006 under Leader With Associates 
Cooperative Agreement № DFD-A-00-08-00350-00 
Associate Cooperative Agreement № AID-OAA-LA-12-00006 Modification 2 under Leader With 
Associates Cooperative Agreement № DFD-A-00-08-00350-00
Associate Cooperative Agreement № AID-OAA-LA-12-00006 Modification 3 under Leader With 
Associates Cooperative Agreement № DFD-A-00-08-00350-00
Associate Cooperative Agreement № AID-OAA-LA-12-00006 Modification 6 under Leader With 
Associates Cooperative Agreement № DFD-A-00-08-00350-00
E-mail from AOR to CEPPS Administrative Director Re: CEPPS Libya (AID-OAA-LA-12-00006) Request 
for Approval of Additional Activities 
Indicator Data Collection Templates 2015 
Indicator Data Collection Templates 2016 (November 29, 2016) 
Internal Notes on Deputy Assistant Administrator signing of Memorandum of Understanding with 
Libyan Government held August 21, 2017 
Internal Notes on Director of North Africa and Arabian Affairs for USAID Middle East Bureau visit to 
Women’s Elected Officials Network administrative meeting held May 16, 2017 
Internal Notes on Senior Development Advisor visit to Women’s HoR Training held March 3, 2017
Internal Notes on Senior Development Advisor visit to Roundtable on Out of Country Voting held 
March 8, 2017 
Letter from CEPPS to USAID Agreement Officer Representative with Subject: Request for AOR 
Approval of Additional Activity (August 17, 2017) 
List of Participants for Women Elected Officials Network Meeting held May 16-17, 2017 
Municipal Questionnaire (June 19, 2015) 
Performance Management Plan 2016 (August 17, 2016) 
Performance Management Plan for the period November 2016-March 2017 
Performance Management Plan Quarter 2 2017 
Performance Management Plan 2018 (January 9, 2018) 
Programmatic Spotlight “Countering Women’s Exclusion from Political Life: Elected Municipal Council 
Members Establish Women’s Network in Libya draft with markups (April 11, 2017)
Programmatic Spotlight “Countering Women’s Exclusion from Political Life: Elected Municipal Council 
Members Establish Women’s Network in Libya (April 11, 2017) 
Programmatic Spotlight “Making Accessibility a Reality for Disabled Persons” (April 25, 2017)
Programmatic Spotlight “USAID supports Sirte Community Reconciliation Conference” (July 25, 2017)
Quarterly Report for the period October 1-December 31, 2012 
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 93
Quarterly Report for the period January 1-March 31, 2013 
Quarterly Report for the period April 1-June 30, 2013 
Quarterly Report for the period July 1-September 30, 2013 
Quarterly Report for the period October 1-December 31, 2013 
Quarterly Report for the period January 1-March 31, 2014 
Quarterly Report for the period April 1-June 30, 2014 
Quarterly Report for the period July 1-September 30, 2014 
Quarterly Report for the period October 1-December 31, 2014 
Quarterly Report for the period January 1-March 31, 2015 
Quarterly Report for the period April 1-June 30, 2015 
Quarterly Report for the period July 1-September 30, 2015 
Quarterly Report for the period October 1-December 31, 2015 
Quarterly Report for the period January 1-March 31, 2016 
Quarterly Report for the period April 1-June 30, 2016 
Quarterly Report for the period July 1-September 30, 2016 
Quarterly Report for the period October 1-December 31, 2016 
Quarterly Report for the period January 1-March 31, 2017 
Quarterly Report for the period April 1-June 30, 2017 
Quarterly Report for the period July 1-September 30, 2017 
Quarterly Report for the period October 1-December 31, 2017 
Report on Polling of Municipal Council Members and CSOs on Priorities and Needs in Libya – Sebratha 
(2016) 
Report on the ‘Libya 2010’ Conference held May 9-10, 2017 
Statement on Sirte Vision 
Success Story “NDI Launches New and Improved Online Resources in Arabic”
Success Story “Training of Trainers for Persons with Disabilities” held October 16-26, 2016 
Success Story “Tunis Youth Summary” held from November 21-27, 2016 
Success Story “Democracy Resource Center Democratic Saturday” held December 24, 2016
Success Story “H2O Democratic Sunday - Stakeholders in the Electoral Process: Challenges and 
Prospects for Cooperation” held April 13, 2017
Success Story “Libyan Disabilities Forum ‘Inclusive Media’ “held May 13, 2017 
Workplan for the period November 1, 2016 to March 31, 2017 
Workplan for the period April 1, 2017 to October 31, 2017 
Workplan for the period November 1, 2017 to April 30, 2018 
Supporting Consensus Building for the National Dialogue, Constitution Drafting and Governing Process 
in Libya Activity Documents 
AOR Site Visit Report on CDA Outreach and Media Training held July 21, 2016 
AOR Site Visit Report on Stakeholder Engagement Training held December 1, 2016 
AOR Site Visit Report on MoLG meeting held January 23, 2017 
Activity Brief (January 2017) 
Activity Brief (February 2017) 
Annual Report for the period August 27, 2014-August 26, 2015 
Annual Report for the period October 1, 2015-September 30, 2016 
Annual Report for the period October 1, 2016-September 30, 2017 
E-mail chain with approval to modify Workplan (August 27, 2015) 
Implementation Schedule April 2017 – October 2017 
Internal Notes on Senior Development Advisor visit to Justice Sector Consultation held April 7, 2017 
List of upcoming activities (February 2018) 
Outcome Indicator Reference Sheets (October 28, 2015) 
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 94
Outcome Indicator Reference Sheets (2017) 
Performance Management Plan for the period August 27, 2014-February 26, 2015 (May 4, 2015) 
Performance Management Plan for the period August 27, 2014-February 26, 2015 with USAID 
Democracy, Human Rights, and Governance Office edits (May 4, 2015) 
Performance Management Plan (Quarter Four 2015) 
Performance Management Plan for the period August 27, 2016-February 26, 2016 (December 4, 2015) 
Performance Management Plan (Quarter Two 2016) 
Performance Management Plan (Quarter Two 2017) 
Performance Management Plan (Quarter Four 2017) 
Quarterly Report for the period August 27, 2014-September 30, 2014 
Quarterly Report for the period April 1-June 30, 2016 
Quarterly Report for the period October 1-December 31, 2016 
Quarterly Report for the period January 1-March 31, 2017 
Quarterly Report for the period April-June 2017 (July 25, 2017) 
Quarterly Report for the period April-June 2017 with AOR comments 
Quarterly Report for the period April-June 2017 with AOR comments and ABA responses 
Quarterly Report for the period October-December 2017 
Report on Court Administration and Access to Justice Workshop held August 23-24 (year not mentioned 
in report) 
Workplan for Year 1 for the period August 27, 2014-August 26, 2015 (revised April 15, 2015) 
Workplan Year 2 for the period August 27, 2015-February 26, 2016 (September 25, 2015) 
Workplan Year 2 for the period March 2016-September 2016 (June 9, 2016) 
Workplan Year 3 for the period October 2016-March 2017 
Workplan Year 3 for the period April-September 2017 
Workplan Year 4 for the period October 2017-March 2018 
Workplan Year 4 for the period October 2017-March 2018 with AOR comments (October 6, 2017) 
Other Documents 
Events Round-Up (January 8, 2018) 
Events Round-Up (February 6, 2018) 
Presentation materials “Mid-term Evaluation of Democracy, Human Rights and Governance 
Programming in Libya”
Presentation materials “Run, Walk, or Crawl: Scenarios for Libya’s Near Future” on the Mid-Term 
Evaluation of Democracy, Human Rights, and Governance Programming in Libya (August 13, 2015) 
Presentation materials “What We’ve Learned…The Hard Way Part 1” on the Mid-Term Evaluation of 
Democracy, Human Rights, and Governance Programming in Libya (August 13, 2015) 
Presentation materials “Libyan Public Opinion Three Years On” (February 23-24, 2016, Tunis) 
Presentation materials “Libyan Public Opinion Three Years On” to Atlantic Council (March 3, 2016)
Report “Mid-Term Evaluation Report of Democracy, Human Rights and Governance (DRG) 
Programming in Libya and Results from a National and Urban DRG Survey” (January 2016)
Success Stories of DRG (2015) 
Survey Instrument Libya Public Opinion Assessment draft (June 23, 2015) 
Interim National Transition Council draft Law № 59 of 2012 “Concerning the Local Administration 
System”
Respondents 
Table 15 below shows the types of respondents that provided data for the evaluation, disaggregated by 
their sex and geographic location. Geographic location reported here reflects the long-term location 
where the respondent is stationed and not necessarily the location where they were interviewed if the 
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 95
interviews took place while the respondent was in travel status. For respondents from the HoR, HSC, 
and CDA, the region and city reported here reflect the places that they represent and not the location of 
the bodies they work for. 
Table 15: Profile of respondents who provided data for evaluation 
Type of Respondent Region City Sex KII FGD Surve
y
Totals
USAID Outside Libya 
Female 3 0 0 3
4
Male 1 0 0 1
IPs
West 
Tripoli Female 4 0 0 4
13
Male 4 0 0 4
Outside Libya 
Female 1 0 0 1
Male 4 0 0 4
Community Liaisons South
Sebha Female 1 0 0 1
Oudan Female 1 0 0 1 3
Azzawya Male 1 0 0 1
HNEC West Tripoli Male 5 0 0 5 5
HoR/HSC
East
Awjila Male 1 0 0 1
7
Benghazi Female 1 0 0 1
West
Azzintan Male 1 0 0 1
Misrata Female 1 0 0 1
Tripoli
Female 2 0 0 2
Male 1 0 0 1
MoLG West Tripoli
Female 1 0 0 1
2
Male 1 0 0 1
CDA East
Albayda Male 2 0 0 2
4
Benghazi Male 2 0 0 2
DRCs
East Tripoli Female 1 0 0 1
2
South Sabha Male 1 0 0 1
CSOs
East
Benghazi
Female 2 0 0 2
15
Male 1 0 0 1
Ejdabia Male 1 0 0 1
South Ubari Female 1 0 0 1
West Al Ajaylat Female 1 0 0 1
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 96
Type of Respondent Region City Sex KII FGD Surve
y
Totals
Tripoli
Female 0 2 0 2
Male 3 4 0 7
MCs
East Al Jabal Al 
Akhdar Female 1 0 0 1
18
West
Ajmail Female 1 0 0 1
Ghadamis Male 1 0 0 1
Ghiryan Male 1 0 0 1
Nalut Female 1 0 0 1
Rigdaleen Male 2 0 0 2
Sabratha Male 1 0 0 1
Tripoli
Female 0 2 0 2
Male 0 6 0 6
Ziltan Female 1 0 0 1
Zwara Female 1 0 0 1
LCB Legal training 
participants West Ghadamis Female 1 0 0 1 1
Community dialogue 
participants West
Awal
Female 0 3 0 3
Male 0 5 0 5 16
Ghadamis Male 0 8 0 8
Other 
donors/implementers Outside Libya
Female 2 0 0 2
4
Male 2 0 0 2
Household residents
East Tobruk
Female 0 0 199 199
1192
Male 0 0 202 202
South Ghat
Female 0 0 200 200
Male 0 0 194 194
West Suq 
Aljumaa
Female 0 0 198 198
Male 0 0 199 199
Total 64 30 1192 1286
Females 28 7 597 632
Males 36 23 595 654
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 97
ANNEX 4. DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENTS 
Key Informant Interview (KII) Guides: 
USAID/Implementing Partners 
High National Election Commission (HNEC) 
House of Representatives (HOR) or High State Council (HSC) 
Ministry of Local Government (MoLG) 
Constitution Drafting Assembly (CDA) 
Democracy Resource Center (DRC) 
Civil Society Organization (CSO) 
Municipal Council (MC) 
Community Liaison (CL) 
ABA/LCB Legal Training Beneficiary 
Other Implementer 
Focus Group Discussion (FGD) Guides: 
Municipal Council Members 
Civil Society Organizations 
Community Dialogue Beneficiaries
Citizen Survey 
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 98
KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEW GUIDE 
USAID/Implementing Partners 
ESTIMATED LENGTH OF SURVEY = 3 HOURS 
Notes to Interviewer: 
1. Complete top box before interview. 
2. Any questions that are beyond the involvement of the respondent should be skipped. 
DATE OF INTERVIEW: 
NAME OF DATA COLLECTOR: 
NAME OF RESPONDENT(S): 
ORGANIZATION:
CITY (if in Libya): 
POSITION OF RESPONDENT(S):
FIRST STARTED WORKING WITH PROJECT(S) (M/D/Y):
TELEPHONE/EMAIL:
MALE: FEMALE:
INTRODUCTION: Thank you for meeting with me as part of the evaluation of the programs implemented by 
IFES, NDI, IRI, and ABA ROLI. The results of this evaluation will provide lessons learned from the final 
implementation phase and provide specific programmatic recommendations for future assistance. 
CONFIDENTIALITY: Everything we discuss is confidential. We do not share your name or anything that can 
be used to identify you with anyone outside of our evaluation team. We do not share information you provide with other 
people we are talking to for this evaluation. Although our internal report will include a list of everyone that we interviewed, 
the public version of the report does not include this list. Whatever you share with us will not have any impact at all on 
the level of support you receive now or are eligible to receive in the future. 
Do you have any questions before we begin? 
[The following questions are for USAID and IFES respondents only. Some IFES respondents may not 
have job responsibilities related to all of the questions and may abstain from answering.] 
LEGS 1.1.1 Does the following outcome represent or capture the overall intent and results of 
LEGS objective 1: Increasing public and stakeholder confidence in the 
integrity of elections as a vehicle for peacefully and democratically selecting 
leaders.
a. HNEC capable to manage transparent and credible electoral events
b. If not, why not?
LEGS 1.1.1.1 How well do you think that HNEC has been informing the public about possible 
upcoming elections? 
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 99
LEGS 1.1.1.2 What makes you think so? Can you tell me about specific situations which occurred 
which formed your opinion? 
LEGS 1.1.1.3 Do you think this is a significant achievement for the Government of National 
Accord/Interim Government? 
LEGS 1.1.1.4 What do you think IFES’s contribution is to this achievement?
LEGS 1.1.1.5 Do you think that HNEC’s communication to the public will have a positive 
impact? And if so, what? If no, why not? 
LEGS 1.1.2.1 How well do you think that HNEC handled requirements for campaign finance? 
LEGS 1.1.2.2 What makes you think so? Can you tell me about any specific situations which 
occurred which formed your opinion? 
[Skip the next 2 questions if the answer to LEGS 1.1.2.1 is that HNEC did not handle requirements 
for campaign finance well.] 
LEGS 1.1.2.3 Do you think that this was a significant achievement for IFES? 
LEGS 1.1.2.4 Do you think this was a significant achievement for the Government of National 
Accord/Interim Government? 
LEGS 1.1.2.5 What do you think IFES’s contribution was to this achievement?
LEGS 1.1.2.6 Do you think that HNEC’s handling of campaign finance requirements had an 
impact? And if so, what? If no, why not? 
LEGS 1.1.3.1 How well do you think that HNEC processed and archived complaints that were 
lodged after elections? 
LEGS 1.1.3.2 What makes you think so? Can you tell me about any specific situations which 
occurred which formed your opinion? 
[Skip the next 2 questions if the answer to LEGS 1.1.3.1 is that the HNEC did not process and archive 
complaints well.] 
LEGS 1.1.3.3 Do you think that this was a significant achievement for IFES? 
LEGS 1.1.3.4 Do you think that this was a significant achievement for the Government of 
National Accord/Interim Government?
LEGS 1.1.3.5 What do you think IFES’s contribution was to this achievement?
LEGS 1.1.3.6 What was the outcome of HNEC’s processing and archiving of complaints lodged 
after the elections in 2014? 
IFES Support for HNEC
LEGS 1.1.3.7
Did the following types of IFES 
support assist HNEC to 
manage transparent and credible 
electoral events?
LEGS 1.1.3.8 
How significant was the 
assistance in increasing 
HNEC’s capability?
a. Outreach and 
communications training Y N DK S Not S DK
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 100
IFES Support for HNEC
LEGS 1.1.3.7
Did the following types of IFES 
support assist HNEC to 
manage transparent and credible 
electoral events?
LEGS 1.1.3.8 
How significant was the 
assistance in increasing 
HNEC’s capability?
b. Report writing training Y N DK S Not S DK
c. International conferences and 
technical exchanges with 
electoral officials from other 
countries
Y N DK S Not S DK
d. Roundtables with other 
government entities Y N DK S Not S DK
e. Studies and analyses Y N DK S Not S DK
f. Technical assistance to prepare 
Election Access Action Plan Y N DK S Not S DK
g. Technical assistance with 
outreach and voter education Y N DK S Not S DK
LEGS 1.1.3.9 For any of the above support which did not assist HNEC to manage transparent 
and credible electoral events, why not? 
a. Outreach and communications 
training:
b. Report writing training:
c. International conferences and 
technical exchanges with electoral 
officials from other countries:
d. Roundtables with other 
government entities:
e. Studies and analyses:
f. Technical assistance to prepare 
Election Access Action Plan:
g. Technical assistance with outreach 
and voter education:
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 101
LEGS 1.1.3.10 For any of the above support which did assist HNEC to manage transparent and 
credible electoral events, how did they make use of the support? 
a. Outreach and communications 
training:
b. Report writing training:
c. International conferences and
technical exchanges with electoral 
officials from other countries:
d. Roundtables with other 
government entities:
e. Studies and analyses:
f. Technical assistance to prepare 
Election Access Action Plan:
g. Technical assistance with outreach 
and voter education:
LEGS 1.1.3.10.h What was the outcome of IFES’s input into HNEC’s work?
LEGS ASM 2.1 What are the remaining capacity gaps for HNEC? 
LEGS ASM 1.1 What are the main impediments to HNEC exercising its full authorities and 
responsibilities? 
LEGS ASM 1.2 Do you think that these impediments will be resolved and what role could IFES 
play in addressing these impediments? 
LEGS 1.2.1 Does the following outcome represent or capture the overall intent and results of 
LEGS objective 1: Increasing public and stakeholder confidence in the 
integrity of elections as a vehicle for peacefully and democratically selecting 
leaders.
a. Public confidence in the elections?
b. If not, why not?
LEGS 1.2.1.1 Do you believe that the public perceives the planning for possible upcoming 
elections to be fair so far? 
LEGS 1.2.1.2 What makes you think so? Can you tell me about specific situations which occurred 
which formed your opinion? 
[Skip this question if the answer to LEGS 1.2.1.1 is that the elections are not perceived by the public 
to be fair.] 
LEGS 1.2.1.3 Do you think that this is a significant achievement for IFES? 
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 102
LEGS 1.2.1.4 Do you think this is a significant achievement for the Government of National 
Accord/Interim Government? 
LEGS 1.2.1.5 What do you think IFES’s contribution is to this achievement?
LEGS 1.2.1.6 Do you think that public confidence in the possible upcoming elections will have 
a positive outcome? And if so, what? If no, why not? 
LEGS ASM 8.1 What are the main impediments to timely conduct of the next elections?
LEGS ASM 8.2 Do you think that these impediments will be resolved and what role could IFES 
play in addressing these impediments? 
[The following questions are for USAID and NDI respondents only. Some NDI respondents may not 
have job responsibilities related to all of the questions and may abstain from answering.] 
LEGS 2.1.1 Does the following outcome represent or capture the overall intent and results of 
LEGS Objective 2: Establishing good precedents for effective governance, 
including stakeholder engagement, by legislative bodies:
a. The House of Representatives (HoR) factored citizen input into its work?
b. If not, why not?
c. The High State Council (HSC) factored citizen input into its work?
d. If not, why not?
LEGS 2.1.1 Did the HoR and/or HSC effectively engage citizens to inform its work? If so, 
through what mechanism? 
LEGS 2.1.2 Did the HoR and/or HSC engage citizens to a sufficient degree? 
LEGS 2.1.3 For the last two questions, what makes you think so? Can you tell me about any 
specific situations which occurred which formed your opinion? 
[Skip the next 2 question if the answer to LEGS 2.1.2 is that the HoR and HSC did not engage citizens 
to a sufficient degree.] 
LEGS 2.1.4 Do you think that this was a significant achievement for NDI? 
LEGS 2.1.5 Do you think that this was a significant achievement for the Government of 
National Accord/Interim Government?
LEGS 2.1.6 What do you think NDI’s contribution was to this achievement?
LEGS 2.1.7 What was the outcome of citizen input into the HoR’s and/or HSC’s work? 
NDI Training for Legislators
LEGS 2.1.8
Which of the following NDI 
trainings provided legislators 
with skills to better carry out 
their functions?
LEGS 2.1.9
How significant were 
the trainings in 
increasing their 
effectiveness?
a. Leadership skills HOR HSC DK S Not S DK
b. Negotiation HOR HSC DK S Not S DK
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 103
NDI Training for Legislators
LEGS 2.1.8
Which of the following NDI 
trainings provided legislators 
with skills to better carry out 
their functions?
LEGS 2.1.9
How significant were 
the trainings in 
increasing their 
effectiveness?
c. Time and office management HOR HSC DK S Not S DK
d. Communications HOR HSC DK S Not S DK
e. Representation of constituents HOR HSC DK S Not S DK
f. Oversight of executive HOR HSC DK S Not S DK
g. Applying gender equality 
standards HOR HSC DK S Not S DK
h. Drafting and review of 
legislation HOR HSC DK S Not S DK
i. Coalition building HOR HSC DK S Not S DK
LEGS 2.1.10 For any of the above trainings which did not provide legislators with skills to better 
carry out their functions, why not? 
a. Leadership skills:
b. Negotiation:
c. Time and office 
management:
d. Communications:
e. Representation of 
constituents:
f. Oversight of 
executive:
g. Applying gender 
equality standards:
h. Drafting and review 
of legislation:
i. Coalition building:
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 104
LEGS 2.1.11 For any of the trainings which did provide legislators with skills to better carry out 
their functions, how have they put those skills to use? Through what mechanism? 
a. Leadership skills:
b. Negotiation:
c. Time and office 
management:
d. Communications:
e. Representation of 
constituents:
f. Oversight of 
executive:
g. Applying gender 
equality standards:
h. Drafting and review 
of legislation:
i. Coalition building:
LEGS 2.1.12 What was the outcome of NDI’s input into the HoR and HSC’s work?
LEGS ASM 11.1 What are the main political threats to NDI's continued technical assistance to HoR 
and the High State Council? 
LEGS ASM 10.1 What are the main security threats to NDI's continued technical assistance to HoR 
and the HSC? 
LEGS ASM 10.2 Are you optimistic that the security situation will allow for continued technical 
assistance from NDI to the HoR and HSC? 
LEGS ASM 11.2 What are the main impediments to HoR and HSC staff positively engaging with 
NDI? 
LEGS ASM 10-11 Do you think that these impediments will be resolved and what role could NDI 
play in addressing these impediments? 
[The following questions are for USAID and IRI respondents only. Some IRI respondents may not 
have job responsibilities related to all of the questions and may abstain from answering.] 
LEGS 2.2.1 Does the following outcome represent or capture the overall intent and results of 
LEGS Objective 2: Establishing good precedents for effective governance, 
including stakeholder engagement, by legislative bodies:
a. Municipal Councils (MCs) factored citizen input into its work?
b. If not, why not?
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 105
LEGS 2.2.1.1 Did the MCs effectively engage citizens to inform its work? If so, through what 
mechanism? 
LEGS 2.2.1.2 Did the MCs engage citizens to a sufficient degree? 
LEGS 2.2.1.3 For the last two questions, what makes you think so? Can you tell me about any 
specific situations which occurred which formed your opinion? 
[Skip the next 2 questions if the answer to LEGS 2.2.1.2 is that MCs did not engage citizens to a 
sufficient degree.] 
LEGS 2 2.1.4 Do you think that this was a significant achievement for IRI? 
LEGS 2.2.1.5 Do you think that this was a significant achievement for the Government of 
National Accord/Interim Government?
LEGS 2.2.1.6 What do you think IRI’s contribution was to this achievement? 
LEGS 2.2.1.7 What was the outcome of citizen input into the MCs’ work?
IRI Training for MC Members 
and Staff
LEGS 2.2.1.8
Did the following IRI 
trainings provide MCs 
with skills to better carry 
out their functions?
LEGS 2.2.1.9
How significant were the 
trainings in increasing their 
effectiveness?
a. Leadership skills Y N DK S Not S DK
b. Professional and 
management skills Y N DK S Not S DK
c. Conducting public awareness 
campaigns Y N DK S Not S DK
d. Crisis management and 
conflict resolution Y N DK S Not S DK
e. Proposal writing Y N DK S Not S DK
f. Budget, finance, and revenue 
generation Y N DK S Not S DK
g. Capacity building skills of 
municipal sectors (health, 
education, housing, etc.)
Y N DK S Not S DK
h. GIS technology Y N DK S Not S DK
i. Creative thinking and change 
management
Y N DK S Not S DK
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 106
LEGS 2.2.10 For any of the above trainings which did not provide MCs with skills to better 
carry out their functions, why not? 
a. Leadership skills:
b. Professional and management 
skills:
c. Conducting public awareness 
campaigns:
d. Crisis management and 
conflict resolution:
e. Proposal writing
f. Budget, finance, and revenue 
generation;
g. Capacity building skills of 
municipal sectors (health, 
education, housing, etc.):
h. GIS technology:
i. Creative thinking and change 
management:
LEGS 2.2.11 For any of the trainings which did provide MCs with skills to better carry out their 
functions, how have they put those skills to use? Through what mechanism? 
a. Leadership skills:
b. Professional and management 
skills:
c. Conducting public awareness 
campaigns:
d. Crisis management and 
conflict resolution:
e. Proposal writing
f. Budget, finance, and revenue 
generation;
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 107
g. Capacity building skills of 
municipal sectors (health, 
education, housing, etc.):
h. GIS technology:
i. Creative thinking and change 
management:
LEGS 2.2.12 What was the outcome of IRI’s input into the MCs’ work?
LEGS ASM 3.1 What are the main impediments to municipal councils serving as the basis of local 
governance? 
LEGS ASM 3.2 Do you think that these impediments will be resolved and what role could IRI play 
in addressing these impediments? 
LEGS ASM 3.3 What are the main impediments to municipal councils ability to provide services 
to constituencies?
LEGS ASM 3.4 Do you think that these impediments will be resolved and what role could IRI play 
in addressing these impediments? 
LEGS ASM 9.1 What are the main impediments to the ability of the CSOs in Libya to conduct 
advocacy? 
LEGS ASM 9.2 Do you think that these impediments will be resolved and what role could IFES, 
NDI, and IRI play in addressing these impediments? 
[The following questions are for USAID and ABA respondents only. Some ABA respondents may not 
have job responsibilities related to all of the questions and may refrain from answering.] 
For this evaluation exercise we are mainly focused developing a detailed understanding of a few high￾level outcomes that together represent each Objective.
Objective 1: Informed citizens are able to develop consensus on key constitution issues and 
effectively inform the constitution drafting body.
We focused on the following high-level outcomes for Objective 1:
Informed Citizens - Libyan citizens acquired new knowledge to participate more 
effectively in discussions leading up to the adoption of a new constitution.
Inclusive Community Dialogue and Consensus - Diverse citizens engaged in 
community dialogues to build consensus on topics to be enshrined in the new 
national constitution.
Communities Informed CDA - Communities submitted consensus, priorities or 
comments to the CDA to help inform and shape the national consensus as 
reflected drafts of the new constitution.
LCB 5.1 Do these outcomes represent or capture the overall intent and results of this 
objective? 
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 108
a. If not, why not?
Now I would like to talk about how community members acquired knowledge about the draft 
constitution through workshops, study tours and other events. 
LCB 1.1.1.1.1 To validate this outcome we are substantiating whether municipal 
councils/members received information about the constitution drafting process 
and important constitutional issues. ABA conducted information campaigns 
including Community Liaisons and events such as workshops designed to inform 
council members. Do you feel that those activities were effective in informing 
MC/MC members? 
a. In retrospect what activities/methods/approaches were missed? [missed 
opportunities] 
b. Were any of those activities considered ineffective, or caused negative or 
unintended outcomes? 
LCB 1.1.1.1.2 What was the outcome of activities to inform citizens? Explain. 
a. Other than ABA’s reporting, how did you form this opinion? [e.g. government 
feedback? 3rd-party monitoring, etc.] 
LCB 1.1.1.1.3 Other than ABA who contributed to this outcome (other donors, government 
bodies etc.). 
LCB 1.1.1.1.4 How important was ABA’s contribution to this outcome? 
LCB 1.1.1.1.5 What were the most important internal success factors or impediments to this 
activity area? (e.g. factors relating to activity design and implementation) 
LCB 1.1.1.1.8 What were the most important external success factors or impediments? (e.g. 
factors outside of the IP’s control)
Let’s move to some questions about civil society organizations. We are substantiating whether 
CSOs received information about the constitution drafting process and important constitutional 
issues. 
LCB 1.1.1.2.1 To validate this outcome we are substantiating whether CSOs received 
information about the constitution drafting process and important constitutional 
issues. ABA conducted information campaigns including Community Liaisons and 
events such as workshops designed to inform CSOs/members. Do you feel that 
those activities were effective? 
a. In retrospect what activities/methods/approaches were missed? [missed 
opportunities] 
b. What activities did not have the intended results? Why? 
LCB 1.1.1.2.2 Do you think the outcome of the activities to inform CSOs was positive? 
Negative? Explain. 
a. Other than ABA’s reporting, how did you form this opinion? [government 
feedback? 3rd-party monitoring, etc.] 
LCB 1.1.1.2.3 Other than ABA who contributed to this outcome (other donors, government 
bodies etc.). 
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 109
LCB 1.1.1.2.4 How important was ABA’s contribution to this outcome?
LCB 1.1.1.2.5 What were the most important success factors or impediments to this activity area? 
Information about key constitution topics was disseminated to citizens through a number of 
mechanisms. 
LCB 1.1.1.3.1 Which of the following were effective mechanisms for informing citizens about 
issues related to drafting the constitution and dialogue on other national topics? 
a. TV 
b. Radio
c. SMS/text message
d. Community Event 
e. Community Liaison 
f. Online Source (e.g. Facebook, news or blog) 
LCB 1.1.1.3.1.g On what basis do you make this conclusion? Why do you feel the mechanism(s) 
were effective?
LCB 1.1.1.3.2 Overall, was ABA’s contribution to information dissemination about the 
constitution issues significant compared to others working in this area? 
LCB 1.1.1.3.3 Did you perceive any unintended consequences of the information campaigns? 
Elaborate please. 
LCB 1.1.1.3.4 What were the most important internal success factors or impediments to this 
activity area? Factors relating to activity design and implementation? 
LCB 1.1.1.3.7 What were the most important external success factors or impediments? Factors 
outside of the IP’s control?
The next questions are about the Community Liaisons.
ABA’s "Community Dialog Internal Monitoring" program concluded that overall the Community 
Liaison program has had a notable and causally-based effect in creating a better sense of engagement 
by Libyan citizens who participated in CL-organized events. 
We would like to substantiate the effectiveness of the Community Liaisons in engaging citizens in the 
dialogue, or facilitating dialogue by other groups such as councils and CSOs. 
LCB 1.1.2.1.1 Does USAID/ABA have confidence in the results of the “Community Dialogue 
Internal Monitoring” program? [completed around 2017 Q2] Elaborate please.
a. Was there any independent cross-check on the validity of their internal 
monitoring? 
b. If so, did it confirm or dispute their findings? 
LCB 1.1.2.1.2 What do you recall as the main tools/events used by Community Liaisons to 
promote dialogue? 
a. With citizens? [list any replies]: 
b. With local CSOs? [list any replies]: 
c. With others in the community? [list any replies]: 
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 110
LCB 1.1.2.1.3 Overall what was the outcome of the “dialogue and consensus” activities?
LCB 1.1.2.1.4 Were there differences in the success Community Liaison activities for citizens vs. 
CSOs? If so, can you identify anything important? 
LCB 1.1.2.1.5 How significant was the contribution of the ABA Community Liaisons in 
comparison to other similar/parallel activities of the government, donors or other 
organizations?
LCB 1.1.2.1.6 What is your understanding of inclusion – did the dialogue activities manage to 
engage diverse groups? For example: women and men, youth/adults/elders, 
rich/poor, literate/illiterate, ethnic or tribal groups, political factions? 
a. On what (information) do you base these conclusions? 
LCB 1.1.2.1.7 Was it important for community dialogues to result in consensus? 
a. How was consensus defined? 
b. Was it often/easily achieved? 
c. Could consensus include diverging views on a specific topic? E.g., could a 
community reach a consensus not to advocate a single position (or to report 
multiple positions)? 
The next questions are about recommendations from communities and citizens about the 
constitution drafting. 
“229 recommendations (sets of issues, recommendations or comments on constitutional issues 
including women’s rights, human rights, decentralization and the judiciary) were generated from ABA￾supported discussions and workshops and reported as forwarded to the CDA and other decision 
makers.”
LCB 1.1.3.1.1 ABA counted and reported the number of recommendations made, and the 
number that were forwarded by communities to the CDA. (at least 229 
recommendations reported) Is there any reason to recheck their numbers? 
LCB 1.1.3.1.2 Does USAID/ABA see this “forwarding of recommendations” as a significant 
achievement of the program? 
LCB 1.1.3.1.3 How did ABA’s contribution compare to others working on the same topic? (sole 
source of such assistance, one of many valuable contributors, etc.) 
LCB 1.1.3.1.4 How much, how well do you think the recommendations submitted as a result of 
ABA assistance changed the quality, quantity of recommendations received by 
CDA? Please explain. 
LCB 1.1.3.1.5 Were there any unintended consequences, obstacles or success factors that you 
would like to highlight? If obstacles, how were they overcome? 
Now I would like to discuss Objective 2 of the LCB program. 
Objective 2: Through National Dialogue, citizens who fairly represent majority and minority 
views of groups including but not limited to women, ethnic groups, and youth from across 
Libya, are able to build a consensus of state, economy, and society and the relationship 
between them.
We focused on the following high-level outcomes for Objective 2:
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 111
Inclusive Discussion on the New Constitution - Citizens, leaders and interest 
groups engaged in dialogue on topics to be resolved in the process of forging a 
new social contract as context for the new constitution and restructured system of 
government. The CDA and other national leaders drafted the new constitution 
drawing upon a diverse inputs received through inclusive national consultation.
New Constitution Reflects National Consensus on New Social Contract -
In July 2017 the CDA, including members from all regions of Libya, approved a 
final draft constitution signaling readiness for a national referendum. The draft 
remains a draft pending the outcome of a national referendum that is held up by 
legal challenges. Observers note recent progress on resolving the legal challenges.
LCB 5.5 Do these outcomes represent or capture the overall intent and results of this 
objective? 
a. If not, why not?
Let’s talk about media campaign conducted by CDA’s Outreach and Awareness Committee 
-- to inform the public about the drafting process and key CDA decisions. 
LCB 1.2.1.2.1 Looking back, were there missed opportunities that you think would have 
strengthened the media campaign of CDA? Can you mention them? 
LCB 1.2.1.2.2 Are there any success factors or obstacles you would like to highlight, particularly 
those that may not be apparent from ABA’s regular reporting? Please discuss. 
Citizens also acquired knowledge and engaged in dialogue on national issues of state, society 
and economy. For example, the rights of women, youth and persons with disabilities; the role 
of CSOs in society; and, the rights of migrants. 
LCB 1.2.1.3.1 How were the topics for non-constitutional outreach (messaging) campaigns 
selected and prioritized? 
LCB 1.2.1.3.2 How were government leaders, other opinion leaders or other Libyan stakeholders 
involved in the selection, prioritization of the messages about national issues of 
state, society and economy?
LCB 1.2.1.3.3 Can you identify other significant stakeholders who conduct(ed) equivalent 
outreach or public information campaigns… others working on similar topics? 
(government? donors, iNGOs, CSOs etc.). 
LCB 1.2.1.3.4 The 2015 PMP includes Indicator 5 “the percentage of local community members 
who believe their priorities are represented by formal and informal dialogue 
processes.”
a. The baseline is shown as “0.” Does indicate a measured baseline (e.g. from survey 
or even expert opinion), or is it simply a reflection of “no increase in percentage… 
owing to ABA/LCB activities.” 
b. Was there any attempt to collect even anecdotal information to estimate a baseline, 
or to catalogue prior efforts? 
Now I would like to talk about the referendum for a new constitution, and whether more 
outreach and education would be useful, in what areas, targeting which populations, by what 
means, etc. 
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 112
LCB 1.2.2.3.1 Looking forward, what are the prospects for holding a constitutional referendum 
in the near future? When do you think it will occur? 
LCB 1.2.2.1.2 Is there sufficient consensus on the current draft constitution that it should be put 
to the referendum? Or will there be a need for more national discussion and 
debate, consultation and revision? 
LCB 1.2.2.1.8 Reflecting on the progress and your experience to date, what do you consider the 
most important topics for USAID/ABA to continue support for outreach and 
education (on the social contract/constitutional or similar issues)? Why? 
LCB 1.2.2.1.9 Similarly, what do you consider the most effective mechanisms for USAID/ABA 
to continue support for outreach and education (on the social 
contract/constitutional or similar issues)? 
LCB 1.2.2.1.10 Are there geographic areas that warrant more or less attention or effort in the near 
future?
LCB 1.2.2.1.11 Are there specific target groups (e.g. demographic, special interests, marginal 
groups) that warrant more or less attention or effort in the near future? 
LCB 1.2.2.1.3 Can you identify the most significant obstacles to holding the constitutional 
referendum?
LCB 1.2.2.1.4 Do you think the obstacles will be overcome… do you (USAID, [USG, if you 
know], IP) see a path forward to the referendum? 
Now let’s talk about Objective 3. 
Objective 3: Create consensus processes that will incorporate outputs from formal and 
informal national dialogue processes and constitution drafting to inform Libya’s governing 
processes beyond passing the constitution referendum in order to strengthen the democratic 
political transition.
We focused on two high-level outcomes for Objective 3:
Enduring, Inclusive Consensus Processes - Libyan government institutions 
are gaining capacities needed to strengthen consensus processes and participatory 
governance.
Trust in Government - Libyan people's trust in government increased.
LCB 5.8 Do these outcomes represent or capture the overall intent and results of this 
objective? 
a. If not, why not?
The next questions are about legal training provided by ABA to MoLG and municipal legal 
staff. 
[For USAID and ABA this one set of questions covers LCB 1.3.1.1 and LCB 1.3.1.2 (prior question, 
about municipal training).] 
LCB 1.3.1.2.1 How did USAID (jointly with ABA and MoLG) decide upon legal training as an 
activity to support the transition to decentralization and participatory local 
governance? 
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 113
LCB 1.3.1.2.2 Were other kinds of capacity building, or activities other than training considered 
before settling on the legal training? 
LCB 1.3.1.2.3 Has ABA conducted any ex post assessment of the legal training? If so what 
strengths or weaknesses were found? 
LCB 1.3.1.2.4 Are you aware of any noteworthy strengths and weaknesses of the legal training? 
LCB 1.3.1.2.5 How important was the legal training in the overall transition toward 
decentralization and participatory local governance? 
LCB 1.3.1.2.6 Do you think the results, usefulness of the legal training was markedly different 
for the national vs. municipal legal staff? 
LEGS ASM 4.1 What are the main impediments to the ability of the MoLG to operate as a unified 
entity? 
LEGS ASM 4.2 Do you think that these impediments will be resolved and what role could IRI play 
in addressing these impediments? 
[The following question is directed only toward IFES staff. Skip this question when interviewing other 
informants.] 
EQ 2.1 What changes did you make to approved work plans that helped you to achieve 
Objective 1: Increasing public and stakeholder confidence in the integrity of 
elections as a vehicle for peacefully and democratically selecting leaders? 
[The following question is directed only toward USAID and ABA-ROLI staff located outside of Libya. 
Skip this question when interviewing other informants.] 
We heard that "ABA has not actually done directed activities under [Objective 1]… they conducted work with 
community liaisons and others considered 'community stakeholders' instead ...since the National Dialogue has not taken 
off and since there are not any national dialogue delegates." 
EQ 2.2 Was this change considered by USAID and ABA to be an example of 
“achievements of the program which were not part of the work plan” (SOW, 
Evaluation Question 2)? 
EQ 2.3 In hindsight, do you think the results of the community dialogue activities reached 
a significantly different result than the original design which it seems was primarily 
focused on the more formal National Dialogue process and the NDPC? 
[The following question is directed only toward IRI and NDI staff Skip this question when 
interviewing other informants.] 
EQ 2.4 What changes did you make to approved work plans that helped you to achieve 
Objective 2: Establishing good precedents for effective governance, including 
stakeholder engagement, by legislative bodies? 
[The following question is directed only toward IFES, NDI, and IRI staff. Skip this question when 
interviewing other informants.] 
EQ 2.5 What changes did you make to approved work plans that helped you to achieve 
Objective 3: Increase women’s and marginalized group’s genuine inclusion and 
participation such that their views and interests are incorporated into Libyan 
governing and legislative processes? 
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 114
Evaluation Question 2 
[The following 4 questions are directed only toward IP staff. Skip this question when interviewing 
other informants.] 
EQ 2.6 Did activities lead to any achievements beyond the three in your results 
framework?
EQ 2.7 What makes you think so? Can you tell me about any specific situations which 
occurred which formed your opinion? 
EQ 2.8 Did those activities lead to any unintended consequences? 
EQ 2.9 What makes you think so? Can you tell me about any specific situations which 
occurred which formed your opinion? 
Evaluation Question 3 
[The following questions are directed only toward IP staff. Skip this question when interviewing 
USAID informants.] 
EQ 3.1 How did you anticipate risks? 
EQ 3.2 How do you go about planning for successive work plans? 
EQ 3.3 To what extent were your government counterparts and civil society partners 
involved in planning future activities? 
EQ 3.4 What was the process you followed when circumstances necessitated a change in 
planned activities?
EQ 3.5 Do you think that this process could have been improved? How would it have 
improved the project? 
EQ 3.6 How and how well do you think the project adapted to challenges caused by: 
a. Visas to enter Libya?
b. Insecurity? 
c. Regulations on non-governmental organizations? 
d. Gaining cooperation of government/community-level counterparts?
e. Coordination with government counterparts? 
f. Power outages?
g. Inability to transfer cash? 
h. Remote management of staff and activities 
EQ 3.7 Can you think of any other challenges that the project faced? What was done well 
to mitigate those challenges? How could they have been overcome better? What 
could USAID do to assist in overcoming some of these challenges? 
LEGS ASM 6.1 Looking ahead, are you optimistic that Libyan regulations on international NGOs 
will allow them to operate in Libya? 
LEGS ASM 5.1 Looking ahead, are you optimistic that Tunisian authorities will continue to allow 
implementers to conduct activities in Tunisia? 
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 115
EQ 3.8 What do you think will be the most lasting contribution of LEGS and LCB? 
EQ 3.9 What do you think is a priority for future donor-funded activities in Libya?
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 116
KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEW GUIDE 
HIGH NATIONAL ELECTION COMMISSION (HNEC) 
ESTIMATED LENGTH OF SURVEY = 60 MINUTES
Notes to Interviewer: 
1. Complete top box before interview. 
2. Any questions that are beyond the involvement of the respondent should be skipped. 
DATE OF INTERVIEW: 
NAME OF DATA COLLECTOR: 
NAME OF RESPONDENT(S): 
ORGANIZATION:
CITY:
POSITION OF RESPONDENT(S):
FIRST STARTED COOPERATION WITH PROJECT (M/D/Y):
TELEPHONE/EMAIL:
MALE: FEMALE:
INTRODUCTION: Thank you for meeting with me as part of the evaluation of the IFES program. The results 
of this evaluation will provide lessons learned from the final implementation phase, and, provide specific programmatic 
recommendations for future assistance. 
CONFIDENTIALITY: Everything we discuss is confidential. We do not share your name or anything that can 
be used to identify you with anyone outside of our evaluation team. We do not share information you provide with other 
people we are talking to for this evaluation. Although our internal report will include a list of everyone that we interviewed, 
the public version of the report does not include this list. Whatever you share with us will not have any impact at all on 
the level of support you receive now or are eligible to receive in the future. 
Do you have any questions before we begin? 
LEGS 1.1.1.1 How well do you think that HNEC is informing the public about issues related to 
possible upcoming elections? 
LEGS 1.1.1.2 What makes you think so? Can you tell me about any specific situations which 
occurred which formed your opinion? 
LEGS 1.1.1.3 What do you think IFES’s contribution was to this achievement?
LEGS 1.1.1.4 Do you think that informing the public about election issues will have a positive 
outcome? And if so, what? If no, why not? 
LEGS 1.1.1.5 How well do you think that HNEC handled requirements for campaign finance? 
LEGS 1.1.1.6 What makes you think so? Can you tell me about any specific situations which 
occurred which formed your opinion? 
LEGS 1.1.1.7 What do you think IFES’s contribution was to this achievement?
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 117
LEGS 1.1.1.8 What was the outcome of HNEC’s handling of campaign finance requirements? 
LEGS 1.1.1.9 How well do you think that HNEC processed and archived complaints that were 
lodged after elections? 
LEGS 1.1.1.10 What makes you think so? Can you tell me about any specific situations which 
occurred which formed your opinion? 
LEGS 1.1.1.11 What do you think IFES’s contribution was to this achievement?
LEGS 1.1.1.12 What was the outcome of informing the public about election issues?
LEGS 1.1.a What factors contributed to the success of HNEC’s cooperation with IFES?
LEGS 1.1.b What factors impeded the success of HNEC’s cooperation with IFES?
LEGS 1.1.c Were there any unintended outcomes of your cooperation with IFES? 
LEGS 1.1.d What kind of assistance would you want from IFES in the future? 
LEGS ASM 1.1 What are the main impediments to HNEC exercising its full authorities and 
responsibilities? 
LEGS ASM 1.2 Do you think that these impediments will be resolved and what role could IFES 
play in addressing these impediments? 
LEGS ASM 8.1 What are the main impediments to timely conduct of the possible upcoming 
elections? 
LEGS ASM 8.2 Do you think that these impediments will be resolved and what role could IFES 
play in addressing these impediments? 
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 118
KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEW GUIDE 
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES (HOR)/HIGH STATE COUNCIL (HSC) 
ESTIMATED LENGTH OF SURVEY = 60 MINUTES 
Notes to Interviewer: 
1. Complete top box before interview. 
2. Any questions that are beyond the involvement of the respondent should be skipped. 
DATE OF INTERVIEW: 
NAME OF DATA COLLECTOR: 
NAME OF RESPONDENT(S): 
ORGANIZATION:
CITY:
POSITION OF RESPONDENT(S):
FIRST STARTED COOPERATION WITH PROJECT (M/D/Y):
TELEPHONE/EMAIL:
MALE: FEMALE:
INTRODUCTION: Thank you for meeting with me as part of the evaluation of NDI’s program. The results of 
this evaluation will provide lessons learned from the final implementation phase, and, provide specific programmatic 
recommendations for future assistance. 
CONFIDENTIALITY: Everything we discuss is confidential. We do not share your name or anything that can 
be used to identify you with anyone outside of our evaluation team. We do not share information you provide with other 
people we are talking to for this evaluation. Although our internal report will include a list of everyone that we interviewed, 
the public version of the report does not include this list. Whatever you share with us will not have any impact at all on 
the level of support you receive now or are eligible to receive in the future. 
Do you have any questions before we begin? 
LEGS 2.1.1 Has the House of Representatives / High State Council factored citizen input into 
its work? 
LEGS 2.1.2 What makes you think so? Can you tell me about specify examples where this 
occurred? Through what mechanisms did it receive citizen input? 
LEGS 2.1.3 What do you think NDI’s contribution was to this achievement?
LEGS 2.1.4 Do you think that this had a positive or negative impact on the HoR/HSC’s work? 
Why? 
LEGS ASM 9.1 What are the main impediments to the ability of the CSOs in Libya to conduct 
advocacy? 
LEGS ASM 9.2 Do you think that these impediments will be resolved and what role could NDI 
play in addressing these impediments? 
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 119
LEGS 2.1.5 Which of the following NDI trainings did you attend? 
a. Leadership skills 
b. Negotiation 
c. Time and office management 
d. Communications 
e. Representation of constituents 
f. Oversight of executive 
g. Applying gender equality standards 
h. Drafting and review of legislation 
i. Coalition building 
LEGS 2.1.6 Out of those you attended, which did you find useful and how was it useful? 
LEGS ASM 1.1 Are you optimistic that the HNEC will exercise its full authority and 
responsibilities for upcoming elections? 
LEGS ASM 8.1 What are the main impediments to timely conduct of the next elections?
LEGS ASM 8.2 Do you think that these impediments will be resolved and what role could NDI 
play in addressing these impediments? 
LEGS ASM 10.1 What are the main impediments to your continued cooperation with NDI's? 
LEGS ASM 10.3 Do you think that these impediments will be resolved and what role could NDI 
play in addressing these impediments? 
LEGS ASM 11.1 What are the main impediments to HoR/HSC staff positively engaging with NDI? 
LEGS ASM 11.2 Do you think that these impediments will be resolved and what role could NDI 
play in addressing these impediments? 
I would like to ask a few general questions about the referendum and new constitution…
LCB 1.2.2.1.1 What are the prospects for holding the constitutional referendum in the near 
future? When do you think it will occur? 
LCB 1.2.2.1.2 Is there sufficient consensus on the current draft constitution that it should be put 
to the referendum? Or will there be a need for more discussion, consensus￾building and revision? 
LCB 1.2.2.1.3 Can you identify the most significant impediments to holding the constitutional 
referendum? 
LCB 1.2.2.1.4 Are you optimistic they will be resolved… do you see a path forward to the 
referendum? 
LEGS ASM 1 What are the impediments to passing an electoral law? 
LEGS 1 What training might help you to draft or pass that legislation? 
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 120
KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEW GUIDE 
MINISTRY OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT 
ESTIMATED LENGTH OF SURVEY = 45 MINUTES 
Notes to Interviewer: 
1. Complete top box before interview. 
2. Any questions that are beyond the involvement of the respondent should be skipped. 
DATE OF INTERVIEW: 
NAME OF DATA COLLECTOR: 
NAME OF RESPONDENT(S): 
ORGANIZATION:
CITY:
POSITION OF RESPONDENT(S):
FIRST STARTED COOPERATION WITH PROJECT (M/D/Y):
TELEPHONE/EMAIL:
MALE: FEMALE:
INTRODUCTION: Thank you for meeting with me as part of the evaluation of IRI’s program. The results of 
this evaluation will provide lessons learned from the final implementation phase, and, provide specific programmatic 
recommendations for future assistance. 
CONFIDENTIALITY: Everything we discuss is confidential. We do not share your name or anything that can 
be used to identify you with anyone outside of our evaluation team. We do not share information you provide with other 
people we are talking to for this evaluation. Although our internal report will include a list of everyone that we interviewed, 
the public version of the report does not include this list. Whatever you share with us will not have any impact at all on 
the level of support you receive now or are eligible to receive in the future. 
Do you have any questions before we begin? 
LEGS 2.2.1 What kind of support has MoLG received from IRI? [Interviewer: please ask for 
specific information or examples] 
LEGS 2.2.2 How did the support you received help MoLG prepare for decentralization and 
participatory local governance? 
LEGS 2.2.3 Can you mention some of the Ministry’s functions that have been strengthened by 
the support, and say what changed as a result? 
LEGS 2.2.4 Were the activities with IRI well targeted to the Ministry’s needs? 
LEGS 2.2.5 What kind of support would benefit the Ministry in the near future? 
[If the interviewee participated in the Legal Training from ABA, ask the following questions.] 
I have a few questions about the legal training MoLG received from ABA. 
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 121
LCB 1.3.1.2.1 How did the training ABA provided for MoLG legal staff help the ministry prepare 
for decentralization and participatory local governance? 
LCB 1.3.1.2.2 Can you mention some of your specific work responsibilities that have been 
strengthened by the legal training? [interviewer: obtain some details if possible] 
LCB 1.3.1.2.3 Was the training well targeted and designed to improve your job performance? 
LCB 1.3.1.2.4 Can you briefly identify strengths and weaknesses of the legal training by ABA? 
LCB 1.3.1.2.5 How important was the legal training in the overall transition toward 
decentralization and participatory local governance? 
LCB 1.3.1.2.6 Did you receive similar assistance from other sources (other than ABA)? 
a. If so, which source made the most significant contribution? 
[Ask the following for all interviewees.] 
LEGS ASM 3.1 What are the main impediments to municipal councils serving as the basis of local 
governance? 
LEGS ASM 3.2 Do you think that these impediments will be resolved and what role could IRI play 
in addressing these impediments? 
LEGS ASM 3.3 What are the main impediments to municipal councils ability to provide services 
to constituencies?
LEGS ASM 3.4 Do you think that these impediments will be resolved and what role could IRI play 
in addressing these impediments? 
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 122
KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEW GUIDE 
CONSTITUTION DRAFTING ASSEMBLY (CDA) 
ESTIMATED LENGTH OF SURVEY = 60 MINUTES 
Notes to Interviewer: 
1. Complete top box before interview. 
2. Any questions that are beyond the involvement of the respondent should be skipped. 
DATE OF INTERVIEW: 
NAME OF DATA COLLECTOR: 
NAME OF RESPONDENT(S): 
ORGANIZATION:
CITY:
POSITION OF RESPONDENT(S):
FIRST STARTED COOPERATION WITH PROJECT (M/D/Y):
TELEPHONE/EMAIL:
MALE: FEMALE:
INTRODUCTION: Thank you for meeting with me as part of the evaluation of the ABA ROLI program. The 
results of this evaluation will provide lessons learned from the final implementation phase, and, provide specific 
programmatic recommendations for future assistance. 
CONFIDENTIALITY: Everything we discuss is confidential. We do not share your name or anything that can 
be used to identify you with anyone outside of our evaluation team. We do not share information you provide with other 
people we are talking to for this evaluation. Although our internal report will include a list of everyone that we interviewed, 
the public version of the report does not include this list. Whatever you share with us will not have any impact at all on 
the level of support you receive now or are eligible to receive in the future. 
Do you have any questions before we begin? 
I would like to ask about the engagement of the public in the constitutional, national and political 
processes. 
LCB 1.1.2.2.1 Do you believe the people feel engaged in the discussion and debate on the new 
constitution? 
a. Why so (or why not)? 
LCB 1.1.2.3.1 Do you believe the people feel their priorities are represented in national 
discussions about the constitution?
a. Why so (or why not)? 
ABA supported the process of forwarding recommendations and comments on constitution issues to 
the CDA (and other decision makers). This was done by municipal councils and civil society 
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 123
organizations with ABA’s assistance, and by other groups such as judicial experts, human rights 
experts, gender experts, youth leaders, and local government specialists. 
LCB 1.1.3.1.1 Were you aware of ABA’s contribution in this process?
a. If so, how did their activities help with the process? 
We heard that CDA incorporated community recommendations from communities and civil society 
organizations (CSO) in the 2017 draft Constitution. 
LCB 1.2.1.1.1 Can you say (roughly, or precisely) how many recommendations and comments 
CDA has received so far from all sources? 
LCB 1.2.1.1.2 Can you say which were the most important sources of recommendations and 
comments received by the CDA? 
a. Communities 
b. Civil Society Organizations 
c. Political Parties 
d. Citizens 
e. Professionals and Experts 
f. Business Community or Organizations 
g. Other 
h. Don’t Know
ABA assisted the CDA’s Outreach and Awareness Committee which conducted a media campaign to 
inform the public about the drafting process and constitution issues. 
LCB 1.2.1.2.1 Were the overall media campaign activities supporting the national constitutional 
dialogue considered by CDA to be successful? 
LCB 1.2.1.2.2 Can you identify some specific measures of success for the media campaign? 
LCB 1.2.1.2.3 Can you list some of the kinds of assistance ABA provided to the media 
campaigns? 
LCB 1.2.1.2.4 What media campaign assistance (activity) from ABA was most useful (helpful) to 
you, and why? 
LCB 1.2.1.2.5 What media campaign assistance (activity) from ABA was least useful (helpful) to 
you, and why? 
LCB 1.2.1.2.7 Looking back, were there any missed opportunities that you think would have 
strengthened the media campaign of CDA? Can you mention them? 
LCB 1.2.2.1.6 Can you say what training you received from ABA was most useful? [Interviewer: 
list the training topics considered most useful] 
Finally, I have some general questions. 
LCB 1.2.2.1.1 Looking forward, what are the prospects for holding a constitutional referendum 
in the near future? When do you think it will occur? 
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 124
LCB 1.2.2.1.2 In your opinion, is there sufficient consensus on the current draft constitution that 
it should be put to the referendum? Or will there be a need for more consensus 
building and revision? 
LCB 1.2.2.1.3 What do you think are the most significant obstacles to holding the constitutional 
referendum? 
LCB 1.2.2.1.4 Are you optimistic the obstacles will be overcome… do you see a path forward to 
the referendum? 
LCB 1.2.2.1.5 What would you say are the most urgent and useful areas in which donors could 
support CDA to move toward the goal of a successful referendum? 
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 125
KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEW GUIDE 
DEMOCRACY RESOUCE CENTERS (DRC) 
ESTIMATED LENGTH OF SURVEY = 30 MINUTES 
Notes to Interviewer: 
1. Complete top box before interview. 
2. Any questions that are beyond the involvement of the respondent should be skipped. 
DATE OF INTERVIEW: 
NAME OF DATA COLLECTOR: 
NAME OF RESPONDENT(S): 
ORGANIZATION:
CITY: 
POSITION OF RESPONDENT(S):
FIRST STARTED WORKING WITH PROJECT(S) (M/D/Y):
TELEPHONE/EMAIL:
MALE: FEMALE:
INTRODUCTION: Thank you for meeting with me as part of the evaluation of the IFES program. The results 
of this evaluation will provide lessons learned from the final implementation phase, and, provide specific programmatic 
recommendations for future assistance. 
CONFIDENTIALITY: Everything we discuss is confidential. We do not share your name or anything that can 
be used to identify you with anyone outside of our evaluation team. We do not share information you provide with other 
people we are talking to for this evaluation. Although our internal report will include a list of everyone that we interviewed, 
the public version of the report does not include this list. Whatever you share with us will not have any impact at all on 
the level of support you receive now or are eligible to receive in the future. 
Do you have any questions before we begin? 
LEGS 1.2.1.1 Do you believe that the public perceives the planning for the possible upcoming 
elections to be fair so far?
LEGS 1.2.1.2 What makes you think so? Can you tell me about specific situations which occurred 
which formed your opinion? 
LEGS 1.2.1.3 Do you think this is a significant achievement for the Government of National 
Accord/Interim Government? 
LEGS 1.2.1.4 What do you think your center’s contribution is to this achievement?
LEGS 1.2.1.5 What do you think IFES’s contribution is to this achievement? 
LEGS 1.2.1.6 Do you think that public confidence in the possible upcoming elections will have 
a positive outcome? And if so, what? If no, why not? 
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 126
LEGS ASM 1.1 What are the main impediments to HNEC exercising its full authorities and 
responsibilities? 
LEGS ASM 1.2 Do you think that these impediments will be resolved and what role could IFES 
play in addressing these impediments? 
LEGS ASM 2.1 What are the remaining capacity gaps of HNEC? 
LEGS ASM 8.1 What are the main impediments to timely conduct of the possible upcoming 
elections? 
LEGS ASM 8.2 Do you think that these impediments will be resolved and what role could IFES 
play in addressing these impediments? 
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 127
KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEW GUIDE 
CIVIL SOCIETY ORGANIZATIONS 
ESTIMATED LENGTH OF SURVEY = 90 MINUTES 
Notes to Interviewer: 
1. Complete top box before interview. 
2. Any questions that are beyond the involvement of the respondent should be skipped. 
DATE OF INTERVIEW: 
NAME OF DATA COLLECTOR: 
NAME OF RESPONDENT(S): 
ORGANIZATION:
CITY: 
POSITION OF RESPONDENT(S):
FIRST STARTED WORKING WITH PROJECT(S) (M/D/Y):
TELEPHONE/EMAIL:
MALE: FEMALE:
INTRODUCTION: Thank you for meeting with me as part of the evaluation of the IFES, NDI, and IRI 
programs. The results of this evaluation will provide lessons learned from the final implementation phase, and, provide 
specific programmatic recommendations for future assistance. 
CONFIDENTIALITY: Everything we discuss is confidential. We do not share your name or anything that can 
be used to identify you with anyone outside of our evaluation team. We do not share information you provide with other 
people we are talking to for this evaluation. Although our internal report will include a list of everyone that we interviewed, 
the public version of the report does not include this list. Whatever you share with us will not have any impact at all on 
the level of support you receive now or are eligible to receive in the future. 
Do you have any questions before we begin? 
LEGS 3.1 What is the mission of your organization? 
a. Women’s issues
b. Persons with Disabilities issues
c. Youth issues 
d. Other _____________________________
LEGS 2.1.1.1 Has your organization provided any input to the House of Representatives [or 
HSC]? If so, through what mechanism? [eg. Public hearing; submission of 
written draft of law or amendment to legislation]
LEGS 2.1.1.2 Did the House of Representatives [or HSC] utilize your input? How? 
LEGS 2.1.1.4 What do you think NDI’s contribution was to this achievement?
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 128
LEGS 2.1.1.5 What was the outcome of input to the House of Representatives [or HSC]? 
[substitute the specific examples cited by the CSO, such as legislation which was 
passed with amendments introduced by the CSO] ?
LEGS 2.2.1.1 Has your organization provided any input to Municipal Councils? If so, through 
what mechanism? [eg. Town hall meeting, submission of written draft of law or 
amendment to legislation]
LEGS 2.2.1.2 Did the Municipal Council make utilize your input? How? 
LEGS 2.2.1.3 What do you think IRI’s contribution was to this achievement? 
LEGS 2.2.1.4 What was the outcome of input to the Municipal Council [Interviewer: substitute 
the specific examples cited by the CSO, such as legislation which was passed with 
amendments introduced by the CSO.] 
LEGS ASM 9.1 What are the main impediments to the ability of the CSOs in Libya to conduct 
advocacy? 
LEGS ASM 9.2 Do you think that these impediments will be resolved and what role could IFES, 
NDI, IRI play in addressing these impediments? 
LEGS ASM 3.1 What are the main impediments to municipal councils serving as the basis of local 
governance? 
LEGS ASM 3.2 Do you think that these impediments will be resolved and what role could IRI play 
in addressing these impediments? 
LEGS ASM 3.3 What are the main impediments to municipal councils ability to provide services 
to constituencies?
LEGS ASM 3.4 Do you think that these impediments will be resolved and what role could IRI play 
in addressing these impediments? 
I understand that your CSO gained knowledge and/or skills to contribute to the constitution 
drafting process through ABA workshops, study tours and other events. 
LCB 1.1.1.2.1 Have you (your colleagues) received information about the process of drafting the 
new national constitution, and the main issues being discussed? 
LCB 1.1.1.2.2 When and how did you get this information? 
LCB 1.1.1.2.3 Did you participate in any ABA workshops, study tours or events about the 
constitutional drafting process and the important issues? 
LCB 1.1.1.2.4 What other forms of information, or information sources do you remember? 
LCB 1.1.1.2.5 Did you receive information from the ABA Community Liaison? 
LCB 1.1.1.2.6 Was the information useful? [did the information help you form opinions about 
important issues?] 
LCB 1.1.1.2.7 How did you use the information?
LCB 1.1.1.2.8 What was the most useful source of information on the constitution drafting 
process and related information? 
LCB 1.1.1.2.9 Is there anything else you think it is important for us to know about the 
information campaigns for the constitution drafting process and issues? 
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 129
The next questions are about peoples’ engagement in the constitutional, national and political 
processes. 
LCB 1.1.2.2.1 Do you believe the people feel engaged in the process of adopting a new 
constitution? 
a. Why so (or why not)? 
LCB 1.1.2.3.1 Do you believe the people feel their priorities are represented in the dialogue 
process? 
a. Why so (or why not)? 
LCB 1.2.1.1.1 If your CSO sent recommendations to the CDA as part of the constitution drafting 
process, did the CSO receive any response or feedback from CDA? Can you briefly 
describe what you heard back from CDA? 
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 130
KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEW GUIDE 
MUNICIPAL COUNCIL 
ESTIMATED LENGTH OF SURVEY = 60 MINUTES 
Notes to Interviewer: 
1. Complete top box before interview. 
2. Any questions that are beyond the involvement of the respondent should be skipped. 
DATE OF INTERVIEW: 
NAME OF DATA COLLECTOR: 
NAME OF RESPONDENT(S): 
ORGANIZATION:
CITY: 
POSITION OF RESPONDENT(S):
FIRST STARTED WORKING WITH PROJECT(S) (M/D/Y):
TELEPHONE/EMAIL:
MALE: FEMALE:
INTRODUCTION: Thank you for meeting with me as part of the evaluation of the work of IRI and ABA 
ROLI. The results of this evaluation will provide lessons learned from the final implementation phase, and, provide 
specific programmatic recommendations for future assistance. 
CONFIDENTIALITY: Everything we discuss is confidential. We do not share your name or anything that can 
be used to identify you with anyone outside of our evaluation team. We do not share information you provide with other 
people we are talking to for this evaluation. Although our internal report will include a list of everyone that we interviewed, 
the public version of the report does not include this list. Whatever you share with us will not have any impact at all on 
the level of support you receive now or are eligible to receive in the future. 
Do you have any questions before we begin? 
LEGS 2.2.1.1 Has your Municipal Council factored responded to citizen input in its work? How? 
LEGS 2.2.1.2 What makes you think so? Can you specify examples where this occurred? 
Through what mechanisms did it receive citizen input? 
LEGS 2.2.1.3 What do you think IRI’s contribution was to this achievement?
LEGS 2.2.1.4 Do you think that this had a positive or negative impact on your Council’s work? 
Why? 
LEGS ASM 9.1 What are the main impediments to the ability of the CSOs in Libya to conduct 
advocacy? 
LEGS ASM 9.2 Do you think that these impediments will be resolved and what role could IRI play 
in addressing these impediments? 
ABA worked with Community Liaisons to provide knowledge and skills related to drafting 
the new constitution. I have just a few questions about the Community Liaisons. 
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 131
LCB 1.1.1.1.1 Did your municipal council receive information from the ABA Community 
Liaison? 
LCB 1.1.1.1.4 Did the council receive information from other sources? Can you list them? 
LCB 1.1.1.1.7 How did the council use the information about the new constitution? 
The next questions are about the training your council has received from IRI. 
LEGS 2.2.1.5 Which of the following IRI trainings did you attend? 
a. Leadership skills 
b. Professional and management skills 
c. Conducting public awareness campaigns 
d. Crisis management and conflict resolution 
e. Proposal writing 
f. Budget, finance, and revenue generation 
g. Capacity building skills of municipal sectors (health, education, housing, etc.) 
h. GIS technology 
i. Creative thinking and change management 
LEGS 2.2.1.6 Out of those you attended, which did you find useful and how was it useful? 
Municipal Council members acquired knowledge and skills for national dialogue through 
ABA workshops, study tours and other events. 
LCB 1.1.1.1.1 Have you received information about the process of drafting the new national 
constitution, and the main issues being discussed? 
LCB 1.1.1.1.2 When and how did you get this information? 
LCB 1.1.1.1.3 Did you participate in any ABA workshops, study tours or events about the 
constitutional drafting process and the important issues? 
LCB 1.1.1.1.4 What other forms of information, or information sources do you remember? 
LCB 1.1.1.1.7 How did you use it?
Communities like yours sent recommendations, comments and priorities to the 
Constitutional Drafting Assembly. 
LCB 1.2.1.1.1 If the municipal council sent recommendations to the CDA as part of the 
constitution drafting process, did the council receive any response or feedback 
from CDA? Can you briefly describe what you heard from CDA? 
These last questions are about the system of local government. 
LEGS ASM 3.1 What are the main impediments to municipal councils serving as the basis of local 
governance? 
LEGS ASM 3.2 Do you think that these impediments will be resolved and what role could IRI play 
in addressing these impediments? 
LEGS ASM 3.3 What are the main impediments to municipal councils’ ability to provide services 
to constituencies?
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 132
LEGS ASM 3.4 Do you think that these impediments will be resolved and what role could IRI play 
in addressing these impediments??
LEGS ASM 4.1 What are the main impediments to the ability of the MoLG to operate as a unified 
entity? 
LEGS ASM 4.2 Are you think that these impediments will be resolved? 
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 133
KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEW GUIDE 
COMMUNITY LIAISON 
ESTIMATED LENGTH OF SURVEY = 60 MINUTES 
Notes to Interviewer: 
1. Complete top box before interview. 
2. Any questions that are beyond the involvement of the respondent should be skipped. 
DATE OF INTERVIEW: 
NAME OF DATA COLLECTOR: 
NAME OF RESPONDENT(S): 
ORGANIZATION:
CITY: 
POSITION OF RESPONDENT(S):
FIRST STARTED WORKING WITH PROJECT(S) (M/D/Y):
TELEPHONE/EMAIL:
MALE: FEMALE:
INTRODUCTION: Thank you for meeting with me as part of the evaluation of the ABA ROLI program. The 
results of this evaluation will provide lessons learned from the final implementation phase, and, provide specific 
programmatic recommendations for future assistance. 
CONFIDENTIALITY: Everything we discuss is confidential. We do not share your name or anything that can 
be used to identify you with anyone outside of our evaluation team. We do not share information you provide with other 
people we are talking to for this evaluation. Although our internal report will include a list of everyone that we interviewed, 
the public version of the report does not include this list. Whatever you share with us will not have any impact at all on 
the level of support you receive now or are eligible to receive in the future. 
Do you have any questions before we begin? 
Municipal Council members acquired knowledge/skills for national dialogue through ABA 
workshops, study tours and other events. 
LCB 1.1.1.1.1 As part of your Community Liaison activities did you provide information about 
the constitution drafting process or constitutional issues to municipal council(s) or 
MC members? 
a. How did you do this? [how was info communicated] 
b. How often? 
c. Where? [substantiate] 
LCB 1.1.1.1.2 Do you know how the council(s) used the information about the constitution 
process? Please briefly explain. 
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 134
The Community Liaisons transferred skills and information to CSOs for participating in the 
constitution drafting process through workshops, study tours and other events. 
LCB 1.1.1.2.1 Were you yourself involved in providing information about the constitution 
drafting to Civil Society Organizations? 
a. How did you do this? [how was info communicated] 
b. How often? [or how many?] 
c. Where? [substantiate] 
LCB 1.1.1.2.2 In your opinion were you an important source of this information to the 
CSOs/members? 
a. If so, why do you think so? 
LCB 1.1.1.2.3 What do you think were the biggest success factors and impediments for this 
activity? 
LCB 1.1.1.2.4 Is there anything else you think it is important for us to know about initiatives to 
provide CSOs with information about the constitution drafting process and 
constitution issues?
LCB 1.1.2.1.1 ABA reported that at least 229 recommendations were made to CDA, some from 
community activities with municipal councils and civil society organizations 
(CSOs). I understand those were supported or led by Community Liaisons. Did 
your community conduct dialogue(s) that generated recommendations or 
comments? 
LCB 1.1.2.1.2 Did the community attempt to find consensus on some issues? 
a. Was consensus reached on any/some/all issues? 
b. Was there a formal process to signify “consensus” such as a majority vote?
c. If no consensus could be reached on an issue, were multiple viewpoints submitted, 
rather than a consensus view? 
The next questions are about whether Libyan people feel engaged in the constitutional, 
national and political processes. 
LCB 1.1.2.2.1 Do you believe the people feel engaged in the process of drafting the new 
constitution? 
a. Why so (or why not)? 
LCB 1.1.2.3.1 Do you believe the people feel their priorities are represented in the dialogue 
process? 
a. Why so (or why not)? 
About the recommendations and comments generated from ABA-supported discussions and 
workshops and forwarded to the CDA and other decision makers:
LCB 1.1.3.1.1 Were some or all of the recommendations or comments from your community 
dialogue forwarded to the Constitutional Drafting Assembly (CDA)? 
a. If yes: Who was responsible for forwarding the comments from municipalities? 
b. Did CSOs forward their own recommendations and comments? 
c. How were they recorded? 
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 135
d. Was there a formal submission process managed by CDA? Can you briefly 
describe it? 
e. Did the municipality or CSO receive any feedback that you know of? 
i. How was it received? 
ii. Was it shared or distributed in the community? 
iii. If so, how? 
We heard that CDA incorporated (at least) 76 community recommendations from National 
Dialog in the 2017 draft Constitution. These were from communities that received support 
from ABA. 
LCB 1.2.1.1.1 If the municipal council sent recommendations to the CDA as part of the 
constitution drafting process, do you know if the council received any response or 
feedback from CDA? Can you briefly describe what they received back from the 
CDA? 
LCB 1.2.1.1.2 If CSOs in your community sent recommendations to the CDA as part of the 
constitution drafting process, did the CSO(s) receive any response or feedback 
from CDA? Can you briefly describe what they received back from the CDA? 
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 136
KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEW GUIDE 
ABA/LCB LEGAL TRAINING BENEFICIARY 
ESTIMATED LENGTH OF SURVEY = 30 MINUTES 
Notes to Interviewer: 
1. Complete top box before interview. 
2. Any questions that are beyond the involvement of the respondent should be skipped. 
DATE OF INTERVIEW: 
NAME OF DATA COLLECTOR: 
NAME OF RESPONDENT(S): 
ORGANIZATION:
CITY: 
POSITION OF RESPONDENT(S):
FIRST STARTED WORKING WITH PROJECT(S) (M/D/Y):
TELEPHONE/EMAIL:
MALE: FEMALE:
INTRODUCTION: Thank you for meeting with me as part of the evaluation of the ABA ROLI program. The 
results of this evaluation will provide lessons learned from the final implementation phase, and, provide specific 
programmatic recommendations for future assistance. 
CONFIDENTIALITY: Everything we discuss is confidential. We do not share your name or anything that can 
be used to identify you with anyone outside of our evaluation team. We do not share information you provide with other 
people we are talking to for this evaluation. Although our internal report will include a list of everyone that we interviewed, 
the public version of the report does not include this list. Whatever you share with us will not have any impact at all on 
the level of support you receive now or are eligible to receive in the future. 
ABA provided legal training to build the capacity of local government. 
LCB 1.3.1.1.1 How did the training ABA provided for municipal legal staff help your 
municipality prepare for decentralization and participatory local governance? 
LCB 1.3.1.1.2 Can you mention some of your specific work tasks that have been strengthened 
by the training? [interviewer: details are good here, if possible] 
LCB 1.3.1.1.3 Was the training well targeted and designed to improve your job performance? 
LCB 1.3.1.1.4 Can you briefly identify strengths and weaknesses of the legal training? 
LCB 1.3.1.1.5 How important was the training in the overall transition toward decentralization 
and participatory local governance? 
LCB 1.3.1.1.6 Did you receive similar assistance from other sources (other than ABA)? 
a. If so, which source made the most significant contribution? 
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 137
KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEW GUIDE 
OTHER IMPLEMENTER 
ESTIMATED LENGTH OF SURVEY = 45 MINUTES 
Notes to Interviewer: 
1. Complete top box before interview. 
2. Any questions that are beyond the involvement of the respondent should be skipped. 
DATE OF INTERVIEW: 
NAME OF DATA COLLECTOR: 
NAME OF RESPONDENT(S): 
ORGANIZATION:
CITY (if in Libya): 
POSITION OF RESPONDENT(S): 
TELEPHONE/EMAIL:
MALE: FEMALE:
INTRODUCTION: Thank you for meeting with me as part of the evaluation of the USAID-funded Libya 
Elections and Governance Support (LEGS) project implemented by International Republican Institute (IRI), the 
National Democratic Institute (NDI), and the International Foundation for Electoral Systems (IFES) and the 
Supporting Consensus Building for the National Dialogue, Constitution Drafting and Governing Process in Libya 
implemented by the American Bar Association Rule of Law Initiative. The results of this evaluation will provide lessons 
learned from the final implementation phase, and, provide specific programmatic recommendations for future assistance. 
CONFIDENTIALITY: Everything we discuss is confidential. We do not share your name or anything that can 
be used to identify you with anyone outside of our evaluation team. We do not share information you provide with other 
people we are talking to for this evaluation. Although our internal report will include a list of everyone that we interviewed, 
the public version of the report does not include this list. Whatever you share with us will not have any impact at all on 
the level of support you receive now or are eligible to receive in the future. 
Do you have any questions before we begin? 
1. Can you prove an overview of your organization’s program in Libya for democracy 
and governance? 
2. In what ways did your organization cooperate with the USAID LEGS and/or 
ABA-LCB projects? 
3. Are you aware of any areas in which your organization’s program overlapped with 
the LEGS or ABA-LCB projects? 
4. What gaps in donor assistance are there currently or will there be after the close 
out of LEGS and ABA-LCB to support democracy and governance in Libya? 
5. What do you think is a priority for future USAID-funded democracy and 
governance activities in Libya? 
[If the implementer stated that their activities are in the area of elections, ask the following five questions.] 
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 138
LEGS ASM 2.1 What are the remaining capacity gaps of HNEC? 
LEGS ASM 1.1 What are the main impediments to HNEC exercising its full authority and 
responsibilities for the upcoming elections? 
LEGS ASM 1.2 Do you think that these impediments will be resolved and what role could IFES 
play in addressing these impediments? 
LEGS ASM 8.1 What are the main impediments to timely conduct of the next elections? 
LEGS ASM 8.2 Do you think that these impediments will be resolved and what role could IFES 
play in addressing these impediments? 
If the implementer stated that they work with municipal councils, ask the following four questions.] 
LEGS ASM 3.1 What are the main impediments to municipal councils serving as the basis of local 
governance? 
LEGS ASM 3.2 Do you think that these impediments will be resolved and what role could IRI play 
in addressing these impediments? 
LEGS ASM 3.3 What are the main impediments to municipal councils ability to provide services 
to constituencies?
LEGS ASM 3.4 Do you think that these impediments will be resolved and what role could IRI play 
in addressing these impediments? 
[If the implementer stated that they work with the MoLG, ask the following two question.] 
LEGS ASM 4.1 What are the main impediments to the ability of the MoLG to operate as a unified 
entity? 
LEGS ASM 4.2 Do you think that these impediments will be resolved and what role could IRI play 
in addressing these impediments? 
[If the implementer stated that they work with CSOs ask the following two questions.] 
LEGS ASM 9.1 What are the main impediments to the ability of the CSOs in Libya to conduct 
advocacy? 
LEGS ASM 9.2 Do you think that these impediments will be resolved and what role could IFES, 
NDI, and IRI play in addressing these impediments? 
LEGS ASM 5.1 Looking ahead, are you optimistic that Tunisian authorities will continue to allow 
implementers to conduct activities in Tunisia? 
The USAID/ABA program has supported outreach or public information campaigns to 
spread knowledge and foster dialogue on national issues relating to a “new social contract” 
in Libya. (women’s rights/roles, rights of PWD, youth, conflict resolution etc.) 
LCB 1.2.1.3.3 Can you identify other significant stakeholders who conduct(ed) equivalent 
outreach or public information campaigns… others working on similar topics? 
(government? donors, iNGOs, CSOs etc.). 
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 139
FOCUS GROUP GUIDE 
MUNICIPAL COUNCIL (MC) MEMBERS 
ESTIMATED LENGTH OF SURVEY = 2 HOURS 
DATE OF FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION (FGD): 
NAME OF FGD FACILITATOR: 
NAME OF FGD NOTETAKER: 
LOCATION OF FGD: Tripoli
NAME OF PARTICIPANTS: Attach sign-in sheet to notes. Sign-in sheet must include 
the name of the municipality where each participants serves on the council.
TOTAL NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS:
NUMBER OF WOMEN:
FOCUS GROUP START TIME: FOCUS GROUP END TIME:
Guidance to Facilitator and Notetaker: 
The main purposes of this discussion are: 
 To hear diverse viewpoints and useful details from the participants concerning the support provided to 
their councils by IRI 
 To learn what positive or negative experience they may have had 
 To hear feedback about the activities they were involved in and, if/how/how much those activities 
helped them to fulfill their responsibilities 
All questions are open-ended. Closely related questions are grouped together, below. 
We want to hear from all the participants, so prompt them to contribute in case they are quiet. 
INTRODUCTION FOR FOCUS GROUP: Hello. My name is ________ and I am part of a research 
team that is talking to people about the work of IRI. Our team is conducting an evaluation of this project. Thank you 
for meeting with me to talk about your experience with IRI. 
CONFIDENTIALITY: Everything we discuss is confidential. We do not share your name or anything that can 
be used to identify you with anyone outside of our evaluation team. We do not share information you provide with other 
people we are talking to for this evaluation. Although our internal report will include a list of everyone that we interviewed, 
the public version of the report does not include this list. Whatever you share with us will not have any impact at all on 
the level of support you receive now or are eligible to receive in the future. 
STRUCTURE: As part of this discussion, I will ask you questions about the organization’s program and my co￾worker will take notes. It is important to give everyone an opportunity to speak about her/his experience, so I will do 
my best to be sure everyone has a chance to participate.
Do you have any questions before we begin? 
LEGS 2.2.1.1 Let’s all introduce ourselves. Can you please tell me your name, municipality, and 
what IRI activities you participated in? 
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 140
LEGS 2.2.1.2 If you have attended training given by IRI, which was particularly useful and why? 
LEGS 2.2.1.3 What training was least useful and why? 
LEGS 2.2.1.4 How has your council changed the support / services it provides to citizens as a 
result of IRI’s training? 
LEGS ASM 3.3 What are the main impediments to municipal councils’ ability to provide services 
to constituents?
LEGS ASM 3.4 Do you think that these impediments will be resolved and what role could IRI play 
in addressing these impediments? 
LEGS 2.2.1.5 In what ways has your Municipal Council factored citizen input into its work? 
Through what mechanisms did it receive citizen input? 
LEGS 2.2.1.7 What do you think IRI’s contribution was to this achievement?
LEGS 2.2.1.8 Do you think that the inclusion of citizen input has had a positive or negative 
impact on your Council’s work? Why?
LEGS ASM 9.1 What are the main impediments to the ability of CSOs to conduct advocacy with 
your council? 
LEGS ASM 9.2 Do you think that these impediments will be resolved and what role could IRI play 
in addressing these impediments? 
LEGS ASM 3.1 What are the main impediments to municipal councils serving as the basis of local 
governance? 
LEGS ASM 3.2 Do you think that these impediments will be resolved and what role could IRI play 
in addressing these impediments? 
LEGS ASM 4.1 What are the main impediments to the ability of the MoLG to operate as a unified 
entity? 
LEGS ASM 4.2 Do you think that these impediments will be resolved and what role could IRI play 
in addressing these impediments? 
LEGS 2.2.1.9 What are the remaining capacity gaps for your council? 
Thank you for your taking the time to participate in this discussion! If you have any questions 
about this discussion or our research, please feel free to come up to talk with my co-worker 
or me individually.
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 141
FOCUS GROUP GUIDE 
CIVIL SOCIETY ORGANIZATIONS (CSO) 
ESTIMATED LENGTH OF SURVEY = 2 HOURS 
DATE OF FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION (FGD): 
NAME OF FGD FACILITATOR: 
NAME OF FGD NOTETAKER: 
LOCATION OF FGD: Tripoli
NAME OF PARTICIPANTS: Attach sign-in sheet to notes. The sign-in sheet should 
include the name of the CSO where each participant is a member, and the municipality 
where it is located.
TOTAL NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS:
NUMBER OF WOMEN:
FOCUS GROUP START TIME: FOCUS GROUP END TIME:
Guidance to Facilitator and Notetaker: 
The main purposes of this discussion are: 
 To hear diverse viewpoints and useful details from the participants concerning inclusivity, advocacy, 
disability rights, and women’s rights. 
 To learn what positive or negative experience they may have had relating to the topics below. 
 To hear feedback about the activities they were involved in and, if/how/how much those activities 
helped them to inform citizens, provide useful information to citizens, and enable or encourage debate 
about public participation in elections and local or national discussion about the new constitution. 
All questions are open-ended. Closely related questions are grouped together, below. 
We want to hear from all the participants, so prompt them to contribute in case they are quiet. 
In the focus group report be sure to indicate which remarks came from the following groups: (a) women’s issues; 
(b) people with disabilities. 
INTRODUCTION FOR FOCUS GROUP: Hello. My name is ________ and I am part of a research 
team that is talking to people about the work of IFES, NDI, IRI, and ABA ROLI. Our team is conducting an 
evaluation of this project. Thank you for meeting with me to talk about your experience with these programs. 
CONFIDENTIALITY: Everything we discuss is confidential. We do not share your name or anything that can 
be used to identify you with anyone outside of our evaluation team. We do not share information you provide with other 
people we are talking to for this evaluation. Although our internal report will include a list of everyone that we interviewed, 
the public version of the report does not include this list. Whatever you share with us will not have any impact at all on 
the level of support you receive now or are eligible to receive in the future. 
STRUCTURE: As part of this discussion, I will ask you some questions about the organization’s program and my 
co-worker will take notes. It is important to give everyone an opportunity to speak about her/his experience, so I will do 
my best to be sure everyone has a chance to participate.
Do you have any questions before we begin? 
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 142
Let’s all introduce ourselves. Can you please tell me your name, municipality, and what organization 
or activities you participated in?
LEGS 3.1 What is the mission of your organization?
[Note to moderator: please note in your report how many of the participants represent: (a) women’s 
organizations; (b) persons with disabilities groups; (c) youth. 
LEGS 2.1.1.1 Has your organization provided any input to the House of Representatives? If so, 
through what mechanism? eg. Public hearing; submission of written draft of law 
or amendment to legislation. 
LEGS 2.1.1.2 Did the House of Representatives utilize your input? How? 
LEGS 2.1.1.3 Has your organization provided any input to the High State Council? If so, through 
what mechanism? eg. Public hearing; submission of written draft of law or 
amendment to legislation 
LEGS 2.1.1.4 Did the High State Council utilize your input? How?
LEGS 2.1.1.5 Do you think this was a significant achievement for your organization? 
LEGS 2.1.1.6 What was the outcome of input to the House of Representatives or High State 
Council
[substitute the specific examples cited by the CSO, such as legislation which was passed with 
amendments introduced by the CSO] ? 
LEGS 2.2.1.1 Has your organization provided any input to Municipal Councils? If so, through 
what mechanism? [eg. Town hall meeting, submission of written draft of law or 
amendment to legislation]
LEGS 2.2.1.2 Did the Municipal Council make utilize your input? How? 
LEGS 2.2.1.3 What do you think IRI’s contribution was to this achievement?
LEGS 2.1.1.4 What was the outcome of the input to the Municipal Council 
[substitute the specific examples cited by the CSO, such as legislation which was passed with 
amendments introduced by the CSO]? 
I understand that your CSO gained knowledge and/or skills to help contribute to the 
constitution drafting process – through ABA workshops, study tours and other events. 
LCB 1.1.1.2.1 Have you (your CSO) received information about the process of drafting the new 
national constitution, and the main issues being discussed? 
LCB 1.1.1.2.2 When and how did you get this information? 
LCB 1.1.1.2.3 Did you participate in any ABA workshops, study tours or events about the 
constitutional drafting process and the important issues? 
LCB 1.1.1.2.4 What other forms of information, or information sources do you remember? 
LCB 1.1.1.2.8 What was the most useful source of information on the constitution drafting 
process and topics?
The next questions are about peoples’ engagement in the constitutional, national and political 
processes. 
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 143
LCB 1.1.2.2.1 Do you believe the people feel engaged in the in the process of drafting the new 
constitution? Why so (or why not)? 
LCB 1.1.2.3.1 Do you believe the people feel their priorities are represented in the dialogue 
process? Why so (or why not)? 
LCB 1.2.1.1.1 If your CSO sent recommendations to the CDA as part of the constitution drafting 
process, did the CSO receive any response or feedback from CDA? Can you briefly 
describe what you heard back from CDA? 
LCB 1.1.1.1.5 Did you receive information from the ABA Community Liaison? 
LCB 1.1.1.1.6 Was the information from the Community Liaison useful? [did the information 
help you form opinions about important issues?] 
LCB 1.1.1.1.7 How did you use it?
LCB 1.1.2.1.1 How did the support from the Community Liaison help to engage citizens in the 
drafting process (of the constitution)? Can you give examples? 
LCB 1.1.2.2.1 Do you believe the people feel engaged in the drafting process for the new 
constitution? Why so (or why not)? 
LCB 1.1.2.3.1 Do you believe the people feel their priorities are represented in the dialogue 
process? Why so (or why not)? 
I understand that CSOs like yours sent recommendations, comments or priorities to the CDA. 
LCB 1.2.1.1.1 If your CSO sent recommendations to the CDA as part of the constitution drafting 
process, did the council receive any response or feedback from CDA? Can you 
briefly describe what you heard from CDA?
The final questions are about the evolving system of local government. 
LEGS ASM 3.1 What are the main impediments to municipal councils serving as the basis of local 
governance?
LEGS ASM 3.2 Do you think that these impediments will be resolved and what role could IRI play 
in addressing these impediments? 
LEGS ASM 3.3 What are the main impediments to municipal councils’ ability to provide services 
to constituencies?
LEGS ASM 3.4 Do you think that these impediments will be resolved and what role could IFES 
play in addressing these impediments? 
LEGS ASM 9.1 What are the main impediments to the ability of the CSOs in Libya to conduct 
advocacy? 
LEGS ASM 9.2 Do you think that these impediments will be resolved and what role could IFES, 
NDI, and IRI play in addressing these impediments? 
Thank you for your taking the time to participate in this discussion! If you have any questions 
about this discussion or our research, please feel free to come up to talk with my co-worker 
or me individually. 
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 144
FOCUS GROUP GUIDE 
COMMUNITY DIALOGUE BENEFICIARIES
ESTIMATED LENGTH OF SURVEY = 2 HOURS 
DATE OF FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION (FGD): 
NAME OF FGD FACILITATOR: 
NAME OF FGD NOTETAKER: 
LOCATION OF FGD: 
NAME OF PARTICIPANTS: Attach sign-in sheet to notes. The sign-in sheet should 
include the name of the participant, and the municipality where he/she resides, and the 
organization she/he represents (e.g. CSO, municipal council, etc.). DIWAN should ask 
other information (e.g. phone contact) if needed for verification and quality control.
TOTAL NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS:
NUMBER OF WOMEN:
FOCUS GROUP START TIME: FOCUS GROUP END TIME:
Guidance to Facilitator and Notetaker: 
The main purposes of this discussion are: 
 To hear diverse viewpoints and useful details from the participants concerning the national elections 
and the process of drafting the new constitution. 
 To learn what positive or negative experience they may have had relating to the topics below. 
 To hear feedback about the activities they were involved in and, if/how/how much those activities 
helped them to inform citizens, provide useful information to citizens, and enable or encourage debate 
about public participation in elections and local or national discussions about the new constitution. 
All questions are open-ended. Closely related questions are grouped together, below. 
We want to hear from all the participants, so prompt them to contribute in case they are quiet. 
Background information: The community dialogue activities to be discussed by the group include, for example: 
information about the draft constitution, effective local governance, the rights of people, partnerships between 
civil society and local government, unification of local efforts toward reconciliation and conflict mitigation, 
promoting a culture of peace and inclusion of women, and encouraging local efforts to ensure protection of the 
rights of marginalized groups such as internally displaced persons and persons with disabilities. 
INTRODUCTION FOR FOCUS GROUP: Hello. My name is ________ and I am part of a research 
team that is talking to people about community dialogue activities you participated in. Our team is conducting an 
evaluation of this activity as a normal process to improve future performance. Thank you for meeting with me to talk 
about your experience with the community dialogue event(s). 
CONFIDENTIALITY: Everything we discuss is confidential. We do not share your name or anything that can 
be used to identify you with anyone outside of our evaluation team. We do not share information you provide with other 
people we are talking to for this evaluation. Although our internal report will include a list of everyone that we interviewed, 
the public version of the report does not include this list. Whatever you share with us will not have any impact at all on 
the level of support you receive now or are eligible to receive in the future. 
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 145
STRUCTURE: As part of this discussion, I will ask you some questions and my co-worker will take notes. It is 
important to give everyone an opportunity to speak about her/his experience, so I will do my best to be sure everyone has 
a chance to participate.
Do you have any questions before we begin? 
LCB 1.1.1.2.20 Let’s all introduce ourselves. Can you please tell me your name, municipality, and 
what community dialogue event or events you participated in? 
LCB 1.1.1.2.21 Can you briefly recall how the event(s) were organized? For example, how many 
people participated, where did it take place, how long was the event? 
LCB 1.1.1.2.22 Would you say the event was mainly designed to share and discuss information, or 
to develop the participants’ skills? Can we identify the main topics (for 
“information”) and the main skills that were addressed at the event?
LCB 1.1.1.2.23 Did the event create a real dialogue, i.e. 2-way exchange of ideas, or a 1-way process 
of information delivery? 
LCB 1.1.1.2.24 Was there an attempt to reach a consensus on any key topics, at the event? If so, 
was a consensus reached and by what process? 
LCB 1.1.1.2.25 Did the event change your perceptions about an important topic (topics)? How 
did the event cause this change? 
LCB 1.1.1.2.7 What did you do with the information? How did you use the information after the 
community event?] 
LCB 1.1.1.2.26 Would you say the dialogue event(s) were the only?... major?... or a minor? source 
of information you received on the topic of the event(s) you attended? 
LCB 1.11.2.4 What other forms of information, or information sources do you remember that 
addressed the same topic(s)?
LCB 1.1.1.2.8 What was the most useful source of information on the constitution drafting 
process and related topics? [Note to Interviewer: at this point, only if the 
participants do NOT recall other information sources, you may prompt them by 
suggesting “were there other information sources such as TV and radio 
broadcasts, SMS messages, online news or Facebook news?”]
LCB 1.1.1.2.27 How important was the event in shaping your opinions and any actions you took 
after the event? Why was this event important? 
LCB 1.1.2.2.1 Do you feel engaged in discussions and debate on the new constitution? Why so 
(or why not)? 
LCB 1.1.2.3.1 Do you believe your priorities are represented in discussions about the 
constitution? 
LCB 1.1.1.2.28 What information have you heard about the specific provisions in the draft 
Constitution? What was your source of this information, and was it easy to learn 
about the contents of the draft? 
LCB 1.1.1.2.29 Finally, do you have ideas to improve future community dialogue events? Briefly 
brainstorm and discuss.
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 146
Thank you for your taking the time to participate in this discussion! If you have any questions 
about this discussion or our research, please feel free to come up to talk with my co-worker 
or me individually. 
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 147
CITIZEN SURVEY INSTRUMENT 
ESTIMATED LENGTH OF SURVEY = 30 MINUTES 
 [Interviewer: DO NOT ask the interviewee the questions in the following text box. Answer to the 
based on your own information and judgments.] 
DATE OF SURVEY: 
NAME OF DATA COLLECTOR: 
STREET ADDRESS OF RESPONDENT(S): 
LOCATION: 
 Ghat
 Souq al-Jum’aa
 Tobruk 
SEX: 
 Female 
 Male 
DOES THE RESPONDENT APPEAR TO HAVE A DISABILITY:
 No
 Yes 
Thank you for participating in this survey. The results of this survey will assist in better 
supporting programs working with Libyan citizens. 
LEGS 1.1.1.1 Have you heard or seen information about upcoming elections? 
 Yes 
 No
 Don’t know
 Refuse to answer 
LEGS 1.1.1.2 If so, which sources of information do you remember? 
[Interviewer: DO NOT mention the options. DO circle the options identified by 
the respondent] 
a.  Billboard 
b.  TV 
c.  Radio 
d.  SMS message(s) 
e.  Community Event 
f.  Online news 
g.  Other 
h.  Don’t know
i.  Refuse to answer 
LEGS 1.1.1.3 Do you remember the main theme(s) of the information you received? 
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 148
 Voter registration 
 Accessibility to the electoral process for persons with disabilities 
 Other 
 Don’t know
 Refuse to answer 
LEGS 1.1.1.4 How did the information you gained influence your decision to vote? 
 Made me more likely to vote 
 No impact 
 Made me less likely to vote 
 Don’t know
 Refuse to answer 
LEGS 1.1.1.5 How did the information help you to better understand issues about the upcoming 
elections? (Mark all responses mentioned.) 
 Helped me find out how to register to vote 
 Helped me find out where to vote 
 Other 
 Don’t know
 Refuse to answer 
LEGS 1.1.1.6 Do you think that the High National Elections Commission is doing a good job 
of preparing for the elections? 
 Yes 
 No
 Don’t know
 Refuse to answer 
LEGS 1.2.1.1 Do you think that the Government of National Accord/Interim Government is 
planning the upcoming elections fairly? 
 Yes 
 No
 Don’t know
 Refuse to answer 
I would like to shift from elections to the constitution. 
LCB 1.1.1.3.1 Have you heard or seen information about the process to adopt a new constitution, 
or the topics being discussed? 
 Yes 
 No
 Don’t know
 Refuse to answer 
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 149
LCB 1.1.1.3.2 If so, which sources of information do you remember? 
[Interviewer: DO NOT mention the options. DO circle the options 
identified by the respondent] 
a.  Billboard 
b.  TV 
c.  Radio
d.  SMS message(s) 
e.  Community Event 
f.  Online news 
g.  Other 
h.  Don’t know
i.  Refuse to answer 
LCB 1.1.1.3.3 What were the main themes you remember from these information sources: 
 Local Development 
 Role of Youth in Conflict Resolution
 Rights of Displaced People (IDP) 
 Freedom of Speech 
 Amazigh Rights in Political Process 
 Access for Persons With Disabilities 
 Underage Marriage 
 Role of Women in Development 
 Conflict Resolution 
 New National Constitution
 Role of Women in Peacebuilding 
 Gender Based Violence
 Other 
 Refuse to Answer 
LCB 1.1.1.3.4 Did the information you gained help you understand the new constitution? 
 Yes 
 No
 Don’t know
 Refuse to answer 
LCB 1.1.1.3.4a Did the information you gained help you understand your rights? 
 Yes 
 No
 Don’t know
 Refuse to answer 
LCB 1.1.1.3.5 Do you know the current status of the new constitution? 
[Interviewer: DO NOT mention the options. DO circle one option closest 
to the answer of the respondent] 
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 150
a.  There is a Draft [or multiple drafts] 
b.  It will be approved soon
c.  It was approved
d.  It was delayed by a challenge in court 
e.  Other 
f.  Don’t know
g.  Refuse to Answer 
LCB 1.1.1.3.6 In your opinion should the draft constitution be approved by a people’s 
referendum? 
a.  Yes 
b.  No
c.  Don’t Know
d.  Refuse to Answer 
LCB 1.2.1.2.1 To what extent do you have confidence that the Constitution Drafting 
Assembly:
[97
Refuse 
to 
answer]
[96 
Don’t 
know]
3To a 
large 
extent
2To some 
extent
1 Not at 
all
□ □ □ □ □
1. Developed a constitution that I 
would approve of
□ □ □ □ □
2. Put a constitution to a 
referendum in 2018
□ □ □ □ □
3. Educate d the public on the 
Constitution
LCB 1.1.2.3.1 If any of these elections were held tomorrow, would you go and vote?
1
Yes
2
No
[96
Don’t 
know]
[97
Refuse to 
answer]
a. Parliamentary elections □ □ □ □
b. Presidential elections □ □ □ □
c. Local municipal elections □ □ □ □
d. Constitutional referendum (referendum to 
approve a new constitution) □ □ □ □
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 151
LCB 1.2.1.1.1 Do you feel engaged in debate and decisions about the new constitution? 
 Yes 
 No
 Don’t know
 Refuse to answer
LCB 1.2.1.1.1.a If yes, how have you gotten involved in discussing or debating the constitutional 
reform process or the possible changes to the constitution? 
[Interviewer: DO NOT mention the options. DO circle one or more items closest to the answers of 
the respondent]
a.  Discuss with family and friends 
b.  Went to public event, meeting or rally 
c.  Online news, blog or social media 
d.  Other 
e.  Do not know 
f.  Refuse to answer 
LCB 1.1.2.3.3 To what extent do you agree with the following statements?
[96
Don’t 
know]
[97
Refuse to 
answer]
4.
Strongly 
agree
3.
Agree
2.
Disagree
1. 
Strongly 
disagree
□ □ □ □ □ □
1. I have a say in what 
the Government of 
National 
Accord/Interim 
Government does
□ □ □ □ □ □
2. I know more about 
politics than most 
people my age
□ □ □ □ □ □
4. Local public 
hearings have an 
influence on 
municipal
decisions
LCB 1.1.2.3.4 Do people like you have a say in the debate about the new constitution? 
a.  Yes, very much 
b.  Yes, somewhat 
c.  Not much 
d.  Not at all 
e.  Don’t know
f.  Refuse to answer 
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 152
LCB 1.1.2.3.5 Who best represents your views and priorities in the debate and decisions about 
the new constitution?
a.  Myself 
b.  Local Council 
c.  Civil Society Organization(s) [in general, or in case specific one(s) are mentioned] 
d.  Member of the House of Representatives 
e.  Member of the High Council of State 
f.  A political party 
g.  Nobody 
h.  Other 
i.  Don’t know
j.  Refuse to answer 
LCB 1.3.2.1.1 To what extent do you trust the following institutions to improve Libya’s future?
1 
Dis 
trust
2
Low 
trust
3
Moder
ately 
trust
4
Tr
ust
5
Highl
y trust
[96 
Don’t 
know]
[97
Refuse 
to 
answer
]
1. High State Council □ □ □ □ □ □ □
2. Government of National Accord □ □ □ □ □ □ □
3. House of Representatives □ □ □ □ □ □ □
4. Judiciary □ □ □ □ □ □ □
5. Army/Libyan National Army □ □ □ □ □ □ □
6. Police □ □ □ □ □ □ □
7. Municipal council (local 
government)
□ □ □ □ □ □ □
8. The Grand Mufti Institution □ □ □ □ □ □ □
9. Political Parties □ □ □ □ □ □ □
10. Armed Groups □ □ □ □ □ □ □
11. High National Elections
Commission
□ □ □ □ □ □ □
12. Constitution Drafting Assembly □ □ □ □ □ □ □
13. Civil society □ □ □ □ □ □ □
LEGS 2.2.1.1 Do you know who your mayor and Municipal Council Member are? 
 Yes
 No
 Refuse to answer 
LEGS 2.2.1.2 Do you know what public services the Municipal Council is responsible for 
providing? 
 Yes 
 No
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 153
 Refuse to answer 
LEGS 2.2.1.2.a If yes, can you please name them? ____________________________________ 
____________________________________________________________________________ 
LEGS 2.2.1.3 In the past year, have you made a complaint to the municipality about any of the 
following services? (Choose as many as are applicable.) 
 Electricity 
 Sewers 
 Waste removal 
 Water 
 Other 
 Don’t know
 Refuse to answer 
LEGS 2.2.1.4 If so, was you complaint addressed? 
 Yes 
 No
 Didn’t make a complaint
 Don’t know
 Refuse to answer 
1. What is your age? 
 18 - 30
 31 - 60
 Over 60 years 
 Refuse to answer 
2. What is your level of education? Choose 1. 
 Did not graduate from primary school 
 Some high school 
 Graduated from high school 
 Graduated from higher educational institution 
 Refuse to answer 
3. Marital status: 
 Single 
 Married 
 Refuse to answer 
4. Number of children you have: 
 0 
 1 - 2 
 3 or more 
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 154
 Refuse to answer 
5. What is your occupation? 
 Self-employed 
 Shop owner, Merchant 
 Farmer, Gardener 
 Laborer 
 Skilled laborer, Technician, Driver of heavy vehicles 
 Teacher 
 Government employee 
 Private sector employee
 Doctor, engineer, lawyer, judge, other professional 
 Professor, researcher, seminary lecturer 
 Journalism, media 
 Armed, security, and law enforcement forces 
 Other 
 Not currently working 
 Refuse to answer
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 155
ANNEX 5. EVALUATION TEAM
The core ET was comprised of three specialists – a Team Leader, a Democracy and Governance Expert, 
and a Local Expert. 
Karen Glenski, Team Leader, is an accomplished M&E expert with over 24 years of experience with 
international development programming. As the Senior M&E Expert on three successive USAID/Iraq 
performance management contracts, she led and guided teams conducting nine performance evaluations, 
including one covering the $230 million portfolio of projects under the USAID/Iraq Capacity Building 
Office; one in the field of rule of law; and one in the field of administrative reform. She served as Evaluation 
Expert for a final performance evaluation of a USAID-funded environmental program in India. She has 15 
years of experience implementing democracy and governance projects on five continents with a 
specialization in parliamentary strengthening. As Team Leader for the Organization for Security and Co￾operation in Europe, Karen led an assessment of the institutional capacities of the Assembly of Kosovo. 
As Team Leader, Karen managed the entire evaluation, including overseeing team members and the local 
partner’s technical inputs. She led and ensured the timely development of high-quality deliverables by 
delegating assignments to team members and the local partner and then reviewing and consolidating their 
inputs. She delivered briefings and presentations to USAID. 
Mark Brown, Democracy and Governance Expert, has more than 34 years of international development 
experience. His technical expertise covers governance; land, housing and infrastructure policies and 
programs; regional and rural development; and public administration reform. His long-term international 
assignments include Afghanistan, Russia, Poland, Pakistan, and Kenya. Short-term work includes more than 
20 countries of Asia, Africa, Europe and the Caribbean. As Chief of Party or Project Manager, Mr. Brown 
has been involved in the design, staffing, management, and monitoring of more than 100 contracts and 
task orders, and has managed 10 USAID Indefinite Quantity Contracts. 
As Democracy and Governance Expert, Mark contributed to the desk review, evaluation design and data 
collection tools, collection of data from sources outside of Libya, data analysis, and report writing. He 
assisted the Team Leader in preparing and delivering briefings and presentations. 
Huda Al-Eherish, Local Expert, has over seven years of experience in the field of research, having 
collected data in the field through key informant interviews and focus groups, coordinated and managed 
projects, and analyzed data. As a Qualitative Research Manager at Diwan Marketing Research, she has 
contributed to over 30 research assignments, including the USAID-funded “Mid-Term Evaluation of DRG 
Programming in Libya and Results from a National and Urban Survey”. 
As Local Expert, Huda provided localized subject-matter expertise to the desk review, development of 
design and data collection tools, and data analysis. Under the remote guidance of the Team Leader, she 
oversaw data collection by a team of data collectors throughout Libya.
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 156
ANNEX 6: DISCLOSURE OF ANY CONFLICTS OF INTEREST 
Name Karen N. Glenski
Title Team Leader
Organization International Business & Technical Consultants, Inc.
Evaluation Position  Team Leader Team member
Evaluation Award Number AID-280-TO-17-00001
USAID Project(s) Evaluated Libya Elections and Governance Support activity awarded to 
Consortium for Elections and Political Process Strengthening under 
Leader with Associates Cooperative Agreement No. DFD-A-00-08-
00350-00 and implemented by International Foundation for Electoral 
Systems, National Democratic Institute, and International Republican 
Institute and the Supporting Consensus Building For The National 
Dialogue, Constitution Drafting And Governing Process In Libya 
Activity awarded to Freedom House under Cooperative Agreement 
No. AID-OAA-LA-14-00009 and implemented by American Bar 
Association Rule of Law Initiative
I have real or potential 
conflicts of interest to disclose.
 Yes  No
If yes answered above, I 
disclose the following facts:
Real or potential conflicts of interest may include, but 
are not limited to:
1. Close family member who is an employee of the 
USAID operating unit managing the project(s) 
being evaluated or the implementing 
organization(s) whose project(s) are being 
evaluated.
2. Financial interest that is direct, or is significant 
though indirect, in the implementing 
organization(s) whose projects are being evaluated 
or in the outcome of the evaluation.
3. Current or previous direct or significant though 
indirect experience with the project(s) being 
evaluated, including involvement in the project 
design or previous iterations of the project.
4. Current or previous work experience or seeking 
employment with the USAID operating unit 
managing the evaluation or the implementing 
organization(s) whose project(s) are being 
evaluated.
5. Current or previous work experience with an 
organization that may be seen as an industry 
competitor with the implementing organization(s) 
whose project(s) are being evaluated.
6. Preconceived ideas toward individuals, groups, 
organizations, or objectives of the particular 
projects and organizations being evaluated that 
could bias the evaluation. 
I certify (1) that I have completed this disclosure form fully and to the best of my ability and (2) that I will update this 
disclosure form promptly if relevant circumstances change. If I gain access to proprietary information of other 
companies, then I agree to protect their information from unauthorized use or disclosure for as long as it remains 
proprietary and refrain from using the information for any purpose other than that for which it was furnished. 
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 157
Signature
Date 2 May 2018
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 158
Name Mark Richard Brown
Title Democracy and Governance Expert
Organization International Business & Technical Consultants, Inc.
Evaluation Position Team Leader Team member
Evaluation Award Number AID-280-TO-17-00001
USAID Project(s) Evaluated Libya Elections and Governance Support activity awarded to 
Consortium for Elections and Political Process Strengthening 
under Leader with Associates Cooperative Agreement No. DFD￾A-00-08-00350-00 and implemented by International Foundation 
for Electoral Systems, National Democratic Institute, and 
International Republican Institute and the Supporting Consensus 
Building For The National Dialogue, Constitution Drafting And 
Governing Process In Libya Activity awarded to Freedom House 
under Cooperative Agreement No. AID-OAA-LA-14-00009 and 
implemented by American Bar Association Rule of Law Initiative,
I have real or potential 
conflicts of interest to disclose.
 Yes No
If yes answered above, I 
disclose the following facts:
Real or potential conflicts of interest may include, but 
are not limited to:
7. Close family member who is an employee of the 
USAID operating unit managing the project(s) 
being evaluated or the implementing 
organization(s) whose project(s) are being 
evaluated.
8. Financial interest that is direct, or is significant 
though indirect, in the implementing 
organization(s) whose projects are being evaluated 
or in the outcome of the evaluation.
9. Current or previous direct or significant though 
indirect experience with the project(s) being 
evaluated, including involvement in the project 
design or previous iterations of the project.
10. Current or previous work experience or seeking 
employment with the USAID operating unit 
managing the evaluation or the implementing 
organization(s) whose project(s) are being 
evaluated.
11. Current or previous work experience with an 
organization that may be seen as an industry 
competitor with the implementing organization(s) 
whose project(s) are being evaluated.
12. Preconceived ideas toward individuals, groups, 
organizations, or objectives of the particular 
projects and organizations being evaluated that 
could bias the evaluation. 
I certify (1) that I have completed this disclosure form fully and to the best of my ability and (2) that I will update this 
disclosure form promptly if relevant circumstances change. If I gain access to proprietary information of other 
companies, then I agree to protect their information from unauthorized use or disclosure for as long as it remains 
proprietary and refrain from using the information for any purpose other than that for which it was furnished. 
X
X
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 159
Signature
Date 01-MAY-18
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 160
USAID/LIBYA LEGS AND LCB FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 161
 
U.S. Agency for International Development
1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20523 
Tel: (202) 712-0000
Fax: (202) 216-3524
www.usaid.gov