FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF LOKAL+ MAKIN PROGRESS O THE LIMIYÉ AK ÒGANIZASYON POU OUTCOME 1 B SUPPORTING TH DELMAS LOCA KOLEKTIVITE YO ALE LWEN (LOKAL+) GOVERNMENT O IMPROVING ROAD WITHIN THEI ACTIVITY COMMUNIT SOURCE: USAID LOKAL FINAL EVALUATION REPORT July 2018 This publication was produced at the request of the United States Agency for International Development. It was prepared independently by the Haiti Evaluation and Survey Services of Social Impact, Inc., the USAID/Haiti Contractor. G N Y E L N S R Y. + FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE LIMIYÉ AK ÒGANIZASYON POU KOLEKTIVITE YO ALE LWEN (LOKAL+) ACTIVITY FINAL EVALUATION REPORT July 2018 Evaluation Mechanism Number: AID-521-C-17-00002 Haiti Evaluation and Survey Services for USAID/Haiti DISCLAIMER The author’s views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for International Development or the United States Government. USAID.GOV EVALUATION DESIGN|i ABSTRACT Executed by Tetra Tech Associates in Rural Development from January 2013 to October 2018, United States Agency for International Development/Haiti’s Limiyé ak Òganizasyon pou Kolektivite yo ale Lwen (LOKAL+) project sought to increase communal government legitimacy through improved governance and improved service delivery in nine target communes by increasing local government technical and management capacity. This evaluation assessed the project’s: 1) relevance to Government of Haiti concerns and needs; 2) effectiveness in improving three domains: accountability, transparency (see Annex I for definitions), and service delivery; and 3) sustainability of improving governance in target communes. Methods included a document review, 29 key and group informant interviews (involving 50 officials), 35 focus group discussions (involving 162 female and 168 male citizens), and 12 direct observation site visits in target communes. Almost all stakeholders stated that LOKAL+ was very effective in improving accountability, transparency, and service delivery, especially for tax collection and sanitation. However, except for a sizeable minority in St. Marc, Carrefour, and Cap Haitian, respondents felt that communes have no capacity to independently continue improved governance in these three domains. Nonetheless, given Haiti’s historically highly centralized and opaque local governance, it is important to note three fundamentally important changes brought about by the project: 1) LOKAL+ has demonstrated that it is possible for communes to be financially sound and administratively autonomous; 2) it has introduced the notion of transparency to municipal citizens; and 3) it has successfully improved critical administrative systems such as tax collection administration, housing census, and database management. ii | FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID.GOV ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The evaluation team would like to thank the Government of Haiti representatives who made time to engage with them for this evaluation, particularly the mayors in the target communes and staff at the Ministère de l’Interieur et des Collictivités Territoriales. The evaluation team also thanks the scores of citizens in all the target communes, who were so willing and open to discussing their concerns and dreams for improved governance in their communities. We are also grateful to the LOKAL+ senior management team for putting aside time to meet with us and for their quick responses to our many requests for documents and information during their very demanding schedule, as well as to the United States Agency for International Development team for assistance and guidance during the preparation and execution of the evaluation. USAID.GOV FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract i Acknowledgements ii Table of Contents iii List of Tables and Figures iv Acronyms v Executive Summary vi Activity Summary vi Evaluation Purpose and Questions vi Evaluation Design, Methods, and Challenges vi Findings and Conclusions vii Recommendations x LOKAL+ Background 1 Activity Summary 1 Evaluation Background 3 Evaluation Purpose and Audience 3 Evaluation Questions 3 Evaluation Team and Support Structure 4 Evaluation Methods and Challenges 4 Phase One: Desk Review 5 Phase Two: Field Data Collection 5 Phase Three: Data Processing and Analysis 8 Challenges and Mitigation Strategies 9 Findings and Conclusions 10 EQ1 10 EQ2 12 EQ3 1 Recommendations 4 Annexes 6 Annex A: Evaluation Statement of Work 7 Annex B: Evaluation Matrix 14 Annex C: List of Persons Interviewed 16 iv | FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID.GOV Annex D: Consent Form 22 Annex E: Data Collection Protocols 23 Annex F: Key Informant/Group Interview & FGD Protocols 29 Annex G: Site Observation Diagnostic Sheet 48 Annex H: EQ 2 Results by Category of Commune 50 Annex I: Definition of Terms 62 Annex J: Disclosure of Conflict of Interest 64 Annex K: Information on Increased Tax Revenues 66 Annex L: Documents consulted in Desk Review 74 Annex M: Sites for Direct Observation Visits 75 Annex N: LOKAL+ Intermediate Results 77 LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES Table 1: Connection between LOKAL+'s Five IRs and MICT's "plan d'action" 11 Table 2: Presentation of Increased Tax Revenues 13 Figure 1: Overview of the LOKAL+ Activity 1 Figure 2: LOKAL+ Theory of Change 2 Figure 3: Evaluation Phases 5 Figure 4: Data Collection Methods Used and Gender Breakdown 5 USAID.GOV FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | v ACRONYMS AA Action Area APM Advanced Participation Method ARD Associates in Rural Development BRIDES Bureau de Recherche en Informatique et en Développement Économiques et Social CBO Community-based Organization CCC Consultative Citizens Committees CFPB Contribution Foncière des Propriétés Bâties COR Contracting Officer’s Representative CSO Civil Society Organization CSCCA Superior Court of Auditors and Administrative Disputes DGI Direction Générale des Impôts DO Direct Observation EQ Evaluation Question ESS Evaluation and Survey Services ET Evaluation Team FENAMH Association of Mayors FGD Focus Group Discussion FGDCT Territorial Communities Management and Development Fund FY Fiscal Year FOCAS Functional Organizational Capacity Assessment GI Group Interview GoH Government of Haiti IFOS Institut de Formation du Sud IR Intermediate Result IT Information Technology KII Key Informant Interview LOKAL+ Limiyè ak Òganizasyon pou Kolektivite yo Ale Lwen MEF Ministére de l’Economie et des Finances MICT Ministère de l'Intérieur et des Collectivités Territoriales MMS Managers of Municipal Services MP Member of Parliament MPCE Ministère de la Panification et de la Cooperation Externe OMRH Office of Management and Human Resources PACTE Programme Appui aux Collectivités Territoriales PIC Communal Investment Plan PoC Point of Contact PSP Parliament Support Project QSIP Quality Service Improvement SI Social Impact, Inc. ToC Theory of Change ULCC Unité Pour la Lutte Contre la Corruption USAID United States Agency for International Development USG United States Government WASS Women’s Associations YASS Youth Associations vi | FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID.GOV EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ACTIVITY SUMMARY To support local government in Haiti, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) financed the Limyè ak Òganizasyon pou Kolektivite yo Ale Lwen (LOKAL+) Activity, a third-generation Activity worth $19,749,345. USAID awarded LOKAL+ to Tetra Tech Associates in Rural Development (ARD) on January 25, 2013. LOKAL+ was designed to support the Government of Haiti’s (GoH) efforts to improve service delivery at the local level. It’s theory of change (ToC) posits that if the selected communes are provided with capacity building to increase tax collection and improve provision of quality and deconcentrated public services, then constituency satisfaction will be improved, and communal government legitimacy will be enhanced. EVALUATION PURPOSE AND QUESTIONS The main purpose of the evaluation was to inform possible future USAID/Haiti programming in decentralization and communal government strengthening; identify LOKAL+’s strengths and weaknesses; and assess the validity of the activity’s development hypothesis. The evaluation addressed the following evaluation questions (EQ): 1. To what extent was the original project design relevant to the concerns and needs of the GoH, including the parliament? 2. To what extent was the project effective, especially in terms of improving local accountability, transparency, and service delivery? This question will specifically examine the project’s effectiveness in terms of: a) Increasing tax revenues; b) Improving access to central government funding; c) Improving mayor and staff skills and knowledge of governance; d) Improving the legal framework for decentralization; and e) Improving constituency satisfaction. 3. To what extent will the local governments assisted by LOKAL+ be able to continue improved governance, especially in terms of transparency, accountability, and service delivery? EVALUATION DESIGN, METHODS, AND CHALLENGES The evaluation employed a qualitative design including a document review, 16 key informant interviews (KII), 13 group interviews (GI), 12 structured direct observation site visits, and 35 focus group discussions (FGD). Altogether, the evaluation team (ET) obtained data from 380 individuals (170 females and 210 males). Evaluation respondents included key partners (LOKAL+ and its two sub-partners, USAID, and Ministère de l’Interieur et des Collictivités Territoriales [MICT] officials); local governance partners (Members of Parliament (MPs); current/past mayors and communal officials); and citizens (entrepreneurs, Consultative Citizens Committees (CCC), women’s associations, and youth associations). Due to the evaluation design, limitations were expected. To mitigate them, the ET applied a variety of methods to allow for data triangulation and increase the reliability of findings, conclusions, and recommendations. USAID.GOV FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | vii FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS FNDINGS FOR EQ1 The main GoH local partner, MICT, was involved in the development and implementation of LOKAL+’s objective of deconcentration and decentralization starting at the request for proposal stage. According to all key partners, USAID’s facilitation was critical to establishing a good working relationship between LOKAL+ and the GoH. Activity documents also indicated that LOKAL+’s five intermediate results (IR) were built upon the MICT’s seven GoH action areas (AA) in its “Plan d’Action Pour les Collectivité Territorialles” (Communal Action Plan). The Activity was also relevant to the GoH’s desire for greater gender inclusion. In keeping with GoH gender inclusion policy, LOKAL+ staff consulted with the Ministry of Women’s Affairs and engaged a Gender Inclusion Specialist to develop a gender inclusion plan. Despite working closely with MICT, Activity documents and KIIs indicated that LOKAL+ had challenges engaging with Parliament. Although they aimed to engage Parliament at the Activity outset, documentation and the Tetra Tech ARD GI indicated that internal political issues within Parliament impacted LOKAL+ efforts to develop a decentralization policy. All key partner GIs and KIIs indicated that MPs’ expectations were a chief obstacle that may have impeded these early efforts to work with Parliament. CONCLUSIONS FOR EQ1 LOKAL+ was relevant to MICT, but not to MPs. LOKAL+ worked closely with the GoH/MICT in designing its activities and implementing its work plan. The Activity reflected GoH/MICT’s Communal Action Plan regarding capacity reinforcement, revenue generation, and accountability, and was responsive to GoH’s gender inclusion policy. However, as LOKAL+ was not designed to support Parliament, it did not meet MPs’ concerns and needs. FINDINGS FOR EQ2 Increasing Tax Revenues Activity documentation, and approximately half the current/past mayors and key partners interviewed, noted that LOKAL+ support for registering built properties, mobilizing and collecting property tax, and using CIVITAX resulted in significant increases in revenue generation.1 KII and GI respondents also identified audiences publiques as an effective intervention for mobilizing taxes. Yet, current/past mayors admitted that much of their communes’ increased revenues is spent on paying staff salaries rather than improved services, local activities, and upkeep of important communal assets, for which they seek donor assistance or central government funding. Improving Access to Central Government Funding Activity documents and KII respondents suggested that LOKAL+ had a positive effect on communal investment plan (PIC) development and use. Activity documents showed that LOKAL+ successfully helped communes prepare their PICs by providing venues for and facilitating workshops with the CCC, 1 See Annex K for data showing the increases in tax revenue during 2013-2018. viii | FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID.GOV feasibility studies for some PIC activities, and funding to facilitate advocacy in support of PICs. However, some FGD respondents did not believe that women were included in PIC formulation, or that communal governments consulted women’s associations on gender matters. Many current/past mayors said that their access to central GoH funding had not really improved. Some evaluation respondents believed that MPs and mayors do not have good relationships. Current/past mayors explained that in the cases where there was not a good relationship, disagreements were due to actual or potential political rivalries. Some current/past mayors stated that MP support would facilitate accessing central government funding. The MICT claimed that to avoid cash flow interruption, the central government now disburses funds gathered from the Contribution Foncière des Propriétés Bâties and Patentes to the communes before they submit their monthly financial reports. Despite this, current/past mayors reported consistent delays in central government funding. Improving Mayor and Staff Skills and Knowledge of Governance GIs with key and local governance partners, and Activity documents all stated that LOKAL+ successfully transferred a wide range of capacities to communal staff. Almost all respondents claimed that the Functional Organizational Capacity Assessment is an effective organizational assessment tool. FGDs, KIIs, and GIs also indicate that LOKAL+ interventions led to increased communal service quality. Findings were mixed, however, regarding the quality of public sanitation. Few respondents stated that women’s participation in communal government meets the GoH’s 30 percent quota. None of the local governance partners stated that they were aware of the LOKAL+ gender inclusion plan. None of the KIIs with mayors reported that their communes have a Gender Affairs point of contact (PoC). Finally, FGD respondents reported that communal agents violated human rights2 by “municipal officers use violence against women who sell on the streets.” Improving the Legal Framework for Decentralization The desk review revealed that Parliament has not yet enacted the legal framework for decentralization. During the KIIs with MPs, none stated they were aware of the legal framework status. Improving Constituency Satisfaction Citizen satisfaction is defined as awareness of the services provided by the commune and having a positive image of the communes. More than half the FGDs claimed that citizens know about the services provided by their communes, whereas a third claimed that they do not. Many FGDs noted that citizens think positively about the services provided by their communes. In contrast, the majority of FGDs, as well as GIs with two local governance partners, and one GI with key partners reported that the communes do not have a positive image. Improving Transparency & Accountability LOKAL+ successfully implemented audience publiques meetings. However, a problematic factor is that not all audience publiques are open to all citizens who may be interested in attending. KIIs revealed that LOKAL+ is paying for venues and refreshments. Consequently, audience publiques participation is limited by the budget, and mayors decide who to invite. The desk review, FGDs, and KIIs or GIs with key partners and local governance partners, all indicate that LOKAL+’s use of audience publiques successfully created a space for citizens to communicate with mayors. Yet, there was also evidence that LOKAL+ was not as effective at generating accountability because the audience publiques content were not widely 2 See Annex I “Definition of Terms” USAID.GOV FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | ix distributed. KIIs, GIs, and FGDs also revealed other limitations to accountability and transparency.3 For example, few communes publicly posted fees or other budget information. A third of FGDs reported that communes do not communicate at all with the citizenry. CONCLUSIONS FOR EQ2 LOKAL+ effectively increased tax revenues and improved mayor and staff skills and knowledge of governance. LOKAL+ support increased tax revenues via registering built properties, mobilizing and collecting property tax, and using CIVITAX.4 However, mayors and senior communal staff do not prioritize increasing revenue generation when making budget decisions. To improve mayor and staff skills and knowledge of governance, LOKAL+ successfully provided training and equipment, which contributed to improving service delivery in tax collection and public sanitation. At the same time, women’s participation in communal governments remains elusive as communes have not met the 30 percent quota for women’s inclusion or have a Gender Affairs PoC, and communal employees have been cited for committing violence against women street vendors. LOKAL+ was partially successful in helping communes improve central government funding, transparency and accountability, and constituency satisfaction. The Activity assisted the communes to develop their PICs, which they used to advocate for central government funding, though it is notable that PIC development did not sufficiently include women or women’s associations. LOKAL+ improved transparency and accountability by facilitating audiences publiques, yet these are still limited since they only benefit respondents, and overall communication between communes and their citizenry remains poor. LOKAL+ helped its nine target communes improve public services, as reflected in citizens’ positive attitudes about communal service provision. However, many citizens still hold a negative image of their communes. LOKAL+ was not effective in improving the legal framework for decentralization as Parliament has yet to enact the legal framework for decentralization. FINDINGS FOR EQ3 Continuing Improved Transparency The majority of informants and FGD respondents did not believe that the audiences publiques model would continue after LOKAL+ ended because communal administrations have neither the management capability nor the resources to follow the audiences publiques model on their own. At the same time, most FGDs reported that citizens believe expanding the audiences publiques would improve local governance by enabling more citizens to access mayors regarding community affairs. Additionally, some FGDs and most key partner GIs believed that improved local governance could be achieved through capacity building for community-based organizations/civil society organizations. Continuing Improved Accountability Very few respondents stated that the PIC or CCCs would continue beyond LOKAL+ due to tensions between communal officials and CCCs. The desk review revealed that the CCC is not an elected body and that mayors can view it as a political rival. The desk review also indicated that some CCCs expected direct support from LOKAL+ which, if unmet, interfered with their ability to play an oversight role. 3 See Annex I “Definition of Terms” 4 See Annex K x | FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID.GOV Continuing Improved Service Delivery Few respondents and FGDs thought fiscal mobilization, as carried out by LOKAL+, will continue, or that communes can mobilize tax revenues as LOKAL+ did. Desk review and KIIs/GIs indicated that LOKAL+ hired personnel and sound trucks and paid for banners for tax mobilization, yet the current/past mayors interviewed claimed they lack the budget, personnel, and training to undertake these expenses and activities without LOKAL+. Many current/past mayors stated that they expect tax revenues to fall this year due to lack of service investments over the past year. Furthermore, almost half of current/past mayors conceded that they make limited service investments, which other key partners and some FGDs verified. Some respondents said that the built property census will not continue after LOKAL+, as communal officials did not have the necessary tools (computer tablets, smartphones, global positioning system devices, etc.) and were not able to enter new data. All current/past mayors stated that lack of internet connectivity was an impediment to CIVITAX continued use. Several stated that communal officials lack a collaborative relationship with the Direction Générale de Impots (DGI), which is needed for tax collection. CONCLUSIONS FOR EQ3 TRANSPARENCY: LOKAL+ developed the audiences publiques model of public discourse to increase transparency, and a majority of FGDs would like them to continue. However, this is unlikely as the communes do not have the financial or personnel resources to sustain them. ACCOUNTABILITY: As LOKAL+ created CCCs to serve as an interlocutor between mayors and citizens, they are also unlikely to continue beyond the Activity. Due to its non-elected status and political rivalries, the CCC’s effectiveness is limited. SERVICE DELIVERY: LOKAL+’s hands-on tax mobilization activities contributed to communes’ increased tax revenues, but did not increase their abilities to independently raise taxes. In addition to challenges with raising taxes, revenue increases have generally not been invested in improved service delivery. A key example of this is the incomplete CIVITAX software system and the poor collaboration between communes and DGI, which may impede CIVITAX sustainability. RECOMMENDATIONS USAID should direct future local governance programming to: • Provide technical and legal information to support the Parliamentary Commission’s work on decentralization and other GoH partners such as the Office of Management and Human Resources and MICT; • Help communes develop their own models of expanded audiences publiques; • Assist each commune to prepare a strategic development plan; • Tailor support to communes based upon the execution of their strategic development plans; • Involve DGI in the completion and expansion of CIVITAX; • Provide urban planning and management training to the appropriate communal government officials; • Develop a unique sustainability plan for each commune; • Support expanding establishing permanent core positions within communal administrations; and • Train mayors and senior communal staff in making budget decisions that prioritize revenue streams. USAID.GOV FINAL EVALUATION REPORT|1 LOKAL+ BACKGROUND ACTIVITY SUMMARY Figure 1: Overview of the LOKAL+ Activity To support local government in Haiti, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) financed the Limyè ak Òganizasyon pou Kolektivite yo Ale Lwen (LOKAL+) Activity, a third-generation Activity worth $19,749,345. LOKAL+ was awarded on January 25, 2013 to Tetra Tech Associates in Rural Development (ARD). Tetra Tech ARD also implemented both previous local governance activities, Programme Appui aux Collectivités Territoriales (PACTE) from 1995-2000, and the first LOKAL from 2007-2011. A natural progression of its predecessor activities, LOKAL+ was designed to support the Government of Haiti’s (GoH) efforts to improve service delivery at the local level. To do this, LOKAL+ collaborated with the Ministère de l’Interieur et des Collectivité Territoriales (MICT), utilizing individually tailored work plans prepared with selected communes to improve planning and budgeting, and increase revenue mobilization to improve local services.5 According to Title V of the Haitian Constitution, communes are a territorial administrative entity with administrative and financial autonomy. Each commune is administered by a Municipal Council composed of three elected members. The President of the Council is called Mayor and is assisted by two Deputy Mayors.6 As the communes are responsible for providing a wide range of services to the population, their autonomous administrative and financial structure depends on taxes levied on citizens. A 2007 review undertaken by the Unité de Lutte Contre la Corruption (ULCC), a Haitian governmental entity created by presidential decree, ranks communes as among the worst of Haiti’s public agencies/organizations in terms of service quality, earning the lowest levels of confidence in the ability to meet citizens’ needs.7 The ULCC review stated that most local governments struggle to pay operating costs and are largely dependent on the national government to fund public services or infrastructure improvements.8 While Haitian law establishes a legal basis for local taxation, many communes only collect a fraction of the possible revenue. Moreover, due to a scarcity of trained staff and antiquated management systems, most communes – where 60 percent of Haitians now live – lack the capacity to transform their few resources into quality public services that would encourage greater taxpayer 5 LOKAL Annual Work Plan- 2013 6 Constitution of the Republic of Haiti, March 29, 1987- http://ufdc.ufl.edu/AA00000457/00001/1j (Articles 66 and 66.1) 7 Corruption and Governance, Unité pour la Lutte Contre la Corruption (ULCC), 2007 8 Haitian Cities: Actions for Today with an Eye on Tomorrow World Bank 2017). Activity Name: Limyè ak Òganizasyon pou Kolektivite yo Ale Lwen (LOKAL+) Implementer: Tetra Tech / ARD Cooperative Agreement #: AID-521-C-13-00004 Total Estimated Ceiling: $19,749,345 Life of Activity: 01/2013 – 10/2017 Development Objective: To increase communal government legitimacy through improved governance, and to raise the quality of service delivery developing technical and management capacity 2 | FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID.GOV compliance. Adding to this problem, Haiti’s national government is highly centralized in the capital, where almost half of Haiti’s entire urban population lives.9 There are, however, opportunities for improvement. Since the 2010 earthquake, there has been increased demand on communal governments to provide services, including support for internally displaced persons10 in communes distant from earthquake-affected areas (e.g. schooling for displaced children and housing).11 Improving and expanding local public service delivery requires that Haiti’s 140 rapidly growing communes build their administrative capacities to generate revenue and deliver services. This includes improving their capacities in areas such as strategic planning, budgeting, tax collection, financial and program management, service prioritization, citizen outreach, and significantly raising the level of expertise among both elected and administrative officials. THEORY OF CHANGE The LOKAL+ Theory of Change (ToC) posits that if the selected communes are provided the appropriate support for capacity building to increase tax collection and raise their capability to provide quality and deconcentrated public services, then constituency satisfaction will be improved, and communal government legitimacy will be further enhanced. Figure 2: LOKAL+ Theory of Change LOKAL+ operationalized this ToC through five Intermediate Results (IR) (see Annex N), termed “preferred outcomes:” 1. strengthen the capability of communal governments to provide services 2. generate a sustainable increase in local revenues for local services 3. leverage greater access to central government funding and services 9 Corruption and Governance, Unité pour la Lutte Contre la Corruption (ULCC), 2007 10 Amnesty International facts and figures document AI Index: AMR 36/003/2014 09 January 2014- https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/Displaced percent20people percent20still percent20leave percent20in percent20despair percent20four percent20years percent20after percent20devastating percent20earthquake.pdf 11 FY 2010 Haiti supplemental budget justification- https://www.state.gov/documents/organization/141243.pdf USAID.GOV FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 3 4. improve national-level policy and legislation in support of decentralization and deconcentrated services 5. increase transparency, oversight, and accountability of local governments and deconcentrated service providers As part of its effort to improve public services in its nine targeted communes (Acul du Nord, Cap￾Haitien, Caracol, Carrefour, Delmas, Kenscoff, Limonade, Ouanaminthe, and Saint Marc), LOKAL+ designed a strategic planning exercise in which each communal government formally consulted with its citizenry to discuss public service priorities and budgeting. This exercise informed LOKAL+ about which public services needed targeted assistance. To facilitate this process, LOKAL+ provided training and technical assistance to the nine communes about how to obtain the desired feedback from citizens, the private sector, and other stakeholders. EVALUATION BACKGROUND EVALUATION PURPOSE AND AUDIENCE The main purpose of the evaluation was to inform possible future USAID/Haiti programming in decentralization and communal government strengthening. In addition, it identified LOKAL+’s strengths and weaknesses and assessed the validity of the Activity’s development hypothesis: “if public services are improved, then government legitimacy could be further enhanced.” The intended audience for this evaluation is USAID/Haiti, specifically the Office of Democracy and Governance, Tetra Tech ARD, and key GoH institutions including MICT, municipal officials in the nine target communes, and Members of Parliament (MP) interested in promoting decentralization. Findings may also be useful for other donors and entities seeking to facilitate decentralization and deconcentration in Haiti. EVALUATION QUESTIONS This evaluation answered the following three evaluation questions (EQ): 1. To what extent was the original project design relevant to the concerns and needs of the GoH, including the parliament? 2. To what extent was the project effective, especially in terms of improving local accountability, transparency, and service delivery? This question specifically examines the project’s effectiveness in terms of: a. increasing tax revenues b. improving access to central government funding c. improving mayor and staff skills and knowledge of governance d. improving the legal framework for decentralization e. improving constituency satisfaction 3. To what extent will the local governments assisted by LOKAL+ be able to continue improved governance, especially in terms of transparency, accountability, and service delivery? For EQ 1, the evaluation examined the extent to which the GoH had ownership in the original design and how the Activity’s goals were relevant to lawmakers. The evaluation also assessed the extent to 4 | FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID.GOV which the Activity built upon best practices in government decentralization and communal government strengthening. In the absence of baseline data, the evaluation team (ET) responded to EQ3 by assessing the opinions of constituents, current/past mayors, and communal staff regarding which interventions they believed are likely to continue at the end of LOKAL+ and on their appropriation of such activities. The ET also assessed what they believe was needed to strengthen local governance. EVALUATION TEAM AND SUPPORT STRUCTURE Social Impact’s (SI) Haiti Evaluation and Survey Services (ESS) fielded a four-person ET possessing a complementary mix of evaluation, local governance, and capacity building expertise, as well as methodological knowledge. The Team Leader, Bertrand Laurent, is an expert in civil society and local governance, food security and rural development, and capacity building. Since 1986, Mr. Laurent has been involved with USAID evaluations and assessments in countries such as Senegal, Madagascar, Haiti, and other Caribbean countries. The Local Government Specialist, Peterly Riche, worked in Haiti for the past 13 years on various USAID funded activities that addressed local capacity and local governance challenges. Most recently, he worked as a Client Relations Manager for USAID’s Konesans E Konpetans Teknik (KONEKTE) program, where he managed data collection and program design procedures. The Team Leader and Local Governance Specialist were supported by two notetakers to increase the efficiency of data collection and analysis. ESS sub-contracted CHASE, a Haitian research firm, to support additional qualitative data collection on constituent satisfaction. The firm is composed of development professionals with more than 18 years of experience in the design, and monitoring and evaluation of programs in various sectors (including education; agriculture; nutrition; food security; water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH); natural resource management; and governance). Working closely with the ET, CHASE conducted 35 focus group discussions (FGD) across all nine communes with local government constituents. CHASE focused on EQ2 (“To what extent was the project effective, specifically in terms improving local accountability, transparency, and service delivery”), and more specifically, the sub-element that called for “examining the project’s effects on improving constituency satisfaction.” The ET was remotely supported by SI headquarters-based staff, including Project Director Erica A. Holzaepfel, Project Manager Marissa Germain, and Project Assistant Nora Chamma. During fieldwork in Haiti, the ET was supported by Mr. Wesner Antione, the Haiti ESS Senior Evaluation Specialist. EVALUATION METHODS AND CHALLENGES The evaluation employed multiple qualitative data collection methods: desk review, key informant interviews (KII), group interviews (GI), FGDs, and direct observations (DO). By collecting data from a wide range of sources, this methodology, of which each technique is described in detail below, increased the reliability and validity of the evaluation’s findings. The evaluation process comprised three phases: (1) planning, (2) data collection, and (3) analysis, reporting, and presentations. USAID.GOV FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 5 Figure 3: Evaluation Phases 1) Planning 2) Data Collection 3) Analysis, Reporting, and Presentation Desk Review Team Planning Meeting Data Analysis Design Report Inbrief Report Writing Inception Report Primary Data Collection Presentation to USAID/Haiti Travel Mobilization Preliminary Analysis PHASE ONE: DESK REVIEW The ET conducted a desk review of internal LOKAL+ reports and external publications to gain an understanding of the context in which the Activity was implemented. The ET summarized the findings from the desk review in an inception report and used the background knowledge as the basis for designing the evaluation. The ET relied upon the Activity documents to identify individuals and groups to be interviewed, as well as sites at which to conduct direct observation. The ET made every effort to interview all the individuals specifically identified in the reports and documented the cases where an informant could not be reached, located, or declined to participate. PHASE TWO: FIELD DATA COLLECTION Primary data were collected in Haiti Figure 4: Data Collection Methods Used and Gender Breakdown Methods used: Gender breakdown: 14 Men 2 Women 16 Key Informant Interviews 16 Informants 28 Men 6 Women 13 Group Informant Interviews 34 Informants 168 Men 162 Women 35 Focus Group Discussions 330 Participants 12 DO Visits from March 19 to April 7, 2018. Overall, the ET conducted 16 KIIs and 13 GIs involving 34 informants, 35 FGDs involving 330 respondents (162 of whom were women), and 12 DO site visits. KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWS The ET conducted 16 in-person, KIIs with targeted individuals deemed best placed to reflect knowledgeably on the LOKAL+ design and implementation progress to date. The ET conducted the KIIs using semi￾structured interview guides (i.e. containing both structured and unstructured questions – see Annexes E and F). Data collected through KIIs helped inform findings for each of the EQs and was triangulated against data collected from the document review, GIs, FGDs, and DOs. KII Sampling The ET purposively sampled key info included: rmants based on a review of LOKAL+ reports. Key informants 6 | FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID.GOV • Current/Past Mayors: current/past mayors are key actors responsible for service delivery in the communes. The mayors are the main LOKAL+ partners for IRs 1, 2, 3, and 5. The evaluation included current/past mayors from all nine LOKAL+ communes. Interviewing past mayors was critical because LOKAL+ was implemented when many staffing changes occurred within local governments as a result of elections held for mayors and other local officials in 2015. • Senior Municipal Civil Servants: As key personnel in the communes, the Senior Municipal Civil Servants are involved in all administrative management for city hall. They received capacity and institutional building training. The ET triangulated data collected from them with data from current/past mayors. • Central GoH Representatives from MICT: LOKAL+ main partners for IR 4. • Members of Parliament: The sampled Members of Parliament (MP) were champions of decentralization and collaborated to varying degrees with LOKAL+, thus relevant to IR 4. • Former LOKAL+ Staff and Activity Subcontractors: Bureau de Recherche en Informatique et en Développement Économiques et Social (BRIDES) and Institut de Formation du Sud (IFOS). GROUP INTERVIEWS In addition to interviewing individual informants, the ET conducted 13 GIs with small groups of key informants who were unable to be interviewed individually due to availability constraints. The ET used the same interview guides and implemented the same protocols for interview documentation and analysis for GIs as it used for KIIs. Data collected through GIs contributed to all three EQs and was triangulated against data collected from the document review, KIIs, FGDs, and DOs. GI Sampling As with the KIIs, the ET purposively sampled GI respondents through a review of LOKAL+ reports. Informants included current/past mayors, senior municipal civil servants, current LOKAL+ staff who worked directly with communes, and USAID staff. The latter included staff from USAID/Haiti’s Office of Democracy, Rights, and Governance who were involved in LOKAL+ technical management. LOKAL+ had several Contracting Officer’s Representatives (COR) over its period of performance. To ensure a complete perspective of the Activity’s implementation, the ET met with all available CORs at once. FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS Through its subcontractor, CHASE, the evaluation conducted 35 FGDs, including four FGDs per targeted commune, except for Cap Haitian, where CHASE conducted only three FGDs. The evaluation used FGDs to collect data at the citizen level and assess tax payers’ satisfaction with service delivery. As most of the communal taxes raised derive from property taxes (according to LOKAL+ Activity reports), it was, therefore, fitting for the evaluation to specifically collect information from tax payers. Collecting data from representatives of civic associations established to promote citizen interests (e.g., market vendors, Chamber of Commerce, and youth associations [YASS]) was an efficient way to broadly assess constituency satisfaction across social and economic interests. FGDs included an average of 10 respondents per group. Data collected through FGDs mostly contributed towards (but were not limited to) EQ2, namely “to what extent was the project effective, especially in terms of improving local accountability, transparency, and service delivery.” FGDs also helped gather information on respondents’ perceptions of the USAID.GOV FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 7 communes’ revenue, and their satisfaction with communal services. FGD data provided some insight into EQ3, specifically citizens’ perspectives on communes’ capacity to sustain changes introduced through the Activity. FGD Sampling Unlike KIIs and GIs, FGD respondents were composed of representatives from specific interest groups affected by LOKAL+, rather than key actors or decision-makers involved in Activity implementation and/or oversight. To identify FGD respondents, the ET obtained lists of LOKAL+ respondents from Tetra Tech ARD. The ET did not invite Mayors to nominate FGD respondents to avoid the possible domination of the FGD by any individual deemed by other respondents to be a “representative” of the mayor. Besides ensuring that women were fully included among respondents in all FGDs, the evaluation also conducted FGDs specifically with women’s associations (WASS) to address their interests around inclusion. The ET organized FGDs to be as homogeneous as possible, with respondents sharing the same social rank and/or sex. FGDs employed homogeneity to minimize the effect of speech monopolization by an alpha respondent to the detriment of other respondents who might be intimidated or not eager to discuss and defend differing points of view. Specifically, participants recommended by the mayor were not invited to avoid any possibility of in the presence of a politically connected individual hindering everyone’s full participation. FGD respondents included representatives from: • Entrepreneurs: As citizens paying for services such as patentes and other taxes, entrepreneurs provided information to triangulate with current/past mayors and senior municipal civil servants. • Key CSO Representatives: CSOs are advocacy groups that represent citizen positions, play a watchdog role in governance, and advocate for change. CSOs received training from LOKAL+ and were important LOKAL+ partners for IR 5. • Consultative Citizens Committee Members: Comprising citizens groups reflecting a range of sectors at the communal level, Consultative Citizens Committee (CCC) members were important LOKAL+ partners for IR 5 (see Annex I “Definition of Terms”). • WASS Representatives: Important to ensure gender inclusion, women’s groups were key LOKAL+ partners for IR 5. • YASS Representatives: As a key communal demographic, it was important to assess LOKAL+’s success including youth groups in capacity building activities. DIRECT OBSERVATION To complement the KIIs, GIs, and FGDs, the ET conducted 12 DOs at locations or facilities representing key LOKAL+ related activities relevant to the EQs. DOs gave direct visible confirmation of reported communal activities. In addition, they provided some insight into the relative success of these activities, or lack thereof. The DO Site Observation Diagnostic Sheet contained in Annex G shows how each of the questions/observation items relate to the EQs. Data collected through DOs contributed to EQ2 regarding effectiveness, as well as to EQ3. For example, as LOKAL+ provided training in maintaining communes’ computers, networks, and troubleshooting the information technology (IT) systems to support CIVITAX, the ET observed how communes used the software and equipment and assessed the extent to which they were being used and maintained as expected. Similarly, DOs provided insight into the level of organization and competency for service delivery, which is relevant to EQ2. As LOKAL+ provided training on transparency and oversight, the DOs allowed the ET to evaluate citizen access to communal data. Notes 8 | FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID.GOV from the DOs were transcribed and coded with reference to the EQs and triangulated with data from other sources. DO Site Sampling Given the importance of revenue generation and CIVITAX in LOKAL+’s work, most of the sites visited were in the nine targeted communes’ city halls where LOKAL+ supported IT centers and offices, and the Fiscalité and Urbanism services. The complete list of sites visited is presented in Annex M. DO site visits included: • City Halls: Carrefour, Kenscoff, Delmas, Saint Marc, Cap Haitian, Caracol, Limonade, Ouanaminth, and Acul du Nord; • Communal Project Sites: Dumpsite at Limonade (Ti Mouchette), Fish Market at Caracol, and Public Market at Caracol. PHASE THREE: DATA PROCESSING AND ANALYSIS The ET documented the KIIs and GIs in three ways: (1) “take-away message” notes (taken by the Team Leader and/or the Local Governance Specialist), (2) detailed summary notes (taken by the notetaker), and (3) (unless an interviewee objected) an audio recording. During the data collection and analysis processes, the ET took care to capture nuances in interviewee responses, triangulate the respondent data with published data wherever possible, and triangulate statements among KIIs and GIs by asking all respondents a uniform set of questions in addition to open-ended probing questions. The Team Leader and Local Governance Specialist accomplished this by interviewing KIIs together whenever possible, so that they could compare notes and perceptions and agree on the key “take-away messages” from each interview. In addition, a notetaker was present to take notes and audio-record each interview. The recordings enabled the ET to make sure that the detailed summary notes reflected all the key information. The ET assured respondents that their participation was completely voluntary, affirmed that their information would remain confidential, and obtained their consent to record the discussions. To protect respondent confidentiality, the ET did not attribute findings to any single respondent, nor were individuals mentioned by name in the evaluation report. When all interviews were complete, the ET systematically coded the notes and tallied the responses for analysis. First, the ET identified all the recurring themes (open codes) that emerged in the notes to develop the coding framework. This framework, called a tally sheet, listed the codes in the first column (organized by EQ) and each data source (KIIs, GIs, FGDs, and DOs) listed across the top (one data source per column). The ET then coded the data into the tally sheet by carefully reviewing each set of notes and indicating the presence of a specific theme in each set with a “1” in the corresponding box in the tally sheet. They then compared the coding across team members to address any differences. The ET noted all present themes, even if they were contradictory. Tallies were then calculated for all relevant disaggregations (gender, geography, stakeholder group, etc.), and the completed tally sheet was used to analyze the data by identifying key findings and any relevant patterns in the data. Generally, the most important findings were those that occurred in many interviews, although sometimes the absence of a theme (or if an issue was only raised by one or two people who hold critical positions) was also important. Through the tally sheet process, the ET grouped stakeholders according to their position relative to the Activity. In part, this was done to ensure the anonymity and confidentiality the ET guaranteed all USAID.GOV FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 9 respondents. Thus, in the findings and conclusions sections below, the various respondents are categorized according to the following groups: • Six KIIs/GIs – Key Partners: LOKAL+ and its two sub-partners (4), USAID (1), and MICT officials (1); • Twenty-three KIIs/GIs – Local Governance Partners: MPs (3), current/past mayors (10), and senior municipal civil servants (10); • Thirty-five FGDs – Citizens: Entrepreneurs (9), CCC (8), WASS (9), YASS (9) Total Notes: 64 CHALLENGES AND MITIGATION STRATEGIES “INTERVIEWER EFFECT” An interview is a social interaction, and many elements of an interview, such as the interviewer’s appearance and behavior, can influence a respondents’ answers. Mitigation: As the evaluation engaged a wide variety of respondents in terms of profession, social class, gender, and political party, the ET sought to mitigate biased responses by carefully formulating questions, employing a qualitative design, comparing responses to both structured and unstructured questions, and by triangulating data (comparing responses from various respondents across different methods). TIME AND GEOGRAPHICAL CHALLENGES As LOKAL+ was implemented in nine communes during a period of time characterized by political and economic change affecting Activity stakeholders, the ET anticipated a variety of limitations to KIIs, FGDs, and even documentation. Time and distance can sometimes contribute to partial or total loss of documents or information because of improper storage, inefficient changing of custodial responsibility, changes in filing systems, and interruptions in personnel. Because of time and distance, documents may be unavailable, respondents may not be accessible and/or their recollection may be unreliable (e.g. former mayors, MPs, or GoH officials). Mitigation: To mitigate time and geographical challenges, the ET validated information by seeking corroboration from more than one source (i.e. Activity documents, interviews, DO, USAID reports, news reports). LACK OF CONSENSUS The perceptions and experiences of LOKAL+ stakeholders may reflect many different realities and interpretations. In the 30 years since the constitution’s ratification that called for decentralization of the state, numerous political and policy positions have been put forward by political parties, civil society (see Annex I for definition) and representatives of diverse social groups. The nature of the decentralized state, its implications for sharing power and resources, routes towards decentralization, and lack of a unifying vision, can be difficult hurdles in a country with as many social, economic, and class divisions as Haiti. For these reasons, the ET expected a wide range of opinions as to the suitability of LOKAL+’s approach and interventions for local governance that could conceivably pose challenges when collating findings and summarizing conclusions and recommendations. Mitigation: The ET consulted different stakeholder groups and made sure to note both the presence and absence of consensus. 10 | FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID.GOV AVAILABILITY OF KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEW AND FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION RESPONDENTS Given the political and personnel changes that have taken place over the Activity’s lifetime, some KII and FGD respondents were not available to the ET. Mitigation: To the extent possible, the ET included former Activity staff and respondents. For example, a former LOKAL+ staff member was in the Dominican Republic and interviewed by telephone and internet, and two former mayors were located and interviewed. The ET was limited in its ability to meet with the MICT, MPs, and mayors from two communes. The ET was able to meet with only one MICT official and three MPs and could not meet with the mayors from Delmas and Carrefour despite numerous requests for appointments. The ET, therefore, triangulated desk review data with information gathered from communal officials and mayors. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS EQ1 TO WHAT EXTENT WAS THE ORIGINAL PROJECT DESIGN RELEVANT TO THE CONCERNS AND NEEDS OF THE GOH, INCLUDING THE PARLIAMENT? FINDINGS The main GoH partner, MICT, was involved in the development and implementation of LOKAL+’s objective of deconcentration and decentralization since the request for proposal stage. MICT participated in the bidders’ conference where they shared their needs and concerns regarding local governance with potential bidders. These concerns went on to inform the content of some submitted proposals. This involvement continued into the Activity launch stage as USAID staff facilitated the connection between MICT and the selected bidder, Tetra Tech ARD. Through this connection, MICT engaged with work planning, strategy development, and addressing technical issues throughout the Activity life cycle. Activity documents, KIIs, and GIs with Tetra Tech ARD and MICT confirmed this close involvement. According to all three key partners, USAID’s facilitation was critical to the establishment of the working relationship between LOKAL+ and the GoH. Activity documentation and one key partner indicated that LOKAL+ met with the GoH on several occasions to develop its action plan at the onset of the Activity. All three key partners responded positively about LOKAL+’s working relationship with the GoH. A GoH official even stated that: “MICT and LOKAL+ worked so closely that it seems to outsiders that LOKAL+ is MICT.” Activity documents also indicated that LOKAL+’s five IRs were built upon the MICT plan and align with the seven GoH action areas (AA) listed in the MICT’s “Plan d’Action Pour les Collectivité Territorialles” (Communal Action Plan), which was designed to ensure the continuity of local governments, provide guidance for elected officials, and promote local investment. The seven areas include: 1. strengthen the institutional capacities of the communities of the North and North-East departments, including training and support to associations 2. support delegations and vice-delegations 3. reform the legal framework on decentralization USAID.GOV FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 11 4. improve, oversee, and validate communal budgets and strengthen tax mobilization and financial governance 5. support local investment and other investment programs 6. support communal engineers in their urban planning tasks and the issuance of building permits 7. harmonize and communicate with stakeholders Table 1 below shows the connection between LOKAL+’s five IRs and MICT’s “plan d’action.” Table 1: Connection between LOKAL+'s Five IRs and MICT's "plan d'action" LOKAL+ IRs AAs in MICT’s Communal Action Plan 1. Strengthen the capability of communal AA1. Strengthen the institutional capacities of the governments to provide services communities of the North and North-East departments, including training and support to associations 2. Generate a sustainable increase in local revenues for local services AA 4. Improve, oversee and validate communal budgets and strengthen tax mobilization and financial governance AA 6. Support communal engineers in their urban planning tasks and the issuance of building permits 3. Leverage greater access to central government funding and services AA 5. Support local investment and programs other investment 4. Improve national-level policy and legislation in support of decentralization and deconcentrated services AA 3. Support delegations and vice-delegations 5. Increase transparency, oversight, and accountability of local governments and deconcentrated service providers AA 7. Harmonize and communicate with stakeholders Note: Only AA 2 was not reflected in LOKAL+’s IRs. Another positive and responsive aspect of LOKAL+ was the Activity’s relevance to the GoH’s desire to be more gender inclusive. LOKAL+ staff indicated that, in keeping with the GoH gender inclusion policy, they consulted with the Ministry of Women’s Affairs at the Activity onset and engaged a Gender Inclusion Specialist with the aim of developing a gender inclusion plan that would support the GoH gender inclusion policy. Although MICT worked closely with LOKAL+, Activity documents and KIIs indicated that LOKAL+ had challenges engaging with Parliament. LOKAL+ aimed to engage Parliament at the outset of the Activity. LOKAL+ staff presented the Activity’s objectives to the President of the Senate of the Republic, Mr. Simon Dieuseul Desras, Senator Jocelerme Privert, and several Senate executives and the Chamber of Deputies. The presentation’s purpose was to underscore the United States Government’s (USG) support for a decentralization policy and the following discussion centered on communal revenues. After the meeting, LOKAL+ began developing an approach for advancing decentralization and 12 | FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID.GOV documented this development in its fiscal year (FY) 2014 work plan. However, the first annual report for LOKAL+ stated some concerns about the political will for decentralization and what those implications would be for the Activity. Activity documentation and the GI with Tetra Tech ARD indicated the impact of internal political issues within Parliament on LOKAL+ efforts to develop decentralization policy. On more than one occasion, MPs canceled events on decentralization with Parliament due to these issues. However, LOKAL+ drafted and submitted a concrete policy as a ministerial decree to advance decentralization and deconcentration in Haiti. While the policy submission was an achievement, the absence of a functioning parliament in 2014-2015 was a major setback to LOKAL+’s aim to engage Parliament. This setback was significant enough that Tetra Tech ARD requested a revision to the terms and conditions of IR 4 implementation in its USAID contract in June 2015. Although the 50th Parliament was sworn-in in 2016, according to LOKAL+ reports the Parliament functioned at a very minimal level and did not take any votes on the many bills on the legislative agenda. All the GIs and KIIs with key partners indicated that MPs’ expectations were a chief obstacle that may have impeded the Activity’s early efforts to work with Parliament. The MPs wanted support for funding events and the overlapping mandate of the USAID Parliament Support Project (PSP). Therefore, LOKAL+’s execution of IR 4 was limited and did not meet MPs’ expectations. CONCLUSIONS LOKAL+ was relevant to MICT, but not to MPs. LOKAL+ worked closely with the GoH/MICT in designing its activities and implementing its work plan. The Activity reflected the GoH/MICT’s Communal Action Plan regarding capacity reinforcement, revenue generation, and accountability. LOKAL+ was responsive to the GoH’s gender inclusion policy. However, as LOKAL+ was not designed to support the Parliament, its execution of IR 4 did not meet MPs’ concerns and needs. EQ2 TO WHAT EXTENT WAS THE PROJECT EFFECTIVE, ESPECIALLY IN TERMS OF IMPROVING LOCAL ACCOUNTABILITY, TRANSPARENCY, AND SERVICE DELIVERY? FINDINGS Increasing Tax Revenues According to Activity documents, LOKAL+’s methods to increase tax revenue consisted of: 1) reinforcing fiscal services with the CIVITAX package (training, software, computers, partial census of built properties); 2) building relations between citizens and communal administration through establishing CCCs; 3) developing a list of priority investment areas with citizens (Communal Investment Plan [PIC]); 4) creating citizen awareness around the PIC and communal revenues through public conferences (audiences publiques); and 5) financing tax mobilization with banners, sound trucks, and hired agents. Of these interventions, approximately half of the current/past mayors and key partners interviewed noted that LOKAL+ support for registering built properties, mobilizing and collecting property tax, and using CIVITAX resulted in significant increases in revenue generation.12 This claim was supported by 12 See Annex K for increased revenue information. USAID.GOV FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 13 Activity documents, which show an overall percentage increase in revenue in the majority of targeted communes (see Table 2 below). Table 2: Presentation of Increased Tax Revenues13 Commune LOKAL+ Target (in gourdes per year) Baseline FY13 Revenue FY14 Revenue FY15 Revenue FY16 Revenue as of August 31 Percentage Increase in Revenue Caracol 230,000 34,684 88,964 82,156 227,240 555 % Limonade 920,000 184,000 322,276 515,154 635,674 245 % Ouanaminthe 4,600,000 736,000 1,226,176 3,003,754 2,366,562 222 % Cap 46,000,000 25,438,000 36,341,656 35,258,126 35,886,992 41 % Delmas 460,000,000 303,140,000 334,728,798 352,879,294 414,532,772 37 % Kenscoff 9,200,000 3,864,000 5,955,482 4,421,888 4,554,552 18 % Saint-Marc 13,800,000 7,130,000 6,271,134 5,234,708 5,339,450 -25 % Acul-du-Nord 460,000 276,000 100,096 211,922 151,846 45 % Carrefour 184,000,000 84,640,000 36,881,190 38,733,104 35,726,912 -58 % Total 719,210,000 425,442,684 421,915,772 440,340,106 499,422,000 17 % KII and GI respondents also identified audiences publiques as an effective intervention for mobilizing taxes. In more than half of the GIs with local governance partners (14 of 23 GIs), respondents stated mayors used the audience publiques as a forum to present the PIC (see Annex I for definition) and budget to mobilize taxes. From the mayors’ perspectives, all current/past mayors interviewed concurred that the audiences publiques were very effective for tax mobilization, and a little over half (six current/past mayors) stated that executing some PIC items would increase citizens’ tax compliance. These mayors also conceded an important nuance related to revenue spending. They admitted that much of their communes’ increased revenues is spent on paying staff salaries rather than services, and that they seek donor assistance or central government funding for improved services, local activities, and upkeep of important communal assets. Improving Access to Central Government Funding Activity documents and KII respondents suggested that LOKAL+ had a positive effect on PIC development and use, although some respondents did not think PIC development adequately addressed gender inclusion. Activity documents showed that LOKAL+ successfully helped the communes prepare their PICs by providing venues for, and facilitating workshops with, the CCC, feasibility studies for some PIC activities, and funding to facilitate advocacy in support of PICs. Current/past mayors interviewed 13 See Annex K for more detailed increased revenue information. 14 | FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID.GOV validated these claims by stating that the PICs were being used to advocate support for funding requests. However, from a gender perspective, respondents in six of the 35 FGDs (including four of the nine women’s groups, one entrepreneurs’ group, and one CCC) did not believe that women were included in PIC formulation. Ten FGDs (including eight women’s groups and two of the eight CCCs) did not believe that WASS have been consulted by communal governments on gender matters. Despite the positive statements above, many current/past mayors interviewed said that their access to central GoH funding had not really improved, although respondents disagreed about whether communes needed help accessing central funding. Half of the current/past mayors interviewed, and one key partner, noted that communes still need help accessing central funding. In contrast, a different key partner stated that communes do not need help. Similarly, one mayor and one MP, both from the same commune, said that they were able to access central government funds for one item (a school) that was in their PIC. However, LOKAL+ staff interviewed indicated that this success was due to the Minister of the Interior’s personal relationship with that commune. The desk review and one of the five GIs with key partners also noted that another commune was able to access funding from the central government for one of their PIC items. Some respondents (seven FGDs, four GIs with local government, and three GIs with key partners) believed that MPs and mayors do not have good relationships, while others (one FGD, two GIs with local government partners, and one GI with key partners) believed there was a good relationship between MPs and mayors. KIIs with current/past mayors explained that in the cases where there was not a good relationship, disagreement between MPs and mayors was due to actual or potential political rivalries. Six of the current/past mayors stated that MP support would make it easier to access central government funding. According to MICT, the Contribution Foncière des Propriétés Bâties (CFPB) and Patentes14 are now transferred to the communes pending receipt of their monthly financial reports. MICT stated that these revenues are now being disbursed to the communes on a regular basis even without receiving the communes’ expenditure reports. However, all current/past mayors interviewed disagreed with MICT’s claim. Current/past mayors expressed that they experience significant delays in receiving CFPB and Patente revenues from MICT, and that these delays continue to be a time-consuming burden. When queried about why delays were continuing, current/past mayors referred to “political reasons,” explaining that, as mayors, they cannot influence MICT decisions, and that MICT prefers to respond to mayors who have support from their MPs. Improving Mayor and Staff Skills and Knowledge of Governance GIs with key partners, local governance partners, and Activity documents all stated that LOKAL+ successfully transferred a wide range of capacities to communal staff. LOKAL+ provided institutional capacity reinforcement through technical training, IT management, human resource management, fiscal management software (CIVITAX), and communication. These capacity building efforts were guided by assessments conducted using a standardized communal capacity assessment tool (FOCAS) developed jointly by MICT and LOKAL+. Almost all respondents claimed that the FOCAS is an effective tool for organizational assessment, and that it has been particularly helpful in identifying needs and opportunities for administration, management, human resources, gender, communication, and the utilization of CIVITAX. There is also evidence from FGDs, KIIs, and GIs that LOKAL+ interventions have led to an increase in the quality of services in the communes. For example, in more than a third (13 of 35) of FGDs, citizens stated that LOKAL+ contributed to an improvement in fiscal services as they have seen the new tax 14 See Annex I “Definition of Terms” USAID.GOV FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 15 mobilization methods (banners, sound trucks, etc.) and improvements in the service quality delivered by the Fiscalité Office (e.g. computers). Furthermore, many communal officials (13 of the 23 GIs with communal officials and current/past mayors; three of five GIs with key partners) agreed that LOKAL+ contributed to an improvement in communal fiscal services as they have all been involved in the CIVITAX training and equipment provision (computers, servers, etc.). Indeed, using direct observation, the ET was able to verify the presence of computers, batteries, and inverters provided by LOKAL+ to reinforce tax collection services in all nine communes. In only one of the nine entrepreneur FGDs did respondents say that fiscal services had not been improved. Findings were mixed regarding the quality of public sanitation. Many respondents saw improvements in public sanitation (23 FGDs, nine GIs with local governance partners; five KIIs with current/past mayors). There were, however, some respondents (11 of 35 FGDs) who claimed there were no improvements in public sanitation. Of those who did not see improvements in public sanitation, four were youth groups, three were entrepreneur groups, two were women’s groups, and two were from CCC FGDs. All the mayors stated that LOKAL+ provided IT equipment to run public sanitation equipment and CIVITAX. However, in three communes the ET directly observed that IT equipment was non-operational due to maintenance failures. In terms of gender considerations in service delivery, findings suggest that communal actors could be more inclusive. Few respondents (four of the 23 GIs with local governance partners; two GIs with key partners) stated that women’s participation in communal government meets the GoH’s 30 percent gender quota. None of the local governance partners stated that they know about LOKAL+’s gender inclusion plan. None of the KIIs with mayors reported that their communes have a gender affairs point of contact (PoC). Moreover, six of them stated explicitly that the communes do not have one. Seven of the nine women’s group FGDs stated that they had no knowledge of a PoC for gender affairs in their commune. Indeed, only one of the nine women’s group FGDs stated that they knew of a gender affairs PoC in their commune. Finally, respondents in five FGDs across Delmas, Carrefour, and Cap-Haitian (three of which were WASS and two of which were youth associations) reported that human rights15 are violated by communal agents, as “municipal officers use violence against women who sell on the streets.” Improving the Legal Framework for Decentralization The desk review indicated that the Senate voted on a framework law on decentralization (loi-cadre sur la decentralization) on May 2013 to provide the government with a general roadmap and guidelines on the competencies and capabilities required in local and central government agencies to move forward with decentralization. However, LOKAL+ support to implement this framework did not bear fruit, and discussions in the Chamber of Deputies were stalled for most of 2013. LOKAL+ organized a workshop, chaired by the Office of Management and Human Resources (OMRH), with various line ministry representatives and MPs to identify the issues in the current version of the bill and propose solutions. LOKAL+ then worked with OMRH to revise the draft law in a way that would satisfy all members of the Executive and Chamber of Deputies to hasten the amendment and voting process. While helping OMRH to coordinate inputs from ministries (MICT, Ministère de la Panification et de la Cooperation Externe [MPCE], Ministére des travaux publics, des Transport et de la Communication, Ministére de l’Economie et des Finances [MEF]), LOKAL+ initiated an advocacy exercise with members of the Chamber of Deputies interested in decentralization. LOKAL+ then submitted a revised draft law to OMRH and sought, with the Chamber of Deputies, the most appropriate format to discuss the amendments proposed by the Executive. However, according to the desk review, Parliament has not yet enacted the legal framework for decentralization. The MPs 15 See Annex I “Definition of Terms” 16 | FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID.GOV interviewed were, in general, not aware of the status of the legal framework. There was also limited awareness among most local governance partners interviewed about the legal framework for decentralization and deconcentrated services. Improving Constituency Satisfaction From the desk review, the ET understands that constituency satisfaction is affected by the public’s knowledge and appreciation of the commune’s services, its transparency, and its accountability. Constituency satisfaction is also reflected in the public’s image of the communal administration. In more than half the FGDs (21 of 35), respondents claimed that citizens know about the services provided by their communes, whereas a third (11 of 35) claimed that they do not. Similarly, many FGDs (16) noted that citizens think positively about the services their communes provide. Findings related to image are more negative. Only eight of 35 FGDs and one of the five GIs with key partners stated that communes have a positive image in the eyes of their citizens. In contrast, the majority of FGDs (23) as well as two GIs with local governance partners, and one GI with key partners reported that the communes do not have a positive image. Improving Transparency From the desk review, the ET understands the audience publiques is a model for public conferences in which LOKAL+ identified local community leaders and opinio shapers who were invited to discuss communal matters with municipal authorities. LOKAL+ was successful wit these meetings, which were an important step in communication between citizens and local government and were an opportunity for citizens to hold their elected officials accountable. However, a problematic factor was that not all audience publiques were open to all citizens who may have been interested in attending. KIIs and GIs with local governance and key partners revealed that LOKAL+ pai for audience publiques venues as well as refreshments, and that mayors decided who was invited to participate. in the audience publiques was limited by multiple factors. s n h d As a consequence, the number of participants Improving Accountability The CCC is a citizens group of community opinion shapers selected by LOKAL+. CCCs helped prepare the budget and PIC and advocated for a wide range of citizens issues in the audiences publiques. According to the Activity’s ToC, these efforts were specifically intended to increase accountability and citizen satisfaction. Some of the community leaders and opinion shapers invited to the audiences publiques serve as CCC members, and received training in local governance, especially in oversight. However, as they were selected by LOKAL+ and the mayors, the CCC members are not accountable to the public. According to the desk review, FGDs, KIIs, and GIs with local governance and key partners, LOKAL+’s use of audience publiques successfully created a space Transparency describes an environment where governments and public officials engage in the clear disclosure of rules, plans, processes, and actions in a form that is readily accessible to all. Transparency promotes accountability by providing the public with information about what the government is doing. - USAID Strategy on Democracy, Human Rights and Governance, Annex 1, page 37, June 2013. Accountability refers to the systems, procedures, and mechanisms that ensure that public officials and institutions perform their stated duties and uphold their responsibilities to the public while imposing restraints on their power and authority and providing for redress or sanction when these duties and responsibilities are not met. - USAID Strategy on Democracy, Human Rights and Governance, Annex 1, page 38, June 2013. USAID.GOV FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 17 for citizens to communicate with mayors. Yet, there was also evidence that LOKAL+ was not as effective at generating accountability because the content of the audience publiques was not widely distributed. Activity reports indicated that audiences publiques proceedings were not broadcast on community radio and their minutes were not published or posted. This finding was corroborated by current/past mayors, seven of whom did not say anything about broadcasting the audiences and three of whom specifically stated that they were not broadcasted. From DO, the ET found no evidence that “procès-verbaux” or reports are posted at the city hall for citizen information. KIIs, GIs, and FGDs revealed other limitations to accountability and transparency.16 For example, few communes publicly posted fees or other communal budget information. During DOs at mayors’ offices, the ET checked whether a list of fees for communal services was posted for public view, and if the communal budget and PIC were posted. The ET found that only one of the nine communes had such a fees list posted, and that none of the observed mayors offices had posted a communal budget or PIC. Only five of the 23 GIs with local governance partners, two GIs with key partners, and two FGDs stated that the communal budget and PIC were publicly available. Meanwhile, 18 FGDs noted that the communal budget and PIC were not available to the public. The majority of FGDs (31) were not aware of the communal budget. FGD respondents were also split in their awareness of the PIC, with some being aware, and others not. In the majority of FGDs (21, including seven of the eight CCCs) respondents stated mayors have not shared any Activity or expense reports with citizens. Six FGDs (including four women’s groups, entrepreneurs’ group, and one CCC) did not believe that women were included in the formulation of PICs. Ten FGDs (including eight women’s groups and two CCCs) did not believe that women’s associations have been consulted by the communal government on gender matters. It is telling that many evaluation respondents reported poor communication between communes and their citizenry. For example, a third of FGDs (13) reported that communes do not communicate at all with their citizenry. This included three women’s groups, three YASS, four entrepreneur FGDs, and three CCC FGDs. It should be noted that 11 FGDs reported that they do not know whether communal administrations meet with citizens. In another example, a third of FGDs felt the communal authorities do not meet with citizens (only three FGDs reported that communal authorities meet with citizens). In its DO visit to one commune, the ET observed that the commune’s offices were closed during business hours (8:00 AM – 4:00 PM). The city hall was opened just to receive the ET around 11 AM. Between DOs and FGDs, the ET found this specific commune’s city hall almost always closed, as the mayors are often out of office. Finally, when asked about the top means by which the communes do communicate with the citizenry, respondents indicated the following in rank order: 1. face-to-face, two-way meetings (11 FGDs; 14 GIs with local governance partners, and one GI with key partners) 2. megaphone (19 FGDs; one GI with local governance partners) 3. posters, banners and flyers (15 FGDs; one GI with local governance partners) 16 See Annex I “Definition of Terms” “The mayors don’t want to meet with people.” “After the election, the elected officials leave the commune and go to live elsewhere; they are normally never in office, they come only when there are NGOs [non-governmental organizations] to meet." USAID.GOV FINAL EVALUATION REPORT|1 CONCLUSIONS LOKAL+ was effective in increasing tax revenues and in improving mayor and staff skills and knowledge of governance. LOKAL+ was partially successful in helping communes improve central government funding, transparency and accountability, and constituency satisfaction. The Activity was not successful in improving the legal framework for decentralization. Increased tax revenues were achieved via LOKAL+ support to communes for registering built properties, mobilizing and collecting property tax, and using CIVITAX to increase revenue.17 However, mayors and senior communal staff are not making budget decisions that give priority to increasing revenue. To improve mayor and staff skills and knowledge of governance, LOKAL+ successfully provided staff training and equipment, which contributed to improving service delivery in tax collection and public sanitation. At the same time, women’s participation remains elusive in communal governments as the 30 percent quota for women’s inclusion is not met and communes do not have a Gender Affairs PoC. Besides training programs on gender issues, the ET found no evidence of implementation of the Gender Inclusion Plan in any of the target communes. However, the ET did obtain reports of communal employees committing violence against women street vendors. LOKAL+ was partially effective in improving access to central government funding in that the activities assisted the communes to develop their PICs. Communes used PICs in their advocacy for funding from the central government and other sources, though it is notable that PIC development did not sufficiently include women or women’s associations. Improving constituency satisfaction largely depends on the quality of services provided by the communes. LOKAL+ did help its nine target communes improve public services in the areas of public sanitation and tax collection, which is reflected in the citizenship thinking positively about the services provided by their communes. However, findings indicate many citizens still hold a negative image of their communes. LOKAL+ positively contributed to improving transparency and accountability by facilitating audiences publiques—thus increasing citizens’ ability to communicate with their mayors—and successfully creating the CCC, an institutional interface between citizens and mayors to improve accountability and transparency by improving citizens’ participation in PIC and budget formulation. Yet transparency and accountability are still limited since audience publiques only benefit those who participate in person, and overall communication between the communes and its citizenry remains poor. LOKAL+ was not effective in improving the legal framework for decentralization as Parliament has yet to enact the decentralization framework and MPs have limited awareness about the legal framework for decentralization. Support for advocacy is needed and relationships with MPs seem to be a way to strengthen the advocacy efforts. EQ3 TO WHAT EXTENT WILL THE LOCAL GOVERNMENTS ASSISTED BY LOKAL+ BE ABLE TO CONTINUE IMPROVED GOVERNANCE, ESPECIALLY IN TERMS OF TRANSPARENCY, ACCOUNTABILITY, AND SERVICE DELIVERY? 17 See Annex K 2 | FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID.GOV FINDINGS Continuing Improved Transparency As mentioned in the findings for EQ2, LOKAL+ implemented audiences publiques to facilitate citizens’ access to mayors to discuss communal affairs. The majority of respondents and FGDs did not believe that the audiences publiques model would continue after the end of LOKAL+. Those who said the audiences publiques will not continue explained that the communal administrations have neither the management capability nor the resources to conduct the LOKAL+ model of audiences publiques on their own. Additionally, some FGDs and GIs with key partners reported that the communal budget will not be available to the public after LOKAL+ as the budget was only available to the public through the audiences publiques, which were conducted with the support of LOKAL+. The rare exceptions of respondents who thought the audience publiques would continue were from communes in which communal authorities had previous experience conducting similar meetings before LOKAL+. Furthermore, the majority of FGDs (28) reported that citizens believe expanding the audiences publiques would improve local governance by allowing more citizens to access the mayors regarding community affairs. According to GIs with local governance partners as well as the ET’s DOs, none of the nine communes have a citizen’s information service. However, almost half the FGDs (12), reported that citizens believe a communal information services would help to improve local governance. The logic behind this is that if communes have a service to provide information and allow discussion about communal fees and other administrative information, then transparency and local governance will improve. Finally, some FGDs (eight) and most GIs with key partners reported that improved local governance could be achieved through capacity building for CBO/CSOs. They stated that reinforced CBO/CSOs will be better at oversight and monitoring of communal actions. Continuing Improved Accountability Very few respondents (two GIs with local governance partners, one FGD, and one GI with key partners) stated that the PIC will continue beyond LOKAL+. Similarly, respondents did not believe the CCCs would continue after LOKAL+ ended. The desk review indicated that the CCC is not an elected body; it was created during the time when mayors were appointed and LOKAL+ sought to create a citizens’ group that could serve as an interlocutor with the mayors. Furthermore, the desk review and one key partner GI revealed that in one commune the communal administration was reluctant to work with the CCC because its members were perceived as the mayors’ political rivals, as some members had been candidates during the mayoral elections. Reinforcing this perception is the fact that in another commune the former CCC President was elected as the principal mayor of that commune. In another commune, the mayors did not want to work with the CCC as they do not believe they are required to report to it. From the desk review and one key partner GI, the ET learned that the CCC in another commune does not want to work with LOKAL+ as they were expecting LOKAL+ to provide support for office space and other financial needs to allow it to play an oversight and monitoring role. This is despite the fact that LOKAL+ was not required to provide this type of support. Nevertheless, these respondents stated that their degree of unhappiness with LOKAL+ was so strong that they wanted nothing to do with any aspect of the Activity, even participating in the evaluation. As the CCC refused to participate in a scheduled FGD, the ET interviewed the president of the CCC by telephone. Due to logistical and timing constraints Tetra Tech ARD did not have an opportunity to react to this specific claim. Continuing Improved Service Delivery The desk review indicated that taxes on built properties and annual business fees are the greatest revenue sources for some communes, whereas for others building permits are more significant. USAID.GOV FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 3 However, KIIs and GIs gave slightly conflicting information, as communal officials indicated the following three items as the greatest sources of revenue (ordered from most to least important): 1. CFPB (13 GIs with local governance partners; one GI with key partners) 2. building permits (seven GIs with local governance partners, including three current/past mayors; one GI with key partners) 3. annual business fees (“patents”) (seven GIs with local governance partners) Furthermore, Activity documents and half of the local governance partners interviewed reported that non-fiscal fees—which are deposited directly into communes’ bank accounts—are a source of income that communes can access directly without having to go to the central government. All mayors stated that non-fiscal revenues are used for operational costs, though they all also indicated that there is no budget for operational costs. One mayor stated that the non-fiscal revenues used to represent more than 40 percent of his commune’s annual budget. Few respondents and FGDs reported that they thought fiscal mobilization, as carried out by LOKAL+, will continue, or that communes can mobilize tax revenues as LOKAL+ did. Specifically, seven GIs with local governance partners stated that the communes will not be able to continue tax mobilization after the Activity ends, whereas six GIs with local governance partners noted that they do not have the resources to continue tax mobilization after the end of the Activity. For example, desk review and KIIs/GIs indicated that LOKAL+ hired personnel and sound trucks and paid for banners for tax mobilization, yet the mayors interviewed claimed that they have neither the budget, personnel, nor training to undertake these expenses and activities without LOKAL+. Some respondents (four GIs with local governance partners, and one GI with key partners) said that the census of built properties will not continue after the Activity. These respondents stated that even though they themselves worked with the partial census provided by LOKAL+, they did not have the necessary tools (computer tablets, smartphones, global positioning system devices etc.) and were not able to enter new data. DOs confirmed that communes do not have the capability to maintain their computers, even though LOKAL+ provided computer maintenance training. All the mayors stated that lack of internet connectivity was an impediment to continued use of CIVITAX. All the mayors and three GIs with key partners stated that most communal staff trained by LOKAL+ were replaced during the transition between the interim and elected mayors, causing a loss in core personnel trained by the Activity, including staff trained on CIVITAX. This also applied to government￾appointed interim staff and had a negative impact on capacity building. This is because, in some instances, both mayors and their staff were changed during the Activity. All the mayors interviewed as well as three GIs with key partners stated that the government strategy of hiring core staff (i.e. that would not be vulnerable to political replacement) mitigated this problem. The ST identified other myriad factors that threaten the sustainability of improved service delivery. For example, many interviewed mayors stated that mayors expect a decrease in tax revenue this year, resulting from lack of service investments over the past year. Furthermore, almost half of the mayors interviewed conceded that they make limited service investments, a finding that was verified by other key partners and some of the FGDs. A third of mayors interviewed also stated that much of their increased revenues were spent on raising staff salaries. Several respondents (9 GIs with local governance partners, including six with mayors) stated that communal officials are challenged by the lack of a collaborative relationship with the DGI, which is needed for tax collection. 4 | FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID.GOV Finally, the desk review showed that LOKAL+ did not have a sustainability plan for the communes. This finding was corroborated through interviews with LOKAL+ staff. CONCLUSIONS Continuing to improve transparency: The audiences publiques is a model of public discourse developed by LOKAL+ to increase transparency, and a majority of FGDs would like them to continue. However, the LOKAL+ model of audiences publiques is unlikely to continue beyond the Activity as the communes do not have the financial or personnel resources necessary to sustain them. Continuing to improve accountability: As they were created by LOKAL+ to serve as interlocutors between the mayors and citizens, the CCCs are also unlikely to continue beyond the Activity. Due to its non-elected status and political rivalries, the CCC’s effectiveness is limited. Continuing to improve service delivery: LOKAL+ capacity building consisted of improving various types of service delivery in the selected communes. Of these, tax mobilization is an important area of focus for the selected communes. LOKAL+’s hands-on tax mobilization activities contributed to increased tax revenue in communes but did not increase individual communes’ abilities to independently raise taxes. In addition to challenges with raising taxes, revenue increases have generally not been invested in improved service delivery. LOKAL+’s capacity building investments are at risk of being lost due to the mayors’ practice of bringing in political nominees to hold key positions. Mayors and communal officials do not make budget decisions that prioritize increasing revenue generation. A key example of the challenges associated with the government’s ability to reinvest raised taxes is the CIVITAX software system. It is currently limited for use on CFPB (tax on built properties). The software is not yet complete, and the poor collaboration between communes and DGI may impede the sustainability of CIVITAX. LOKAL+’s hands-on approach did not increase communes’ ability to mobilize increased tax revenue using their own capabilities. LOKAL+ also helped communes develop PICs to help attract central GoH funds, but the communes have limited capacity to advocate for central government funding. In some communes, non-fiscal revenues could be a larger share of communal revenue. Historically however, the management of these funds is not transparent. LOKAL+’s support for tax mobilization in target communes contributed to a significant increase in revenue, but it could not be confirmed that this has resulted in a sustained increased capacity in the target communes to raise taxes on their own. This is of particular interest as respondents noted that the targeted communes do not have the resources to maintain this Activity. RECOMMENDATIONS USAID should direct future local governance programming to: • Provide technical and legal information to support the work of the Parliamentary Commission on decentralization and other GoH partners such as OMRH and MICT. This could lead to further legislation in support of decentralization through advocacy and legal development. • Help communes develop their own models of expanded audiences publiques. Tailored models could take their management capabilities and resources into account and would be open to USAID.GOV FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 5 all citizens and local authorities. It could be broadcast by radio, where applicable. These audiences publiques could also be held in all the communal sections and their reports (“procès verbales”) posted at the communal office. • Assist each commune to prepare a strategic development plan. The plan should prioritize the expenditure of communal resources and strategically link them to items such as revenue generating investments, tax mobilization needs, concrete plans for yearly increases in property census, improvements in fiscal management, engagement with tax payers, and initiatives to attract private sector investment. • Tailor support to communes based upon the execution of their strategic development plans. Additionally, support should take into account demonstration of public transparency, accountability, and gender inclusion. • Involve DGI in the completion and expansion of CIVITAX. With DGI involved, CIVITAX could turn into a comprehensive communal management software that incorporates revenue streams other than property taxes (e.g. redevances) to improve management, accountability, transparency, and sustainability. • Provide training in urban planning and management to the appropriate officials in the communal governments. • Develop a unique sustainability plan for each commune. • Support expanding the strategy of establishing permanent core positions within communal administrations. • Train mayors and senior communal staff in how to make budget decisions that prioritize revenue streams. 6 | FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID.GOV ANNEXES USAID.GOV FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 7 ANNEX A: EVALUATION STATEMENT OF WORK STATEMENT OF WORK Final Performance Evaluation Limiyè ak Òganizasyon pou Kolektivite yo Ale Lwen (LOKAL+) PURPOSE OF THE EVALUATION The purpose of this final performance evaluation is to inform possible follow-on and other future governance programming. Specifically, the evaluation will identify strengths and weaknesses in the current Activity to inform lessons learned upon which the new programming can be based. In particular, it will assess the validity of the development hypothesis that if public services are improved, then government legitimacy could be enhanced further. To this end, the evaluation will assess to what extent, the Activity made or is on a path to making a positive contribution to the capacity development of local municipal partners in Haiti. The evaluation results are expected to be used by all Activity stakeholders including Government of Haiti (GoH) entities in the nine targeted communes and CSOs (see Annex I for definition) advocating for reform in public management SUMMARY INFORMATION Option 1: For strategies, projects, or activities with one implementing partner Strategy/Project/Activity Name Limiyè ak Òganizasyon pou Kolektivite yo Ale Lwen (LOKAL+) program Implementer Tetra Tech ARD Cooperative Agreement/Contract # AID-513-C-13-00004 Total Estimated Ceiling of the Evaluated Project/Activity(TEC) $19,749,345 Life of Strategy, Project, or Activity January 2013 – January 2018 Active Geographic Regions Acul du Nord, Cap-Haitien, Caracol, Carrefour, Delmas, Kenscoff, Limonade, Ouanaminthe, and Saint Marc Development Objective(s) (DOs) DO1. Independence and accountability of GoH institutions improved. USAID Office USAID/Haiti BACKGROUND Communes in Haiti are responsible for providing a wide range of services to the population. However, most local governments struggle to pay operating costs and are largely dependent on the national government to fund public services or infrastructure improvements. Haitian law establishes a legal basis for local taxation, but many communes only collect a fraction of the possible revenue. Moreover, due to 8 | FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID.GOV a scarcity of trained staff and antiquated management systems, most communes lack the capacity to transform these few resources into public services. Communes in Haiti are responsible for providing a wide range of services to the population. However, most local governments struggle to pay operating costs and are largely dependent on the national government to fund public services or infrastructure improvements. Haitian law establishes a legal basis for local taxation, but many communes only collect a fraction of the possible revenue. Moreover, due to a scarcity of trained staff and antiquated management systems, most communes lack the capacity to transform these few resources into public services. The Limiyè ak Òganizasyon pou Kolektivite yo Ale Lwen (LOKAL+) program (Transparency and Organization for Municipal Progress) provides assistance to targeted communes to improve tax collection, management, and service delivery. LOKAL+ also works with national government entities to improve the legal framework and to increase the resources available to communes. Communes collaborating with LOKAL+ include: Acul du Nord, Cap-Haitien, Caracol, Carrefour, Delmas, Kenscoff, Limonade, Ouanaminthe, and Saint Marc. A. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROBLEM, DEVELOPMENT HYPOTHESIS (ES), AND THEORY OF CHANGE Communal governments provide some services and have the authority to collect own-source revenues. Since the 2010 earthquake, there has been increased demand on municipal governments to provide services, including support for Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) in communes distant from earthquake￾affected areas, e.g., schooling of displaced children. In order to improve and expand the delivery of local public services, Haiti’s 140 communes need to improve their administrative capacity to generate revenues and deliver services. This includes improving their capacities in areas such as strategic planning, budgeting, tax collection, financial and program management, prioritizing of services, and outreach to citizens. The level of expertise among both elected and administrative officials is limited. Municipal communications with citizens are not well developed and there is much room for improvement. LOKAL+ helps improve public services in targeted communes through five intermediate sub-results, termed “preferred outcomes,” as follows: 1. Strengthening the capacity of communal governments to provide services 2. Generating a sustainable increase in local revenue to pay for local services 3. Leveraging greater access to central government funding services 4. Improving national level policy and legislation in support of decentralization and deconcentrated service providers 5. Increasing transparency, oversight and accountability of local governments and deconcentrated service providers USAID’s development hypothesis is that if these preferred outcomes are achieved, then targeted communes will improve service delivery, which will help the USG achieve its goal of a more stable and economically viable Haiti. B. SUMMARY OF ACTIVITY TO BE EVALUATED Lokal+ is working in targeted communes to improve the quality of local service delivery in communes. Public services targeted for LOKAL+ assistance have been identified through a strategic planning exercise during which the communal government formally consults with its citizenry and discusses priorities and budgeting of public services. LOKAL+ provides training and technical assistance for this consultative process with citizens, the private sector, and other stakeholders. Lokal+ supports training and orientation for newly elected mayors and other local elected officials, including the roles and responsibilities of their offices, and the laws related to communes and public services. Training of newly elected local officials sets the stage for LOKAL+ follow-on services to targeted USAID.GOV FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 9 communes, particularly for improved service delivery. Also, LOKAL+ consults with the MICT’s Department of Local Government and actively coordinates training for orienting newly elected local officials with ministerial strategies. C. SUMMARY OF THE ACTIVITY MONITORING, EVALUATION, AND LEARNING (MEL) PLAN Monitoring ,evaluation, and learning is integrated into program implementation via baseline studies conducted and final program evaluations, and ongoing data collection to objectively measure enhanced service delivery, improved financial management, community consultation and oversight, and take actions to adaptively manage the project based on the data collected and lessons learned. Verification Methods: • Local partners’ Advocacy Plans • Database training attendance lists • Survey reports, Small Grants Program reports • Funding source survey, financial records, MOU and contracts • Event attendance sheets, trip reports, and support logs • Quarterly and annual reports EVALUATION QUESTIONS 1. To what extent was the original project design relevant to GoH concerns and needs? This question will examine the extent to which the GoH had ownership in the original design. It will also assess the extent to which the project built upon best practices in government decentralization and municipal government strengthening. 2. To what extent was the project effective, specifically in terms improving local accountability, transparency, and service delivery? This question will specifically examine the project’s effectiveness in terms of: i. Increasing tax revenues ii. improving access to central government funding iii. improving mayor’s and staff skills and knowledge of governance iv. improving the legal framework for decentralization v. improving constituency satisfaction 3. To what extent will the local governments assisted by LOKAL+ be able to continue improved governance, especially in terms of transparency and accountability, and service delivery? EVALUATION DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY The methodological approach should include a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods, including Focus Groups, Key Informant interviews and survey of the constituencies of the local plus targeted communes. The Evaluation Team Leader will specify the research design based on the evaluation questions and the project background information. DELIVERABLES AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS 1. Evaluation Work plan: Upon receipt of this Activity Request, Social Impact (SI) shall submit within two weeks a draft work plan to the Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR). The work plan will include: (1) the anticipated schedule and logistical arrangements; (2) a list of the members of the evaluation team, delineated by roles and responsibilities with their level of effort; (3) the identification of other required personnel and relevant local subcontractors, their LOE, roles and responsibilities and qualifications; and (4) the deliverable schedule. 10 | FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID.GOV 2. Inception Report: The evaluation team will have two weeks to review the project documents and produce an inception report or background report that addresses what the evaluation team has learned based on program documents provided to them. The inception report should inform the design of the evaluation. Therefore, during this phase period, USAID/Haiti should consider the possibility of revising evaluation questions based on evaluation team input. Any revisions to the questions in the SOW should be documented in writing in the evaluation report. 3. Evaluation Design: Within four weeks of approval of the work plan, SI must submit to Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) an evaluation design (which will become an annex to the Evaluation report). The evaluation design will include: (1) a detailed evaluation design matrix that links the Evaluation Questions in the SOW to data sources, methods, and the data analysis plan; (2) draft questionnaires and other data collection instruments or their main features; (3) the list of potential interviewees and sites to be visited; (4) known limitations to the evaluation design; and (5) a dissemination plan. USAID/Haiti will take up to 10 business days to review and consolidate comments through the COR. Once the evaluation team receives the consolidated comments on the initial evaluation design and work plan, they are expected to return with a revised evaluation design and work plan within 5 business days. 4. In-briefing: Prior undertaking field work, the evaluation team will have an in-briefing with the USAID/Governance Team and the Evaluation and Survey Services (ESS) COR to discuss the ET’s understanding of the assignment, initial assumptions, evaluation questions, methodology, and work plan, and to clarify any questions or logistic needs. 5. Evaluation Briefing/Presentation: The evaluation team is expected to hold a final presentation in person to discuss the summary of findings and recommendations to USAID within 20 business days after the conclusion of fieldwork. 6. Draft Evaluation Report: The draft evaluation report should be consistent with the guidance provided in Section IX: Final Report Format. The report will address each of the questions identified in the SOW and any other issues the ET considers to have a bearing on the objectives of the evaluation. Any such issues can be included in the report only after consultation with USAID. The submission date for the draft evaluation report will be determined in the evaluation work plan. Once the initial draft evaluation report is submitted, USAID/Haiti will have 10 working business days in which to review and comment on the initial draft, after which point the ESS COR will submit the consolidated comments to the evaluation team. The evaluation team will then be asked to submit a revised final draft report 5 business days hence, and again USAID/Haiti will review and send comments on this final draft report within 5 business days of its submission. 7. Final Evaluation Report: The evaluation team will be asked to take no more than 15 business days to respond/incorporate the final comments from the Governance Office. The evaluation team leader will then submit the final report to the COR. All project data and records (FGD and KII summary reports) shall be submitted in full and should be in electronic form in easily readable format, organized, and documented for use by those not fully familiar with the intervention or evaluation, and owned by USAID. EVALUATION TEAM COMPOSITION The Evaluation Team shall be comprised of two Key Personnel positions: (i) a Team Leader, and ii) a local government specialist. SI is strongly encouraged to sub-partner with a local Haitian firm for data collection purposes. The selected Haitian firm should demonstrate proven capacity in collecting data in the relevant field and should have data analysis capabilities to perform all related data management functions. This approach is encouraged to build the local firm capacity and will also provide a Haitian perspective for the data collection and analysis. USAID.GOV FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 11 The Team Leader (TL) is ultimately responsible for the overall management of the evaluation team, coordinating the implementation of the evaluation, assigning evaluation responsibilities and tasks, and authoring the final evaluation report in conformity with this Statement of Work. The TL must be an experienced evaluation expert, with a documented track record of 10 years of experience in the field of evaluation. S/he should have a strong background in the governance and/or public administration field. S/he should be fluent in French and English. S/he should have at least a Master’s Degree in Economics, Statistics, Political Science, or Public Administration. The Local Government Specialist will help the TL in the overall management of the evaluation team and the final products, in conformity with this Statement of Work. He should be familiar with the Haitian administration. S/he must possess excellent writing and interpersonal skills and must be familiar with USAID programs, objectives, and reporting requirements. S/he should have experience in designing and implementing surveys and conducting FGDs. Fluency in French is required. English and Haitian Creole are highly desirable, as is significant prior work experience in Haiti. A Bachelor's degree in Political Science, Public Administration, or a related field is required to ensure that all areas of technical expertise required for the evaluation are effectively covered. All team members will be required to provide a signed statement attesting to a lack of conflict of interest or describing any existing conflict of interest. The evaluation team shall demonstrate familiarity with USAID’s evaluation policies and guidance included in the USAID Automated Directive System (ADS) in Chapter 200. EVALUATION SCHEDULE Timing (Anticipated Weeks or Duration) Scheduled Activities 6 Weeks Preparation of the work plan, inception report and evaluation design 3 Weeks USAID review of the work plan, inception report and evaluation design 1 Week Submission of the revised evaluation design, inception report and work plan; in-briefing 3 Weeks Data collection 2 Weeks Data analysis and Evaluation Briefing 2 Weeks Draft Report writing 2 Weeks USAID review of Draft Report 2 Weeks Incorporate USAID comments and prepare Final Report FINAL REPORT FORMAT The evaluation final report should include an abstract; executive summary; background of the local context and the strategies/projects/activities being evaluated; the evaluation purpose and main evaluation questions; the methodology or methodologies; the limitations to the evaluation; findings, conclusions, and recommendations. For more detail, see “How-To Note: Preparing Evaluation Reports” and ADS 12 | FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID.GOV 201mah, USAID Evaluation Report Requirements. An optional evaluation report template is available in the Evaluation Toolkit. The executive summary should be 2–5 pages in length and summarize the purpose, background of the project being evaluated, main evaluation questions, methods, findings, conclusions, and recommendations and lessons learned (if applicable). The evaluation methodology shall be explained in the report in detail. Limitations to the evaluation shall be disclosed in the report, with particular attention to the limitations associated with the evaluation methodology (e.g., selection bias, recall bias, unobservable differences between comparator groups, etc.) The annexes to the report shall include: ● The Evaluation SOW; ● Any statements of difference regarding significant unresolved differences of opinion by funders, implementers, and/or members of the evaluation team; ● All data collection and analysis tools used in conducting the evaluation, such as questionnaires, checklists, and discussion guides; ● All sources of information are properly identified and listed; and ● Signed disclosure of conflict of interest forms for all evaluation team members, either attesting to a lack of conflicts of interest or describing existing conflicts of. ● Any “statements of difference” regarding significant unresolved differences of opinion by funders, implementers, and/or members of the evaluation team. ● Summary information about evaluation team members, including qualifications, experience, and role on the ET. In accordance with ADS 201, the contractor will make the final evaluation reports publicly available through the Development Experience Clearinghouse within three months of the evaluation’s conclusion. CRITERIA TO ENSURE THE QUALITY OF THE EVALUATION REPORT Per ADS 201maa, Criteria to Ensure the Quality of the Evaluation Report, draft and final evaluation reports will be evaluated against the following criteria to ensure the quality of the evaluation report.18 ● Evaluation reports should represent a thoughtful, well-researched, and well-organized effort to objectively evaluate the strategy, project, or Activity. ● Evaluation reports should be readily understood and should identify key points clearly, distinctly, and succinctly. ● The Executive Summary of an evaluation report should present a concise and accurate statement of the most critical elements of the report. ● Evaluation reports should adequately address all evaluation questions included in the SOW, or the evaluation questions subsequently revised and documented in consultation and agreement with USAID. ● Evaluation methodology should be explained in detail and sources of information properly identified. 18 See ADS 201mah, USAID Evaluation Report Requirements and the Evaluation Report Review Checklist from the Evaluation Toolkit for additional guidance. USAID.GOV FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 13 ● Limitations to the evaluation should be adequately disclosed in the report, with particular attention to the limitations associated with the evaluation methodology (selection bias, recall bias, unobservable differences between comparator groups, etc.). ● Evaluation findings should be presented as analyzed facts, evidence, and data and not based on anecdotes, hearsay, or simply the compilation of people’s opinions. ● Findings and conclusions should be specific, concise, and supported by strong quantitative or qualitative evidence. ● If evaluation findings assess person-level outcomes or impact, they should also be separately assessed for both males and females. ● If recommendations are included, they should be supported by a specific set of findings and should be action-oriented, practical, and specific. 14 | FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID.GOV ANNEX B: EVALUATION MATRIX EQ Data Collection Data Sources Sample Analysis Method Questions 1. To what extent was KIIs GoH Please describe KII information will the original project how the concerns be used to GIs MP design relevant to the and needs of complement and concerns and needs of DOs Current/Past GoH and compare with the GoH, including the Mayors Parliament are information collected parliament reflected in the from GIs and DOs. USAID staff LOKAL+ design. LOKAL+ staff How did GoH Former LOKAL+ and Parliament staff communicate their concerns Site visits (for the and needs during DOs) the LOKAL+ design? 2. To what extent was KIIs GoH In what way did For analysis, FGD the project effective, LOKAL+ help the information will be GIs Current/Past especially in terms of communal council used to complement Mayors improving local DOs become more and compare with accountability, USAID staff communicative information collected FGDs transparency, and about its from KIIs, GIs, and LOKAL+ staff service delivery? activities? DOs. Former LOKAL+ In what way did staff LOKAL+ help the communal council entrepreneurs become more communicative about its WASS spending? YASS CCC Site visits (for the DOs) 3. To what extent will KIIs GoH To what extent KII information will the local governments do you think the be used to GIs Current/Past assisted by LOKAL+ be commune complement and Mayors able to continue DOs government will compare with improved governance, USAID staff continue to information collected FGDs especially in terms of improve beyond from GIs, and FGDs. LOKAL+ staff transparency, the LOKAL+ Also, DOs will be accountability, and Former LOKAL+ project? referenced. service delivery? staff entrepreneurs WASS YASS CCC Site visits (for the DOs) USAID.GOV FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 15 16 | FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID.GOV ANNEX C: LIST OF PERSONS INTERVIEWED CONNECTION No. COMMUNE SEX INDIVIDUAL TITLE CODE TO PROJECT Participated in training on Civitax; Chesnel Assistant management and Current/Past No.1 Acul du Nord M Etienne* Mayor leadership; Mayors communication outreach Participated in training on Civitax; Adjenson Assistant management and Current/Past No.2 Acul du Nord M Dugue* Mayor leadership; Mayors communication outreach Directeur Municipality Participate in No.3 Acul du Nord M MMS General Key Staff training Directeur Municipality Participate in No.4 Acul du Nord W MMS fiscalite Key Staff training Participated in training on Civitax; Ex-Maire Principal management and Current/Past No.5 Acul du Nord Pricipal mayor leadership; Mayors communication outreach Participated in training on Civitax; Jean-Claude Principal management and Current/Past No.6 Cap Haitian M Mondesir Mayor leadership; Mayors communication outreach Participated in training on Civitax; Senior Director management and Municipal No.7 Cap Haitian M Frantzdy Jean General of leadership; Civil Administration communication Servants outreach USAID.GOV FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 17 Field Office Headed LOKAL+ Director, office in Cap Jean-Sebastien No.8 Cap-Haitien M Northern Haitian. (currently LOKAL+ Roy* Corridor (key residing in Santo personnel) Dominto. Will reach by skype.) Participated in training on Civitax; Johmson Assistant management and Current/Past No.9 Caracol M Alfred* Mayor leadership; Mayors communication outreach Directeur Municipality Participate in No.10 Caracol M MMS General Key Staff training Directeur Municipality Participate in No.11 Carrefour M MMS General Key Staff training Directeur Municipality Participate in No.12 Delmas M MMS Fiscalite Key Staff training Participated in training on Civitax; Francois Assistant management and Current/Past No.13 Kenscoff M Correlus* Mayor leadership; Mayors communication outreach Participated in training on Civitax; Principal management and Current/Past No.14 Kenscoff M Nadal Estimé* Mayor leadership; Mayors communication outreach Member of No.15 Kenscoff W Depute MP Parliament Participated in training on Civitax; Assistant management and Current/Past No.16 Limonade M Claudin Saul* Mayor leadership; Mayors communication outreach 18 | FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID.GOV Participated in training on Civitax; Gesner Principal management and Current/Past No.17 Limonade M Dieudonné* Mayor leadership; Mayors communication outreach Directeur Municipality Participate in No.18 Limonade M MMS fiscalite Key Staff training Participated in training on Civitax; Senior Director management and Municipal No.19 Limonade M Sergo Louis* General of leadership; Civil Administration communication Servants outreach Participated in training on Civitax; Carmene Assistant management and Current/Past No.20 Limonade W Mondesir* Mayor leadership; Mayors communication outreach Directeur voiries et des Municipality Participate in No.21 Limonade W MMS équipement Key Staff training collectifs Senior Responsible Municipality Participate in Municipal No.22 Limonade M Affaires social Key Staff trainings, Civil Servants Member of No.23 Limonade M Depute MP Parliament Participated in training on Civitax; Assistant management and Current/Past No.24 Ouanaminthe M Amos Joseph* Mayor leadership; Mayors communication outreach Director of Municipality Participate in No.25 Ouanaminthe M MMS fiscalite Key Staff training Crecilia Pierre Participated in - Assistant Current/Past No.26 Ouanaminthe W Antoinne* Mayor training on Civitax; Mayors management and USAID.GOV FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 19 leadership; communication outreach GoH General Witnessing MOU Fednel No.27 (location M Director of signature for the GoH Monchery* Port-au- MICT MICT Prince) Training and Capacity LOKAL+ Abraham Building Works for No.28 M LOKAL+ (location Lesperance* Officer (IFOS LOKAL+ Petion Ville) staff at LOKAL+) Participate in summit of FENAMH Direction des GoH supported by Responsible de Collecticité No.29 (location W LOKAL+: Leverage GoH DCT Territoriales, Port-au- greater access to MICT Prince) central government funding and services LOKAL+ Works for Chief of No.30 (location M B. Thiam LOKAL+ Party/LOKAL+ Petion Ville) LOKAL+ Deputy Chief Works for No.31 W LOKAL+ (location F. of Party/ LOKAL+ Petion Ville) Malebranche* LOKAL+ LOKAL+ Candice Works for No.32 W (location Mondesir LOKAL+ Staff LOKAL+ Petion Ville) President of AMA (Association des Maires de Assistant l’Artibonite) Current/Past No.33 Saint Marc M Franz Ulysse* Mayor Participated in Mayors training on Civitax; management and leadership; 20 | FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID.GOV communication outreach No.34 Saint Marc M Agents service urbanisme Municipality Key Staff Senior Municipal Civil Servants No.35 Saint Marc M Director of fiscality Municipality Key Staff Participate in training Senior Municipal Civil Servants No.36 Saint Marc M Agents service urbanisme Municipality Key Staff Senior Municipal Civil Servants No.37 Saint Marc W Agents service urbanisme Municipality Key Staff Senior Municipal Civil Servants No.38 Saint Marc M Directeur General Municipality Key Staff Participate in training Senior Municipal Civil Servants No.39 Saint Marc M Depute Member of Parliament MP No.40 USAID Mission Office (Tabarre) M Gabriel Joseph D&G Staff Working / Worked on LOKAL+ USAID No.41 USAID Mission Office (Tabarre) M Washington Dimanche D&G Staff Working / Worked on LOKAL+ USAID No.42 USAID Mission Office (Tabarre) M Alphonse Nkunzimana D&G Staff Working / Worked on LOKAL+ USAID No.43 USAID Mission Office (Tabarre) W Prisca Duracin D&G Staff Working / Worked on LOKAL+ USAID No.44 Petion-ville M Director, IFOS Implementing partner Working / Worked on LOKAL+ LOKAL+ USAID.GOV FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 21 Petion-ville Resposible of Implementing Working / Worked LOKAL+ No.45 M BRIDES partner on LOKAL+ 22 | FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID.GOV ANNEX D: CONSENT FORM Confidentiality: At the beginning of each interview and discussion group a Respondents’ Form (in French and Creole) will be distributed for signature. This form will serve a dual purpose as consent form and confidentiality form: STATEMENT OF CONSENT/CONFIDENTIALITY YES: You may state my name in the Evaluation Report ☐ YES: You may quote me (use my name next to statements that I make) ☐ NO: You may not state my name in the Evaluation Report ☐ Date: _________________________________ Name: ________________________________________________________________ Signature: ___________________________________________________________ USAID.GOV FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 23 ANNEX E: DATA COLLECTION PROTOCOLS This section presents the questions that will be asked in the KIIs and FGDs and the issues that will frame the gender and social analyses. It furthers and expands upon the Evaluation Design Matrix presented in Annex B (see abridged version above) showing the relationship between the EQs and the collection methods. Questions on gender and social inclusion appear in the Design Matrix and are asked under each of the appropriate EQs. KII (Key Informant Interviews) Interviewees Port au Prince: ● LOKAL+ staff ● GoH officials- Senior MICT staff and MP’s ● USAID Democracy & Governance staff In each target commune: ● Current/past mayors ● Senior municipal civil servants; ● Managers of deconcentrated services (e.g. hospitals, police) or municipal services (e.g. trash collection); EQ#1. To what extent was the original project design relevant to the concerns and needs of the GoH, including the parliament? The following questions are to be directed to GoH officials. Q: How was your office consulted during the design of LOKAL+? Q: How have you or your office been consulted during formulation of work plans? Q: How have you communicated concerns or interests with the project? Q: To what extent have you, your office or any colleagues been invited to LOKAL+ project reviews or presentations? The following questions will be asked during KII’s with GoH and LOKAL+ staff respondents, and are intended to facilitate gender analysis for EQ1: Q: To what extent and regarding what issues was Ministry of Women’s Affairs consulted in the design of the project? Q: To what extent and about what issues were women’s organizations consulted in the design of the project? Which women’s organizations? Q: In what ways do municipal policies account for the differing needs of men, women, (other categories to be included as relevant)?” (Please give examples) Q: What is the gender composition of the municipal council (principal mayor and assistant mayors)? 24 | FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID.GOV Q: In what ways is the municipal council addressing gender issues in the Commune? Q: What is the gender composition of the local CCC? Q: At what time of day are municipal meetings held? (To what extent does the time and duration of meetings facilitate or hinder women’s participation?) Q: What initiatives have been undertaken to increase women’s participation in municipal meetings? (Collect examples) Q: Is there a person in the municipal government to whom gender discrimination complaints can be filed? If so, how is that information publicized? EQ#2. To what extent was the project effective, specifically in terms of improving local accountability, transparency, and service delivery? Q: What were LOKAL+’s greatest successes? Q: What were the shortcomings of LOKAL+? Q: What were the strong points of LOKAL+? Q: What were the weak points of LOKAL+? (Probe: What can be done to mitigate the weak points?) Q: In what ways has municipal government management changed in the past five years? (probe on: transparency, accountability, service delivery, effectiveness)? Q: Which public services have improved the most in the past 5 years? Q: Which public services have improved the least in the past 5 years? Q: Which public services have not improved in the past 5 years? Q: Which public services have deteriorated in the past 5 years? The following questions are intended to facilitate social analysis for EQ2: Q: What sectors are the sources of the greatest wealth in this community (Commerce? Building? Transport? Etc.) Q: Which sectors of the society (by age, income level, neighborhood of residence, level of education, property ownership, or profession) are best and most poorly served by municipal services? Q: In which sectors (profession/livelihood) are the largest number of people employed? Q: To what extent are any municipal meetings restricted to certain groups of people (property owners, certain professions, or persons earning above a certain level? Collect examples) Q: To what extent do different groups have access to the municipal council? How does that vary? Q: To what extent do certain groups have special influence or access to municipal decision-makers? (Probe for wealthy or powerful members of the community) The following questions will be asked of all KII’s and are intended to facilitate gender analysis for EQ2: Q: To what extent are all municipal meetings and discussions open to all citizens irrespective of gender? Q: How is inclusiveness ensured? (Collect examples) USAID.GOV FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 25 Q: Who on the municipal council is designated to address gender discrimination complaints? How is that information publicized? Q: To what extent are certain sectors politically favored? Which ones? Q: To what extent does any group receive preferential treatment? (Collect examples) Q: Are property taxes fairly assessed? EQ #3. To what extent will the local governments assisted by LOKAL+ be able to continue improved governance, especially in terms of transparency, accountability, and service delivery? Q: Are there any accomplishments of LOKAL+ that you believe will endure beyond 5 years? (If yes, please list them. Probe: reasons why some are expected to endure and others not) Q: What discussions have you held with LOKAL+ about how improvements can be sustained beyond the project? Q: What are the factors that make an accomplishment sustainable? Q: What are the factors that prevent an accomplishment from being sustainable? Q: In what way(s) has transparency been improved? (Give examples) Q: In what way has the municipal government become more accountable? (Give examples) Q: What has been done by your office to ensure sustainability in increased public services delivery? Q: How do you follow and report on your activities? Q: How do you evaluate your performance? Q: Has the municipality worked with other partners or projects in the same technical or programmatic areas as LOKAL+? EQ #3. This question is to be directed to LOKAL+: To what extent did LOKAL+ assist the local governments to improve governance, especially in terms of transparency, accountability, and service delivery? Q: How did LOKAL+ support the local governments to follow and report on their local activities Q: How did LOKAL+ support the local governments to evaluate their permanence? Q: What other projects have worked in LOKAL+’s target communes in the same technical or programmatic areas? The following questions will be asked of all KII’s and are intended to facilitate gender analysis for EQ3: Q: When decisions and policies are being discussed by the municipality, is the possible impact of those decisions and policies on women considered? (Collect examples) The following questions will be asked of all KII’s and are intended to facilitate social analysis for EQ3: 26 | FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID.GOV Q: How do the mayors facilitate dialog between social groups or leaders/opinion shapers of key social groups in the community? FGD (Focus Group Discussions) The FGDs will address EQ2 and EQ3. The FGD respondents in each target commune will be: ● Consultative Citizens Committee ● Entrepreneurs and local tax payers (property tax and “patente”) disaggregated by gender ● Women’s associations ● Youth associations At the beginning of each FGD meeting, the respondents will be asked to fill out a short two-part questionnaire sheet to a) provide some basic data to document group composition, b) to provide some quantitative data to support findings and c) to feed the tally sheet for data triangulation. Questionnaire Part 1: Your Sex: Your Age: How many years have you been living in the commune: Your main professional Activity: When was the last time you attended a public meeting of the municipal council? Questionnaire Part 2: Q: On a scale of 1-5, over the past 5 years, has municipal government management worsened significantly (1), worsened slightly (2), stayed the same (3), improved slightly (4), or improved a lot (5)? Q: On a scale of 1-5, over the past 5 years, has municipal government become significantly less effective (1), become slightly less effective (2), stayed the same (3), become slightly more effective (4), or become significantly more effective (5)? Q: On a scale of 1-5, do you feel the LOKAL+ project contributed to improvement in local accountability? Q: On a scale of 1-5, do you feel the LOKAL+ project contributed to improvement service delivery? Q: Which public services have improved the most in the past 5 years? Q: Which public services have improved the least in the past 5 years? USAID.GOV FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 27 Q: Which public services have not improved in the past 5 years? Q: Which public services have deteriorated in the past 5 years? After the questionnaires are gathered, the discussion portion of the FGD will be conducted. The questionnaire responses will not be shared with the respondents and will not be read by the facilitators- neither before or during the discussion nor while writing the FGD report. The FGD discussion questions follow: For EQ2, which is: “To what extent was the project effective, especially in terms of improving local accountability, transparency, and service delivery?” the questions are: Q: How often did the CCC meet? Q: Does the municipality hold regular public meetings? Q: What have you heard of the LOKAL+ Project? Q: How accessible and transparent is the municipal council? (Prompt: Evaluate progress over the past 5 years) Q: What do you know about the Plan d’Investissement Communal (PIC)? Q: Accordingly, to your best knowledge, what are the commune’s priorities? Q: How do you think the PIC addresses the communes priorities? Q: What are the municipality’s declared spending priorities? Q: To what degree does the municipality act in conformity with its declared plan? Q: Is the municipality’s budget and spending plan publicly available? Q: How responsibly is the commune’s budget managed? Q: Which public services have improved the most in the past 5 years? Q: Which public services have improved the least in the past 5 years? Q: Which public services have not improved in the past 5 years? Q: Which public services have deteriorated in the past 5 years? The following questions will be asked of all FGD’s and are intended to facilitate gender analysis for EQ2: Q: Are all municipal meetings and discussions fully inclusive? If so, how is full inclusiveness ensured? (If not, why not?) (Collect examples) Q: Can complaints can be filed? If so, how is that information publicized? Q: Has the women’s association ever been consulted on municipal activities? 28 | FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID.GOV For EQ3, “To what extent will the local governments assisted by LOKAL+ be able to continue improved governance, especially in terms of transparency, accountability, and service delivery?” the questions are: Q: Are there any accomplishments of LOKAL+ that you believe will endure beyond 5 years? (If yes, please list them) Q: What are the communes doing now, but will not be able to do without the assistance of LOKAL+? Q: Do you believe local government transparency, accountability and service delivery are likely to improve over the next 5 years? Q: What do you think will be needed for local government transparency, accountability and service delivery to improve over the next 5 years? (Probe: Do you believe this is likely? Why or why not?) USAID.GOV FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 29 ANNEX F: KEY INFORMANT/GROUP INTERVIEW & FGD PROTOCOLS The interview protocol is divided into 3 parts: Part 1: Opening Statement The Opening Statement is an introductory statement that the interviewer makes to each respondent to explain the objective of the interview and assures the respondent of confidentiality. For example: Good morning/afternoon. My name is X. Thank you for agreeing to be interviewed for the LOKAL+ Evaluation. Please be assured that the information and opinions you provide will be kept confidential and neither your name nor your position will appear in our report. Though we have a number of specific questions to ask you, we encourage you to share any additional thoughts that you feel are important to the evaluation that our questions do not address. Do you have any questions about any of this? Thank you very much. Are you ready to begin? Part 2: Persons to be Interviewed. The Chart of Interviewees Definition: The Chart of Interviewees presented in Annex C identifies the interviewees for the KII and FGD by commune and their relationships with LOKAL+ (e.g. did LOKAL+ provide them with certain types of training? or consult with them on policy formulation? etc.). It also indicates the sites selected for DO visits and their relationships with the project (e.g. did LOKAL+ finance their construction or make use of the facilities or facilitate their management etc.). KIIs and FGDs will be held in all nine communes and will involve 61 men and 60 women. A total of 21 DO site visits across all of LOKAL+’s nine communes will be made. How the Chart of Respondents Will Be Used Identifying interviewees, defining communities of consensus, and making strategically useful correlations. The Chart of Respondents will help the Evaluation Team identify interviewees by specific commune and also identify those who are specific to particular interventions of LOKAL+ (such as specific types of training). The source material that has been used for this purpose making this identification includes LOKAL+ reports and work plans. This data will help to deepen gender and social analysis. For example, data may show correlations between groups of respondents regarding gender, points of view, or policy positions thereby suggesting communities of consensus useful for communication strategy, advocacy building, public education etc. This will allow us to identify how areas of agreement might be reflected in particular groups of respondents (e.g. “There is consensus between women and municipal civil servants regarding issue X”, or “entrepreneurs in city X tend to disagree with entrepreneurs in city Z regarding issue X”). Such correlations will also be useful for establishing respondent profiles, identifying interest groups, establishing communications policy or designing advocacy campaigns. Part 3: The IQ Definition: The IQ listed in Annex VI ties the three core EQ to the IQ of the KII and the FGD, and also provides guidelines for gender and social analyses. The Site Observation Diagnostic sheet in Annex G ties the three EQ to the DO site visits. The same IQ for each of the three EQ will be uniformly pursued with each person interviewed. As described in Section 1, this structured approach will permit an analysis of the dimensions across the respondent designations (e.g. geographic location, employment, social or economic status, etc.) 30 | FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID.GOV A. GI Tool for use with USAID Accueil (5 min.) Introduction Bonjour / après-midi. Je m'appelle X. Merci d'avoir accepté d'être interviewé pour l'évaluation LOKAL+. Soyez assuré que les informations et les opinions que vous fournissez resteront confidentielles et que ni votre nom ni votre position n'apparaîtront dans notre rapport. Bien que nous ayons un certain nombre de questions spécifiques à vous poser, nous vous encourageons à partager toutes les pensées supplémentaires que vous jugez importantes pour l'évaluation et que nos questions ne traitent pas. Avez-vous des questions à propos de tout cela ? Merci beaucoup. Etes-vous prêts à commencer ? EQ # 1. Dans quelle mesure la conception initiale du projet était- elle par rapport aux préoccupations et aux besoins du Gouvernement Haïtien, y compris le Parlement ? 1. Quelles étaient les attentes par rapport au GoH lors de la conception de LOKAL+? ● Du Parlement ? 2. Quelles étaient les attentes par rapport au renforcement des capacités dans les communes ? 3. Quels services la Direction s’attendaient à voir améliorer à partir des revenues collectées dans les communes ? 4. Comment la Direction s’attendait à voir l’amélioration dans la transparence au niveau des communes ? ● Le contrôle ? ● La reddition de compte ? 5. Quels aspects espériez-vous améliorer dans LOKAL+ ? ● Pourquoi ? 6. Comment la Direction s’attendait à voir l’inclusion du genre dans LOKAL+ ? 7. Comment la Direction s’attendait à voir l’inclusion sociale dans LOKAL+ ? USAID.GOV FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 31 EQ # 2. Dans quelle mesure le projet a-t-il été efficace, notamment en termes d'amélioration de la responsabilisation locale, de la transparence et de la prestation de services ? 8. Selon votre perception, comment classer les résultats de LOKAL+ du meilleur au pire ? - Augmentation les recettes fiscales - Amélioration l'accès au financement du gouvernement central - Amélioration les compétences et les connaissances du maire et du personnel en matière de gouvernance - Amélioration du cadre légale de la décentralisation - Améliorer la satisfaction des électeurs 9. Comment étaient les relations de la Direction avec LOKAL+ ? ● Quelles étaient les attentes ? ● Qu’est-ce qui pourrait être amélioré EQ3 : Dans quelle mesure les collectivités locales aidées par LOKAL+ pourront￾elles continuer à améliorer la gouvernance, en particulier en termes de transparence, de responsabilité et de prestation de services ? 10. Quelles sont les attentes de la Direction, à la fin de LOKAL+ s’il n’y a plus d’intervention ? ● Pour le GoH ? ● Pour le Parlement ? ● Pour les communes ? Merci pour votre temps ! Y a-t-il d'autres informations supplémentaires que nous n'avons pas couvert que vous aimeriez partager avec nous au sujet de votre travail? 32 | FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID.GOV B. KII Tool for use with GoH Institution : _________________________ Date : ___________________________________ Nom- Prénom : _______________________________ Titre : _____________________________ ID: _________________________ Critères d’Evaluation / Question Principale Questions d'entrevue Réponses EQ1 Questions 1-7 Dans quelle mesure la conception initiale du projet était-elle pertinente par rapport aux préoccupations et aux besoins du gouvernement haïtien, y compris le parlement ? 1. Comment votre bureau a-t-il été consulté lors de la conception de LOKAL+ ? 1.1 Comment vous ou votre bureau avez-vous été consulté lors de la formulation des plans de travail de LOKAL+ ? 2. Comment avez-vous communiqué vos préoccupations ou vos intérêts avec le projet ? 2.1. Ont-ils été pris en compte ? comment ? Sinon pourquoi ? 3. Est-ce que vous, votre bureau ou des collègues avez été invités aux revues ou présentations de projets LOKAL+ ? 3.1. Parlez-nous de votre relation avec LOKAL+ au tout au long de la réalisation du projet. 4. Que savez-vous des éléments suivants : Les trois questions clés de LOKAL+, Théorie du changement, Objectifs du projet, Indicateurs de projet ? 5. Comment avez-vous reçu des rapports ou des briefings de LOKAL+ ? (Quelle fréquence ?) 6. Le ministère des Affaires féminines a-t-il été consulté lors de la conception du projet ? USAID.GOV FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 33 7. Les politiques et programmes municipaux sont-ils sensibles aux réalités du genre ? (Collecter des exemples) 7.1 Quelle est la composition par sexe des maires (maire principal et maires adjoints) ? 7.2 Quelle est la composition par sexe du personnel municipal supérieur ? 7.3 Quelle est la composition par sexe de la gestion des services déconcentrés ? 7.4 Quelle est la composition du genre de l section locale de CCC ? EQ2 Questions 1-7 Dans quelle mesure le projet a-t-il été efficace, notamment en termes d'amélioration de la responsabilisation locale, de la transparence et de la prestation de services ? 1. Quels ont été les succès ou les points faibles de LOKAL+ ? 1.1. Comment peut-on transformer les points faibles en points forts ? 2. Sur une échelle de 1 à 5, au cours des 5 dernières années, la gestion des administrations municipales s'est-elle considérablement détériorée (1), s'est légèrement détériorée (2), est demeurée la même (3), s'est légèrement améliorée (4) ou s'est beaucoup améliorée (5). 3. Quels services publics se sont les plus améliorés au cours des 5 dernières années dans les municipalités ? 3.1. Lesquels ne le sont pas ? pourquoi ? 4. Y a-t-il une personne dans le bureau du maire à qui les plaintes de discrimination de genre peuvent être déposées ? Si oui, comment cette information est-elle rendue publique ? 5. Comment l'exclusion sociale affecte-t-elle les décisions municipales ? (Collecter des exemples) 6. Y a-t-il un groupe particulier qui a plus accès aux municipalités ? (Si oui, lequel / lesquelles ?) 7. Les membres riches ou puissants des communautés ont-ils une influence ou un accès particulier aux décideurs municipaux ? EQ3 Questions 1-3 34 | FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID.GOV Dans quelle mesure les collectivités locales aidées par LOKAL+ pourront-elles continuer à améliorer la gouvernance, en particulier en termes de transparence, de responsabilité et de prestation de services 1. Y a-t-il des réalisations de LOKAL+ qui, selon vous, dureront au-delà de 5 ans ? (Si oui, veuillez les lister) et pourquoi ? 2. Qu'est-ce que votre bureau a fait pour assurer la durabilité dans la prestation accrue des services publics ? 3. Comment les implications de genre sont￾elles déterminées dans la prise de décisions et des politiques ? (Collecter des exemples) C. KII tool for use with Members of Parliament Accueil (5 min.) Introduction Bonjour / après-midi. Je m'appelle X. Merci d'avoir accepté d'être interviewé pour l'évaluation LOKAL+. Soyez assuré que les informations et les opinions que vous fournissez resteront confidentielles et que ni votre nom ni votre position n'apparaîtront dans notre rapport. Bien que nous ayons un certain nombre de questions spécifiques à vous poser, nous vous encourageons à partager toutes les pensées supplémentaires que vous jugez importantes pour l'évaluation et que nos questions ne traitent pas. Avez-vous des questions à propos de tout cela ? Merci beaucoup. Etes-vous prêts à commencer EQ # 1. Dans quelle mesure la conception initiale du projet était- elle par rapport aux préoccupations et aux besoins du Gouvernement Haïtien, y compris le Parlement ? 11. Avez-vous été consulté lors de la conception de LOKAL+ ? ● Si oui, comment ? ● Si non, pourquoi ? 12. Avez-vous communiqué vos besoins, vos intérêts ou vos attentes au projet de LOKAL+ ? ● Si oui, lesquelles ? ● Si non, pourquoi ? USAID.GOV FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 35 13. Avez-vous demandé des révisions de projet LOKAL+ ? ● Si oui, pourquoi ? ● Si non, pourquoi ? 14. Existe-t-il une commission qui s’occupe des collectivités territoriales ? ● Si oui, laquelle et quelles sont ces réalisations ? ● Si oui, avez-vous reçu une assistance technique de LOKAL+ ? ● Si non, pourquoi ● EQ # 2. Dans quelle mesure le projet a-t-il été efficace, notamment en termes d'amélioration de la responsabilisation locale, de la transparence et de la prestation de services ? 15. Quelle est la performance du projet de LOKAL+ en termes de renforcement des capacités du Parlement haïtien ? 16. Comment étaient les relations Législatif￾Collectivités Territoriales ? ● Qu’est-ce qui pourrait être amélioré 17. Comment étaient les relations Législatif-LOKAL+ ? ● Qu’est-ce qui pourrait être amélioré EQ #3 : Dans quelle mesure les collectivités locales aidées par LOKAL+ pourront￾elles continuer à améliorer la gouvernance, en particulier en termes de transparence, de responsabilité et de prestation de services ? 18. Quelles sont les attentes du Parlement, à la fin de LOKAL+ s’il n’y a plus d’intervention ? Merci pour votre temps ! Y a-t-il d'autres informations supplémentaires que nous n'avons pas couvert que vous aimeriez partager avec nous au sujet de votre travail? 36 | FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID.GOV D. KII tool for use with Mayors and Senior Municipal Civil Servants Accueil (5 min.) Introduction Bonjour / après-midi. Je m'appelle X. Merci d'avoir accepté d'être interviewé pour l'évaluation LOKAL+. Soyez assuré que les informations et les opinions que vous fournissez resteront confidentielles et que ni votre nom ni votre position n'apparaîtront dans notre rapport. Bien que nous ayons un certain nombre de questions spécifiques à vous poser, nous vous encourageons à partager toutes les pensées supplémentaires que vous jugez importantes pour l'évaluation et que nos questions ne traitent pas. Avez-vous des questions à propos de tout cela ? Merci beaucoup. Etes-vous prêts à commencer ? EQ # 1. Dans quelle mesure la conception initiale du projet était- elle par rapport aux préoccupations et aux besoins du Gouvernement Haïtien, y compris le Parlement ? 19. Avez-vous été consulté lors de la conception de LOKAL+ ? ● Si oui, comment ? ● Si non, pourquoi ? 20. Avez-vous communiqué vos besoins, vos intérêts ou vos attentes au projet de LOKAL+ ? ● Si oui, lesquelles ? ● Si non, pourquoi ? 21. Vous ou votre cartel avez-vous demandé des révisions au projet LOKAL+ ? ● Si oui, pourquoi ? ● Si non, pourquoi ? USAID.GOV FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 37 22. Que savez-vous des éléments suivants : Les trois questions clés de LOKAL+, Théorie du changement, Objectifs du projet, Indicateurs de projet ? 23. Évaluez l'impact de LOKAL+ sur une échelle de 1 à 5 pour aider à faire progresser chacun des éléments suivants dans votre commune : transparence, responsabilité, prestation de services. 24. Sur une échelle de 1 à 5, au cours des 5 dernières années, la gestion des administrations municipales s'est-elle considérablement détériorée (1), s'est légèrement détériorée (2), est restée la même (3), légèrement améliorée (4) ou améliorée 5) ? 25. Sur une échelle de 1 à 5, au cours des 5 dernières années, les administrations municipales sont-elles devenues beaucoup moins efficaces (1), légèrement moins efficaces (2), demeurées inchangées (3), légèrement plus efficaces (4), ou devenir significativement plus efficace (5) ? 26. Les politiques et programmes municipaux sont-ils sensibles aux réalités du genre ? ● Veuillez donner des exemples 27. Quelle est la composition par sexe du cartel municipal ? ● Maire principal ● Maires adjoints ● Staff administratif 28. À quelle heure de la journée se tiennent les réunions municipales ? ● Le temps et la durée des réunions entravent-ils la participation des femmes ? 29. Parmi les participants qui assistent aux réunions publiques des maires, quel est le pourcentage de femmes ? ● 25 percent ? 50 percent ? ● Plus de 50 percent ? 30. Un représentant du ministère des Affaires sociales est-il mis à disposition par le bureau du maire ? ● Si oui, depuis quand ? ● Son sexe ? 31. Y a-t-il une personne dans le bureau du maire à qui les plaintes de discrimination sexuelle peuvent être déposées ? ● Si oui, comment cette information est-elle rendue publique ? 32. Les maires discutent-ils des implications de genre des priorités de dépenses, des décisions administratives, des politiques municipales ? ● Si Oui, rassemblez des exemples. ● Si non, pourquoi pas ? 33. Quels sont les plus grands secteurs générateurs de richesse dans cette communauté ? ● Commerce ? Bâtiment ? Transport ? Etc… 34. Quels sont les plus grands secteurs générateurs d’emplois dans cette communauté ? 38 | FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID.GOV 35. Les réunions municipales sont-elles restreintes aux propriétaires ou à certaines professions ou à des personnes gagnant un certain niveau ? ● Exemples 36. Comment votre Municipalité s’attendait à voir l’inclusion du genre dans LOKAL+ 37. Comment votre Municipalité s’attendait à voir l’inclusion sociale dans LOKAL+ EQ # 2. Dans quelle mesure le projet a-t-il été efficace, notamment en termes d'amélioration de la responsabilisation locale, de la transparence et de la prestation de services ? 38. Le nombre de services fournis par la municipalité a-t-il augmenté au cours des cinq dernières années ? (Donne des exemples) ● Si oui, lesquels ? ● Si non, pourquoi ? 39. Évaluez l'impact de LOKAL+ sur une échelle de 1 à 5 pour aider à faire progresser chacun des éléments suivants dans votre commune : transparence, responsabilité, prestation de services. 40. Sur une échelle de 1 à 5 : Au cours des 5 dernières années, la gestion municipale s'est détériorée de façon significative (1), s'est légèrement détériorée (2), est restée la même (3), légèrement améliorée (4) ou améliorée beaucoup (5)? 41. Selon votre perception, Comment classer les résultats de LOKAL+ du meilleur au pire ? - Augmentation les recettes fiscales - Amélioration l'accès au financement du gouvernement central - Amélioration les compétences et les connaissances du maire et du personnel en matière de gouvernance - Amélioration du cadre légale de la décentralisation - Améliorer la satisfaction des électeurs ● Que peut-on faire pour atténuer les points faibles ou les transformer en forces ?) 42. Comment étaient les relations de la Mairie avec LOKAL+ ? ● Quelles étaient les attentes ? ● Qu’est-ce qui pourrait être amélioré EQ3 : Dans quelle mesure les collectivités locales aidées par LOKAL+ pourront￾elles continuer à améliorer la gouvernance, en particulier en termes de transparence, de responsabilité et de prestation de services? 43. Dans quelle mesure votre collectivité pourra-elle continuer à améliorer la gouvernance, en particulier en termes de ● Vous les avez discutées avec LOKAL+ ? USAID.GOV FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 39 transparence, de responsabilité et de prestation de services à la fin du projet ? 44. Y a-t-il des réalisations de LOKAL+ que vous croyez pouvoir supporter au-delà de 5 années ? ● Si oui, veuillez les énumérer ● Si non, pourquoi 45. Lorsque les décisions et les politiques sont discutées par la municipalité, l'impact possible de ces décisions et politiques sur les femmes est-il pris en compte ? (Recueillir des exemples) ● Exemples 46. Comment les maires facilitent-ils le dialogue entre les groupes sociaux clés, leaders d'opinion dans la communauté ? 47. Quelles sont les attentes de votre cartel, à la fin de LOKAL+ s’il n’y a plus d’intervention ? ● Des Sociétés civiles ● Du GoH ? ● Du Parlement ? Merci pour votre temps ! Y a-t-il d'autres informations supplémentaires que nous n'avons pas couvert que vous aimeriez partager avec nous au sujet de votre travail? E. FGD tool for use with Women’s Association Guide de Focus Groupe Association de femmes/ Women’s Association Dans le cadre de l'évaluation des activités du projet LOKAL+ en Haïti, financé par USAID Accueil (3 min.) Introduction Bonjour / après-midi. Je m'appelle X. Merci d'avoir accepté d'être interviewé pour l'évaluation LOKAL+. Soyez assuré que les informations et les opinions que vous fournissez resteront confidentielles et que ni votre nom ni votre position n'apparaîtront dans notre rapport. Bien que nous ayons un certain nombre de questions spécifiques à vous poser, nous vous encourageons à partager toutes les pensées supplémentaires que vous jugez importantes pour l'évaluation et que nos questions ne traitent pas. Avez-vous des questions à propos de tout cela ? Merci beaucoup. Etes-vous prêts à commencer ? La composition des groupes doit être la plus homogène possible pour éviter l’intimidation d’un participant par un autre d’un rang social différent. Chaque groupe doit compter au plus 12 personnes 40 | FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID.GOV PREMIERE PARTIE : EQ1 48. Est-ce que la mairie a l’habitude d’organiser des rencontres publiques ? ● Oui ? Selon quelles fréquences ? ● Avec qui ? ● A quelle fréquence le comité consultatif des citoyens se réunit-il ? 49. Que pouvez-vous nous dire des services fournis par la mairie ? ● Du Budget de la mairie ? 50. Que savez-vous vous du Plan d’Investissement Communal (PIC) ? 51. Selon vous quelle est l’intervention la plus urgente pour la mairie ? ● Prioriser les actions selon l’urgence ? ● Comment pensez-vous que le PIM a abordé les interventions urgentes ? ● Etes-vous d’accord avec les priorités de dépenses établies par la municipalité ? 52. Le budget et le plan de dépenses de la municipalité sont-ils accessibles au public ? ● Où ? comment ? ● La municipalité, agit-elle en conformité avec le plan qu’elle a établi ? ● Comment ? ● Pourquoi ? 53. Votre organisation a-t-elle été consultée pour des avis sur l’inclusion ? ● Par qui ? ● Comment ? ● Pourquoi ? ● Quand ? 54. Quel Secteur produit le plus de richesse dans la commune ? ● Quel secteur offre le plus d’emplois ? DEUXIEME PARTIE : EQ2 55. Au cours des 5 dernières années, comment est la gestion municipale s'est-elle détériorée de façon significative ? 56. Quel service public qui s’est les plus amélioré au cours des 5 dernières années ? ● Pourquoi ? ● Quel service public a le moins progressé au cours des 5 dernières années ? ● Pourquoi ? ● Quel service public ne s’est pas amélioré durant les 5 dernières années ? ● Pourquoi ? ● Quel service public s’est détérioré durant les 5 dernières années ? ● Pourquoi ? 57. Quelle est la représentativité des femmes par rapport aux hommes dans les rencontres municipales ? ● Comment l’inclusion est-elle assurée ? ● A-t-il une personne dans la mairie pour recevoir les plaintes relatives sur les discriminations ? ● Quel suivi est fait des plaintes ? USAID.GOV FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 41 58. Comment les impôts locatifs, les patentes sont-ils établis ? ● Y’a-t-il un barème ? ● Le barème est appliqué équitablement pour tous ? TROISIEME PARTIE EQ3 : 59. Selon vous, quelle réalisation de la commune assistée par LOKAL+ va durer plus de 5 ans ? ● Citez les activités ? 60. Selon vous, que faudra-t-il faire pour améliorer la transparence, la responsabilité et la prestation des services des administrations locale au cours des 5 prochaines années ? ● Pourquoi ? Merci vos réponses sont très utiles. F. FGD tool for use with Entrepreneurs Guide de Focus Groupe Entrepreneurs Dans le cadre de l'évaluation des activités du projet LOKAL+ en Haïti, financé par USAID Accueil (3 min.) Introduction Bonjour / après-midi. Je m'appelle X. Merci d'avoir accepté d'être interviewé pour l'évaluation LOKAL+. Soyez assuré que les informations et les opinions que vous fournissez resteront confidentielles et que ni votre nom ni votre position n'apparaîtront dans notre rapport. Bien que nous ayons un certain nombre de questions spécifiques à vous poser, nous vous encourageons à partager toutes les pensées supplémentaires que vous jugez importantes pour l'évaluation et que nos questions ne traitent pas. Avez-vous des questions à propos de tout cela ? Merci beaucoup. Etes-vous prêts à commencer ? La composition des groupes doit être la plus homogène possible pour éviter l’intimidation d’un participant par un autre d’un rang social différent. Chaque groupe doit compter au plus 12 personnes. 42 | FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID.GOV PREMIERE PARTIE : EQ1 61. Est-ce que la mairie a l’habitude d’organiser des rencontres publiques ? ● Oui ? Selon quelles fréquences ? ● Avec qui ? ● A quelle fréquence le comité consultatif des citoyens se réunit-il ? 62. Que pouvez-vous nous dire des services fournis par la mairie ? ● Du Budget de la mairie ? 63. Que savez-vous vous du Plan d’Investissement Communal (PIC) ? 64. Selon vous quelle est l’intervention la plus urgente pour la mairie ? ● Prioriser les actions selon l’urgence ? ● Sur une échelle de 1 à 5 avec 1 pas du tout ; 2- faiblement ; 3 moyennement ; 4 presque et 5 complètement. Comment pensez-vous que le PIM a abordé les interventions urgentes ? ● Etes-vous d’accord avec les priorités de dépenses établies par la municipalité ? 65. Le budget et le plan de dépenses de la municipalité sont-ils accessibles au public ? ● Où ? comment ? ● La municipalité, agit-elle en conformité avec le plan qu’elle a établi ? ● Comment ? ● Pourquoi ? 66. Quel Secteur produit le plus de richesse dans la commune ? ● Quel secteur offre le plus d’emplois ? UXIEME PARTIE : EQ2 67. Au cours des 5 dernières années, comment est la gestion municipale ? 68. Quel service public qui s’est les plus amélioré au cours des 5 dernières années ? ● Pourquoi ? ● Quel service public a le moins progressé au cours des 5 dernières années ? ● Pourquoi ? ● Quel service public ne s’est pas amélioré durant les 5 dernières années ? ● Pourquoi ? ● Quel service public s’est détérioré durant les 5 dernières années ? ● Pourquoi ? 69. Quelle est la représentativité des femmes par rapport aux hommes dans les rencontres municipales ? ● Comment l’inclusion est-elle assurée ? ● A-t-il une personne dans la mairie pour recevoir les plaintes relatives sur les discriminations ? ● Quel suivi est fait des plaintes ? USAID.GOV FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 43 70. Comment les impôts locatifs, les patentes sont-ils établis ? ● Y’a-t-il un barème ? ● Le barème est appliqué équitablement pour tous ? TROISIEME PARTIE EQ3 : 71. Selon vous, quelles réalisations de la commune va durer plus de 5 ans ? ● Citez les activités ? 72. Selon vous, que faudra-t-il faire pour améliorer la transparence, la responsabilité et la prestation des services des administrations locale au cours des 5 prochaines années ? ● Pourquoi ? Merci vos réponses sont très utiles. G. FGD tool for use with CCC Guide de Focus Groupe Conseil Consultatif Communal (CCC) Dans le cadre de l'évaluation des activités du projet LOKAL+ en Haïti, financé par USAID Accueil (3 min.) Introduction Bonjour / après-midi. Je m'appelle X. Merci d'avoir accepté d'être interviewé pour l'évaluation LOKAL+. Soyez assuré que les informations et les opinions que vous fournissez resteront confidentielles et que ni votre nom ni votre position n'apparaîtront dans notre rapport. Bien que nous ayons un certain nombre de questions spécifiques à vous poser, nous vous encourageons à partager toutes les pensées supplémentaires que vous jugez importantes pour l'évaluation et que nos questions ne traitent pas. Avez-vous des questions à propos de tout cela ? Merci beaucoup. Etes-vous prêts à commencer ? La composition des groupes doit être la plus homogène possible pour éviter l’intimidation d’un participant par un autre d’un rang social différent. Chaque groupe doit compter au plus 12 personnes PREMIERE PARTIE : EQ1 44 | FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID.GOV ● Oui ? Selon quelles fréquences ? H. Est-ce que la mairie a l’habitude d’organiser des rencontres publiques ● Avec qui ? ? ● A quelle fréquence le comité consultatif des citoyens se réunit-il ? ● Du Budget de la mairie ? I. Que pouvez-vous nous dire des services fournis par la mairie ? J. Que savez-vous vous du Plan d’Investissement Communal (PIC) ? ● Prioriser les actions selon K. Selon vous quelle est l’intervention la plus urgente pour la mairie ? l’urgence ? ● 2- faiblement ; 3 moyennement ; L. Comment pensez-vous que le PIM a abordé les interventions 4 presque et 5 complètement. urgentes ? M. Etes-vous d’accord avec les priorités de dépenses établies par la municipalité ? ● Où ? comment ? N. Le budget et le plan de dépenses de la municipalité sont-ils ● La municipalité, agit-elle en accessibles au public ? conformité avec le plan qu’elle a établi ? ● Comment ? ● Pourquoi ? ● Quel secteur offre le plus O. Quel Secteur produit le plus de richesse dans la commune ? d’emplois ? ● Pourquoi ? P. Quel secteur bénéficie le moins des services municipaux ? DEUXIEME PARTIE : EQ2 Q. Comment est l’amélioration de la gouvernance locale ? R. Comment est l’amélioration de la prestation de services ? S. Le budget de la commune, est géré de manière efficiente ? T. Au cours des 5 dernières années, la gestion municipale, comment est la gestion municipale ? ● Pourquoi ? U. Quel service public qui s’est les plus amélioré au cours des 5 dernières ● Quel service public a le moins années ? progressé au cours des 5 dernières années ? ● Pourquoi ? ● Quel service public ne s’est pas amélioré durant les 5 dernières années ? ● Pourquoi ? ● Quel service public s’est détérioré durant les 5 dernières années ? ● Pourquoi ? USAID.GOV FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 45 V. Quelle est la représentativité des femmes par rapport aux hommes dans les rencontres municipales ? ● Comment l’inclusion est-elle assurée ? ● A-t-il une personne dans la mairie pour recevoir les plaintes relatives sur les discriminations ? ● Quel suivi est fait des plaintes ? W. Comment les impôts locatifs, les patentes sont-ils établis ? ● Y’a-t-il un barème ? ● Le barème est appliqué équitablement pour tous ? TROISIEME PARTIE EQ3 : X. Selon vous, quelle réalisation de la commune assistée par LOKAL+ va durer plus de 5 ans ? ● Citez les activités ? Y. Selon vous, que faudra-t-il faire pour améliorer la transparence, la responsabilité et la prestation des services des administrations locale au cours des 5 prochaines années ? ● Pourquoi ? Merci vos réponses sont très utiles. H. FGD tool for use with Youth Associations Guide de Focus Groupe Youth Association/ Association des jeunes Dans le cadre de l'évaluation des activités du projet LOKAL+ en Haïti, financé par USAID Accueil (3 min.) Introduction Bonjour / après-midi. Je m'appelle X. Merci d'avoir accepté d'être interviewé pour l'évaluation LOKAL+. Soyez assuré que les informations et les opinions que vous fournissez resteront confidentielles et que ni votre nom ni votre position n'apparaîtront dans notre rapport. Bien que nous ayons un certain nombre de questions spécifiques à vous poser, nous vous encourageons à partager toutes les pensées supplémentaires que vous jugez importantes pour l'évaluation et que nos questions ne traitent pas. Avez-vous des questions à propos de tout cela ? Merci beaucoup. Etes-vous prêts à commencer ? La composition des groupes doit être la plus homogène possible pour éviter l’intimidation d’un participant par un autre d’un rang social différent. Les questions sont identifiées selon le groupe cible : Chaque groupe doit compter au plus 12 personnes représentant le groupe. 46 | FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID.GOV PREMIERE PARTIE : EQ1 73. Est-ce que la mairie a l’habitude d’organiser des rencontres publiques ? ● Oui ? Selon quelles fréquences ? ● Avec qui ? ● A quelle fréquence le comité consultatif des citoyens se réunit-il ? 74. Que pouvez-vous nous dire des services fournis par la mairie ? ● Du Budget de la mairie ? 75. Que savez-vous vous du Plan d’Investissement Communal (PIC) ? 76. Selon vous quelle est l’intervention la plus urgente pour la mairie ? ● Prioriser les actions selon l’urgence ? ● Comment pensez-vous que le PIM a abordé les interventions urgentes ? ● Etes-vous d’accord avec les priorités de dépenses établies par la municipalité ? 77. Le budget et le plan de dépenses de la municipalité sont-ils accessibles au public ? ● Où ? comment ? ● La municipalité, agit-elle en conformité avec le plan qu’elle a établi ? ● Comment ? ● Pourquoi ? 78. Votre organisation a-t-elle été consultée pour des avis sur l’inclusion ? ● Par qui ? ● Comment ? ● Pourquoi ? ● Quand ? 79. Quel Secteur produit le plus de richesse dans la commune ? ● Quel secteur offre le plus d’emplois ? DEUXIEME PARTIE: EQ2 80. Au cours des 5 dernières années, comment est la gestion municipale ? 81. Quel service public qui s’est les plus amélioré au cours des 5 dernières années ? ● Pourquoi ? ● Quel service public a le moins progressé au cours des 5 dernières années ? ● Pourquoi ? ● Quel service public ne s’est pas amélioré durant les 5 dernières années ? ● Pourquoi ? ● Quel service public s’est détérioré durant les 5 dernières années ? ● Pourquoi ? 82. Quelle est la représentativité des femmes par rapport aux hommes dans les rencontres municipales ? ● Comment l’inclusion est-elle assurée ? ● A-t-il une personne dans la mairie pour recevoir les plaintes relatives sur les discriminations ? ● Quel suivi est fait des plaintes ? 83. Comment les impôts locatifs, les patentes sont-ils établis ? ● Y’a-t-il un barème ? ● Le barème est appliqué équitablement pour tous ? TROISIEME PARTIE EQ3 : USAID.GOV FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 47 84. Selon vous, quelle réalisation de la commune assistée par LOKAL+ va durer plus de 5 ans ? ● Citez les activités ? 85. Selon vous, que faudra-t-il faire pour améliorer la transparence, la responsabilité et la prestation des services des administrations locale au cours des 5 prochaines années ? ● Pourquoi ? Merci vos réponses sont très utiles. 48 | FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID.GOV ANNEX G: SITE OBSERVATION DIAGNOSTIC SHEET General: DOs that address EQ#1 Inference Yes ✓ No ✕ Is the site/facility frequently used? Relevance to concerns and needs of GoH Is the site/facility being used as intended? Relevance to concerns and needs of GoH Gender Analysis: DOs that address EQ#1 Inference Yes ✓ No ✕ Is the site/facility safe for all users irrespective of gender? Gender Inclusivity Was Ministry of Women’s Affairs consulted in the design of the site/facility? Relevance to concerns and needs of GoH Were CSOs and women’s associations consulted in the design of the site/facility? Relevance to concerns and needs of GoH Social Analysis: DOs that address EQ#1 Inference Yes ✓ No ✕ Are GoH concerns about social inclusiveness and local governance reflected in the location of the site/facility (e.g. neighborhood) Relevance to concerns and needs of GoH Are GoH concerns about social inclusiveness and local governance reflected in the management of the site/facility (e.g. hours of operation, noise abatement) Relevance to concerns and needs of GoH General DOs that address EQ#2 Inference Yes ✓ No ✕ Is the community widely aware of the site/facility? Effectiveness: Local accountability Is the site/facility appropriately located? Effectiveness: Service delivery Are users able to provide feedback to municipality managers Effectiveness: Local accountability Is the public broadly aware how maintenance of the site/facility is financed? Effectiveness: Transparency Is the public broadly aware of what part of the municipal government is responsible for the maintenance of the site/facility? Effectiveness: Local accountability and transparency Gender Analysis DOs that address EQ#2 Inference Yes ✓ No ✕ USAID.GOV FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 49 Is your access to this place limited or restrained in any way? Service delivery Do you consistently find the service for which you come here? Service delivery Do you feel respected in this place? Service delivery Do you know where you can lodge a complaint about this place if you wanted to? Accountability Social Analysis DOs that address EQ#2 Inference Yes ✓ No ✕ Do different social groups use the facility/site at different times? Service delivery (design or management of the site/ facility should not favor one group above other groups Does the facility/site address the needs of all social groups? Accountability (is this municipal site/facility intended for all its citizens) Do some users make complaints of a social or cultural nature about other users? Service delivery (design or management of the site/ facility should not favor one group above other groups Is the location of the site/service convenient? Service delivery (location of the site/ facility should not favor one group above other groups Are the hours of the site/service convenient? Service delivery (hours of operation of the site/ facility should not favor one group above other groups Do you feel safe at the site/facility? Service delivery (Safety is a service. It is provided by design of the space, lighting, presence of guard, access, etc.) General DOs that address EQ#3 Inference Yes ✓ No ✕ Does the municipal budget include a line item for continued operation of the site/facility? Continue improved governance: accountability, service delivery Is the source of funding for continued operation formally established? Continue improved governance: transparency Gender Analysis DOs that address EQ#3 Inference Yes ✓ No ✕ 50 | FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID.GOV Do all users feel they own the facility/site? Continue improved governance: accountability Social Analysis DOs that address EQ#3 Inference Yes ✓ No ✕ Do all users feel they own the facility/site? (same as above) Continue improved governance: accountability Safety Questions Yes=1 N=0 If the facility is used at night, is it well lit? Y/N Is access to the facility safe for all users? Y/N Are physical hazards (e.g. broken pavements, slippery walkways, steep stairs, lack of hand-rails) mitigated? Y/N Are rules about facility use and user behavior posted? Y/N Is the area free of gang Activity? Y/N Is there easy access for police? Y/N Are there municipal personnel dedicated to safety? Y/N Public Health Questions Are garbage bins easily accessed? Y/N Is the area free of garbage? Y/N Is there standing water or muddy area? Y/N Are toilets available for men and women? Y/N Is access to toilet facilities safe? Y/N Is the facility safe from traffic hazards (road traffic) Y/N Is there access for ambulance? Y/N Are there appropriate measures for fire prevention or fire control? Y/N Is the facility near or in a hazardous or toxic site (e.g. leather tannery, abattoir, land-fill, garbage dump, unprotected ravine) Y/N Are there municipal personnel dedicated to cleaning and maintenance? USAID.GOV FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 51 Category 1 Accountability ANNEX H: EQ 2 RESULTS BY CATEGORY OF COMMUNE EQ 2 Results by Category of Commune The MICT and of the Territorial Collectivities (in French: Ministere de l’Interieur et des Collectivites Territoriales; MICT) classifies Haitian communes regarding their organizational capacity and their ability to finance their organization and operation. The follow tables show KII, GI and FGD responses to EQ2 queries presented by category of communes. LOKAL+’s Category 1 Communes Category 1 communes are those that can collect more than 75 percent on the revenues they need to support their organizational and operational costs. Delmas and Carrefour are the targeted communes of LOKAL+ that are in this category. Delmas Population 395,260 (Institut Haitien de Statistiques et d’Informatique, 2015). Designated a commune by decree in December 1982, Delmas was previously a district of the commune of Port au Prince. At first subdivided into five communal sections, Delmas has become a completely urbanized municipality and some of its communal sections have become other communes, redefining its boundaries and internal subdivisions. The commune of Delmas is bounded on the north by the communes of Tabarre and Cité Soleil; in the south by the communes of Port-au-Prince and Pétion-Ville; to the east by the towns of Tabarre and Pétion￾Ville and to the west by the municipality of Port-au-Prince. Although Delmas is a residential suburb (the inhabitants are generally from relatively middle-class backgrounds), it includes shopping malls, supermarkets and several large employers. Delmas is the wealthiest commune in the metropolitan area: tax revenues increased from 93 to 400 million gourdes (US $ 80 million). Carrefour Population 511,345 (Institut Haitien de Statistiques et d’Informatique, 2015). From an administrative point of view, Carrefour is the third municipality in the district of Port-au-Prince. It is currently subdivided into thirteen (13) communal sections. Between the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century Carrefour grew from a largely rural commune to become an important economic center dotted with a variety of factories (sugar, tobacco, chocolate, paper), a naval base inaugurated in 1895, and the location of Port au Prince’s first electrical plant. Very little agricultural areas remain, primarily subsistence agriculture in the communal sections of Morne Chandelle, Plateau Dufresney, Taillefer, Procy, Coupeau, Laval, Bouvier and Malanga. Economic life in Carrefour is defined by large numbers of street vendors, public services such as the local court (Tribunal de la Paix), the Taxation Department, the police station, the registry office, the Coast Guard; the largest sports complex in the country; and commercial houses such as banks, supermarkets, bazaars, bakeries, public market, shops, pharmacies, as well as industrial establishments such as paint factories, Haiti Metal, Mariani Tannery, Cuir SA, Adventist Packaging, SAFICO, ALTA and TOLI, STEP￾OVER and oil companies (the National, Shell, Texaco, ESSO). Two hospitals, Diquini Adventist Hospital and Carrefour Hopital Maternité, and numerous private clinics are located in Carrefour. 52 | FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID.GOV Carrefour and Delmas •3 FGD of the 8 FGDs state there has been no increase in accountability. •None of the 8 FGDs stated that they believe that their municipal budget is used to the benefit of the commune. 1 stated that they do not believe that the budget is used to the benefit of their commune. •None of the 8 FGDs do not believe that their municipal cartel is responsive. None of the 8 FGDs stated they believed the municipal cartel is responsive Transparency •1 of 2 GI with municipal officials, none of FGD notes stated there is increase in transparency while 2 over 8 FGD notes stated No increase in transparency •4 of 8 FGD’s notes stated to be aware of the PIC and 4 notes stated not aware •1 of 8 FGD’s notes stated to be aware of the Communal budget and 7 notes stated not aware Services delivery •8 of the 8 FGDs know about the services provided by their commune, while none does not. When asked what services have improved over the past five years, the top responses were as follows: •4 of the 8 FGDs believe roads have improved in their communes, •8 of 8 FGDs believe public sanitation has improved. •3 of the 8 FGDs state that urban planning and management have improved. When asked what services have deteriorated over the past five years, the top responses were as follows: •3 of 8 FGDs feel that the human rights/gender situation in their commune has deteriorated. •2 of 8 FGDs stated Urban planning has deteriorated When asked about priorities for the communes: •Urban planning management (7 of 8 FGD’s notes) •Roads (5 of 8 FGD’s notes) •Public sanitation (2 of 8 FGD’s notes) Increasing tax revenue USAID.GOV FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 53 •5 of the 8 FGDs believe that tax mobilization and collection has improved Improving access to central government funding •2 of 8 FGD stated communication with central government has been improved Improving constituency satisfaction •3 of the 8 FGDs do not have a positive image of their municipality, while 3 report a positive image. •1 of the 8 FGDs do not think positively about their municipal services, while 7 think positively about their municipal services. LOKAL+’s Category 2 Communes Category 2 communes are those that collect between 50 percent and 75 percent of the revenues they need to support their organizational and operational costs. Saint Marc Population 266,642 (Institut Haitien de Statistiques et d’Informatique, 2015). Administratively, the commune of Saint-Marc is subdivided into six (6) communal sections and some 129 localities. One of the communal sections, Delugé, contains the district of Montrouis. Cap Haitian Population 274,404 (Institut Haitien de Statistiques et d’Informatique, 2015). Cap Haitian is the main city of Haiti’s North Department and Haiti’s largest commune outside the Port au Prince metropolitan area. Cap Haitian is the largest commune adjacent to Haiti’s 3 Bays Marine Protected Area and the Citadelle/Sans Souci/Ramiers UNESCO World Heritage Site, and is home to one of Haiti’s three international seaports that serves approximately 10 percent of Haiti’s population. Ouanaminthe Population 106,129 (Institut Haitien de Statistiques et d’Informatique, 2015). Established as a commune in 1807, Ouanaminthe is subdivided into five (5) communal sections with fourteen (14) localities. The urban part of the commune represents the largest urban center located on the Haitian-Dominican border. In general, the town is generally recognized as the North East Departement’s most important economic center. Category 2 Saint Marc, Cap-Haitien, Ouanaminth Accountability •6 FGD of the 11 FGDs state there has been no increase in accountability and 2 stated accountability increased. •None of the 11 FGDs stated that they believe that their municipal budget is used to the benefit of the commune. 7 stated that they do not believe that the budget is used to the benefit of their commune. •6 of the 11 FGDs do not believe that their municipal cartel is responsive. None of the none stated they believed the municipal cartel is responsive 54 | FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID.GOV Transparency •1 of 8 GI with municipal officials, 1 of 11 FGD notes stated there is increase in transparency while 4 over 11 FGD notes stated No increase in transparency •7 of 11 FGD’s notes stated to be aware of the PIC and 4 notes stated not aware •4 of 11 FGD’s notes stated to be aware of the Communal budget and 9 notes stated not aware (ambivalence) Services delivery •2 of the 11 FGDs know about the services provided by their commune, while 6 do not. •When asked what services have improved over the past five years, the top responses were as follows: •1 of the 11 FGDs believe roads have improved in their communes, •6 of 11 FGDs believe public sanitation has improved. •5 of the 11 FGDs state that urban planning and management have improved. When asked what services have deteriorated over the past five years, the top responses were as follows: •6 of the 11 FGDs feel that urban planning and management have deteriorated over the past five years •8 of 11 FGD’s stated public sanitation has deteriorated •2 of 11 FGDs feel that the human rights/gender situation in their commune has deteriorated. When asked about priorities for the communes: •Urban planning management (11 of 11 FGD’s notes) •Roads (4 of 11 FGD’s notes) •Public sanitation (8 of 11 FGD’s notes) Increasing tax revenue •8 of the 11 FGDs believe that tax mobilization and collection has improved Improving access to central government funding •0 of 11 FGD stated communication with central government has been improved USAID.GOV FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 55 Improving the legal framework for decentralization •None of 3 MPsknows about legal framework for decentralization Improving constituency satisfaction •10 of the 11 FGDs do not have a positive image of their municipality, while 3 report a positive image. •9 of the 11 FGDs do not think positively about their municipal services, while 4 think positively about their municipal services. (Ambivalence) LOKAL+’s Category 3 and 4 Communes Category 3 communes are those that collect between 25 percent and 50 percent of the revenues they need to support their organizational and operational costs. Category 4 communes collect less than 25 percent of the revenues they need to support their organizational and operational costs. Kenscoff Population 57,434 (Institut Haitien de Statistiques et d’Informatique, 2015). Formerly part of Petion Ville, Kenscoff was designated a commune in 1934. One of the Port au Prince metropolitan area’s five communes, Kenscoff is subdivided into five (5) communal sections. The commune of Kenscoff is bounded on the north by the communes of Pétion-Ville and Carrefour; in the south, by the towns of Marigot and Belle Anse; in the east, by the communes of Pétion-Ville and Croix￾des-Bouquets; in the west, by the communes of Carrefour and Jacmel. Limonade Population 55,145 (Institut Haitien de Statistiques et d’Informatique, 2015). Third municipality of the district of Cap-Haïtien, the town of Limonade is subdivided into three (3) communal sections. The commune of Limonade is bounded on the north by the Atlantic Ocean; in the south, by the communes of Sainte Suzanne and Grande Rivière du Nord; to the east, by the communes of Caracol, Sainte Suzanne and Trou-du-Nord and to the west by the communes of Grande Rivière du Nord and Quartier Morin. Founded in 1676, Limonade was designated a commune in 1864. Category 3 4 Communes Category 4 communes collect less than 25 percent of the revenues they need to support their organizational and operational costs. Caracol Population 7,714 (Institut Haitien de Statistiques et d’Informatique, 2015).The commune of Caracol was elevated to the rank of commune in 1889. The commune of Caracol is bounded on the north by the Atlantic Ocean; in the south, by the communes of Trou-du-Nord; to the east, by the municipality of Terrier-Rouge and to the west, by the municipality of Limonade. Caracol has two (2) communal sections. The major employer in the area are the companies of the Parc Industriel, fishing, and agriculture. Acul du Nord 56 | FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID.GOV Population 55,908 (Institut Haitien de Statistiques et d’Informatique, 2015). The commune of Acul du Nord is subdivided into six (6) communal sections. it is bounded on the north by the Atlantic Ocean and the commune of Bas Limbe; in the south, by the communes of Dondon and Marmelade; to the east, by the communes of Dondon and Plaine du Nord and to the west, by the communes of Limbé and Bas Limbé. Category 3 and 4 Kenscoff, Limonade, Caracol and Acul du Nord Accountability •12 of the 16 FGDs state there has been no increase in accountability while 2 notes stated Accountability increased. •None of the 16 FGDs stated that they believe that their municipal budget is used to the benefit of the commune. 3 stated that they do not believe that the budget is used to the benefit of their commune. •1 of the 16 FGDs do not believe that their municipal cartel is responsive. none stated they believed the municipal cartel is responsive Transparency •3 of 9 GI with municipal officials, 1 of 16 FGD notes stated there is increase in transparency while 12 over 16 FGD notes stated No increase in transparency •12 of 16 FGD’s notes stated to be aware of the PIC and 11 notes stated not aware. (Ambivalence) •6 of 16 FGD’s notes stated to be aware of the Communal budget and 14 notes stated not aware. (Ambivalence) Services delivery •11 of the 16 FGDs know about the services provided by their commune, while 7 does not. When asked what services have improved over the past five years, the top responses were as follows: •1 of the 16 FGDs believe roads have improved in their communes, •16 of 16 FGDs believe public sanitation has improved. •6 of the 16 FGDs state that urban planning and management have improved. When asked what services have deteriorated over the past five years, the top responses were as follows: •None feel that the human rights/gender situation in their commune has deteriorated. •1 of 16 FGDs stated Urban planning has deteriorated USAID.GOV FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 57 •3 of 16 FGD’s stated municipal hygiene services When asked about priorities for the communes: •Urban planning management (13 of 16 FGD’s notes) •Roads (12 of 16 FGD’s notes) •Public sanitation (6 of 16 FGD’s notes) •Health facilities (8 of 16 FGD’s notes) •Utilities (eg. running water, electricity) (9 of 16 FGDs notes) Increasing tax revenue •13 of the 16 FGDs believe that tax mobilization and collection has improved Improving access to central government funding •1 of 16 FGD stated communication with central government has been improved Improving the legal framework for decentralization •None of the MPsknows about the legal framework for decentralization Improving constituency satisfaction •12 of the 16 FGDs do not have a positive image of their municipality, while 2 report a positive image. •15 of the 16 FGDs do not think positively about their municipal services, while 5 think positively about their municipal services. (Ambivalence) EQ2 Findings per Category of Communes 58 | FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID.GOV CATEGORY 1 Carrefour and Delmas CATEGORY 2 Saint Marc, Cap￾Haitien and Ouanaminth CATEGORY 3 Kenscoff, Limonade CATEGORY 4 Caracol and Acul du Nord Accountability Three FGDs of the eight FGDs state there has been no increase in accountability. None of the eight FGDs stated that they believe that their municipal budget is used to the benefit of the commune. 1 stated that they do not believe that the budget is used to the benefit of their commune. None of the eight FGDs do not believe that their municipal cartel is responsive. None of the eight FGDs stated they believed the municipal cartel is responsive. Six FGDs of the 11 FGDs state there has been no increase in accountability and two stated accountability increased. None of the 11 FGDs stated that they believe that their municipal budget is used to the benefit of the commune. Seven stated that they do not believe that the budget is used to the benefit of their commune. Six of the 11 FGDs do not believe that their municipal cartel is responsive. None stated they believed the municipal cartel is responsive. Seven of the eight FGDs state there has been no increase in accountability while one note stated accountability increased. None of the eight FGDs stated that they believe that their municipal budget is used to the benefit of the commune. None stated that they do not believe that the budget is used to the benefit of their commune. None of the eight FGDs do not believe that their municipal cartel is responsive. None stated they believed the municipal cartel is responsive. One of the eight FGDs state there has been no increase in accountability while one note stated accountability increased. None of the eight FGDs stated that they believe that their municipal budget is used to the benefit of the commune. Three stated that they do not believe that the budget is used to the benefit of their commune. One of the eight FGDs do not believe that their municipal cartel is responsive. None stated they believed the municipal cartel is responsive Transparency One of two GI with municipal officials, and none of FGD notes stated there is an increase in transparency while two of eight FGD notes stated no increase in transparency. Four of eight FGD notes stated to be One of eight GI with municipal officials, and one of 11 FGD notes stated there is an increase in transparency while four of 11 FGD notes stated no increase in transparency. Seven of 11 FGD notes stated to be aware of One of four GI with municipal officials, and one of eight FGD notes stated there is an increase in transparency while seven of eight FGD notes stated no increase in transparency. Two of five GI with municipal officials, and zero of eight FGD notes stated there is increase in transparency while five over eight FGD notes stated no increase in transparency. Seven of eight FGD notes stated to be USAID.GOV FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 59 aware of the PIC and four notes stated not aware. One of eight FGD notes stated to be aware of the communal budget and seven notes stated not aware. the PIC and four notes stated not aware. Four of 11 FGDs notes stated to be aware of the communal budget and nine notes stated not aware (ambivalence). Five of eight FGD notes stated to be aware of the PIC and four notes stated not aware (ambivalence). Two of eight FGD notes stated to be aware of the communal budget and seven notes stated not aware (ambivalence). aware of the PIC and seven notes stated not aware (ambivalence). Four of eight FGD notes stated to be aware of the communal budget and seven notes stated not aware (ambivalence). Services delivery Eight of the eight FGDs know about the services provided by their commune, while none do not. When asked what services have improved over the past five years, the top responses were as follows: –Four of the eight FGDs believe roads have improved in their communes, –Eight of eight FGDs believe public sanitation has improved. –Three of the eight FGDs state that urban planning and management have improved. When asked what services have deteriorated over the past five years, the top responses were as follows: Two of the 11 FGDs know about the services provided by their commune, while six do not. When asked what services have improved over the past five years, the top responses were as follows: –One of the 11 FGDs believe roads have improved in their communes, –Six of 11 FGDs believe public sanitation has improved. –Five of the 11 FGDs state that urban planning and management have improved. When asked what services have deteriorated over the past five years, the top responses were as follows: Six of the eight FGDs know about the services provided by their commune, while two do not. When asked what services have improved over the past five years, the top responses were as follows: –None of the eight FGDs believe roads have improved in their communes, –Five of eight FGDs believe public sanitation has improved. –Two of the eight FGDs state that urban planning and management have improved. When asked what services have deteriorated over the past five years, the top responses were as follows: Five of the eight FGDs know about the services provided by their commune, while 5 do not (ambivalence). When asked what services have improved over the past five years, the top responses were as follows: –One of the eight FGDs believe roads have improved in their communes, –Eight of eight FGDs believe public sanitation has improved. –Four of the eight FGDs state that urban planning and management have improved. When asked what services have deteriorated over the past five years, the top responses were as follows: –None feel that the human rights/gender 60 | FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID.GOV –Three of eight FGDs feel that the human rights/gender situation in their commune has deteriorated. –Two of eight FGDs stated urban planning has deteriorated. When asked about priorities for the communes: Urban planning management (seven of eight FGD notes) Roads (five of eight FGD notes) Public sanitation (two of eight FGD notes). –Six of the 11 FGDs feel that urban planning and management have deteriorated over the past five years –Eight of 11 FGDs stated public sanitation has deteriorated –Two of 11 FGDs feel that the human rights/gender situation in their commune has deteriorated. When asked about priorities for the communes: Urban planning management (11 of 11 FGD notes) Roads (four of 11 FGDs notes) Public sanitation (eight of 11 FGD notes) –None feel that the human rights/gender situation in their commune has deteriorated. -One of eight FGDs stated urban planning has deteriorated –Two of eight FGDs stated municipal hygiene services. When asked about priorities for the communes: Urban planning management (six of eight FGD notes) Roads (six of eight FGD notes) Public sanitation (two of eight FGD notes) Health facilities (seven of eight FGD notes) Utilities (e.g. running water, electricity) (four of eight FGD notes). situation in their commune has deteriorated. –Zero of eight FGDs stated Urban planning has deteriorated –One of eight FGDs stated municipal hygiene services. When asked about priorities for the communes: Urban planning management (seven of eight FGD notes) Roads (six of eight FGD notes) Public sanitation (four of 16 FGD notes) Health facilities (one of eight FGD notes) Utilities (e.g. running water, electricity) (four of eight FGD notes). Increasing tax revenue - Five of the eight FGDs believe that tax mobilization and collection has improved. - Eight of the 11 FGDs believe that tax mobilization and collection has improved. - Four of the eight FGDs believe that tax mobilization and collection has improved. - Eight of the Eight FGDs believe that tax mobilization and collection has improved. Improving access to central government funding - Two of eight FGDs stated communication with central government has been improved. - Zero of 11 FGDs stated communication with central government has been improved. - Zero of eight FGDs stated communication with central government has been improved. - One of eight FGDs stated communication with central government has been improved. USAID.GOV FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 61 Improving the legal framework for decentralization None of three MPs know about legal framework for decentralization. None of the MPs know about the legal framework for decentralization. None of the MPs know about the legal framework for decentralization. Improving constituency satisfaction - Three of the eight FGDs do not have a positive image of their municipality, while tree report a positive image. - One of the eight FGDs do not think positively about their municipal services, while seven think positively about their municipal services. - 10 of the 11 FGDs do not have a positive image of their municipality, while three report a positive image. - Nine of the 11 FGDs do not think positively about their municipal services, while four think positively about their municipal services (ambivalence). - Eight of the eight FGDs do not have a positive image of their municipality, while none report a positive image. - Eight of the eight FGDs do not think positively about their municipal services, while two think positively about their municipal services (ambivalence). - Four of the eight FGDs do not have a positive image of their municipality, while two report a positive image. - Seven of the eight FGDs do not think positively about their municipal services, while three think positively about their municipal services (ambivalence). 62 | FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID.GOV ANNEX I: DEFINITION OF TERMS The purpose of this annex is to define key terms that are pertinent to a contextual understanding of the LOKAL+ Activity and this evaluation. Accountability refers to the systems, procedures, and mechanisms that ensure that public officials and institutions perform their stated duties and uphold their responsibilities to the public while imposing restraints on their power and authority and providing for redress or sanction when these duties and responsibilities are not met. (Taken from Annex 1 of USAID Strategy on Democracy, Human Rights and Governance, June 2013) Human Rights includes the right to be free from violations of physical integrity (such as torture, slavery and illegal detention); the collective right of all citizens to enjoy political rights and civil liberties; and equality of opportunity and nondiscriminatory access to public goods and services. (Taken from Annex 1 of USAID Strategy on Democracy, Human Rights and Governance, June 2013) Transparency describes an environment where governments and public officials engage in the clear disclosure of rules, plans, processes, and actions in a form that is readily accessible to all. Transparency promotes accountability by providing the public with information about what the government is doing. (Taken from Annex 1 of USAID Strategy on Democracy, Human Rights and Governance, June 2013) Governance, as defined by the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) refers to the exercise of economic, political and administrative authority to manage a country’s affairs at all levels. It involves the process and capacity to formulate, implement, and enforce public policies and deliver services. UNDP “Governance for Sustainable Human Development: A UNDP policy Document, Glossary of Key Terms” Local Governance. Local governance is a method or system of government or management and public service delivery in which the smallest, lowest or least centralized competent authority is empowered to make decisions and in which the management authorities are accountable to local citizens or stakeholders. Local governance is an expression of subsidiarity, an organizing principle according to which political decisions and their execution should be handled by the lowest competent authority. (Taken from Local Governance Decentralization Assessment in Haiti USAID July 2006) Decentralization. The process of transferring power and resources from the central government to lower levels (such as regions, departments, municipalities, and communal sections) enabling them to provide services to their communities and conduct local government tasks. These local governments must be accountable to the citizens they represent to provide for proper checks and balances.” (taken from Local Governance Decentralization Assessment in Haiti USAID July 2006. The document describes three components of the decentralization process, namely political, administrative, and financial.) Political Decentralization is described as a degree of representative government in which citizens, through their elected representatives, have decision-making power. (Taken from Local Governance Decentralization Assessment in Haiti USAID July 2006) Administrative Decentralization is described as the autonomy of local government to design administrative systems, appoints its staff, and prepare and implement their development plans. (Taken from Local Governance Decentralization Assessment in Haiti USAID July 2006) Financial Decentralization is characterized as the core element of decentralization, and defined as the ability of local government to raise revenue and make autonomous decisions about expenditures. (Taken from Local Governance Decentralization Assessment in Haiti USAID July 2006) Capacity Building. Institutional capacity refers to the technical, managerial and administrative ability of an organization or institution and the human and material (including financial) resources and authority to accomplish its mission. At a minimum, the mission and objectives of the organization or institution USAID.GOV FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 63 must be understood by the personnel, who should also understand their roles in furthering the mission, and its authority must be clearly established. Building the capacity of an organization or institution, irrespective of its size or whether it is a public or private entity, requires attention to all of these elements. The legitimacy and authority of an institution reflects its governance and recognition. (Taken from Local Governance Decentralization Assessment in Haiti USAID July 2006) Fonds de Gestion et de Dévéloppement des collectivités territoriales (FGDCT). Most of the financial resources of Haiti’s local governments come from the (Fonds de gestion et de développement des collectivités territoriales) FGDCT, a fund created by Parliament in 1996 that is allocated by the Ministry of the Interior. The FGDCT is the sole regular source of government transfers to municipal government the commune or department’s long-term development objectives, with other types of transfers made only occasionally such as financial support for local festivals (such as carnival, patron saints’ days, and harvest festivals) and capital investments (such as the construction of public squares). Consultative Citizens’ Committees (CCCs), are representative panels of local citizens in each target commune whose purpose is to improve constructive dialogue and transparency of municipal affairs. The creation of these committees was facilitated by LOKAL+, which trained them in the basics of municipal affairs. (Source: LOKAL+ project reports) Communal Investment Plans (PICs) are comprehensive municipal planning documents prepared by local civil society organizations, churches, professional organizations and other key stakeholder groups through a participative and inclusive methodology stretching over three to six months that entail socio￾economic, technical and budgetary discussions, prioritization exercises, and that select between 9 and 14 priority projects that the commune will strive to implement over the next five years. (Source: LOKAL+ project reports) Communal Development Plans (PDCs), are 25-year projections of public and private investments in the commune coordinated by the Ministry of Planning (MPCE). These are a first step before a PFC can be prepared. (Source: LOKAL+ project reports) CIVITAX is a comprehensive local tax management system designed by Solutions, a leading IT consultancy and custom software developer based in Port-au-Prince, Haiti. LOKAL+ introduced the software to communes as well as technical assistance, training, equipment and network installation to build capacity at the central and communal level. (Source: LOKAL+ project reports) Contribution Foncière des Propriétés Bâties (CFPB). This is the property tax and is the largest source of fiscal revenue accessible to local communes. Tax revenue potential was raised using GIS and CIVITAX software, supported by a street census and a property census to collect data on over 78,755 built properties. (Source: LOKAL+ project reports) Human Resources Manual for Haitian Communes. This is a standardized manual covering the recruitment, job description and remuneration of the 6 key posts in municipal governments (including the Chief of Staff and the Director of Fiscal Resources). (Source: LOKAL+ project reports) Civil Society Organizations include formal nongovernment organizations, as well as formal and informal membership associations (including labor unions, business and professional associations, farmers’ organizations and cooperatives, and women’s groups) that articulate and represent the interests of their members, engaged in analysis and advocacy, and conduct oversight of government actions and policies. (Taken from Annex 1 of USAID Strategy on Democracy, Human Rights and Governance, June 2013) 64 | FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID.GOV ANNEX J: DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST USAID.GOV FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 65 66 | FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID.GOV ANNEX K: INFORMATION ON INCREASED TAX REVENUES Information are from desk review of LOKAL+ project’s reports. Table 1: Presentation of Statistics about Increased Tax Revenue in LOKAL+ Targeted Communes Commune LOKAL+ Target in gourdes per year Baseline FY13 revenue in gourdes FY14 revenue in gourdes FY15 revenue in gourdes FY16 revenue as of August 31 Percentage change Caracol 230,000 34,684 88,964 82,156 227,240 555 percent Limonade 920,000 184,000 322,276 515,154 635,674 245 percent Ouanaminthe 4,600,000 736,000 1,226,176 3,003,754 2,366,562 222 percent Cap 46,000,000 25,438,000 36,341,656 35,258,126 35,886,992 41 percent Delmas 460,000,000 303,140,000 334,728,798 352,879,294 414,532,772 37 percent Kenscoff 9,200,000 3,864,000 5,955,482 4,421,888 4,554,552 18 percent Saint-Marc 13,800,000 7,130,000 6,271,134 5,234,708 5,339,450 -25 percent Acul-du￾Nord 460,000 276,000 100,096 211,922 151,846 45 percent Carrefour 184,000,000 84,640,000 36,881,190 38,733,104 35,726,912 -58 percent total 719,210,000 425,442,684 421,915,772 440,340,106 499,422,000 17 percent USAID.GOV FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 67 Graph 1. Caracol trend of tax revenues Caracol stands head and shoulders above all others, having better than quintupled its revenue since FY 2013. Project Target amount per year for Caracol is 230,000 gourdes. Graph 2. Limonade trend of tax revenues Limonade have better than doubled their revenue, Project Target amount per year for Limonade is 920,000 gourdes. 68 | FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID.GOV Graph 3. Ouanaminthe trend of tax revenues Ouanaminthe also have better than doubled their revenue, Project Target amount per year for Ouanaminthe is 4,6000,000 gourdes. Graph 4. Cap Haitian trend of tax revenues Although Cap Haitian has significantly increase revenues from 2013 to 2014. Revenues did not really increased from 2014 to 2016. Project Target amount per year for Cap Haitian is 46,000,000 gourdes. USAID.GOV FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 69 Graph 5. Delmas trend of tax revenues Delmas brought in 110 million gourdes more this year than it did in FY 2013. Project Target amount per year for Delmas is 460,000,000 gourdes. Graph 6. Kenscoff trend of tax revenues Project Target amount per year for Kenscoff is 9,200,000 gourdes. 70 | FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID.GOV Graph 7. Saint Marc trend of tax revenues Project Target amount per year for Saint Marc is 13,800,000 gourdes. Saint Marc, whose revenue decreased by 25 percent, suffered through a prolonged period when staff salaries fell as much as 20 months into arrears and its fiscal service department essentially ceased to function. Since the investiture of the new mayoral cartel and their hiring an entirely new municipal staff, the situation is rapidly improving. By the end of July the fiscal services department had started a tax recovery operation, focused especially on the CFPB. Every day fiscal services employees were delivering tax delinquency notifications, targeting one thousand delinquent taxpayers, with measurable effect. In August 2015 Saint Marc collected 141,218 gourdes in revenue. In August 2016, Saint Marc collected 285,718 gourdes, 102 percent more than the same month a year earlier. Graph 8. Acul du Nord trend of tax revenues USAID.GOV FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 71 Project Target amount per year for Acul du Nord is 460,000 gourdes. The decline in revenue of 45 percent in Acul du Nord is puzzling, given that two nearby communes of similar size, Caracol and Limonade, have better than quintupled and doubled their revenue respectively. Why, given that all three sets of personnel were trained under the PINNES program (which was supported by LOKAL+) is this a problem in Acul du Nord but not in Caracol and Limonade? The reason lies in partisan politics. In Caracol and Limonade the personnel were either supporters of the new cartel or remained apolitical. They work well with their new mayoral cartels. In Acul du Nord the senior staff were open partisans of a cartel that was defeated, and initially did not cooperate with the new cartel. Furthermore, in the view of Mayor Rebecaline Ziky, they simply do not possess the necessary technical skills to meet the needs of the commune require. Acul du Nord is a special challenge that LOKAL+ will focus on, considering that the Saint Marc mayoral cartel which was able to bring in an entire new work force has been able to increase revenue markedly. Graph 8. Carrefour trend of tax revenues Project Target amount per year for Carrefour is 184,000,000 gourdes. Carrefour’s 58 percent decline in revenue can be attributed to the problem of divisive local politics and notably hostile relations between residents and the municipality. However, unlike the Saint Marc cartel, the Carrefour cartel has not taken steps to replace the municipal staff. 72 | FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID.GOV Graph 9. Overall trend of tax revenues Project Target amount per year for overall is 719,210,000 gourdes. At the lower end of the rankings three communes have seen their revenue decline since FY 2013. Graph 10. Percentage of Tax increase from 2013 to 2016 for all nine communes In the fiscal year2015-2016, Caracol, Limonade and Ouanaminthe outpaced the other six communes, exceeding their annual targets by 494 percent, 230 percent and 214 percent respectively. In four other communes, revenue at the end of August was higher than at the same point in FY 2015. In Delmas revenue was 62,24 million of gourdes higher than at this time in FY 2015, representing 91 percent of its target. In Cap Haitian revenue was 3,588,000 gourdes higher than at this time in FY 2015, representing 94 percent of its target. In Kenscoff revenue was 138,000 gourdes higher than the amount generated in FY 2015, and the commune was at 79 percent of its target, while in Saint Marc, revenue was 299,000 gourdes higher than at this point in FY 2015, 50 percent of the commune’s target. USAID.GOV FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 73 Revenue in the remaining three communes was lower at the end of August than at the time the previous year. In Acul du Nord, revenue was 52,762 gourdes lower than at the same time in FY 2015, and the commune was running behind its target at 37 percent. However, the 151,846 gourdes in revenue Acul du Nord had received by August 31 was higher than the 100,096 gourdes in revenue it collected in all of FY 2014. Carrefour remained the worst performing LOKAL+ commune at 28 percent of its revenue target. The problem was due to the familiar issue of salary arrears.19 Demotivated by late payment of their salaries, the personnel in the fiscal service department engaged in a work slowdown for much of the year 2014. Due to Hurricane Matthew that hit Haiti on October 2016, the project could not collect figures for September for the FY 2016-2017. 19 As of September 30, 2015 Carrefour, was 11 months in arrears in the payment of salaries with a debt of 79 million gourdes, of which 25 million was obtained through a loan from the Ministry of Economy and Finance (MEF). 74 | FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID.GOV ANNEX L: DOCUMENTS CONSULTED IN DESK REVIEW • Local Governance Decentralization Assessment in Haiti. USAID. 2006. • Corruption et Gouvernance ULCC et Bureau de Recherche en Informatique et en Developpement Economiques et Social (BRIDES), 2007. • GoH Draft Law on Decentralization • GoH MICT Roadmap, 2017 (featuring decentralization directives) • Haitian Cities: Actions for Today with an Eye on Tomorrow (World Bank 2017) • Local Systems: A Framework for Supporting Sustained Development (USAID 2014) • Définition et Statut des Collectivités Territoriales, Commission Nationale à la Reforme Administrative (CNRA), Unité de Decentralisation et des Collectivités Territoriales Mars 2002 • Code Rurale d’Haiti 1962. ISBN: 978-9935-41-62-2 Depot Legal, Bibliotheque National d’Haiti: 09-06- 486. Stock : OIF-D-003 • Thinking Local in Haiti: Civil Society Perspectives on Decentralization. Publ Oct 2012 by Progressio in partnership with CAFOD, International HIV-AIDS Alliance, SCIAF and Tearfund. ISBN 978-1- 85287-341-7 • USAID ADS Chapter 205, Integrating Gender Equality and Female Empowerment in USAID’s Program Cycle; 2017 • LOKAL+ Commune Selection Decision Memorandum, May 28, 2018 • USAID Strategy on Democracy Human Rights and Governance, June 2013 • USAID/Haiti Gender Assessment September 20, 2016 USAID.GOV FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 75 ANNEX M: SITES FOR DIRECT OBSERVATION VISITS The list of sites to which the ET may make DO visits are taken from the Municipal Financial Plans (Plan de Financement Communal, or PFC). These documents reflect the priorities for the communes as identified by the CCC’s and endorsed by the Mayors. Commune Sites/ PFC Support from LOKAL+ Special issues 1 Cap-Haitian City hall IT equipment received from LOKAL+ 2 Cap-Haitien the project on "Protection and Preservation of Mangrove Swamp at Haut d’Eau" (UNDP funds) but on PFC advocated by municipality How did municipality secure funding? 3 Caracol City hall IT equipment received from LOKAL+ 4 Caracol the construction of a health center (funded by the Ministry of Health MSPP), but on PFC and advocated by municipality How did municipality secure funding? 5 Caracol Construction of Caracol fish market place The market is not being used and with LOKAL+ assistance this issue must be addressed by the new mayor Given that this is listed in Caracol’s PFC as a municipal priority, why is this facility not being used? 6 Caracol Construction of Caracol public market place The market, which adjoins the fish market, is also not being used and with LOKAL+ assistance this issue must be addressed by the new mayor 7 Ouanaminthe City hall IT equipment received from LOKAL+ 8 Ouanaminthe the construction of a waste dumping site (funded by the European Union) but on PFC and advocated by municipality How did municipality secure funding? 9 Ouanaminthe construction of a health center in Savane Longue (funded by the Ministry of Health MSPP). but on PFC and advocated by municipality How did municipality secure funding? 10 Delmas City hall IT equipment received from LOKAL+ 76 | FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID.GOV 11 Delmas Delmas 32- The construction of market place and the development of the Siloe neighborhood Funded by the commune of Delmas (HG 7,000,000 and HG 28,293,397.57 respectively) and are 60% completed. 12 Delmas Construction of Delmas 33 market place Funded by municipality￾construction completed but it is not used Given that this is listed in Delmas’ PFC as a municipal priority, why is this facility not being used? 13 Limonade City Hall IT equipment received from LOKAL+ 14 Limonade The PFC projects: "Construction of box￾culvert in urban center and outskirts" and "Installation of 100 solar lamps in urban center and outskirts" Fully completed with funds from the municipality taxes (HG 285,000 and HG 200,000 respectively). 15 Limonade The fencing of the central square. From PFC and advocated by Municipality 16 Limonade "Rehabilitation of regional market place" Initiated with the technical support of the MICT and is 60% completed. How did municipality secure funding? 17 Limonade Rehabilitation of public market place The market is not being used and with LOKAL+ assistance this issue must be addressed by the new mayor Given that this is listed in Limonade’s PFC as a municipal priority, why is this facility not being used? 18 Kenscoff City hall IT equipment received from LOKAL+ 19 Kenscoff Spring Catchments and Reservoirs" Initiated with the technical support of DINEPA. Cancelled? Given that this is listed in Kenscoff’s PFC as a municipal priority, why was this facility? 20 Acul du Nord City hall IT equipment received from LOKAL+ 21 Saint Marc City hall IT equipment received from LOKAL+ USAID.GOV FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 77 ANNEX N: LOKAL+ INTERMEDIATE RESULTS Intermediate Result #1: Strengthen the capability of communal governments to provide services Interventions under IR1 were organized under the headings of communal services and planning. Communal services are the services that the communes are mandated to provide. These are: 1) land use planning and development, 2) land management, 3) environment and natural resources, 4) health and public hygiene, 5) education, literacy and vocational training, 6) culture, sports and recreation, 7) civil protection, disaster management and rescue, 8) oversight of funeral homes and cemeteries, 9) provision of utilities such as water and electricity, 10) management of public market places and slaughterhouses and, 11) public security. LOKAL+ interventions aimed to strengthen the capacity of communal authorities to provide the basic public services mandated by law. The Activity’s approach to strengthening institutional capacity was embodied in two principal methodologies, Functional Organizational Assessment (FOCAS) and Quality Service Improvement (QSIP). To this end, LOKAL+ used Advanced Participation Methods (APMs) – fundamental tools that ensure stakeholder participation and improve the productivity of working groups--to provide technical training and support for the application of FOCAS and QSIP. Another important element of the Activity’s approach to capacity building and service improvement has been the standardization of training methodologies. With FOCAS methodology, communal capacity assessments are used to identify priorities, administrative functions and public services where capacity building is most needed, and the QSIP methodology is then applied to execute the plans and objectives. IR1 interventions included: • adapt and pilot test FOCAS and QSIP methodologies and tools • develop a training toolkit • train Activity staff and subcontractor consultants in APMs • conduct an organizational capacity assessment and develop plans for institutional capacity building and quality service improvement programs in targeted communes • Municipal Investment Planning in terms of technical assistance for implementation of Communal Investment Plans (PIC - plan d’investissement Communal) Intermediate Result #2: Generate a sustainable increase in local revenues for local services To achieve this IR, LOKAL+ focused on strengthening budgeting and revenue mobilization (tax and non￾tax). The budget was also an important tool in setting targets for improving service delivery capacity under IR1 (i.e. the implementation of PICs), as it is inextricably linked to revenue mobilization. To this end, LOKAL+ introduced CIVITAX, an integrated software package for budget preparation revenue mobilization and management, and supported a census of built properties to help communes increase their tax base. In addition, LOKAL+ financially and technically supported vast tax mobilization campaigns in targeted communes. Additionally, community meetings referred to as “audience publiques,” an intervention under IR5, indirectly contributed to revenue mobilization as communes used this “audience publiques” to generate income mobilization around the budget and PICs. IR2 interventions included: • systematic identification and evaluation of built properties • establishment of computerized tax rolls and data entry • data sharing with the local and national offices of the Direction Générale de Impots (DGI) • improvement of tax services 78 | FINAL EVALUATION REPORT USAID.GOV o automated production of tax invoices, payment receipts and other official documents required for effective management of tax roles o organization of paper files of all tax administrative documentation o organization of the development of communal tax services and related training • revenue mobilization campaigns Intermediate Result #3: Leverage greater access to central government funding and services Communes depend on central government grants and the Territorial Communities Management and Development Fund (FGDCT) as their main sources of revenue. The speed, predictability, and equitable distribution of these resources are essential to their ability to function and provide public services. At the same time, decentralized services of central government ministries and agencies lack sufficient financial resources to provide the services for which they are responsible. IR3 addressed this set of issues surrounding the availability of central government resources from both intergovernmental and decentralized services. In a cross-cutting approach with IR1, LOKAL+ solicited funds and technical assistance from central ministries and deconcentrated services to support the execution of the municipalities’ targeted communes PICs. Intermediate Result #4: Improve national-level policy and legislation in support of decentralization and deconcentrated services; In IR4, LOKAL+ focused on decentralization and legislative reforms of governance, administrative policies and guidelines aimed at improving the conditions under which local and deconcentrated governments exercise their functions and provide public services. The interventions under this outcome provided technical assistances to GoH agencies to identify and build consensus on priority reforms and drafting legislation. IR14 interventions were: • consultations with MICT and/or the Office of Management and Human Resources (OMRH) for research and/or legislative drafting of decentralization and local governance reform legislation on a demand-driven basis • support GoH events to discuss policies and decentralization Intermediate Result #5: Increase transparency, oversight, and accountability of local governments and deconcentrated service providers. IR5 addressed the issues of transparency and accountability of communal governments in government management and governance. The following four areas constituted the framework of LOKAL+ interventions for IR5: • the audit and control functions performed by MICT and the Superior Court of Auditors and Administrative Disputes (CSCCA) on Municipal Finance • monitoring and direct participation of citizens and their organizations in communal management, decision-making and service delivery • monitoring the provision of deconcentrated services by communes and citizens • the role of the media in informing the public about governance and service delivery LOKAL+ primarily used CIVITAX, the reinforcement of civil society organizations (CSOs), and support for the “audience publiques” to strengthen audit and control functions. The use of CIVITAX (in particular its budget management module) facilitated the monitoring and reporting process. CIVITAX has systematized and facilitated the respective expense control functions through automated processes and USAID.GOV FINAL EVALUATION REPORT | 79 data transmission to MICT and CSCCA. LOKAL+ also promoted citizen oversight, building institutional capacity, organizing public forums to encourage citizen participation in local affairs. IR5 activities included: • installation of CIVITAX in the MICT/DCT and the CSCCA and related staff training • training CSOs and community-based organizations (CBOs) to increase citizen participation in communal affairs training and technical assistance in preparation and public dissemination of communal reports and information20 20 LOKAL+ Annual work Plans 2013-2017; LOKAL+ Annual reports 2013-2017