USAID/SERBIA
MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION 
OF THE RULE OF LAW PROJECT 
FINAL REPORT 
This report is made possible by the support of the American People through the United States Agency 
for International Development (USAID.) The contents of this report are the sole responsibility of the 
contractor, Management Systems International, A Tetra Tech Company, and do not necessarily reflect 
the views of USAID or the United States Government.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACRONYMS ............................................................................................................................ III
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..........................................................................................................1
INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT BACKGROUND ....................................................2
EVALUATION PURPOSE AND EVALUATION QUESTIONS......................................3
EVALUATION METHODS AND LIMITATIONS .............................................................3
FINDINGS ..................................................................................................................................5
CONCLUSIONS.................................................................................................................... 22
RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................................................... 28
iii | ROLP MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV
ACRONYMS
AP Action Plan (EU Chapter 23)
AMELP Activity, Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning Plan
CDCS Country Development Cooperation Strategy
CMS Case Management System
EQ Evaluation Question
ER Expected Result
ET Evaluation Team
EU European Union
HCC High Court Council 
JDS Judicial Development Strategy
LOES Law on Enforcement and Security 
MEL Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning
MOJ Ministry of Justice
MSI Management Systems International
NGO Nongovernmental Organization
NJRS National Judicial Reform Strategy
PEO Public Enforcement Officer
PIS Pravosudni informacioni sistem (Judicial Information System)
ROLP Rule of Law Project
SAO State Attorney’s Office 
SCC Supreme Court of Cassation
WG Working Group 
1 | ROLP MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
EVALUATION PURPOSE
Conducted in December 2019 by Management Systems International (MSI), this midterm performance 
evaluation of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID)/Serbia Rule of Law 
Project (ROLP) aims to assess progress to date toward ROLP objectives, identify potential areas for 
program modification and emphasis, and inform future USAID justice sector programming. 
PROJECT BACKGROUND
A four-year $9.8 million project that started in July 2017, ROLP supports justice sector reforms that 
enhance timely delivery of justice for Serbian citizens. ROLP works with the courts, public enforcement 
agents, and the State Attorney’s Office (SAO) to increase judicial efficiency and transparency and 
improve access to justice while maintaining flexibility to respond to emerging issues in the ever-evolving 
Serbian justice system. ROLP consists of two components, each with several tasks and subtasks: (1) to 
assess and develop the national judicial reform strategy and support associated judiciary activities and (2) 
to strengthen judgment enforcement and build SAO capacity.
EVALUATION QUESTIONS
This evaluation addresses the following evaluation questions (EQs):
EQ1. To what extent is the program on track to accomplish the inputs, outputs and likely outcomes 
expected under both components of the program?
EQ2. What link can be determined between progress toward the activity's objectives and the activity's 
results?
EQ3. What were the key contributing factors and lessons learned in generating these results?
EQ4. Does the evaluation team have recommendations for adaptation of interventions within the 
current scope and remaining implementation period of the contract in order to increase the 
effectiveness of the project?
EVALUATION METHODS AND LIMITATIONS
The evaluation team used a mixed-methods iterative process, using multiple sources to determine the 
most evidence-based approach. This included a program document review, key informant interviews 
(KIIs), group interviews, and one observation effort at an Open Door court event for the public held at 
the court in Zrenjanin. The team conducted interviews between December 2 and December 18, 2019, 
and held 36 KII meetings, three group meetings, and one observation event, meeting with 67 
stakeholders engaged in rule-of-law activities. The team was aware of the potential for recall bias, 
response bias, and sampling bias and undertook to mitigate any evaluation limitations due to these issues 
as much as possible. Where the team could not meet with specific stakeholders, it sought to meet with 
substitutes. For example, despite efforts, it was not possible to organize the meeting with the First Basic 
Court in Belgrade. Instead, the team met with the Second and Third Basic Courts in Belgrade. 
OVERALL ASSESSMENT
Court efficiency technical solution efforts are attaining results. ROLP has managed through adaptive 
practices and persistent consultation processes to put in place several valuable e-tools for court and 
related institution management and interconnection. This provides a solid basis for further innovation 
and implementation during and beyond the project. 
USAID.GOV ROLP MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: FINAL REPORT | 2
Despite similar consultation processes, policy/legislative solution efforts have had more mixed results. 
Policy reform efforts have been most fruitful in moving forward the national Judicial Development 
Strategy (JDS) and amendments to the Law on Enforcement and Security (LOES). There has been less 
success in other areas of reform, such as the status of judicial assistants, where constitutional 
amendment considerations have kept these and other policy reform efforts in limbo, and with the 
Chamber of Public Enforcement Officers, where internal issues within the Chamber and this not being a 
current priority for the MOJ have impacted progress.
Implementation adjustments should focus on capturing capacity skill application, piloting new tools with 
court and related institutions’ staff in various contexts, including in institutions outside of Belgrade, and 
increasing public education efforts on reforms in the public enforcement process as well as other court 
processes. Intentional design for 2021 and beyond needs to be both flexible and fixed to ensure 
consistency and utility in USAID support of Serbia’s further judicial reform efforts and progress. 
INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT BACKGROUND
Since 2001, United States Agency for International Development (USAID)/Serbia has worked to increase 
regional stability in the Balkans by helping Serbia integrate into Euro-Atlantic institutions, in accordance 
with Goal 6 of the EUR/E&E Joint Regional Strategy—“Balkans Fully Integrated into Euro-Atlantic 
Institutions.” USAID’s Country Development Cooperation Strategy (CDCS) 2013–2020 targeted 
assistance programs help Serbia implement reforms to expand its economy, strengthen key institutions’ 
accountability and responsiveness, and thereby meet the requirements for membership in the EU and 
other Euro-Atlantic organizations. 
Firm rule of law – enabling Serbian public institutions to meet their obligations to citizens in a 
democratic society, instilling public confidence in the government, and shoring up the structures and 
resources required to create a functioning democratic state—is essential for Serbia’s EU accession. The 
European Commission has stressed that European Aquis chapters 23 and 24 on the justice system will 
remain open until the end of Serbia’s accession negotiations, and the EU will therefore continuously 
monitor Serbia’s development in strengthening the rule of law.
In line with the national judicial reform strategy (NJRS), Serbia is receiving significant assistance to 
support justice sector reforms, mostly from the EU through the Instrument for Pre-Accession 
Assistance but also through the World Bank, OSCE, Council of Europe, Embassy of the Netherlands, 
and other donors. And for more than a decade, USAID/Serbia has worked to improve access to justice, 
case management, and court efficiency. These improvements have resulted in cases being tried more 
quickly and efficiently, which in turn has fostered greater trust in Serbian justice institutions among 
citizens, businesses, and investors. 
The USAID/Serbia Rule-of-Law Project (ROLP), a four-year $9.8 million project that started in July 2017, 
supports justice sector reforms that enhance timely delivery of justice for Serbian citizens. ROLP works 
with the courts, public enforcement agents, and the State Attorney’s Office (SAO) to increase judicial 
efficiency and transparency and improve access to justice while maintaining flexibility to respond to 
emerging issues in the ever-evolving Serbian justice system. ROLP consists of two components, each 
with several tasks and subtasks: (1) to assess and develop the NJRS and support associated judiciary 
activities and (2) to strengthen judgment enforcement and build SAO capacity.
3 | ROLP MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV
EVALUATION PURPOSE AND EVALUATION QUESTIONS
EVALUATION PURPOSE
This midterm performance evaluation, conducted in December 2019 by Management Systems 
International (MSI), aims to assess ROLP’s effectiveness and progress toward objectives and identify 
recommendations for the remainder of the program and for future USAID justice sector programming. 
EVALUATION QUESTIONS
This evaluation addresses the following evaluation questions (EQs):
EQ1. To what extent is the program on track to accomplish the inputs, outputs, and likely outcomes 
expected under both components of the program?
EQ2. What link can be determined between progress toward the activity's objectives and the activity's 
results?
EQ3. What were the key contributing factors and lessons learned in generating these results?
EQ4. Does the evaluation team have recommendations for adaptation of interventions within the 
current scope and remaining implementation period of the contract in order to increase the 
effectiveness of the project?
EVALUATION METHODS AND LIMITATIONS 
EVALUATION APPROACH
The evaluation team (ET) addressed each EQ by examining the two program components separately and 
then together to ensure comprehensive coverage of all tasks and subtasks. For EQ1, the ET 
systematically examined the project data on inputs and outputs to date for each of these to determine 
the extent to which the program has achieved its performance markers. It also examined the Activity 
Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning Plan (AMELP) for each component to compare expected outputs, 
outcomes (results), and indicators at midterm. Based on this information, the ET engaged with 
informants to verify the secondary data and obtain information on other aspects of the programming 
process, including any unintended outputs and outcomes.
For EQ2, the ET looked at the links among each component’s outcomes or results, AMELP expected 
results (ERs), and the larger activity objectives. The team examined the extent to which project results 
are advancing overall progress on Serbia’s judicial reform process on a policy level and on increasing 
judicial efficiency and access to justice in the courts and supporting institutions. 
For EQ3, the ET identified implementation and contextual factors that have affected results to date. The 
ET mapped out apparent contributing factors, lessons learned, and any examples of formal and informal 
adaptive learning according to the programming documentation. It then further explored the details 
around these issues with key program stakeholders.
For EQ4, the ET determined which inputs and processes can be adapted or scaled up to achieve greater 
results. Key informant interviews (KIIs), which examined perceived need, interest, resource, and political 
considerations, provided the ET with feedback to develop utilization-focused recommendations. In 
USAID.GOV ROLP MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: FINAL REPORT | 4
addition, in accordance with USAID’s request during the in-briefing, the ET considered future judicial 
reform programming and has provided a set of recommendations for 2021 and beyond. 
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS METHODS 
Before arriving in Serbia, the ET began their review of key ROLP documents, including work plans, 
quarterly and annual progress reports, the evolving AMELP, and some key product outputs. Based on 
this desk review, the team sketched out descriptive overviews of program efforts to date for each 
question and developed seven semi structured interview guides for direct beneficiaries, 
subgrantee/subcontractors, implementers, USAID, donors (including other USAID rule-of-law activities), 
external actors, and group interviews (judicial assistants and public enforcement officers). After arriving 
in Serbia, the team met with USAID to agree on selected site locations and to identify additional key 
informants. During the next two-and-a-half weeks, the team met with 67 key informants during 36 
meetings; conducted a site visit to the Appellate Court, Public Attorney’s Office, and SAO regional 
office in Kragujevac; and attended an Open Door court event in Zrenjanin, organized through the 
USAID Constituencies for Judicial Reform in Serbia project. In addition, the team conducted group 
interviews with seven public enforcement officers and two group interviews with seven judicial assistants 
(three in Belgrade and four in Kragujevac). 
Throughout the fieldwork, the team took an iterative approach to interpreting and synthesizing data. 
This approach included daily briefings to share impressions and key points from interviews. These efforts 
formed the basis of the two-day team analysis workshop, held at the end of the interview process, 
where all key themes and trends were identified across each component and corresponding tasks and 
used to synthesize key findings, form initial conclusions, and identify recommendations. The team then 
presented these to USAID, which provided an opportunity for clarification and discussion.
EVALUATION LIMITATIONS 
The evaluation had several potential limitations:
Recall bias: Multiple actors in Serbia are working on rule-of-law issues so key informants may not 
accurately remember particular ROLP intervention activities. Similarly, participants in multiple ROLP 
activities may blend their experiences into a composite memory or response and then fail to distinguish 
between them as separate activities in their responses. The ET mitigated this bias primarily through a 
semi-structured interview protocol that included questioning about specific activities.
Response bias: Informants may have expressed positive views of the project because they would like to 
stay involved with it and fear that a negative evaluation could halt project opportunities. The ET 
mitigated this bias in two ways. First, the ET stressed that it would maintain confidentiality and then 
explained the team’s independence from both USAID and the activity. Second, as with recall bias, the ET 
designed questions to elicit specific examples that helped identify response bias.
Selection bias: Contacts provided by the implementers could have led to the team hearing only from 
people who have had positive experiences. The ET mitigated this bias by trying to expand beyond 
implementer-provided contacts through an informal snowballing process and by identifying non￾treatment contacts through other lists or networks. As with the other forms of bias, multiple sources of 
data and questions eliciting specific examples helped to mitigate risk.
5 | ROLP MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV
The ET combated all of these biases by clearly discussing the evaluation’s intentions with key informants, 
asking questions that required specific examples as well as perceptions, and using multiple sources of 
data for analysis. 
FINDINGS 
This section presents findings for Components 1 and 2, divided by their respective tasks. 
COMPONENT 1
Component 1 tasks include assessing the expiring National Judicial Reform Strategy (NJRS), developing a 
new strategy, and supporting associated judiciary activities. 
TASK 1: ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT OF SERBIA’S NATIONAL JUDICIAL REFORM 
STRATEGY 
1.1.1 ROLP carried out all the envisioned tasks and outputs for furthering efforts, with some 
adaptations in accordance with MOJ stakeholder interests. All key domestic and international actors 
involved view the developed documents as covering the tasks anticipated and as providing further policy 
guidance in judicial reform efforts. 
Initially per the USAID award scope of work the ROLP was tasked to undertake an impact assessment 
of the NJRS and its action plan and then to support the drafting of a new strategy and action plan in line 
with Chapter 23 of the European Acquis. However per project 
documentation and implementer feedback, the MOJ asked the project to 
shift from the initial task of conducting an impact assessment of the NJRS 
to ROLP conducted a general assessment of the NJRS (2013–2018) and 
accompanying action plan, which served as the basis for developing a new 
NJRS for 2019–2024. The NJRS 2019–2024 first draft—renamed as the 
National Judicial Development Strategy (NJDS) and then further 
shortened to the Judicial Development Strategy (JDS)—was completed in 
early 2019 and later refined through working group (WG) consultations. 
ROLP then worked to align and harmonize the JDS with activities outlined in Action Plan (AP) 23 and 
for AP23 to be the action plan for the JDS1 This harmonization and review process in Brussels and now 
in Serbia (internal WG and public consultation) has been ongoing, with finalization and adoption of the 
JDS expected in early 2020. 
1.1.2 Some stakeholders still expressed concerns about the comprehensiveness of the JDS content.2
Part of the concern, according to the EU, stemmed from the MOJ’s request for a general assessment 
rather than the originally planned impact assessment, making the assessment more descriptive than 
analytical. Others involved in the strategy development process pointed out that the new JDS was not as 
ambitious as the previous strategy, particularly on independence issues (including budgeting provisions) 
and did not have the level of detail necessary for benchmarking considerations. One informant 
acknowledged that not all the JDS measures are as precise as possible but that key actors agree on the 
1 In relation to this the JDS has four principles or goals, which match the four areas covered in the AP 23. For 
more information see the document: Comparative Overview of JDS 2019–2024 – AP23, as found in Y2Q4 ROL 
Project Quarterly Report, Annex C. 
2The ET did not do a content analysis of the JDS as this would have been outside the current SOW of the midterm 
evaluation.
“Many proposals in this 
document (JDS) are now 
considered ‘something 
that has to be done,’ so 
a type of co-ownership. 
This is a new step.” 
Legal Expert
USAID.GOV ROLP MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: FINAL REPORT | 6
direction the measures suggest and where things need to next develop. Overall, even those critical of 
the content recognized that the key objective was getting a realistic plan in place that all agreed to (and 
aligned to AP23) that could then be improved later. They felt the current JDS version had achieved this. 
As a key official in the process noted, “The new strategy is more realistic, and timelines are realistic, and 
this is the key difference from the old strategy and why we can more realistically implement (it).”
1.1.3 ROLP’s comprehensive consultation strategy was essential for getting all necessary stakeholders 
to engage in and own the process. Those engaged with assessment, development, and consultation 
efforts described how ROLP brought together stakeholders from the MOJ, the courts, the EU and 
donor community, and civil society, as well as legal experts, suggesting that that this is one of the first 
times such a facilitation process had been achieved in this way. Many also noted that USAID’s rule-of-law 
track record, combined with the implementer’s legal expert team, contributed substantially to the 
willingness of the MOJ, the High Court Council (HCC), the Supreme Court of Cassation (SCC), and 
others to work together on the assessment and development efforts. As one long-time judge in the 
system noted, “The court system still looks at USAID as a fair player, and the Belgrade environment is 
such that people will not go to many events unless (it is) worth it.”3
1.1.4 Similarly, participants in the process highlighted that ROLP’s facilitation created a conducive 
atmosphere that encouraged critical but civil discussion and eventual ownership of the process. This was 
seen as a shift from previous consultation processes characterized by rancor and lack of transparency. 
As one participant further noted, “Participants were surprised with being asked their opinions and even 
more surprised that when not accepted, it was clearly explained why.” Such a setting, legal experts 
argue, resulted in participants feeling satisfied that they could support the content. As another informant 
commented, there have been few if any negative comments in the media during this time about the JDS, 
which is rare given Serbia’s highly politically polarized environment. 
1.1.5 Both U.S. and EU informants identified their donor coordination as critical for JDS success as well 
as the benefits that this cooperation has created. Both sides described a joint vision of main objectives. 
ROLP worked closely with the EU-funded project “EU for Justice – Support to Chapter 23,” and 
informants from both projects described regular communication and good cooperation throughout the 
many phases and shifts of the JDS development process. 
They also pointed out that the decision to closely align the JDS with the AP23 allowed them to use the 
AP23 as the action plan for the JDS and to recommend a new joint body and secretariat for 
implementation rather than separate implementation bodies. This, they argued, would make the 
implementation more efficient and focused. Another expert involved in the process pointed out that 
JDS harmonization with AP23 helped to bring back attention to administrative procedure within the 
judiciary, which had been overlooked in the previous strategy. Overall, the EU pointed out that 
cooperation went well on the JDS because USAID and the EU had cooperated on ROLP’s first efforts 
with the strategy from the design stage. 
Key court officials and donors highlighted the need to closely support the JDS upon adoption with 
consistent donor engagement. Several legal experts noted the need to ensure through JDS 
implementation a focus on quality control. The SCC focused on the fact that constitutional amendment 
changes likely in 2020 and the beginning of JDS implementation will require attention beyond ROLP’s 
3 Reluctance to participate in such efforts, several legal experts noted, is due partly to the fallout from the 2009–
2010 judicial reform process, when many judicial officials and legal experts felt that little real consultation went into 
the reform efforts.
7 | ROLP MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV
envisioned scope, expressing hope that ROLP could be extended or that USAID rule-of-law 
programming would continue. EU donors highlighted a similar concern and noted anticipated plans for a 
one-year extension of their IPA support in implementation of Chapter 23 through 2021.
TASK 2: IMPLEMENT SELECT ACTIVITIES UNDER SERBIA’S NATIONAL JUDICIAL REFORM 
STRATEGY
Subtasks include e-tools, improved court operations, improved human resource practices, and 
transparency and accountability.
Subtask 1.2.1 E-tools
ROLP has focused on two areas of engagement to address enhanced justice through e-tools. These 
include building system-wide connectivity in the courts through expansion of the PIS system4 and
training court staff on the PIS software.
1.2.1.1 Program documents and informants confirm that ROLP supported the Judicial Information 
System (PIS) expansion to interconnect 15 data exchange protocols. ROLP assisted the development of 
9 of these 15 through a unified PIS website, promoted use of the software, and trained court staff in 
select courts on the software.5 According to program documentation and implementer feedback, ROLP
having fulfilled its intended efforts with PIS then shifted IT support from the PIS system to focus more 
attention on the e-support efforts for SAO and to ensure ROLP programming efforts were evenly 
spread across planned activities.
1.2.1.2 The PIS is being used actively in courts around Serbia, although it is still being learned, according 
to court presidents, judges, and judicial assistants from Belgrade Second and Third Basic Courts, 
Belgrade Higher Court, and Kragujevac appellate courts. For example, all judicial assistants involved in 
group interviews confirmed that they used the PIS regularly even as they noted that not every judge or 
staff member is comfortable with or interested in the system. The court president of one of Belgrade’s
Basic Courts estimated that 40 of the 52 judges in the court are regularly using the PIS in their daily 
work; he suggested that those not using the system were older and unlikely to switch over. ROLP 
tracking suggests that there had been over 2.3 million clicks by more than 4,000 users from 244 judicial 
institutions and professions between October 2017 when it started and the end of Y3Q1.6
1.2.1.3 Feedback also suggests that judicial institution users of the PIS system see the system’s efficiency 
value for their daily work, and this is improving overall court efficiency. Court officials noted that PIS 
expansion was designed in consultation with them and felt that it was fit for its purpose. They noted that 
the system is improving their efficiency in case review and processing. ROLP indicators partially capture 
this efficiency by tracking the number of PIS queries to outside sources; by the end of Y3Q1, ROLP 
4 In accordance with ROLP activity design, the PIS system is also covered in Component 2 in relation to use of the 
PIS by Public Enforcement Officers. Please see Component 2 Narrative Findings for further details.
5 ROLP indicators provide total number of judicial personnel trained rather than a specific breakdown of training 
for PIS-related efforts in their quarterly reports, however ROLP notes that these are available on the ROLP’s 
training database. Per the ROL Performance Monitoring and Evaluation indicators, through September 2019, this 
included 2,033 individuals. For more specific PIS training efforts, ROL quarterly reports document a number of 
trainings and workshops from Y1Q4 through Y2Q4 that include a workshop for IT staff in Belgrade June 29,2018, 
ROLP field assistance to courts in Mionica, Valjevo, the Higher Court of Smedervo, Higher Court of Belgrade, 
Basic Courts in Prokuplje, Jagodina, Backa Palanka, Gornji Milanovac, Despotovac, Dimitrovovgrad, Ub, Sjenica, 
Raska Bujanovac, Priboj, Becej, Pozarevack Veliko Gradiste, and Petrovac na Mlavi.
6 For more information see ROL Y3Q1 report and the AMELP for indicator calculations
USAID.GOV ROLP MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: FINAL REPORT | 8
documentation suggests a $4.9m indirectly generated budget savings with 4,624,198 fewer paper 
documents exchanged, and 96,337 staff workdays saved.7
1.2.1.4 The MOJ and courts are aligned in their interests to make the PIS work. The MOJ and the court 
official stakeholders signaled similar interests to use the PIS system more comprehensively and 
effectively, which suggests further shared institutionalization efforts and efficiency. They also noted that 
the system developed to date is expected to fit into the anticipated EU system-wide support effort in 
2022. EU informants expressed admiration for ROLP results in the PIS system as well as their plans to 
further these efforts in their next programming phase toward the end of 2021.
1.2.1.5 At the same time, despite shared interests to make the PIS system work, neither regulations nor 
system-wide practices have caught up with the PIS. Judges and judicial assistants explained that the 
current regulations on keeping paper and electronic copies of cases partially undercut efficiency efforts. 
The ET saw this combination of paper filing and computer filing on its different court visits. 
Subtask 1.2.2 Improved Court Operations
ROLP has focused on three areas to improve court operations, 
including the service of process system, the collection of court fees, 
and the system for managing expert witnesses and translators.
1.2.2.1 ROLP took a systematic, evidence-based consultative 
approach to addressing the court operation problems. For court 
service of process, programming documents and involved 
informants described how ROLP worked closely with the MOJ, 
HCC, SCC, and the Post Office to study the practical and legislative 
issues surrounding service of process. It then looked for current 
best practices of addressing this in the system and studied the 
efforts taken by the Second Basic Court of Belgrade. Based on this, 
it worked with stakeholders to propose and develop a QR coding 
system for envelopes based on the example of the Second Basic 
Court of Belgrade. As part of this development, ROLP also 
included a focus and development of 
regulatory provisions with the MOJ to 
amend the Court Rule Book of 
Procedures to develop a guide for 
service of court documents and to 
ensure that the QR coding system and 
QR camera solutions proposed could be 
part of the court AVP case management 
system.
1.2.2.2 For collection of court fees, ROLP similarly focused on 
identifying the key practical and regulatory issues surrounding fee 
payment. Program documents delineate a series of consultation 
processes and WG meetings with key courts and actors around Serbia during much of Year 1, which 
identified the administrative need to transfer the administrative duty of collection of fees to 
7 For more information see ROL Y3Q1 report and the AMELP for indicator calculations.
Experts noted that 
these have been the 
same problems for 20 
years in the courts, 
but no one dealt with 
the issues in such a 
practical way before. 
Process and Product Outputs 
for Service of Process not 
Captured by MEL Data
1.Workshops with seven basic 
courts on impediments
2.Assessment of normative 
framework governing service of 
process
3.Cost benefit and economic 
impact assessment on specific 
courts to ID best practices
4.Guide for efficient service of 
process
5.Stakeholder discussions using 
assessments
6.Recommendation unifying 
legislative provisions to improve 
business operations in courts and 
post office
7.Assessment of Second Basic 
Court model and how to adapt 
8.Meetings with HCC, MOJ, SCC, 
and Post Office on agreement to 
technical instructions 
9 | ROLP MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV
administrative staff and to define clear categories for those exempt from paying fees.8 It also focused on 
technical solutions for centralized processing of tracking, calculating, and processing court fees through 
the AVP system. This included the development of a unique control number for each case for tracking 
abilities. 
1.2.2.3 The ET learned from the Third Basic Court that testing of both these processes has been 
slightly delayed from fall of 2019 to early 2020. Delays in the piloting appear due to a combination of IT 
issues and coordination with the MOJ. ROLP staff noted that once rollout takes place in the pilot courts, 
a period of testing and then expansion to other courts is planned during Years 3 and 4. 
1.2.2.4 Current rule-of-law indicators do not capture ROLP efforts to date. Baseline data have been 
collected for future assessment of how these two processes/tools will make court proceedings more 
efficient in time and money. However, these do not capture the time and effort gone into the basic 
areas of activity for both processes. (See text box listing major ROLP process and product output 
examples from the service of process efforts.) 
1.2.2.5 According to program documentation and stakeholder feedback, the processing of service and 
collection of fee tools are expected to be effective tools for addressing these two areas of court 
functioning and to make them more efficient; however, as a judge with experience using the service of 
process tools from the Second Basic Court of Belgrade cautioned, it will reduce mistakes with names 
and so forth, but reduction of case time depends more on other factors, most notably the number of 
cases a judge has. In the Second Basic Court, this is on average 250 cases a judge, but in other courts, 
informants note the number is significantly higher.9
1.2.2.6. Stakeholder feedback suggests that the focus and consultation processes for both areas were 
thorough. Court officials as well as the MOJ noted enthusiasm for the two system solutions and now 
focus on getting the two system tools in place. Notably, the EU and Embassy of the Netherlands also 
noted high praise for ROLP in these areas and expressed support for further ROLP testing and 
implementation efforts with the courts and the MOJ. 
1.2.2.7. For the third area, the ROLP was asked to support the legal and logistical support to the MOJ￾appointed WG for drafting a new law on expert witnesses and draft law on court interpreters and 
translators. The WG was appointed at the end of 2018, but until now, the MOJ has initiated no further 
action, according to program documentation and ROLP. Several informants linked delays in MOJ 
capacities to manage and carry out the multiple reform efforts at the same time. 
Subtask 1.2.3 Improved Human Resource Practices
ROLP worked on two basic tracks concerning judicial assistants. The first track focused on designing 
policy and legal recommendations to resolve legal and professional judicial status. The second track 
focused on increasing current judicial assistants’ skill levels. This involved designing and delivering 
trainings on legal reasoning for first-instance civil courts.
8 In accordance with program documentation, WGs had three areas of focus: (1) system-level solution for 
changing legislative framework; (2) creating unique control number for payments; and (3) assigning these 
administrative tasks to judicial assistants and or other administrative staff.
9 For example, the court president of one of Belgrade’s Basic Courts explained that after they were assigned 
80,000 old cases from 2006/7, these combined with new cases each month means judges on average now have 
1000 cases at one time.
USAID.GOV ROLP MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: FINAL REPORT | 10
1.2.3.1 ROLP conducted a wide consultation process to better understand the interests and 
possibilities of resolving the judicial assistant position status. According to program documents, the 
Judicial Academy, judicial assistant organizations, and ROLP staff engaged in the process, this involved an 
initial judicial assistant satisfaction survey followed by a policy paper outlining the options for resolving 
key legal and career path concerns. Further stakeholder feedback from the MOJ, HCC, judicial 
assistants, and the Judicial Academy suggests that by identifying and analyzing the problem, stakeholders 
have agreed on key policy components to be addressed (legal status, definition of criteria, career 
advancement path, etc.). 
1.2.3.2 However, discussions with judicial assistants and related professional association representatives 
also highlighted the challenges of changing—most judicial assistants see their goal as becoming a judge. 
Although this goal is not in contrast with establishing a professional qualification system and defined legal 
status, judicial assistants expressed concern about the lack of information, transparency, and certainty in 
the current system and around the proposed changes. They also expressed mixed levels of hope that 
changes could improve their situation. 
1.2.3.3 ROLP and key legal experts noted that any legal progress on resolving the status of judicial 
assistants is linked to larger constitutional amendment changes. ROLP is putting in place plans for 
continuing work on the status issues in parallel with any expected constitutional changes—namely, 
ROLP staff described working on the regulatory efforts in WGs to provide a regulatory remedy in line 
with current legislation as well as “being ready” with legal remedy solutions if constitutional changes 
take place during the next 18 months of the project. 
1.2.3.4 ROLP-subgranted nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) engaged with judicial assistants and 
judicial experts indicated that including law students and interns in the socialization efforts has helped fill 
a gap in the current educational track between law faculties and the judicial system. They also stressed 
that this portion of the population needs to be more closely involved in any proposed solution for 
judicial assistants. Judicial Academy informants further stressed that the larger solution to improve 
judicial quality efforts needs to start with the law faculties and early career legal professionals. 
1.2.3.5 Several NGOs subgranted to work on the judicial assistant efforts benefited in unexpected ways 
from their cooperation with ROLP. Namely, two smaller and less experienced NGOs described their 
subgrant experience as providing them with key skills in project management and reporting for a donor 
like USAID. They also noted they would be more able to apply for such USAID and other bilateral 
donor funding in the future. 
1.2.3.6 The judicial assistant training provided was considered useful and was being used. Most 
interviewed had not had such comprehensive training before and appreciated the trainings for providing 
this context. Assistants particularly identified the European Court of Human Rights analysis and legal 
drafting portion as useful, as well as the practical nature of the training and the high-quality trainer (who 
is well respected in the judiciary). Feedback from judicial assistants undergoing training suggested that 
they use much of their training in their daily work. Judges suggested that this is improving the judicial 
assistants’ work but did not have enough firsthand experience with trainees to definitively note 
enhanced performance.
1.2.3.7. Still, discussions with assistants highlighted the fact that trainings are not fully targeted on 
intended beneficiaries. Some assistants from second-instance courts attended even though trainings 
were for first-instance court assistants; others already had significant experience and experience with 
the European Court of Human Rights specifically. ROLP documents and program staff noted the 
challenges of getting the same set of assistants for the second round of training. Assistant feedback also 
11 | ROLP MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV
noted clear focus areas for further training as well as interest in being consulted before the trainings on 
designing the content of trainings. 
1.2.3.8. Indicators for the first portion of the task effort are on track, based on project outputs for 
undertaking a survey, developing a policy paper on judicial assistant status next steps, and so forth. 
There is less clarity about whether indicators for the training efforts, which were intended to cover 
effects of resolved judicial assistant status, capture ROLP efforts and will clearly show progress by 
ROLP’s end. 
ROLP has aimed to clarify judicial assistants’ role within the court system to make this system more 
efficient. According to ROLP discussions, the theory of change for interventions has been based on the 
idea that clear career definitions and assessment would give judicial assistants more responsibility (which 
would in turn lift some administrative burdens from judges and make proceedings more efficient) and 
result in higher job satisfaction, with the intention of creating a career track for judicial assistants that 
does not focus solely on becoming judges. Efficiency effects, hence, may be beyond the length of ROLP 
given the current legal status and pending legislation. According to ROLP and those involved with the 
judicial assistant position clarification, it is not clear if the legal and regulatory issues will be resolved in 
the next 18 months. Regardless, attention to these regulations and further training would need 
additional attention beyond the project. 
Subtask 1.2.4 Transparency and Accountability 
ROLP has focused on three areas to improve transparency and accountability: improving the gathering, 
use, and presentation of court statistics with four appellate courts and the Higher Court of Belgrade by 
designing a new user-friendly format with data visualization for annual reports; developing 
communication strategies for the HCC and the courts and enhancing the HCC Board of Ethics. As part 
of the ROLP communications strategy efforts, —supporting court public relations (PR) officials—began 
with consultation processes in YR3Q1 and is not covered in this evaluation. 
1.2.4.1 ROLP’s work with four appellate courts and the Higher Court of Belgrade on design and 
presentation of visually appealing annual reports for 2017 and 2018 was positively received in the courts. 
The courts also noted that these were well received by the public, including NGOs and media. A 
historical monograph was also developed to mark the 90-year functioning of the Belgrade Higher Court. 
According to feedback from two of these courts, the court annual reports and monograph were seen as 
enhancing the courts’ transparency. The court presidents posited that public, media, and court affiliates 
positively reacted to the reports. NGO feedback suggested that the reports 
were indeed more user friendly and informative for the public. However, at 
least one NGO familiar with the efforts also noted that more information 
could still be added. 
1.2.4.2 Report development efforts also influenced the way at least some 
of the courts gather and categorize data. One court official indicated that 
they had developed new ways to gather and group statistics and, in this 
process, shifted how the court gathered some of the information, including 
previously untracked metrics such as case duration and status of old and 
outdated cases. Court officials expressed interest in continuing to collect 
data and present it in these ways for reports (on their website) regardless 
of future funding for paper publications.
“Every time we 
provide information 
to the public it helps. 
But we also have 
clear situations 
where answers are 
not given in a timely 
way and this changes 
immediately the 
perception of the 
court.” 
SCC
We 
need to 
strength
en 
capacity 
of the 
Judicial 
Academ
USAID.GOV ROLP MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: FINAL REPORT | 12
1.2.4.3 In addition, in at least one court, report development created additional momentum to develop 
other citizen-friendly transparency offerings. As described by the Higher Court of Belgrade and ROLP 
staff, the positive press and feedback received from publication of the annual report and the historical 
monograph led the court to ask for further ROLP assistance on developing a new information corner in 
the court lobby. This is currently in process and expected to include electronic information notices, 
among other features, to promote ease of use. 
1.2.4.4 ROLP selected courts as leaders in enhanced reporting efforts that already had a track record in 
communication and outreach efforts. For example, the Higher Court of Belgrade described how they 
regularly provided a weekly list of high-profile organized crime and war crimes cases for media; staff of 
the Appellate Court of Kragujevac described the president of the court as having a good reputation with 
local media and making herself available for public statements. 
1.2.4.5 SCC and HCC leadership see the communication strategies developed for each institution as 
useful and are implementing them. According to program documentation and stakeholders involved in 
the process, ROLP worked with the HCC and the courts10 to design a communication strategy for HCC 
and the courts (2018–2022). This was adopted during late spring 2019. HCC and SCC informants 
described different implementation challenges, including building up internal communications expertise, 
but generally expressed confidence that problems would be addressed. They also exhibited ownership 
of the process and interest in integrating the strategies into their communication efforts and practices 
across the courts. The SCC president noted, “Now it is simply the time to begin implementing and to 
ensure that we spread these policies and guidelines beyond Belgrade to make more judges more 
comfortable in front of the media.”
1.2.4.6 The ROLP communication strategy workshops for PRs/media coordinators from basic, higher 
and appellate courts are described by HCC and SCC informants attending the workshops as socializing 
court actors to what is important about communication, but this is only the start of the process. HCC 
and SCC informants suggested that these efforts have changed attitudes (to some degree) about how to 
communicate. This is a process, they posited, that “needs to sink in,” and then show its results. 
Specifically, SCC and HCC leadership highlighted the need for further support and training of respective 
staff and court staff on key strategy components, including strengthening the Judicial Academy’s capacity 
to take on such PR and communication trainings. This includes basic things like writing press releases, as 
well as further internal networking of experiences.11
1.2.4.7 There is little data available to track how public transparency and perception of court 
institutions may have changed due to ROLP interventions. ROLP engaged the NGO CESID to undertake 
a court user perception survey on legal enforcement of judgments at the beginning of the project,12 and 
a second survey is planned during Year 3. However, there is no clear way to track how these newly 
adopted communication strategies may or may not affect public perception of the HCC, SCC, and 
specific courts13 and courts in general.14 HCC and SCC informants also noted that it will take time to 
10 This includes the SCC and all other courts.
11 ROLP Year 3 focus on PR networks is beginning to address this need.
12 This survey was completed in early 2018 and presented in March 2018. For more details on survey findings see: 
https://en.rolps.org/news/perception-survey-on-the-enforcement-of-judgments-in-serbia
13 Several judges also reminded the ET that courts can be transparent and communicative, but court users are 
divided 50/50 between those that win and lose cases; hence satisfaction levels best-case scenario will also likely 
mirror experiences of court users.
14 It should be noted that NDI and the World Bank both track perceptions of the courts, but such measurements 
would not necessarily reflect any changes since the ROLP assistance. 
13 | ROLP MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV
determine whether the substantial efforts will shorten and improve court processes and change public 
perceptions. Individual court presidents explained that they have no specific monitoring efforts in place 
to track public perceptions in their courts. 
1.2.4.8 ROLP’s cooperation with the USAID-supported YUCOM Constituencies for Judicial Reform 
Activity15 is increasing attention to court issues, but as of yet there are no clear results in public opinion 
shifts. YUCOM and its partners started the Activity in January 2019 focused on assessing and improving 
public opinion, and they have cooperated with ROLP court performance and most recently on issues of 
public enforcement officer public awareness and education through their Open Door court events. 
YUCOM and partners are beginning to track citizen users of the court and their perceptions, but as of 
yet there is no clear tracking or linkage between ROLP interventions on court performance issues and 
shifts in public attitudes in relation to this. 
1.2.4.9 ROLP’s cooperation with YUCOM also had an unexpected positive outcome—expanding NGO 
access to and cooperation with court officials. YUCOM described how their official cooperation with 
ROLP gave them first-time access to SCC officials. Namely, SCC’s satisfaction with ROLP support 
“opened the door” for YUCOM to get a meeting with the SCC president and to begin institutional 
cooperation with YUCOM and indirectly with its 11 other NGO partners that are part of the 
Constituencies for Judicial Reform Activity. YUCOM credited ROLP for providing this access, something 
that they could not do until now despite their many years of working on rule-of-law issues. 
1.2.4.10 In the third area of engagement, the SCC and HCC described how ROLP worked closely with 
the HCC to develop analysis of ethical guidelines with recommendations for bylaws and laws to be 
amended.16 HCC and SCC informants noted that the ROLP expert inputs were of high quality and that 
this cooperation was welcome. However, they noted that the Draft Rule Book of the HCC Board of 
Ethics developed with ROLP’s help is currently in implementation limbo due to internal and 
constitutional issues. 
COMPONENT 2
Component 2 consists of two tasks—strengthen judgment enforcement and build SAO capacity—with 
several subtasks. It aims to support more timely, consistent, and reliable judgment enforcement and to 
strengthen SAO capacities to improve performance and reduce the time and costs associated with cases 
brought against the State. Program efforts under Component 2 include the development of e-tools, 
legislative and regulatory review, individual and institutional capacity building, and public awareness. 
TASK 1: ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENTS STRENGTHENED 
Task 1 includes the following subtasks: improve systems for efficient and predictable enforcement, 
legislative and regulatory changes for improved enforcement procedures, strengthen institutional 
capacities for sound monitoring and accountability of enforcement officers, raise public awareness on 
the importance of the system of judgments, and build the capacity of the Chamber of Public 
Enforcement Officers. 
15 For more information on the Activity see: http://en.yucom.org.rs/constituencies-for-judicial-reform-in-serbia/
16 In accordance with program documentation (Y1Q3), this included 35 recommendations for improving the 
relevant legal framework, including recommendations for changes to the Law on HCC and the Law on Judges, and 
changes to the HCC rules of procedure and bylaws. These formed the basis for drafting the rulebook for the HCC 
Board of Ethics.
USAID.GOV ROLP MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: FINAL REPORT | 14
Subtask 2.1.1 Improved Systems in Place for Efficient and Predictable Enforcement 
ROLP anticipated developing e-tools to render enforcement procedures more efficient and less costly 
for all parties involved. These e-tools include upgrading the PIS with the MOJ and other institutions, 
targeted assistance in unifying electronic reporting mechanisms for PEOs to the MOJ, and e-tools in line 
with the Law on Enforcement and Security (LOES). 
2.1.1.1 ROLP undertook significant assessment and consultative efforts to address enforcement system 
deficiencies. According to program documents and the MOJ, the Chamber of Public Enforcement 
Officers, and ROLP, this started with a business process analysis as a platform upon which all other 
project activity built. This workflow analysis was complemented by an assessment of the functional and 
technical requirements for data exchange among stakeholders in enforcing judgments. Consultation 
efforts highlighted the need to provide technical assistance for further development of the PIS system 
that would further diversify the range of data available through the PIS information system for both the 
court enforcement departments and the public enforcement officer (PEOs).
2.1.1.2 PEO and court official feedback confirmed that officers have begun to actively use the PIS 
system upgraded by ROLP. The Chamber, as well as individual enforcement officers, reported that all 
officers are using the system daily in their work and that it has improved their efficiency by saving time. 
However, PEOs raised concerns that the PIS works only if all institutions update information regularly. 
They depend on the abilities of other key government institutions from the national bank to the other 
ministries to ensure continued diligence in keeping the system updated and cooperating with the 
judiciary. At present, on occasion, the PEOs are still required to contact individual institutions in writing 
to verify the information sought. 
2.1.1.3 Document review and KIIs with the MOJ and ROLP reported that the project could not 
conclude an agreement with the National Bank of Serbia (NBS) to allow full access to information on 
bank accounts of physical and legal entities,17 one of the key pieces of data for effective enforcement. 
Informants suggested that this was due to the NBS’s lack of responsiveness on any initiatives beyond 
electronic information exchange; furthermore, they noted that the MOJ indicated that it was not willing 
to undertake automatic electronic enforcement at this time18, so this activity was dropped. 
2.1.1.4 ROLP developed, tested, and began using the eZIO application and handed it over to the MOJ, 
enabling PEOs to electronically submit documents to the Cadaster to provide up-to-date information on 
real estate involved in enforcement procedures. PEOs confirmed that they received training and a user 
manual and that they are regularly using the system in their daily work, which they noted has saved time 
and improved accuracy and accountability. 
2.1.1.5 Key e-tools developed by ROLP are now embedded within the MOJ. The MOJ confirmed that 
both the PIS and the eZIO systems and a complete set of technical documentation were transferred to 
the MOJ in 2019, which is now responsible for its functioning as well as its hardware and software 
maintenance. The MOJ has expressed its commitment and confidence that it can support these systems. 
2.1.1.6 ROLP efforts to develop e-tools to aid enforcement processes and public information availability 
are underway but yet to be tested. In addition to the PIS and eZIO systems, the project has developed a 
range of targeted e-tools that complement the existing case management system and provide 
17 Through PIS, a PEO can get information on the bank name and account number for a legal or physical entity, but 
not the amount of money currently in the account. 
18 Please see USAID Rule of Law Project in Serbia, Y3 Work Plan, p.27
15 | ROLP MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV
connectivity between PEO offices and other participants in the enforcement procedure, as well as 
targeted assistance to unify the electronic reporting by PEOs to the MOJ. This has largely centered on 
the development of an electronic notice board, which will enable easier access to information on 
enforcement procedures for citizens. 
The e-noticeboard will be introduced on January 1, 2020, and its use will be mandatory—training has 
been delivered and was well received by participants. Key stakeholders confirmed their awareness of the 
tool and its usage; however, the tool has yet to be tested, and some courts—for example, the First 
Basic Court in Belgrade—were not clear when it would be introduced. It is thus too early to assess 
impact. 
2.1.1.7 The e-tools developed have broad support from key actors involved from the MOJ, the 
Chamber of Public Enforcement Officers, and courts. Stakeholders perceived that the e-noticeboard will 
be a key tool of the court and will serve the courts and PEOs as an information delivery tool. 
Furthermore, it is envisaged by stakeholders that it will enable officers to perform service of process in 
an efficient, secure, and simple manner and allow courts to monitor process and performance. 
2.1.1.8 The indicators for this subtask only partially capture progress under this sub-activity. Indicator 9, 
the ratio of enforcement actions against monetary assets to the total number of enforcement actions, is already 
exceeding its 2020 target. If the backlogged enforcement cases, which were transferred to public 
enforcement officers during 2017 after the LOES amendments in 2016, are excluded from the statistics 
on indicator 7, average time for enforcement of judgment, data also show a reduction from 125 days in 
2017 to 93 days in 2018. 
Subtask 2.1.2 Legislative and Regulatory Changes for Improved Enforcement Procedures 
ROLP focused on providing support to the process of developing LOES amendments, as well as 
secondary legislation and regulations. 
2.1.2.1 The MOJ, the Chamber of Public Enforcement Officers, and ROLP confirmed that LOES 
amendments will come into force on January 1, 2020, as a direct result of ROLP interventions. The 
project undertook a gap assessment examining the primary and secondary legislation to gauge the 
impact of laws, regulations, rulebooks, and procedures that are affecting enforcement efficiency. This 
was followed by WG meetings, roundtables, facilitation, and expert support, which resulted in all parties 
agreeing to the amendments and the amendments being adopted. 
2.1.2.2 ROLP undertook clear analytical and consultative processes (highlighted in the textbox), which 
led to the development of LOES amendments. Stakeholders reported satisfaction with both the process 
and with the end result and see the amendments as an improvement to the previous law. All 
stakeholders anticipate that the amendments will introduce positive changes into the system, in 
particular through the introduction of the e-noticeboard (see above), e-auction, and soft collection 
mechanisms and appear ready to introduce these changes. 
2.1.2.3 These consultative processes also have ensured compliance with requisite EU standards. PEOs, 
court officials, and ROLP highlighted that the LOES amendments comply with EU Acquis and the 
European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice standards. The Council of Europe noted that ROLP 
coordinated all domestic and international parties to ensure appropriate content provisions. 
USAID.GOV ROLP MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: FINAL REPORT | 16
2.1.2.4 LOES next steps involve development of the 
necessary secondary legislation and by-laws, in 
particular on the development of professional 
standards and monitoring. Stakeholders suggested 
that they will require further training to support them 
in implementation of the new provisions in the law. 
Given the scheduled elections and likely adoption of 
the constitutional amendments, key stakeholders 
noted that it is unlikely that all required steps will be 
finalized within the remaining 18-month project 
implementation period. 
Subtask 2.1.3 Strengthening Institutional Capacities 
for Sound Monitoring and Accountability of 
Enforcement Officers 
ROLP adopted a twin-track approach under this 
subtask: designing an institutional development plan 
for the Chamber of PEOs and developing oversight 
capacities. 
2.1.3.1 Interventions under this subtask demonstrate ROLP’s adaptive and flexible approach. The MOJ 
and PEOs described in detail that activities under this subtask focused initially on developing a 
monitoring tool within the MOJ to monitor PEOs. However, the MOJ decided that it wanted to pursue 
this activity without project support,
19 and the project shifted its attention to developing a monitoring 
system within the Chamber of Public Enforcement Officers. To this end, the project supported the 
Chamber in conducting its first monitoring cycle in 2019, although the MOJ has now requested support 
from the project to implement the monitoring tool that it developed alone. 
2.1.3.2 As reported by both the Chamber and individual PEOs, initial results from the monitoring 
exercise highlight the need to develop professional standards from which criteria can be developed to 
accurately assess the PEOs. Additional tools such as a Manual of Inspection and standard reporting 
templates are also required. The Chamber acknowledges that these tools should have been developed 
prior to the initial monitoring cycle. The ET also noted that as a result of this, the initial round of 
monitoring undertaken and completed in September 2019 was reduced to statistical data gathering, 
which has limited use. Once the Professional Standards are adopted, criteria should be developed 
against which the PEOs can be monitored. 
2.1.3.3 The project has been unable to capture progress in this area as indicator 8, increased monitoring 
of public enforcement officers by the MOJ based upon enhanced monitoring mechanisms, refers only to 
monitoring conducted by the MOJ, which has not been furthered with ROLP support. However, ROLP 
has made progress in developing the Chamber’s monitoring capacities, as described above. 
19 The MOJ decided to pursue this activity without project support and with their own financial means but noted 
that they will require support from the project to implement the tool. 
Processes that led to the development of 
LOES amendments
- Gap assessment, which identified findings and 
recommendations
- Establishment of a working group (WG), 
composed of judges from all court levels, public 
enforcement officers, law professors, lawyers, 
and representatives of the business community 
and project
- Roundtables/WG mini-retreat
- Facilitation
- Expert support in developing secondary 
legislation—professional standards/tariff, 
rulebook for e-auctions, rulebook for soft 
collection
- Instructions to enable smooth implementation 
of LOES transitional procedures
17 | ROLP MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV
Subtask 2.1.4 Improved Public 
Understanding and Acceptance on the 
Importance of the System of Judgments 
in Serbia
ROLP efforts under this subtask focused 
initially on four areas: designing and conducting 
a comprehensive public perception survey on 
the enforcement system and enforcement 
officers and conducting subsequent follow-up 
surveys; conducting public education 
campaigns; training media to raise awareness of 
the enforcement system; and supporting the 
Chamber of Public Enforcement Officers in
disseminating information on enforcement. 
2.1.4.1 As a first step in understanding the 
context and anticipated design of the public 
education campaign, in November 2017, the 
project partnered with CESID20 on conducting 
a comprehensive perception survey on the enforcement system. The baseline survey provided both 
quantitative and qualitative data and confirmed that the public largely has a negative perception of the 
enforcement process and of public enforcement officers. CESID among others suggested that raising 
awareness through TV and to a lesser extent radio should be a consideration for addressing public 
perceptions. 
2.1.4.2 ROLP had to adapt to ever-changing circumstances during the first part of the project, which 
delayed public education campaigning. ROLP informed the ET that it had planned to launch a public 
education campaign, but due to delays to tie the campaign to the public consultations on LOES, it 
instead had to react to a very negative media campaign conducted by all major news sources in Serbia.
ROLP and individual PEOs informed the ET that this included public assaults on PEOs and death threats 
being spray-painted on their offices in some areas. This resulted in the project having a less active focus 
on raising public awareness of enforcement and more reactive responses to the circumstances that 
arose. 
2.1.4.3 ROLP’s technical PR support has had mixed results. Due to the prolonged negative media 
campaign against public enforcement officers, the project reacted by providing crisis PR support to the 
Chamber, including supporting the capacities of the Chamber’s PR spokesperson, in addition to PR 
training for individual officers through expert technical assistance. Chamber-level institutional support 
has been difficult to build upon as two PR spokespeople have already left the position and the Chamber 
is still waiting for a replacement. Individual officer trainings yielded more positive results. All participants 
expressed their overwhelming appreciation of the PR training provided through the project to PEOs 
who consistently confirmed the high quality of the training and its practical application in their work. 
They reported that it provided them with the skills and tools required to deal with the media and 
boosted their confidence, according to the Chamber and individual officers.
2.1.4.4 Discussions with PEOs and court officials confirmed that there remains a very negative attitude 
of the public toward both the officers and the system. This is exacerbated in Belgrade, where the 
20See: https://en.rolps.org/public/documents/upload/Web_ROL_Enforcement_Survey_presentation.pdf
Public Perception Survey – Main Findings
The main conclusions of the survey, completed in February 
2018, are the following:
Citizens have a predominantly negative attitude toward both 
the enforcement process and the public enforcement 
officers and in general feel they lack information about 
enforcement.
Citizens are insufficiently aware of all the benefits and 
opportunities provided to them in the enforcement process.
Businesses have a more positive perception of the public 
enforcement officers (businesses with prior experience 
were more likely to see them in a positive light [30%], 
whereas the greatest proportion held neutral views).
The media insufficiently, and inaccurately, reports on 
enforcement.
USAID.GOV ROLP MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: FINAL REPORT | 18
majority of enforcement actions take place.21 In general, enforcement officers felt that the MOJ is not 
doing enough to support them. All officers reported how distressing this persistent campaign has been, 
how they do not feel secure in their job, and how many have been verbally abused as a result. They feel 
that they were not sufficiently supported by the MOJ or even the Chamber.
2.1.4.5 At the same time, there is a lack of comprehensive reporting on the benefits and opportunities 
that public enforcement efforts can provide. For example, in Kragujevac, an officer described how their 
office has successfully obtained salaries for employees from both private and public employers who had 
not paid their salaries; however, this remains unreported. 
2.1.4.6 ROLP project collaboration was reported as going well with its sister project, the USAID 
YUCOM-led Constituencies for Judicial Reform in Serbia, particularly through the organization of the 
Open Door court events between the judiciary and members of the public on public enforcement 
themes. However, it is too early to measure the results of this collaboration. 
Subtask 2.1.5 Institutional Capacity Building of the Chamber of Public Enforcement Officers
The Chamber of Public Enforcement Officers is a relatively new institution, so the project has focused 
on two key areas to build its capacities to efficiently manage its portfolio of tasks: training for public 
enforcement officers and inter-institutional coordination. 
2.1.5.1 The project informed the ET that this subtask focused initially on establishing a Coordination 
Council that, however, failed to materialize due to its composition and modus operandi, which ROLP 
and the Chamber reported as being un-implementable due to certain regulatory issues on judges’ 
participation in such a body. Therefore, establishment of a Harmonization Council is envisaged.
2.1.5.2 Training on the LOES amendments for PEOs and judges was conducted through 10 planned 
sessions delivered in October–December 2019. Participants confirmed their level of satisfaction with the 
training, which they feel has prepared them for the implementation of the new law; however, they also 
feel that additional training will be required once the law is in force. Participants are of the opinion that 
the first few months of implementation of the new Law will identify areas where further training is 
required. 
2.1.5.3 The Chamber reported that it was satisfied with ROLP support in drafting its first-ever 
development plan and that it is implementing the plan accordingly. The Chamber and ROLP anticipate 
that this is a precursor to strategic planning for the institution.
2.1.5.4 The ET found through talks with the Chamber and MOJ that low capacities and a reported lack 
of interest within certain elements of the Chamber, combined with a weak relationship among the 
higher levels of the Chamber and a weak relationship between the Chamber and the MOJ, have 
hindered progress in this area. The ET found a lack of clarity on the Chamber’s role in supporting PEOs 
and on the roles and responsibilities of the Chamber and the MOJ. 
2.1.5.5 Further, as reported by all stakeholders, the PEOs do not have a proper legal status and are not 
fully embedded into the judicial system, being regulated only through the LOES. It is unclear whether the 
21This can easily be confirmed by looking at media reports covering enforcement issues.
19 | ROLP MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV
MOJ has an interest in addressing this issue and in developing a law on enforcement officers, which 
would regulate the profession similarly to other free legal professions, such as notaries and mediators. 
TASK 2: SUPPORT TO THE STATE ATTORNEY’S OFFICE 
Subtask 2.2.1 Business Process Streamlining and the Case Management System 
INTRODUCTION
ROLP HAS UPGRADED A FIT-FOR-PURPOSE CASE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM FOR THE SAO AND 
IMPROVED THE SAO’S OPERATIONS AND BUSINESS PROCESSES. 
2.2.1.1 ROLP support is the first donor assistance provided to the SAO, so the project had to start 
from scratch in designing its support. Therefore, at the outset it conducted business process mapping 
and a diagnostic analysis of technical capacities and needs in all SAO offices, which shaped the support 
provided. This included the seat in Belgrade and its 11 regional offices and identified the need to upgrade 
the case management system, LURIS. Stakeholders confirmed that the analysis focused on three key 
areas: statistical reporting, legislative framework, and case management through the case management 
system. 
2.2.1.2 Since then, the SAO confirmed that the project has supported developing the hardware and 
software capacities of the LURIS system, which will be tested in Belgrade during the first quarter of 
2020. The SAO reported that they have been highly satisfied with the cooperation, communication, and 
coordination with ROLP, which they felt always listened and responded to their needs and suggestions. 
2.2.1.3 Stakeholders in the regional offices commented about how their needs often differ from those 
of the seat in Belgrade. For example, their capacities are much lower and they have far higher equipment 
needs, including printers and computers, which have not been upgraded since 2002. Additional 
comments were received that the regional offices cannot upgrade their own equipment due to resource 
constraints and do not even have storage space for maintaining their paper archives. 
2.2.1.4 ROLP practiced adaptive programming with the SAO when they identified the actual capacity 
levels within the institution. For example, the ET was informed that many staff within the SAO are 
computer illiterate. ROLP reacted to this situation by providing basic IT literacy training, initially with 
the seat of the SAO, which is now being extended to the 11 regional offices. The SAO seat reported 
both the need for this training and their level of satisfaction with it. The project informed the ET that 
they have initiated a procurement procedure for LURIS upgrade services and will provide IT equipment 
where required. ROLP informed that LURIS upgrades were procured in October 2019 and the 
development/implementation process is ongoing. 
Subtask 2.2.2. SAO Capacity Development
ROLP provided capacity development support to the SAO at both the individual and institutional levels 
based on the SAO’s strategic plan, developed with ROLP support (see below under 2.2.3).
2.2.2.1 ROLP has been working with the SAO to build basic capacities, with most efforts in very early 
stages. ROLP described SAO and regional office capacities as very weak, and the ET confirmed this 
assessment when speaking with SAO stakeholders. To address this, ROLP helped the project develop 
the first comprehensive SAO strategic plan (see below), which identified further necessary skills training. 
Stakeholders confirmed that this included management training, human resources, procurement, and 
USAID.GOV ROLP MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: FINAL REPORT | 20
budget planning, among other areas. Based on this, a training needs assessment was conducted, followed 
by the development of training curricula and materials and the delivery of training. 
2.2.2.2 The SAO described how ROLP provided initial training on the upgraded LURIS system and in 
other areas of management training, with apparently positive effects, at least 
for Belgrade-based participants. The SAO seat in particular reported their 
satisfaction with the training and their ability to apply it in daily work. 
However, the regional office in Kragujevac highlighted the difficulties in 
attending trainings, which are organized either in Belgrade or at inconvenient 
times, such as in August. For example, they reported that participants could 
not attend a team-building training due to the summer vacation and having not attended the first 
sessions were thus not eligible to attend the two subsequent follow-on sessions. ROLP clarified that this 
training was on strategic planning and not teambuilding as understood by the SAO regional office in 
Kragujevac. 
2.2.2.3 ROLP managed to carry out training efforts through an ad hoc arrangement with the Judicial 
Academy. The Judicial Academy provided training either in its seat in Belgrade or through its network of 
regional offices. However, the SAO is still not a constitutional category and thus does not fall within the 
mandate of the Judicial Academy but rather the fledgling National Academy for Public Administration 
Reform. To overcome this, the Judicial Academy and the SAO signed a protocol and both parties 
relayed their high level of satisfaction with the arrangement. That said, stakeholders commented that 
this arrangement is not sustainable because the SAO does not fall under the Judicial Academy’s mandate. 
Subtask 2.2.3 Addressing the organizational deficiencies and weaknesses through Strategic Planning 
and Regulatory Change 
Through this subtask, the project helped the SAO develop its strategic planning capacities and reviewed 
the SAO legislative framework.
2.2.3.1 The SAO confirmed that ROLP provided support in introducing strategic planning. The primary 
goal of the strategic plan is to define the SAO’s position within the system of government; however, 
stakeholders confirmed that due to the constitutional amendments, this activity has been put on hold. 
The SAO strategic plan was developed through a consultation process and associated workshops and 
was adopted in March 2019. SAO officials suggested that the strategic plan is useful in guiding the SAO 
in its communication plan, long-term training plan, budget advocacy plan, human resource strategy, and 
regulatory reform plan. However, the SAO emphasized that it cannot implement the plan alone and will 
require considerable ROLP support beyond the remaining 18 months.
2.2.3.2 The project is supporting two of the five priorities of the strategic 
plan in upgrading the case management system and its testing and rollout 
and through business process streamlining activities. The SAO reported 
their high level of satisfaction with ROLP support in facilitating the 
strategic planning process and with the strategic plan itself. It is too early 
to see the effects of the plan’s implementation. 
2.2.3.3 As reported by the SAO and ROLP, the MOJ has not shown willingness to amend the legislative 
framework relating to the SAO, which is required to address the functioning of the SAO and its regional 
offices and to provide a clear division of duties and responsibilities. Despite efforts by the project to 
“I use the training 
provided on a daily 
basis.” 
SAO staff member 
“The project helped us to 
optimize all processes.” 
SAO staff member
21 | ROLP MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV
analyze regional models of the SAOs in Europe and the respective regulatory framework, progress 
cannot be seen in this area. 
2.2.3.4 The SAO confirmed that the legislative framework makes no distinction between SAOs and 
those belonging to attorneys’ offices at various levels of local self-government. Further, the SAO is not 
envisaged as a constitutional category, which leaves its position ambiguous. 
2.2.3.5 Indicators relating to the SAO do not capture the huge efforts that the project has made to 
strengthen this institution but are focused on improving the delivery of justice. Although indicator 11, 
reduced time duration and costs of cases represented by SAO, as a result of increased number of settlements 
in select cases involving project interventions (95,480 days as of September 2019) and cost (7,503,561 
RSD/US $71,982) for the State and litigants yields very impressive results, it captures only progress in 
implementing the Settlement Guidelines. Other project interventions and support are not captured. 
Subtask 2.2.4 Inter-institutional Cooperation
ROLP has increased cooperation between the SAO, government bodies that the SAO represents, and 
the judiciary, while also developing mechanisms for out-of-court settlements. 
2.2.4.1 ROLP developed Guidelines for Improvement and Promotion of Out-of-Court Settlement Conclusion 
and Execution in Proceedings on Protection of the Right to Trial within a Reasonable Time (Settlement 
Guidelines) in 2018. The SAO and court officials confirmed their high level of satisfaction with the 
process of convening all stakeholders and developing successful settlement guidelines.
2.2.4.2 Use of the settlement guidelines has already improved efficiency significantly. In just over a year 
of implementation, significant time and cost efficiencies have been documented, according to 
programming documents. A total of 699 cases have been settled with a reported saving of 95,480 court 
days and 7,503,561 RSD/US$71,982 (data as of September 2019). 
2.2.4.3 However, SAO informants reported that outside Belgrade there is little desire among lawyers 
to settle cases due to low caseload and their desire to maximize income potential by continuing cases. It 
is perceived that lawyers have no incentive to settle cases outside of Belgrade. They also suggested that 
the judiciary often provide conflicting opinions on settling cases and that the court fees as a result of 
continuing cases are very high.
2.2.4.4 Intra- and inter-institutional communication is still low. Based on interviews with the SAO and 
its regional offices, there is still a lack of internal coordination within the SAO and with other line 
ministries. Baseline data and targets have not yet been developed to measure progress in increased 
cooperation between the SAO, government bodies that the SAO represents, and the judiciary; thus, the 
ET cannot assess any progress in this area. 
Subtask 2.2.5 SAO Professional Development 
ROLP helped upgrade the SAO’s website and initiated discussions on establishing a national State 
Attorneys’ Association. 
2.2.5.1 ROLP support included developing and upgrading the SAO’s website and preliminary discussions 
on developing a professional association of public attorneys. The project helped the SAO to finalize the 
design and content website design and content of the website in early 2019, although the website was 
not publicly released online. ROLP informed the ET that after further fine-tuning in line with comments 
USAID.GOV ROLP MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: FINAL REPORT | 22
received from the Serbian body in charge of regulating websites of public institutions, the updated SAO 
site will go live and online in February 2020. The SAO representatives expressed their high level of 
satisfaction with the new website, which they perceive as raising their profile both within the system and 
among the public. The SAO decided to postpone the State Attorneys’ Association’s establishment and 
registration until it has relocated and until after the constitutional amendments are adopted as this will 
be too late for ROLP to support the launching of the Association with funds from its grants program,
Subtask 2.2.5 has now been dropped and is not included in the project’s Y3 work plan. 
CONCLUSIONS 
EQ1. To what extent is the program on track to accomplish the inputs, outputs and likely 
outcomes expected under both components of the program?
Component 1
Task 1: Assessment and Development of Serbia’ National Judicial Reform Strategy
ROLP completed the assessment of the previous NJRS and has made significant progress toward 
finalizing the next national judicial strategy—now called the JDS (2019–2024). All key stakeholders see 
the JDS as a guide for realistic implementation and alignment with Chapter 23 Action Plan, which serves 
also as the JDS Action Plan. They envision that this will serve as the blueprint for further judicial reform 
efforts during ROLP and beyond. 
Task 2: Implement Selected Activities under Serbia’s National Judicial Reform Strategy
Subtask 1.2.1: E-tools
ROLP supported PIS expansion to have inter-connection with 15 data sets and promoted its use in the 
courts. While utilization of the tools is still being disseminated and ‘digested’ by court officials, active 
court use during the past year is already showing efficiency cost savings. ROLP having fulfilled its 
intended efforts with PIS then shifted e-tool support from the PIS system to focus more attention on the 
e-support efforts for SAO.
Subtask 1.2.2: Improve Court Operations
There has been clear progress in two of the three areas of engagement: service of process and the 
collection of court fees. ROLP has identified systematic and regulatory problems and solutions and has 
developed tools, regulations, and guides to address the problems. Planned piloting of both proposed 
tools and enhanced system protocols have been slightly delayed from fall 2019 to early 2020 in the 
Belgrade Third Basic Court, but anticipated rollout after this will spread to other courts. The third area 
of engagement, on improving the system for managing expert witnesses and translators, has seen little 
movement by the MOJ, so ROLP has not been able to move this forward. 
Subtask 1.2.3: Improved Human Resource Practices
ROLP has made progress in getting key stakeholders aware and ready to address the judicial assistant 
status issue. By comprehensively analyzing the problem and presenting it in a policy paper, ROLP has 
helped stakeholders come to an agreement on key policy components to be addressed (legal status, 
definition of criteria, career advancement path, etc.). Next-step planning includes whether to pursue 
legal changes with the constitutional amendments or regulatory changes without the constitutional 
amendments in place. Two rounds of training for a set of judicial assistants have been completed, with 
more planned; initial feedback on the trainings suggests that they are having positive effects, and further 
trainings in both broad and targeted thematic areas are needed during and beyond the project. 
23 | ROLP MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV
Subtask 1.2.4: Transparency and Accountability
ROLP efforts have had the most traction in working with courts to develop and present data. ROLP 
improved the gathering and use of court data with select courts through two annual report cycles, 
which received favorable feedback. These select courts see the benefits and are likely to continue with 
enhanced data presentation. ROLP has developed a communication strategy with the HCC and SCC and 
has begun to shift ways of thinking and designing PR engagement in the courts, but this is still in the early 
stages and needs more support during the remainder of the project, including ROLP’s current efforts on 
PR network consultation. The third area of focus, on enhancing the HCC Board of Ethics, resulted in a 
Draft Rule Book, but implementation is still in limbo due to internal and constitutional issues. 
Component 2
TASK 1:ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENTS STRENGTHENED 
Subtask 2.1.1: – Improved Systems in place for Efficient and Predictable Enforcement
ROLP has developed a suite of e-tools recognized as key for introducing more efficiency and greater 
access to the enforcement system. The already completed introduction of public enforcement officers 
into the PIS system is already increasing efficiency, has lowered costs for debtors, which is reflected in 
the new Tariff adopted by the MOJ in December 2019, and will provide a basis for further 
improvements. The upgrading of the PIS and handover of the eZIO system to the MOJ also ensures 
some system ownership and sustainability after the end of the program.
Subtask 2.1.2: Legislative and Regulatory Changes for Improved Enforcement Procedures 
ROLP convened all relevant stakeholders and facilitated the process necessary for introducing LOES 
amendments, which have subsequently been adopted and which will come into force on January 1, 2020. 
The amended LOES is accepted by all stakeholders as positive and is anticipated to save time and costs 
and introduce greater predictability into the system of enforcing judgments. 
Subtask 2.1.3: – Strengthening Institutional Capacities for Sound Monitoring and Accountability of 
Enforcement Officers
Efforts to develop the MOJ’s monitoring capacities were not realized due to the MOJ’s change in 
approach. The project adapted by instead supporting the Chamber of Public Enforcement Officers in 
developing its own internal monitoring capacities. The first round of monitoring was undertaken in 2019 
but was reduced to statistical data results, as well as internal office operations and equipment checks. 
However, ROLP plans to work further with the Chamber to improve these monitoring efforts and 
potentially with the MOJ in supporting the implementation of its monitoring tool. 
Subtask 2.1.4: Improved Public Understanding and Acceptance on the Importance of the System of 
Judgments in Serbia
Efforts to work with the institutions and the public to raise awareness have been challenging, as most 
emphasis has been on PR training rather than outreach at this point. PR training has helped, but it is too 
early to see substantial changes given the overwhelmingly negative public perception of enforcement 
proceedings and officers. 
Subtask 2.1.5 Institutional Capacity building of the Chamber of Public Enforcement Officers
Efforts are in progress with the Chamber, but it has low capacities, internal management conflicts, and a 
weak relationship with the MOJ. 
USAID.GOV ROLP MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: FINAL REPORT | 24
Task 2: Support to the State Attorney’s Office 
Subtask 2.2.1: Business Process Streamlining and the Case Management System 
The project is providing the first-ever donor assistance to the SAO and has made progress in developing 
its strategic planning, delivery of trainings, and initial attempts to streamline business processes, in 
particular through upgrading the case management system, LURIS. Assessment is premature at this point 
and key diagnostic work on evaluating the SAO caseload, ICT capacities, and business processes may not 
have fully captured the realities and needs, particularly in the regional offices. 
Subtask 2.2.2. SAO Capacity Development
Trainings on trial within a reasonable time and the Settlement Guidelines have been delivered for the 
SAO through the Judicial Academy, which have been well received by participants, but no mechanisms 
are in place to capture the effects of training and it is too early to assess any impact. Computer literacy 
training was provided directly by ROLP. 
Subtask 2.2.3 Addressing the Organizational Deficiencies and Weaknesses through Strategic Planning and 
Regulatory Change 
The project has supported the SAO through a consultation process to develop its strategic plan, which 
was adopted in March 2019. The project is supporting two components—business process streamlining 
and case management system efforts—but it is still too early to track any progress.
Subtask 2.2.4 Inter-institutional Cooperation
ROLP’s most significant support to the SAO can be found under this subtask, as the project has helped 
develop and implement the Settlement Guidelines, signed in July 2018. These have already produced 
significant time and cost efficiencies. ROLP also supported the development of a tracking tool for the 
SAO to register all settlements concluded under the Guidelines and track data to measure the impact of 
their implementation. Despite these achievements, much work needs to be done to support intra- and 
inter-institutional communication. 
Subtask 2.2.5 SAO Professional Development
Despite initial successes in launching the SAO’s upgraded website and initiating discussions on the 
development of a professional association of public attorneys in Serbia, this subtask has now been 
dropped, as per SAO decision and as discussed above under 2.2.5.1. 
EQ2. What link can be determined between progress toward the activity's objectives and 
the activity's results?
ROLP has made the clearest progress on advancing Serbia’s judicial reform process on a policy level 
with its assessment and development of the JDS. Although the JDS has yet to be adopted, this process 
has provided a blueprint for further reform refinements for the midterm period and will likely serve 
ROLP, USAID, and other donors as they support rule-of-law efforts in Serbia.
ROLP has had mixed results in increasing judicial efficiency and access to justice in the courts and 
supporting institutions, so progress toward larger objectives is uneven. Mixed results have been partially 
due to political and institutional contextual considerations described in the narrative findings and further 
delineated in EQ 3 factors. Mixed results have also been due to how the ROLP AMELP captures 
indicator results and the current midterm timing.
25 | ROLP MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV
Time and cost savings indicate the most progress in judicial efficiency. Using e-tools, particularly the PIS, 
has shown some of the clearest results. For example, indicators on cost savings through the PIS show 
that ROLP exceeded its 2019 target of PIS use and has indirectly generated budget savings of 51 million 
RSD ($4.9m) and has reduced the number of document exchanges by 4,624,198. These savings translate 
to less costly and more efficient judicial and enforcement proceedings for citizens. Similarly, the 
introduction of the Settlement Guidelines for the SAO has resulted in clear savings of time (95,480 days 
as of Sept 2019) and cost (7,503,561 RSD/US $71,982) for the State and litigants. 
Both of these efforts have been in place for roughly one year and therefore have adequate data. Other 
e-tools—from service of process to the e-noticeboard—that are anticipated to bring similar cost and 
time savings have been in the development stage, have or need to have baselines established, and/or will 
soon be piloted and thus do not have results to date.
Other ROLP efforts to improve efficiency through focus on judicial assistants or training public 
enforcement officers and the SAO, and thereby the efficiency of the courts and related institutions, are 
in early stages and do not have specific AMELP indicators and data that would capture capacity skill gains 
and application until the end of the project. Primary data from this evaluation suggest that these items 
will likely improve performance but also that more efforts are likely to be needed for the remainder of 
the project. 
The many efforts the ROLP has taken to bring e-tools, different procedures and practices into the court 
system and affiliated institutions are fundamental to eventual results in efficiency and access to justice, 
but, these multistep processes are not being clearly tracked in a way that easily shows the roadmap for 
adopting a policy/practice or piloting a product and then the expected efficiency results. The exception 
to some extent is how AMELP data track the policy process on judicial assistant status; however, here 
again its link to end-result efficiency gains is somewhat tenuous. The narrative findings explain that each 
of these subtasks has had multiple steps and mostly these appear on track, but so far most of these steps 
clearly link to indicators that are endline or lagging indicators. 
The narrative findings also indicate limited progress in increasing access to justice, in terms of 
communication and outreach activities. Transparency and accountability mechanisms are internally 
getting in place, but these efforts are still in early stages and are still not visible in a way that would shift 
general public perception. Similarly, project efforts to support awareness campaigns and outreach 
exceed 2019 targets, but there are no clear measurements of how these events may enhance awareness 
and understanding. In one area, the understanding of enforcement processes, there are baseline survey 
data from 2018 but another follow-up survey is not scheduled until 2020. So far, no smaller samples of 
citizen perceptions have been undertaken to provide any direct link between project interventions on 
initial communication and PR-related results and changes in perceptions. For example, no measurements 
or assessments have been undertaken related to activities to develop websites and communication 
strategies for courts, the Chamber of Public Enforcement Officers, and the SAO. 
Finally, embedded in the articulated objectives of efficiency and access to justice is the idea that 
improvements in these areas will correlate with improvements in quality of the courts and affiliated 
institutions. However, there are no clear indicators or data that can capture quality considerations, 
either with training results or with other system enhancement efforts. Narrative findings suggest that 
court officials and donors are mindful of the need to address quality concerns. 
USAID.GOV ROLP MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: FINAL REPORT | 26
EQ3. What were the key contributing factors and lessons learned in generating these 
results?
Positive Contributing Factors
USAID Rule-of-Law Brand. ROLP has benefited from the USAID track record on rule-of-law efforts for the 
past two decades in Serbia. Judicial institutions were amenable to ROLP because key institutions had 
firsthand experience in benefiting from USAID support. This combined with the implementer staff’s high 
professional credentials and proven experience to present a credible partner to judicial institutions and 
actors. This context allowed ROLP to get people around the table for such efforts as the JDS as well as 
to bring together interests from the MOJ, HCC, SCC, and other judicial and supporting institution 
actors on various reforms. 
Flexibility. USAID was known for being more flexible than other donors, and the implementer’s 
particularly flexible approach was critical to getting things done. MOJ and EU actors were notable for 
their praise of this flexibility, which resulted in several starts and stops in various project areas but 
which ultimately enabled progress, with ROLP taking the opportunity in areas when they presented 
themselves. For example, ROLP pivoted from supporting the MOJ to develop its monitoring capacities 
of public enforcement officers to directly working with the Chamber of Public Enforcement Officers on 
developing its internal monitoring mechanisms and procedures. 
Donor Alignment. Donor alignment on key ROLP areas resulted in more tangible progress. ROLP efforts 
to create a constructive cooperation are notable, and the results to date are clear. EU agreement for 
the JDS approach aligned with Action Plan 23; EU satisfaction with ROLP taking over particular technical 
efforts within court functioning, such as the PIS system to service of process; and work with the public 
enforcement officers and SAO all resulted in either complementary programming or at the very least no 
duplicative programming. 
Intentional Design. Another key factor for ROLP progress to date, particularly in relation to e-tools and 
technical solutions, is that ROLP’s efforts expanded on existing system designs. ROLP assessed how the 
systems were working or had planned development and then worked with the key stakeholders to 
(further) develop the systems. This approach took advantage of what was already familiar and working 
and determined how to upgrade and expand the tools. It also kept in mind how to ensure compatibility 
with anticipated upgrades of the larger court case management system with EU efforts in 2021. 
Process-based Approach. ROLP had a clear methodology for addressing the tasks it set out to resolve. 
This started with an assessment of the problem, stakeholder consultation, further analysis, presentation 
of policy solutions, co-design and more consultations, and finally testing and piloting. This very focused 
formula ensured that the key issues were clearly uncovered and understood by stakeholders, and as a 
result realistic solutions could be proposed. It also had the effect of giving ownership over these 
processes and the eventual solutions to the stakeholders themselves. The SCC/HCC communication 
strategies, the JDS, and the e-noticeboard are just a few examples where stakeholders clearly see the 
benefits of the solution and will take them forward as part of their own efforts. 
Challenges
Dynamic Political and Policy Environments. Particularly in the last year, efforts to move policy issues forward 
have been partially stymied by larger political contextual factors. Several policy solutions identified 
through ROLP efforts—such as the status of judicial assistants, the HCC Board of Ethics, and the 
positioning of public enforcement officers and the SAO in the judicial system—have been in limbo due 
27 | ROLP MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV
to expected adoption of constitutional amendments, which related to larger rule-of-law proposed 
changes. In addition, the upcoming election year has made domestic institutions reluctant to make big 
decisions or policy moves. ROLP has worked as far as possible to ensure movement across all areas of 
its programming, but at least in some of the areas, no further progress is possible until the constitutional 
amendments are adopted and the elections are over. 
Interinstitutional Tensions. Interinstitutional tension between the MOJ and the courts has grown as 
attention to independence of judiciary issues has increased efforts by the courts to lead reform efforts, 
even though budgeting power and policy decisions are mostly still under the auspices of the MOJ. Also, 
the MOJ has positioned itself as the gatekeeper for donor coordination even though the SCC and other 
bodies also have direct contact with donors. In practical terms, this has meant that the MOJ and SCC, 
HCC, Chamber of Public Enforcement Officers, and other cooperation has required particular attention 
and support, but it has also resulted in less than optimal MOJ support for some efforts, such as 
strengthening the Chamber of Public Enforcement Officers. 
Low Capacities and Shared Visions. ROLP has also had to manage support to actors that have had lower 
capacities than anticipated and mixed visions of what needs to be done. When taking on efforts with the 
Chamber of Public Enforcement Officers and with the SAO particularly, few had a clear idea of the 
actual capacities in place. And ROLP was surprised at the low capacities and level of support both 
institutions would need. Part of the challenge has been that few stakeholders involved in these 
institutions have had a clear vision of how to address their respective challenges and that neither 
institution is well positioned in the system. Further, ROLP is the first donor support provided to the 
SAO, meaning that ROLP has had to start from scratch. 
Donor Coordination. Although ROLP has mostly managed to cooperate with the other major donors on 
rule-of-law issues, the process has been challenging at some junctures. Particularly in working with the 
EU on assessing and developing next-step judicial strategies and the MOJ in general, ROLP has had to be 
consistently flexible to get things done. This has allowed it to fill in the gaps of many different rule-of-law 
programming areas but has made it difficult to have a comprehensive approach as a program. ROLP has 
brought together the disparate efforts into a larger program and has in the process been praised for this, 
but the donor context that required this approach needs to also be acknowledged. 
Lessons Learned
As noted above, flexibility has contributed to progress in ROLP efforts, and the lesson that ROLP can 
take from its efforts to date is that flexibility and adaptability are key to partnering with the MOJ and 
accomplishing agreed-upon objectives. The MOJ and other stakeholders suggest that now is the time to 
develop better rule-of-law policies and practices from the basis that has been set, remaining flexible to 
fill in and adapt programming support as needed. The MOJ particularly has this view of rule of law and 
has appreciated this flexibility, seeing ROLP therefore as a valuable partner. 
A second lesson is that where the MOJ has the will and (capacity) to advance a reform forward, there is 
a good chance it will make progress. However, where there is less MOJ will (potentially with the 
Chamber of Public Enforcement Officers) and where other constitutional issues particularly put 
solutions in limbo, less progress can be expected and ROLP expectations should be lowered 
accordingly. 
Similarly, where donor alignment has been in place, progress has been considerable—for example, with 
the JDS and agreement that ROLP lead efforts with the SAO and Chamber of Public Enforcement 
Officers. Donor alignment can also provide joint platforms for event presentation and spreading of 
USAID.GOV ROLP MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: FINAL REPORT | 28
ROLP products/ideas to a wider set of stakeholders, as has been the case with cooperation with the 
Embassy of the Netherlands, the World Bank, the Council of Europe, the EU, and others.
For ROLP interventions on improving capacities, skill enhancement always has some systematic and 
contextual limitations. For example, judicial assistants have likely become better equipped to do their 
jobs through training and are using the new skills, but the larger structural uncertainties around their 
positions mean that more training will have only some effect on improving their performance and hence 
the performance of the judges and the courts, in accordance with the ROLP theory of change. Similarly, 
public enforcement officer training helps individuals perform better, but the structural concerns about 
status and performance need to be clarified and bolstered before such training interventions can have 
more positive effects.
Finally, NGO engagement with rule-of-law actors and with ROLP efforts can have positive unexpected 
outcomes for all sides. Between rule-of-law actors and the NGOs, professional cooperation builds 
bridges, allowing better ways to monitor and build confidence in court performance. More implementer 
cooperation with NGOs broadens the scope/reach of ROLP programming, as has been the case in 
widening programming on judicial assistants to include law students.
RECOMMENDATIONS
EQ4. Does the evaluation team have recommendations for adaptation of interventions 
within the current scope and remaining implementation period of the contract in order to 
increase the effectiveness of the project?
Recommendations are divided into three sections. The first section provides a summary of all key 
recommendations to the ROLP and USAID for the remaining time of the ROLP; the second section 
provides specific recommendations addressed to ROLP by components, tasks, and subtasks. The third 
section provides strategy recommendations addressed to USAID for ROL programming beyond 2021. 
REMAINING PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION PERIOD TO 2021
The ET strongly recommends that ROLP seek a funded one-year extension to complete and fully embed 
the newly developed systems and processes into the judicial system. It is common practice for USAID 
projects to last for five years, but due to the expected exit of USAID support to Serbia, the project was 
designed to last for four years. Consistently, stakeholders commented that there is a strong need for 
the project to last five years to consolidate gains and finalize all anticipated activities. 
An extension of ROLP would also align with EU projects, which are systematically being extended until 
the end of 2021 During this time, the constitutional amendments will be adopted, elections will take 
place, and the new government will be formed. The extension will allow time for the project to 
consolidate its gains and to develop the next project with the new government. 
If the project is extended, the ET recommends the following additions and/or shifts. These have been 
grouped around four key areas that the ET sees as the main project interventions and processes.
1. Legislative/Policy Review and Monitoring
ROLP should adopt a twin-track approach: monitoring legislation and policy that the project has assisted 
in developing (e.g., JDS and LOES) and developing new legislation. ROLP should continue pursuing the 
29 | ROLP MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV
development of legislation on judicial assistants once the constitutional amendments have been adopted 
and the new government formed. Similarly, ROLP should initiate discussions on amendments to the law 
on the SAO as well as a potential law on public enforcement officers. Secondary legislation in the form 
of by-laws and regulations should be developed—for example, professional standards for public 
enforcement officers and a manual of inspection for public enforcement officers. These were originally 
envisaged by the project but have so far not been developed. 
2. Individual and Institutional Capacity Development
ROLP should continue to strengthen its capacity development approach at both institutional and 
individual levels. At the individual level, this includes support to judicial assistants, court officials, public 
enforcement officers, and SAO staff. At the institutional level, continued support should be provided to 
the Chamber of Public Enforcement Officers and the SAO. However, there should be additional 
consultation on skill training need. In particular, judicial assistants felt there was a need for this. ROLP 
should also shift toward more systematized capturing of skill use. This could be through after-training 
assessments to measure increase in knowledge, extent of applied learning back on the job, and effect on 
business operations.
3. E-Tools
The project has upgrade and/or developed a suite of e-tools aimed at improving efficiency as well as 
transparency and accountability. As discussed above, these are at different stages; some, such as the 
upgraded PIS and eZIO, have been piloted, refined, rolled out, and transferred to the MOJ, whereas 
others, such as court fees, service of process and LURIS, have yet to be piloted. In view of the 
anticipated EU justice sector IT connectivity program, expected in 2021, for the remaining project 
implementation period, ROLP should focus on piloting, refining, and rolling out already developed e￾tools as planned plus a few adjustments. As part of this, the piloting and rollout should be context 
specific because what might work in Belgrade might not work in some of the regional offices/courts. 
For this phase, ROLP should track not only measurements on efficiency progress but also how the 
systems are being used and the level of confidence and satisfaction users have with the system (through 
systematically capturing training application). ROLP should be ready to identify glitches in the larger 
system effort (whether IT, protocols, inter-institutional cooperation, or other) to support their 
resolution. Further alignment with EU efforts is also recommended; however, all e-tools have been 
designed so that they can be incorporated into the proposed EU system and further developed or 
expanded as required.
4. Public Awareness
The ET strongly recommends that ROLP address public awareness for the remaining implementation 
period. Although certain activities have already been conducted in this regard—for example, the 
development of communication strategies for the HCC and SCC, select court reporting development 
and outreach support, development of websites for the SAO, PR training for public enforcement 
officers, and the first public perception survey, in addition to public events conducted through 
YUCOM—few results can be found in public awareness. The project should consider how best to reach 
the population; although open-door events can be effective, they can reach only a limited number of 
people. By far the most effective medium of reaching the public is television and/or radio, and this should 
be kept in mind. ROLP should develop a crosscutting awareness-raising strategy and further work in 
partnerships and coalitions with civil society, such as with YUCOM, including identifying their wish list of 
information to include in annual court reports to be accessible to citizens. Individual court surveys 
USAID.GOV ROLP MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: FINAL REPORT | 30
should be used to track performance and linked to PR efforts. A considerable focus of the awareness￾raising activities should be on enforcement, where no gains can be seen in public perception. 
INDIVIDUAL TASK RECOMMENDATIONS
COMPONENT 1
Task 1 Assess and Develop the NJRS
1.1.1 Monitor and support implementation with focus on quality concerns. ROLP should continue to support 
the finalization of the JDS consultation and adoption process and work closely with all relevant domestic 
and international stakeholders to ensure that the newly formed committee for JDS implementation has 
the necessary capacities and that sufficient attention is given to bolstering quality benchmarks and 
considerations. 
1.1.2 Consider an interim internal stocktaking of JDS implementation by ROLP end. JDS implementation is 
likely to be in place for approximately one year before ROLP officially ends. An assessment on progress 
at that time could provide guidance for potential course correction and future programming.
Task 2
Subtask 1.2.1: E-Tools
E-tool development is an area that all parties generally have agreement, and most of the challenges are 
focused on the details of implementation. Accordingly, as the project further supports e-tool 
implementation, it should consider the following efforts:
1.2.1.1 Continue to track and expand upon measurements of efficiency progress. ROLP should continue to 
track savings, differentiating as far as possible by types of courts and locations. This will allow a more 
fine-tuned understanding of actual implementation by court types and locations and provide ROLP and 
court officials a clearer picture of where additional assistance might be needed and of glitches in the 
system. 
1.2.1.2 Consider tracking user satisfaction levels. Based on ROLP training and workshop beneficiaries in a 
sample set of courts, begin tracking user confidence and actual satisfaction levels. This will provide a 
clearer understanding of skills gained and how the system works on a daily basis. It will also provide a 
clearer picture of implementation progress and highlight where more attention is needed and where 
problems may arise (IT, protocols, inter-institutional cooperation, or something else) to support their 
resolution. 
1.2.1.3 Further align with the EU as they develop the larger judicial-wide interconnectivity and case management 
system. The PIS and other e-tools will eventually be absorbed into an EU-led justice sector-wide IT 
connectivity system anticipated to start at the end of 2021. Coordination with the EU on this has been 
and will remain essential to ensure optimal capability and smooth transition. 
Subtask 1.2.2: Improved Court Operations
ROLP needs to continue its efforts to pilot, review, and spread the service of process and fee payment 
tools throughout the court system as first priority. If the MOJ decides to move forward on improving 
the system for managing of expert witnesses and translators, ROLP should consider the extent to which 
they can provide support during the remainder of the project given that most efforts under this subtask
should be to pilot and spread the two tools being introduced in early 2020. A key component of this 
31 | ROLP MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV
effort beyond ROLP’s expected result indicators is to systematically capture training applications and any 
key concerns users have to resolve any gaps in the system. Therefore, the recommendations noted for 
e-tools under 1.2.1 above are also applicable here: 
1.2.2.1 Continue to track and expand upon measurements of efficiency progress.
1.2.2.2 Consider tracking user satisfaction levels.
1.2.2.3 Further align with the EU as they develop the larger judicial-wide interconnectivity and case management 
system.
Subtask 1.2.3: Improved Human Resource Practices
For the most part, the ROLP has a clear path for what it intends to do in the next eighteen months in 
relation to judicial assistants. To bolster this and with an eye to proving a further basis for engagement, 
the following recommendations are put forward for consideration.
1.2.3.1 Provide assistants with as comprehensive information on the regulatory/legal remedy process and 
anticipated plans as possible. Through ROLP, judicial assistants have been engaged to provide inputs on 
their career status and futures, and this should be commended. To further involve them, a clearer 
feedback loop from key actors (HCC, Judicial Academy, and related professional associations) needs to 
be put in place to ensure that they feel part of and empowered in the process regardless of whether 
legislation changes of status or pursued. As part of this, consider sharing best practices from courts 
where judicial assistants identify particularly useful operational manners of working in their courts that 
can be shared with other assistants and judges to encourage good standards.
1.2.3.2 Focus further attention on pre- and early career judicial assistants. Although ROLP currently has a 
Request for Applications out on “strengthening cooperation between the judiciary and law faculties,” 
ROLP should also consider the policy implications for the position of “intern” in the courts and provide 
more clarity in the link among law faculty graduates, interns, and judicial assistants. Although the policy 
efforts for the next 18 months focus on judicial assistants’ regulatory and legal status, they should also 
address training for these early career actors. 
1.2.3.3 Develop more targeted trainings in consultation with judicial assistants. Training is in demand, but 
ROLP should identify further training areas and work more closely with the Judicial Academy on 
developing both focused and broad trainings for judicial assistants and interns as models for entrance 
and continuing education training requirements. 
1.2.3.4 Track training capacity gains and application. ROLP is well placed to track capacity gains and 
application for training a select set of judicial assistants in specific courts. This might provide a more 
nuanced picture of how skill enhancement improves professional performance and eventual efficiency in 
the court structure. It would also provide a clearer way to ensure training relevance. 
Subtask 1.2.4: Transparency and Accountability
Much of the first portion of the project has focused on getting strategies and templates in place to 
aid in better communication. During the second half of the project, more attention should be 
focused on capturing the extent to which these enhanced practices may be having an effect. 
1.2.4.1 Consider working with the SCC and HCC to introduce a court survey public perception 
tracking system. ROLP could assist in the development of a basic methodology for the courts to 
USAID.GOV ROLP MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: FINAL REPORT | 32
begin to track their own public perception efforts. Through working with the SCC and HCC to 
develop and spread this, such a methodology would provide courts with clearer understandings 
of where they might need to further their communication efforts.
1.2.4.2 As part of this or as a pilot for this, consider working with select courts to track 
performance and links to PR efforts. Close cooperation with four appellate courts and the 
Higher Court of Belgrade provided a useful basis to work with these courts to track individual 
court performance perceptions. This could be done in cooperation with YUCOM or other 
NGOs as well as part of an effort to enhance NGO and judicial cooperation.
1.2.4.3 Consider engaging with NGOs to design a wish list of court data to present to the public. 
The annual reports produced through ROLP are a good start for enhanced data presentation 
and types of data presented. These can likely be further refined, and NGOs working on rule of 
law would be well placed to be involved in this consultative process. 
COMPONENT 2
Task 1
Subtask 2.1.1: Improved Systems for Efficient and Predictable Enforcement
All parties agree on e-tools, and most of the challenges concern implementation details. Accordingly, as 
the project further supports e-tool implementation, it should consider the following:
2.1.1.1 Pilot and rollout e-tools and include non-Belgrade training contexts. As ROLP starts to pilot the 
developed e-tools, it will be important to include piloting in courts outside Belgrade, where the context 
and capacities may be different, to ensure that the tools are relevant and contextually tailored. 
Systematic training and follow-up should be undertaken to measure skill usage and user satisfaction and 
further refine the tools as required. 
2.1.1.2 Enhance promotion of e-tool offerings with the public. Wider promotion of tools such as the e￾noticeboard is strongly recommended. This will not only raise awareness of the tool itself and how it 
can be used to ease the enforcement procedure but may also contribute to a more positive portrayal of 
enforcement proceedings. 
2.1.1.3 Record maintenance on the PIS system. ROLP cannot influence other institutions to maintain 
accurate records in the PIS system, but it should focus some attention on raising awareness among all 
institutions included in the PIS on the importance of accurate and up-to-date records and potential 
impact of incorrect or outdated records. 
2.1.1.4 Coordinate with the EU. All e-tools developed by ROLP will be absorbed into the EU justice sector 
connectivity project anticipated in 2021. In this context, not only should the project ensure maximum 
coordination and alignment with the EU, but it should also now turn its focus away from the 
development of additional e-tools to different areas.
Subtask 2.1.2: Legislative and Regulatory Changes for Improved Enforcement Procedures
2.1.2.1 Support LOES implementation. Once the LOES amendments are in force (January 2020), ROLP 
should support the law’s implementation, together with the development of and amendments to 
requisite secondary legislation and regulations, in particular targeting professional public enforcement 
33 | ROLP MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV
officer standards passed in December 2019 with additional regulations on PEO office operations, etc. 
Originally part of the ROLP Year 3 work plan, it has not come to fruition and should now be prioritized 
for ROLP to gain traction in this area.
2.1.2.2 Support LOES monitoring. Enhance LOES monitoring to help identify any potential gaps, outline 
areas for improvement, and hold implementers to account. ROLP is encouraged to support the 
government, judiciary, and civil society to collect and analyze data on LOES implementation to help 
identify and evaluate the amendments’ impact. 
2.1.2.3 Deliver training. Supplementary training on the law’s implementation should be provided based on 
needs, systematically capturing training application. Although some training has been conducted and is 
envisaged, the training does not currently capture capacity enhancements and training application, which 
would indicate additional gaps and needs. 
Subtask 2.1.3: Strengthen Institutional Capacities for Sound Monitoring and Accountability of 
Enforcement Officers
2.1.3.1 Support the MOJ to monitor public enforcement officers. Once professional standards for public 
enforcement officers are developed, the project should support the MOJ in implementing its own 
monitoring tool, which should provide the necessary oversight of officers in accordance with the law.
2.1.3.2 Provide additional support to the Chamber’s monitoring cycle. Follow the cycle of public enforcement 
officer monitoring by the Chamber at least twice more to ensure that it is properly tested, refined, 
implemented, and embedded into the system. Only one cycle will be possible within the remaining 18 
months of project implementation. 
Subtask 2.1.4: Public Awareness Raising on the Importance of the System of Judgments 
2.1.4.1 Raise public awareness. The remaining project implementation period should be used as an 
opportunity to raise public education, not only of parties to enforcement actions but also of the general 
public. Support both the MOJ and the Chamber to disseminate information and to promote the 
enforcement system. This will require clarity on where public enforcement officers fit in the system.
2.1.4.2 Strengthen links with civil society. Building on the success of its collaboration with YUCOM, ROLP 
should develop and nurture greater links between enforcement officers and civil society to overcome 
what is perceived by the public as one of the most negative aspects of court functioning.
Subtask 2.1.5: Institutional Capacity Building for the Chamber of Public Enforcement Officers
2.1.5.1 Institutional capacity development for supporting public enforcement officers. Consider developing the 
capacities of both the Chamber of Public Enforcement Officers and the MOJ to represent and support 
the profession both internally and in public. Not only could this raise the profession’s profile, but it 
could also provide individual public enforcement officers with the level of support they are seeking to 
perform their duties professionally. 
2.1.5.2 Develop legislation to legalize the position of public enforcement officers in the system. Consider 
initiating a dialogue on the possible long-term development of a law on public enforcement officers. The 
law would regulate the status of enforcement officers to fully embed them in the system. This approach 
USAID.GOV ROLP MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: FINAL REPORT | 34
has proven successful for other free legal professions such as notaries and mediators. The initial dialogue 
could be informed by analyses, comparative examples, and best practices from similar jurisdictions. 
Task 2
Given that this was the first donor intervention with SAO, efforts to achieve results have taken some 
time, but this should not dissuade ROLP from furthering its efforts in the envisioned areas of 
engagement. With this in mind, the following recommendations are highlighted. 
Subtask 2.2.1: Business Process Streamlining and the Case Management System
2.2.1.1 Design context-specific, tailor-made interventions. Consider designing interventions that are tailor￾made to the specific context in each SAO office, since capacities vary considerably. Focus on the 
regional offices, where capacities are extremely low. 
Subtask 2.2.2: SAO Capacity Development
2.2.2.1 Develop custom-made training plan. While the project is supporting the SAO to develop a long￾term training plan as part of year 3 planning, it is recommended that this be as comprehensive as 
possible, highlighting thematic areas of intervention and custom-made for each of the regional offices of 
the SAO based on their individual needs and requirements. This will help address the capacity shortfalls 
and assist in raising all capacities to the same level. 
2.2.2.2 Consider appropriate organization of training. To ensure the highest level of participation in capacity 
development events, ROLP should organize trainings that facilitate the participation of trainees, 
particularly those in the regional offices. 
2.2.2.3 Position the SAO as a constitutional category. Consider reactivating the issue of positioning the SAO 
as a constitutional category, which would clarify its status and positioning within the system. Initial steps 
could include analyzing comparable jurisdictions and reestablishing the WG tasked with initiating a 
dialogue and researching possible options and models once the constitutional amendments are in place.
Subtask 2.2.3: Addressing Organizational Deficiencies and Weaknesses through Strategic Planning and 
Regulatory Change
2.2.3.1 Support implementation of the strategic plan. Consider providing continuous support for 
implementation of the entire SAO strategic plan, based on SAO needs and in view of its capacities. 
2.2.3.2 Support development of legislative amendments. Consider how to reactivate facilitating amendment 
of relevant primary and secondary legislation. This could include bringing all stakeholders on board 
through a dialogue process, notably the MOJ; establishment of a WG; and provision of expert technical 
advisory support. 
2.2.3.3 Support the positioning of the SAO in the system. Consider reopening dialogue on positioning the 
SAO as a constitutional category to fully regulate its status. This could include studies in comparative 
jurisdictions and organizing a dialogue process for all stakeholders to discuss options and models. 
35 | ROLP MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV
Subtask 2.2.4: Inter-institutional Cooperation
2.2.4.1Implement multidisciplinary capacity development. Consider additional multidisciplinary capacity 
development to raise stakeholder awareness on the implementation, advantages, and usage of the 
Settlement Guidelines, in particular for lawyers and the judiciary, and with a focus on training outside 
Belgrade. 
2.2.4.2 Consider data disaggregation by region. The ET strongly recommends that the project consider 
supporting the SAO to disaggregate data on time and cost efficiencies by region to identify where the 
Settlement Guidelines are being best implemented and where additional efforts are required. 
2.2.4.3 Further strengthen internal and external coordination and communication. Consider how to best 
strengthen internal and external coordination and communication mechanisms to improve the efficiency 
of the SAO and its regional offices. This could include continuous coordination and creating and 
strengthening linkages with other line ministries.
Subtask 2.2.5: SAO Professional Development
Since ROLP has dropped this activity as described above, the ET has no recommendations. 
2021 AND BEYOND
Looking beyond ROLP’s end, the ET presents the following recommendations for the focus and 
structure of future USAID rule-of-law programming:
Focus: Fixed and Flexible Three-Pot Programming 
There are several areas where ROLP should consider further engagement beyond the next 18 months, 
given that these areas will need more time and support to attain results—for example, further work 
with the SAO, the Chamber of Public Enforcement Officers, and judicial assistant status. This portion of 
USAID programming would align with a more traditional trajectory of specific institutional strengthening 
programming. 
A second area of programming could focus on midterm and long-term quality issues. The Judicial 
Academy could be an institutional partner. There would be clear synergies between building up a robust 
programming profile for the Academy with the specific areas of intervention noted above, but also for 
covering overall judicial official and related institutional training and performance quality control. 
A third area of programming should be designated as a flexible funding and operational area. This will 
allow the program to adapt as necessary to changing needs and the reform efforts in play. Some 
considerations for how to use such a flexible funding mechanism could include the following: (1) 
whether USAID can play a role in initial startup of efforts that the EU or other donors can eventually 
take over; (2) whether USAID has the advantage through being able to build funding 
mechanisms/cooperation between institutions and NGOs; (3) whether there is a need for stop-gap or 
topping-off funding to get something accomplished; and (4) where there might be USAID and U.S. 
experience subject area expertise that is requested by stakeholders. 
USAID.GOV ROLP MIDTERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: FINAL REPORT | 36
Structure: No Gaps and Longer
Follow-on USAID rule-of-law efforts should try to ensure that there is no gap in USAID support after 
the end of ROLP, whether in 2021 or beyond. Regardless, stakeholders emphasized the need to not lose 
time in a critical set of years following the elections, anticipated constitutional changes, and would want 
a steady partner—whether ROLP in its current form or a similar version—that has known, credible 
staff. Any new version of rule-of-law efforts should also be longer—back to the five-year duration if 
possible—to ensure that any programming can cover two governments and fully embed activities into 
the system. 
Management: More Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning and Continued Close EU Donor Coordination
Internal: Any future USAID rule-of-law programming should embed more active monitoring, evaluation, 
and learning (MEL) into the program design. Any programming that focuses on a combination of 
process-based interventions, policy efforts, and capacity- and institution-building efforts requires a more 
fine-tuned MEL set of indicators that will provide interim as well as end-line programming results to let 
the program know how it is doing. 
External: Further close cooperation with the EU should continue to be emphasized. Both major donors 
will continue to work both with the MOJ and with the judiciary, and this requires close cooperation as 
part of all project design and implementation.