PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE 
USAID PROMOTING CIVIC EDUCATION 
AND PARTICIPATION IN SOUTH AFRICA 
PROGRAM
JULY 2023
Prepared under Contract No. GS-10F-0033M / 7200AA18M00016, Tasking N080
DRG LEARNING, EVALUATION, AND 
RESEARCH (DRG-LER) II ACTIVITY
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID 
PROMOTING CIVIC EDUCATION AND 
PARTICIPATION IN SOUTH AFRICA PROGRAM
(JULY 2023) 
Prepared under Contract No.: GS-10F-0033M / Order No. 7200AA18M00016, Tasking N080
Submitted to:
Matthew Baker, USAID COR
Submitted by:
Audra K. Grant (Senior Evaluation Expert)
Jeremy Horowitz (Senior Evaluation Expert)
Nico Bezuidenhout (Subject Matter Expert)
Sean Cremin (Research Assistant)
Contractor:
NORC at the University of Chicago
4350 East West Highway, 8th Floor
Bethesda, MD 20814
Attention: Matthew Parry
Telephone: (301) 634-5444
Email: Parry-Matthew@norc.org
DISCLAIMER 
The authors’ views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States 
Agency for International Development or the United States Government.
CONTRACT No.: GS-10F-0033M / ORDER No. 7200AA18M00016
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
USAID and the NORC evaluation team wish to thank all of the individuals associated with the PCEP 
CSOs and the beneficiary community members that helped advance the evaluation fieldwork and 
provided assistance to the team. Though too numerous for each be identified here by name, the 
evaluation team is grateful to all participants who gave up valuable time to share their thoughts and to 
discuss the program.
CONTRACT No.: GS-10F-0033M / ORDER No. 7200AA18M00016
USAID.GOV PROMOTING CIVIC EDUCATION AND PARTICIPATION IN SOUTH AFRICA PROGRAM | i 
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACRONYMS II
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
1. EVALUATION PURPOSE 4
2. BACKGROUND AND PROGRAM OVERVIEW 5
3. EVALUATION METHODOLOGY 8
4. FINDINGS 15
5. RECOMMENDATIONS 37
ANNEX A. DATA COLLECTION DETAILS FOR THE FOCUS GROUPS 
AND TELEPHONE SURVEY 41
ANNEX B. FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION GUIDE 48
ANNEX C. IN-DEPTH INTERVIEW GUIDE 50
ANNEX D. TELEPHONE SURVEY INSTRUMENT 57
CONTRACT No.: GS-10F-0033M / ORDER No. 7200AA18M00016
USAID.GOV PROMOTING CIVIC EDUCATION AND PARTICIPATION IN SOUTH AFRICA PROGRAM | ii
ACRONYMS
ANC African National Congress
CDCS Country Development and Cooperation Strategy
COVID Coronavirus Disease
CBO Community Based Organization
CSO Civil Society Organization
DO Development Objective
DoS U.S. Department of State
DRG-LER DRG Learning, Evaluation, and Research
FGD Focus Group Discussion
FOCAC Forum on China-Africa Cooperation
GOSA Government of South Africa
KZN Kwa-Zulu Natal
IDI In-depth Interviews
IDP Integrated Development Plan
IDI In-depth interview
ILDA Interchurch Leadership Development Agency
IRB Internal Review Board
MPT Marikana Peacebuilding Team
NGO Non-governmental organization
NORC National Opinion Research Center
PAD Project Approval Document
PCEP Promoting Civic Education and Participation
SADC Southern Africa Development Community
SAPS South African Police Service
USAID U.S. Agency for International Development
USG U.S. Government
YMCA Young Men’s Christian Association
CONTRACT No.: GS-10F-0033M / ORDER No. 7200AA18M00016
USAID.GOV PROMOTING CIVIC EDUCATION AND PARTICIPATION IN SOUTH AFRICA PROGRAM | 1 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
At USAID’s request, the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University of Chicago 
implemented a performance evaluation of the Promoting Civic Education and Participation (PCEP) in 
South Africa Program. The PCEP, led by Freedom House, is implemented in concert with 10 partner 
civil society organizations (CSOs) in the following six regions in South Africa: Gauteng (Alexandra Peace 
Ambassadors); Eastern Cape (Interchurch Leadership Development Agency, Amadiba Coordinating 
Committee, and Flagstaff Advise Center); Kwa-Zulu Natal (Mariannridge Coordinating Committee and 
YMCA); Limpopo (Vumbanani for Peacebuilding); North West (Marikana Peacebuilding Team); and 
Mpumalanga (Lifa le Sive and Londisizwe Youth Foundation). 
EVALUATION METHODOLOGY
This performance evaluation draws on a combination of multiple quantitative and qualitative research 
approaches. First, the NORC evaluation team conducted in-depth interviews (IDIs) with PCEP partner 
staff and program stakeholders. Fieldwork in South Africa included interviews with government officials, 
CSO staff, downstream beneficiaries, and personnel at USAID/South Africa. Second, a local data 
collection firm conducted 13 focus groups among PCEP activity participants randomly sampled from 
PCEP beneficiary lists. Third, NORC implemented a telephone survey (n=624) using a local survey firm
to reach a larger sample of program participants, also randomly selected from participant lists. Prior to 
the fieldwork, the evaluation team conducted a desk review of the PCEP program documentation that 
informed the protocols and questionnaires. The duration of the fieldwork period was February-April 
2023. 
KEY FINDINGS
The evaluation finds that the PCEP successfully achieved key program objectives. In goals 
related to CSO capacity building, civil society’s ability to conduct civic education activities increased 
significantly among the 10 CSO partners, as did the use of tools designed to improve citizens’ ability to 
hold leaders accountable. PCEP CSOs reported that the capacity building trainings and workshops 
conducted by Freedom House were tremendously useful and led to major improvements in the capacity 
to implement the core PCEP activities. The capacity building support from Freedom House also led to 
organizational improvements, including the development of new skills related to budget tracking, 
reporting, and fundraising. PCEP also achieved its objectives related to citizen awareness and 
participation. Survey respondents in target areas report greater awareness of their rights under the 
South African constitution, how government works, how to contact government leaders to seek 
assistance in addressing individual and community problems, and other related topics. Citizens who 
participated in PCEP activities report being engaged in local politics and community affairs and express 
an intention to remain engaged in the future. While it is difficult to quantify the program’s impacts 
without baseline data or a comparison group, the qualitative data strongly suggest that PCEP led to 
meaningful increases in both knowledge and participation.
The four PCEP tools – study circles, advocacy campaigns, civic literacy trainings, and town 
hall meetings (indabas) – interact to deepen knowledge of rights and promote peaceful 
engagement with local government that led to positive outcomes in communities. 
Interviewees cited a range of improvements attributable to the PCEP program tools, from better waste 
CONTRACT No.: GS-10F-0033M / ORDER No. 7200AA18M00016
USAID.GOV PROMOTING CIVIC EDUCATION AND PARTICIPATION IN SOUTH AFRICA PROGRAM | 2 
collection and improved access to health clinics, to decreases in crime, and for one community, 
nationwide attention and adjudication on environmental issues. While the study circles appeared most 
transformative at the individual-level, the other PCEP tools were equally important for mobilizing larger 
numbers of community members to engage with leaders. PCEP advocacy campaigns and indabas in a 
number of instances increased local government responsiveness and produced policy changes. 
Campaigns, for example, saw an increase in local police presence and investigation, and ultimately closer 
community-police relations in one locale. Campaigns also demonstrated the utility of peaceful versus 
confrontational citizen engagement. Indabas provided a new platform for meeting officials, information 
exchange, and peaceful expression of citizen demands. Civic education trainings provided tools for how 
to engage in local political processes – through petitions, peaceful marches, and meetings – and provided 
valuable information about how to raise concerns with government officials. 
The program had mixed effects on increasing the accountability of elected leaders to 
citizens in program target areas. The expectation that increased exposure to accurate information 
on citizen rights and government function would increase the ability to hold leaders accountable was 
only partially realized, because government leaders in some areas were unable or unwilling to respond 
to public requests for engagement and/or assistance in addressing local issues. Interviewees in some 
PCEP locales noted that leaders did not attend public meetings and/or provide access to key 
information, particularly in relation to the Integrated Development Plans (IDPs), the primary mechanism 
for municipal-level planning. These shortcomings reflect the barriers to meaningful citizen engagement 
stemming from the broader political context at the local level in South Africa. Amid local government 
challenges of delivering basic services to communities and management, PCEP partners and their civil 
society stakeholders in some communities noted that it has been difficult to build relationships with local
councilors, which may be due to councilor uncertainty about their roles and how to relate to 
communities and competing priorities related to party versus constituent interests.
Though there are aspects of each PCEP tool that can endure after the project, study 
circles appear to be most sustainable. The circles can be easily replicated and expanded to other 
communities at little cost, and the circles need not be facilitated by an expert. The circles can also be 
folded into school curricula or the existing activities of some CSOs, particularly organizations that have 
awareness or training programs. Social media tools may also be useful for study circle sustainability – 
and for that of the other PCEP tools – by promoting information-sharing, mentoring, and monitoring. 
The civic education trainings build citizen confidence and efficacy in participating in political processes 
that may endure after the program, and the indabas may instill practices around collective action that 
also have a durable effects. Yet, both may be costly to maintain: collective action comes with 
mobilization and organization costs that a CSO is better able to provide, and civic education trainings 
may require transportation costs that may also be difficult to fund. Advocacy campaigns are closest to 
the kind work CSO already do, but they also require significant monitoring, organization, and 
mobilization.
The evaluation team identified a few potential gaps in implementation that are points of 
departure for future program opportunities. The PCEP program, designed to focus on local 
government, emphasizes national-level dynamics less so. Some activities and trainings, however, could 
target national government relationships and interaction, as these may provide additional opportunities 
for PCEP CSOs to build cooperative alliances that could create alternative avenues of engagement. Also, 
CONTRACT No.: GS-10F-0033M / ORDER No. 7200AA18M00016
USAID.GOV PROMOTING CIVIC EDUCATION AND PARTICIPATION IN SOUTH AFRICA PROGRAM | 3 
the program did not focus on training for local officials on their roles and responsibilities to civil society 
and citizen constituents. Lastly, some program CSOs mentioned a need to reach more remote 
marginalized populations, such as migrant communities and those who are illiterate. 
Among key lessons learned, the broader political environment affected PCEP project 
interventions. Local government bodies in South Africa face significant challenges in 
delivering basic services to communities, and party politics also influences local official 
engagement and their priorities. PCEP partners and stakeholders expressed concern over local 
government responsiveness, especially local councilors, which points to a need to include them in future 
program trainings. 
CONTRACT No.: GS-10F-0033M / ORDER No. 7200AA18M00016
USAID.GOV PROMOTING CIVIC EDUCATION AND PARTICIPATION IN SOUTH AFRICA PROGRAM | 4 
1. EVALUATION PURPOSE
As part of the DRG Learning, Evaluation, and Research (DRG-LER) II Activity, USAID requested a 
performance evaluation of the Promoting Civic Education and Participation (PCEP) program to assess 
achievement of USAID/Southern Africa goals around improving citizen awareness and engagement in 
political processes in South Africa. The evaluation, conducted by the National Opinion Research Center, 
at the University of Chicago (NORC), offers information regarding program performance and dynamics, 
as well as evidence that informs USAID/Southern Africa’s decision making on future programming to 
promote civic education and citizen engagement in South Africa. 
The PCEP program, led by Freedom House, is implemented in concert with 10 CSO partners in the 
following regions: Gauteng (Alexandra Peace Ambassadors); Eastern Cape (Interchurch Leadership 
Development Agency, Amadiba Coordinating Committee, and Flagstaff Advise Center); Kwa-Zulu Natal 
(Marrianridge Coordinating Committee and YMCA); Limpopo (Vumbanani for Peacebuilding); North 
West (Marikana Peacebuilding Team); and Mpumalanga (Lifa le Sive and Londisizwe Youth Foundation).
The program implementation period is 2019-2023. 
In assessing the PCEP program, the evaluation specifically seeks to: 
1. Determine PCEP’s effectiveness in achieving the activity’s current objectives; document key 
achievements, lessons learned and best practices; identify any results/secondary outcomes (can be 
anecdotal) not directly related to the objectives (for example, unintended positive or negative 
outcomes, such as participants going on to train others outside the program or advocacy efforts 
informing other campaigns the project did not fund); and analyze what factors led to the activity’s 
success or failure in achieving its objectives;
2. Provide USAID with strategic programming recommendations to inform the design of future civic 
education and engagement programs; and 
3. Engage with community beneficiaries to determine the degree to which they value the PCEP 
program; which aspects they found most helpful; and what changed for them and their communities 
as a result of their participation in the program.
With these goals in mind, the evaluation addresses the following evaluation questions:1
• To what extent did the PCEP program achieve its objectives?
• What are the main lessons learned?
• What approaches and tools applied by PCEP (such as community indabas/town halls) were most 
effective and sustainable (with explanation of why, where, with which groups—women, youth, 
marginalized groups, etc., and at what scale)? Which were the least effective? 
• What are some gaps or missed opportunities in implementation?
− What are the remaining unaddressed needs and challenges that the program did not address in 
the target communities to advance civic education and citizen engagement?
1 For the evaluation purposes, “effectiveness” is a measure of the ability of a particular project intervention to produce a 
planned effect or result that can be qualitatively measured with the data provided.
CONTRACT No.: GS-10F-0033M / ORDER No. 7200AA18M00016
USAID.GOV PROMOTING CIVIC EDUCATION AND PARTICIPATION IN SOUTH AFRICA PROGRAM | 5 
• What are the main recommendations for future programming?
− Did the approach of working through subgrants to community-based CSOs contribute to PCEP’s 
effectiveness in achieving its objectives? Why or why not? Should other approaches be 
considered?
− What are the opportunities for a future program to build on the achievements in the same target 
communities in ways that are sustainable?
− What, if any, interventions from PCEP could be replicated and scaled up beyond the target 
communities? 
2. BACKGROUND AND PROGRAM OVERVIEW
The African National Congress (ANC) has dominated local and national elections in South Africa since 
the first democratic elections in 1994. Despite the party’s electoral dominance, the ANC government 
has continued to underperform with poor government services, joblessness, poverty, and a general 
failure to deliver on the post-apartheid promise. South Africa’s democracy is faced with challenges 
including state capture, corruption, reduction of trust in political and state institutions, and poor service 
delivery. The trust deficit between the Government of South Africa (GoSA) and its citizens continues to 
grow. Afrobarometer survey findings from 2021, shown in Table 1, underscore the depth of citizen 
dissatisfaction.2 Large shares of the population are dissatisfied with the ruling party (71%), parliament 
(69%), the President (59%), Local Councils (72%), and other major institutions. Additional findings 
suggest that basic needs and services are the top priority for South Africans, and that government 
neglect of these issues may have implications for democracy. About two-thirds of South Africans (67%) 
say they would give up elections if the government could provide housing, security, and jobs. 
2 Mikhail Moosa and Jan Hofmeyr, “South Africans’ trust in institutions and representatives reaches new low” Afrobarometer 
Dispatch No. 474 (2021). 
CONTRACT No.: GS-10F-0033M / ORDER No. 7200AA18M00016
USAID.GOV PROMOTING CIVIC EDUCATION AND PARTICIPATION IN SOUTH AFRICA PROGRAM | 6 
Table 1. South African Views of Institutions and Representatives
INSTITUTION
VERY OR SOMEWHAT 
SATISFIED
VERY OR SOMEWHAT 
DISSATISFIED
Courts 43% 53%
President 38% 59%
Parliament 28% 69%
Ruling Party/ANC 27% 71%
Police 26% 73%
Opposition Parties 24% 72%
Local Council 24% 72%
Religious Leaders 42% 52%
Traditional Leaders 31% 41%
Electoral Commission 36% 57%
Source: Afrobarometer Round 8 survey (n=1,600) conducted in May-June 2020.
In the period before South Africa’s first democratic election in 1994, there were efforts to educate 
citizens on their rights. Despite this push, many South Africans still have limited understanding of their 
constitutional rights or government processes. The uneven knowledge of government functions at 
multiple levels, lack of comprehension of the importance of the electoral cycle, and perceived weak 
government responsiveness negatively impact the level of trust that citizens place in their political 
systems and processes, as well as their faith in their capacity to effect change. This is further highlighted 
in the failure of constitutionally mandated avenues for civic participation such as the Integrated 
Development Plans (IDPs), the main mechanism for citizen input in local policymaking. The IDPs are 
designed to allow citizens to participate at the local level but are inconsistently implemented due to lack 
of capacity on the part of citizens and local government entities. 
Civil society has been highly engaged in defensive and strategic litigation, health and welfare issues, and 
poverty and housing problems. They have been less focused on supporting civic education, which has 
not been prioritized nor financially supported by most donors. Municipal elections were held in 
November 2021 despite bids to delay the elections due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The elections 
resulted in significant loss of seats for the ANC (the party’s support declined by 8.3 percentage points to 
45.6% in 2021) and the formation of coalition governments in most urban municipalities around South 
Africa. Civil society’s ability to help citizens navigate this power shift and foster meaningful political 
engagement that does not rely on violence is crucial in motivating larger participation in all levels of the 
political process ahead of national elections in 2024. Indeed, the stakes are high, as some observations 
hint at a further loss of seats for the dominant ANC; the election in 2021 was the first time ANC 
CONTRACT No.: GS-10F-0033M / ORDER No. 7200AA18M00016
USAID.GOV PROMOTING CIVIC EDUCATION AND PARTICIPATION IN SOUTH AFRICA PROGRAM | 7 
support dropped below 50% since the end of apartheid in 1994.3 Public frustration over poor service 
delivery and unemployment drove citizen dissatisfaction with the ANC. However, the rise in public 
criticism was not matched by increased turnout at the ballot box. Despite widespread frustration, voting 
is on the decline in South Africa.4 
In 2017, USAID/Southern Africa selected Freedom House to implement the PCEP program in South 
Africa to build the capacity of civil society organizations and community-based organizations (CBOs) to 
conduct civic education activities and increase citizens’ knowledge of their rights and government 
functions under the constitution. To achieve these objectives, Freedom House provides technical 
assistance to selected CSOs and CBOs in civic education and advocacy campaign development; engaging 
citizens in the political process and facilitating touchpoints with their local and national representatives; 
and increasing the usage and quality of tools that citizens can use to hold the government accountable. 
The program also financially supported selected partners to conduct civic education training, public 
outreach campaigns, and government engagement in targeted communities. As noted above, PCEP 
provides funding to 10 local CSOs operating in six regions.5
PCEP’s high level theory of change is: IF existing CSOs and CBOs are better able to conduct civic 
education activities that increase citizens’ knowledge of their rights and understanding of government 
functions under the Constitution, as well as increase their active engagement with government 
throughout the election cycle, and IF they are able to collect, generate, monitor, and report on citizen 
priorities to elected leaders, THEN citizens will be better informed and subsequently more empowered 
to effectively hold government accountable leading into the 2019 national elections, and at the same 
time be seen as representing citizens’ interests and thus be more credible advocates for policy change.
PCEP was designed to support USAID/South Africa’s Country Development Coordination Strategy 
(CDCS) for 2013-2018, in particular Intermediate Result (IR) 2.1: “Democratic governance and 
accountability strengthened” under Development Objective (DO) 2: “South African resource 
effectiveness advanced in targeted sectors.” The program also supported sub-purpose 2 “Civil society’s 
engagement for inclusive human rights protection and participatory governance enhanced” of the 
Democracy, Human Rights, and Governance Project Approval Document (PAD). Related to these 
broader goals, the PCEP program is guided by a set of Key Objectives and Intended Results shown in 
Figure 1. 
3 Thami Magubane. “ANC Prospects Are Dim for 2024 Elections.” IOL News. March 9, 2023. Accessed at: 
https://www.iol.co.za/mercury/news/anc-prospects-are-dim-for-2024-elections-c5f442f2-7913-454d-a38f-e041e475a2db
4 Tim Cook and Kopano Gumbi. “South Africa’s Ramaphosa Eyes 2024 Election with Call to Revamp ANC.” Reuters online. 
Accessed at: https://www.reuters.com/world/africa/south-africas-anc-votes-party-top-brass-with-power-remove-presidents￾2022-12-20/
5 In December 2018, Freedom House discontinued working relationships with two project partners – Caritas in North West 
and Up Up Foundation in Mpumalanga – due to non-performance; and in 2021 they terminated the relationship with SILA 
Foundation due to non-performance.
CONTRACT No.: GS-10F-0033M / ORDER No. 7200AA18M00016
USAID.GOV PROMOTING CIVIC EDUCATION AND PARTICIPATION IN SOUTH AFRICA PROGRAM | 8 
Figure 1. PCEP Key Objectives and Intended Results
Key Objectives
1. Civil society’s abilities to conduct 
collaborative and effective civic 
education activities are strengthened;
2. Increase understanding of citizen rights 
and government functions, as established 
under the Constitution, and effective 
ways to hold elected leaders accountable 
in targeted communities;
3. Strengthen citizen participation with 
local and national levels of government 
in the context of the electoral cycle; and
4. Increase usage of tools that improve 
citizens’ ability to more effectively hold 
government officials, elected and non￾elected, accountable.
Key Intended Results 
1. CSOs and CBOs are effectively able to leverage citizen 
demand and galvanize their constituents to participate in 
the political process;
2. CSOs and CBOs more effectively coordinate and 
collaborate on designing civic education activities; 
3. Citizens demonstrate improved knowledge and awareness 
of their rights, the electoral system and of government 
representation; 
4. Citizens in targeted communities are more motivated to 
participate in the political process; 
5. Improved access to information on citizen rights and 
government functions in targeted communities; 
6. Citizens have increased exposure to accurate information 
on citizen rights and government functions and are able to 
hold elected leaders accountable in targeted communities; 
7. CSOs and CBOs better understand constituent priorities 
and are better able to organize engagement opportunities 
with elected on issues that matter to citizens; 
8. Citizens have improved access to elected and non-elected 
leaders to hold meaningful discussions on priorities ahead 
of elections; and 
9. Citizens have improved access to data that allows them to 
hold elected leaders accountable
3. EVALUATION METHODOLOGY
The evaluation employed a mixed-methods approach that included qualitative and quantitative strategies 
to examine the PCEP program’s effects and respond to the evaluation questions listed above. It is 
important to note that baseline data or a comparison group are not available for this performance 
evaluation, which means that we cannot identify the magnitude of program effects on key outcomes with 
precision. For this reason, our approach was designed to answer the evaluation questions and explore 
program effectiveness by triangulating between multiple data sources, including: 1) detailed information 
about program activities and perceived accomplishments obtained through in-depth interviews with 
implementing partners; 2) accounts of participant experiences and perceived changes in attitudes and 
behaviors among a random sample of participants through focus group discussions; and 3) assessments 
of the key project activities and their self-reported effects from a larger sample of participants included
in a telephone survey. Given the inherent limitations with the survey-based approach (discussed below), 
the evaluation team drew heavily on the qualitative data to tease apart the specific ways in which 
program activities produced changes related to the key objectives and intended results listed in Figure 1.
CONTRACT No.: GS-10F-0033M / ORDER No. 7200AA18M00016
USAID.GOV PROMOTING CIVIC EDUCATION AND PARTICIPATION IN SOUTH AFRICA PROGRAM | 9 
QUALITATIVE APPROACH
The qualitative component of the evaluation included a desk review and in-depth interviews (IDIs) with 
the PCEP implementing partner (Freedom House), the 10 partner CSOs, program participants, 
government officials, and USAID personnel. Qualitative research forms the core of NORC’s approach 
for the evaluation, providing concrete examples that illustrate the influences and results of the activities. 
While quantitative findings describe the scope and magnitude of attitudes, qualitative results explore the 
attitudinal sources of quantitative findings and provide context (or counter-examples) for unexpected 
quantitative results.
DESK REVIEW
The evaluation began with a desk review of available documents, including PCEP quarterly and annual 
reports, performance monitoring plans, and reports. The evaluation team used these materials to 
understand PCEP’s objectives and strategies and to learn about activities implemented as part of the 
project, related both to CSO capacity building and to civic education / community mobilization activities 
in the target areas. The evaluation team also used these materials to develop draft instruments for the 
in-depth interviews, focus group discussions, and the telephone survey.
IN-DEPTH INTERVIEWS (IDIS)
The evaluation team conducted 68 interviews with key PCEP program stakeholders, including CSO 
leaders, CSO volunteers, citizen beneficiaries, and government officials (see Table 2). Most interviews 
were conducted in-person by the three core members of the evaluation team during the main period of 
field work in South Africa from February 6-16, 2023. The team was able to meet with leaders from nine 
of the 10 PCEP CSOs, along with local stakeholders and participants, in their respective locations. The 
team conducted a smaller number of interviews, including with the tenth CSO and some USAID 
personnel, virtually. All interviews were completed by March 8, 2023.
Prior to the IDIs, the evaluation team identified categories of stakeholders and developed questions for 
each category. Respondents were offered anonymity so that they would speak more openly about their 
experience with PCEP. One member of the team took notes during each interview, typically lasting 60-
90 minutes. The team debriefed after each IDI to review key themes that emerged, whether there were 
any problems, and whether adjustments or follow-up conversations with respondents were necessary.
FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS (FGDS)
The team also conducted 13 FGDs with a total of 103 PCEP activity participants and volunteers, as 
shown in Table 2. NORC used a random sampling procedure to identify potential participants drawn 
from lists of activity participants provided by the 10 CSO partners through Freedom House (sampling
details are provided in Annex A). The FGDs were conducted by a local data collection partner, Infusion. 
The FGDs, which typically included eight respondents per session, lasted about 60-90 minutes on 
average. They were conducted by an experienced moderator in the appropriate local language and were 
recorded with respondents’ permission. Prior to fieldwork, the evaluation team conducted a facilitator 
training in Pretoria, South Africa in conjunction with Infusion.
CONTRACT No.: GS-10F-0033M / ORDER No. 7200AA18M00016
USAID.GOV PROMOTING CIVIC EDUCATION AND PARTICIPATION IN SOUTH AFRICA PROGRAM | 10
The local data collection partner conducted the FGDs in-person during February 6-15, 2023 in Gauteng, 
Kwa-Zulu Natal, Limpopo, North West, Mpumalanga, and Eastern Cape (see Annex A for additional 
details). Moderators used semi-structured questionnaires guides (Annex C). The questionnaires included 
main questions followed by probes to explore issues more deeply. Analysis of FGDs and IDIs included a 
summary of themes and outlier findings that emerged for each topic, highlighting the range of responses 
and experiences that are supported by respondent quotes. Results from qualitative fieldwork, 
implemented before the survey, were useful for developing the survey instrument. 
Table 2. Number of Interviews and Focus Groups Conducted
Stakeholder Category In-Depth Interviews
PCEP CSO Staff 33
PCEP Stakeholders (local partners, other CSOs/CBOs) 21
PCEP Volunteers 10
Local Government Officials 2 
USAID / Freedom House personnel 2 
Total 68
Stakeholder Category Focus Group Discussions 
PCEP Participants 9 
PCEP Volunteers 3 
PCEP Participants and volunteers mixed 1 
Total 13
QUANTITATIVE APPROACH
TELEPHONE SURVEY
NORC worked with a second local data collection partner, Ikapadata, to design and conduct a 
telephone survey to obtain views from a larger set of project participants, with a target of 600 
respondents (60 drawn from each CSO’s participant lists). The survey, intended to capture participants’ 
views and experiences with the program, included individuals who participated in PCEP town hall 
meetings, civic education trainings, study circles, and advocacy campaigns. The survey questionnaire was 
administered in six languages (plus English) to ensure that was accessible to all PCEP respondents.
NORC used a random sampling strategy to identify potential respondents, drawn from the participant 
lists obtained from PCEP CSO partners, stratified by CSO and activity type (details are provided in 
Annex A). To encourage participation, potential survey respondents received a text message informing 
them that they would be receiving a phone call from Ikapadata’s call agents. The response rate for the 
survey (13%) was substantially lower than anticipated, largely due to challenges reaching individuals from 
the participant lists: 60.1% of call attempts were not answered or went to voicemail and another 13.3% 
of numbers were invalid (Table A1 in Annex A). The non-response rate among contacted individuals was 
4%. Due to difficulty of reaching respondents, NORC extended the period of field work for an 
additional two weeks to reach the target sample size. After data cleaning, the final sample is 624 
CONTRACT No.: GS-10F-0033M / ORDER No. 7200AA18M00016
USAID.GOV PROMOTING CIVIC EDUCATION AND PARTICIPATION IN SOUTH AFRICA PROGRAM | 11
respondents, 607 of whom completed the full survey with another 17 partial completes used in the 
analysis. The margin of error is ±4% for estimates based on the full sample.
Table 3 shows the number of respondents in the final dataset by CSO. It is important to note that the 
field team was unable to reach the 60-person target for two CSOs – ILDA and MPT – despite repeated 
attempts to contact individuals from their participant lists over a five-week period. To compensate for 
these shortfalls, Ikapadata conducted additional interviews with respondents from other CSO lists to 
meet the overall target of 600 respondents.
Table 3. Telephone Survey Interviews by CSO
CSO INTERVIEWS % OF TOTAL
Alexandra Peace Ambassadors (APA) 60 9.6
Amadiba Crisis Committee (ACC) 65 10.4
Flagstaff Community Advice Centre (FCAC) 74 11.9
Interchurch Local Development Agency (ILDA) 38 6.1
Lifa Lesive Community Development Agency (LLCDA) 75 12.0
Londisizwe Youth Foundation (LYF) 65 10.4
Mariann Co-Ordinating Committee (MCC) 60 9.6
Marikana Peacebuilding Team (MPT) 35 5.6
Vumbanani For Peacebuilding (VFP) 75 12.0
Young Men Christian Association (MPCA) 77 12.3
Total 624 100.0
Figure 2 shows the share of respondents that reported participating in each of the four PCEP activity 
types. The sampling strategy achieved the desired mix of respondents with experience in the four 
activity types. Most respondents (71%) reported having only participated in one activity type, with 13% 
reporting two activity types, 5% reporting three, and 9% reporting having participated in all four types.
CONTRACT No.: GS-10F-0033M / ORDER No. 7200AA18M00016
USAID.GOV PROMOTING CIVIC EDUCATION AND PARTICIPATION IN SOUTH AFRICA PROGRAM | 12
Figure 2. Self-Reported Activities among Survey Respondents (n=624)
PCEP survey respondents are more engaged than the South African population overall. To 
get a sense of how the PCEP sample relates to the general adult population in South Africa, Table 4 
compares the sample to data from the Round 7 Afrobarometer survey conducted in 2018 using identical 
questions included in both surveys. We observe large differences in terms of political participation. 
Respondents in the PCEP sample are much more likely to report that they attended a community 
meeting in the last year than the overall population (93% vs. 56%), that they got together to raise an 
issue (83% vs. 51%), participated in a demonstration or protest (46% vs. 28%), and voted in the 2019 
election (76% vs. 56%). These differences may stem from participating in the PCEP activities, which are 
designed to increase engagement and create opportunities for participation – e.g., attending a 
community meeting, getting together to raise an issue, and participating in public advocacy campaigns. 
We suspect, however, that the differences relate as much or more to the selection of PCEP participants, 
which tend to be drawn from more engaged and interested citizens in target communities. Some 
support for this latter interpretation comes from the results for voting in 2019, which was not a core 
issue area among PCEP CSOs. Respondents in the PCEP survey sample also express more satisfaction 
with democracy than the overall population (49% vs. 32%). It is possible that participation in PCEP 
activities increased satisfaction, though in the Afrobarometer survey data we find that various measures 
of participation in politics are not related to satisfaction with democracy in a consistent way. 
Alternatively, this may be an artefact of the survey design: in the survey of PCEP participants, the 
question about democratic satisfaction came after a long battery of questions about activities sponsored 
by local PCEP CSOs to which most respondents provided overwhelmingly positive answers, perhaps 
priming them to view South African democracy in an overall more positive light.
CONTRACT No.: GS-10F-0033M / ORDER No. 7200AA18M00016
USAID.GOV PROMOTING CIVIC EDUCATION AND PARTICIPATION IN SOUTH AFRICA PROGRAM | 13
Table 4. Demographic Characteristics for PCEP and Afrobarometer 2018 
(sample means)
DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTIC PCEP Afrobarometer
Age 37.51 38.37
Female 0.63 0.50
Primary language spoken at home:
Xhosa 0.34 0.13
Swazi 0.22 0.02
Zulu 0.19 0.18
Afrikaans 0.00 0.15
English 0.08 0.24
Other language 0.17 0.29
Highest level of education:
No formal schooling 0.02 0.03
Some primary/Completed primary school 0.10 0.13
Intermediate school or some secondary/high school 0.25 0.23
Completed secondary/high school 0.40 0.34
Post-secondary and above 0.24 0.27
Household owns:
Radio 0.63 0.85
Television 0.81 0.92
Motor vehicle or motorcycle 0.26 0.49
Computer 0.32 0.49
Bank account 0.94 0.91
Mobile phone 1.00 0.96
In past year, family has always/many times gone without:
Enough food to eat 0.14 0.14
Enough clean water for home use 0.20 0.19
Medicines or medical treatment 0.08 0.12
Enough fuel to cook food 0.16 0.14
A cash income 0.38 0.23
Democracy:
Attended a community meeting (in past year) 0.93 0.56
Got together with others to raise an issue (in past year) 0.83 0.51
Participated in a demonstration or protest (in past year) 0.46 0.28
Voted in 2019 national election 0.76 0.56
Satisfied with how democracy works in South Africa 0.49 0.32
Observations 624 1,600
CONTRACT No.: GS-10F-0033M / ORDER No. 7200AA18M00016
USAID.GOV PROMOTING CIVIC EDUCATION AND PARTICIPATION IN SOUTH AFRICA PROGRAM | 14
On demographics, the PCEP survey sample is similar to the overall South African population on age and 
education, but PCEP survey respondents are disproportionately female (63%), perhaps because the 
project’s activities tend to have more appeal to women in the target areas. PCEP respondents are also 
poorer on average than the overall population, as measured by asset ownership: only 63% of PCEP 
household own a radio, 26% a motor vehicle or motorcycle, and 32% a computer – relative to 85%, 
49%, and 49% among the overall population.6 This is likely a reflection of the project’s focus on 
marginalized areas that tend to be poorer localities.
EVALUATION LIMITATIONS
Despite the multidimensional methodology of the evaluation, there are some limitations inherent to its 
design: 
• Lack of baseline data or a comparison group: A key limitation of this evaluation is that baseline 
data is not available and there is no comparison group. This means that for outcomes related to 
changes in CSO capacity, citizen knowledge, and citizen behavior, we cannot make comparisons to 
levels prior to the intervention or to similar groups and individuals that did not receive the program. 
As a result, we treat the evidence, particularly from the survey, as suggestive and rely primarily on 
the IDIs and FGD interviews to tease out changes that can be attributed to the program. 
• Sample bias: There are three ways in which the sampling strategy for the FGDs and telephone 
survey may have introduced bias. First, the activity lists obtained from the 10 partner CSOs were 
primarily from the most recent year of PCEP activity. This is likely beneficial, as recent participants 
will typically have less difficulty with recall. However, it also means that we do not capture the views 
of earlier participants (though some recent participants likely also participated in prior events). If the 
quality of events changed over the lifespan of the program, our results will not fully capture earlier 
experiences. Second, the samples may be biased toward more enthusiastic and engaged participants, 
since those individuals likely will be more willing to participate in focus groups and the survey. There 
is no easy solution to test whether this type of bias exists, nor is there a straightforward correction 
for it. However, we note that among survey respondents, we do not observe meaningful differences 
among those who participated in more/less activities, suggesting that this type of bias is likely not a 
major concern (see Annex A). Third, the samples may be biased toward better off participants, since 
individuals were recruited for both the FGDs and the telephone survey by phone, which by definition 
excluded those who did not have working phones – likely poorer participants – at the time of the 
fieldwork. Additional tests in Annex A (Table A3) show that better off respondents in the survey 
sample do report higher perceived gains in knowledge and participation, though the marginal 
differences are relatively small in substantive terms. Thus, to the extent that telephone and FGD 
samples over-represent better off individuals, the results likely overstate some perceived effects by a 
small margin.
• Social desirability bias: Consistent with NORC’s Institutional Review Board (IRB) requirements, 
the team disclosed the purpose of the evaluation and sponsor to participants. As a result, social 
desirability bias may have affected respondents’ answers. This type of response bias is defined as a 
6 It is also important to bear in mind that the survey sample is likely better off than the overall population of PCEP participants 
since interviews were only conducted with individuals who had working telephones at the time of the fieldwork.
CONTRACT No.: GS-10F-0033M / ORDER No. 7200AA18M00016
USAID.GOV PROMOTING CIVIC EDUCATION AND PARTICIPATION IN SOUTH AFRICA PROGRAM | 15
tendency to answer questions in a manner that will be viewed favorably by others. It leads to over￾reporting “positive” behavior and under-reporting undesirable or “negative” behavior. For example, 
survey and FGD respondents may over-report normatively positive attitudes related to knowledge 
and participation because they know that the PCEP project sought to encourage these outcomes 
and/or they want to be seen in a positive light by enumerators. Responses may also vary for those 
questions which required respondents to assess the attitudes and perceptions of their peers or 
people upon whom they depend for employment or the provision of services. To mitigate this bias, 
the evaluation team provided appropriate confidentiality assurances to all respondents through an 
informed consent process.
4. FINDINGS
This section presents the evaluation findings, organized around the four evaluation questions and sub￾questions. Overall, the PCEP program successfully achieved its objectives related to CSO capa city 
building and increasing citizen knowledge and participation, and in so doing, has begun to change the way 
that citizens and government relate in target areas. After participating in the PCEP program, it is 
apparent that partner organizations and many of their stakeholders are better equipped to conduct 
collaborative and effective civic education activities. Through these activities, many citizens have a better 
understanding of their rights and government functions. In spite of this and not for lack of PCEP effort, 
holding elected leaders accountable has proven to be a challenge in target communities. Nevertheless, 
citizens in these communities have been empowered to keep testing different strategies to hold leaders 
accountable. Partner CSOs are able to cite many examples of how citizens are increasingly engaging with 
local politics. Likewise, they are able to demonstrate how the various tools introduced by the PCEP 
have been used to effectively hold government officials accountable.
EVALUATION QUESTION 1
TO WHAT EXTENT DID THE PCEP PROGRAM ACHIEVE ITS OBJECTIVES?
Objective 1. Civil society’s abilities to conduct collaborative and effective civic education 
activities are strengthened.
By building CSO skills, the PCEP program achieved its goal of improving the capacity of 
partner CSOs to conduct civic education activities. For most of the partner CSOs, the activities 
introduced were completely new, and many of the groups had little or no prior experience with civic 
education or the specific tools. All CSOs, including those that had been in existence for many years, 
credit the PCEP with helping them develop their capacity to implement core activities and use the PCEP 
tools effectively. For example, leaders from a CSO in Limpopo noted that the group “would not have 
achieved anything” without the technical assistance and mentoring provided by Freedom House. CSO 
staff from a group in Mpumalanga reported that the trainings increased their ability to facilitate meetings 
and work with / lobby government leaders, noting that “the trainings helped a lot.” These respondents 
reported that the program gave them “tools to bring about change” effectively, indicating that in the past 
people in the areas had typically engaged in strikes and other less effective strategies.
CONTRACT No.: GS-10F-0033M / ORDER No. 7200AA18M00016
USAID.GOV PROMOTING CIVIC EDUCATION AND PARTICIPATION IN SOUTH AFRICA PROGRAM | 16
The influence of capacity-building was most dramatic for 
newer organizations that were fostered by the program. 
Most of the partner CSOs existed prior to PCEP, but 
others formalized directly with support provided through 
the PCEP program. For example, the CSO partner in 
Alexandra formally established itself as a non-profit 
organization with encouragement from Freedom House. 
Like many of the other groups, this CSO had no prior 
experience conducting civic education activities. The 
group’s leaders reported that, “Freedom House 
empowered us.” One leader noted that, “now we are 
good at mobilizing people.”
CSOs indicated that training, mentoring, and support increased organizational capacity to 
successfully implement civic education activities and work within their communities. CSO 
staff offered very positive assessments of the trainings provided by Freedom House, typically noting that 
all the trainings and workshops were beneficial. An important aspect of Freedom House’s training 
approach was that it was adaptive and flexible, adding additional training in response to the evolving 
needs and interests of the partner CSOs. Trainings covered a wide range of topics, including 
communications (using community radio, social media platforms, and websites); proposal writing and 
fundraising; report writing; project management; strategic planning; financial management; how to 
implement program activities; and how to work with government partners; among others.
For some CSOs, the technical assistance significantly impacted the ability to implement program 
activities. For example, the partner CSO in Alexandra reported that the trainings gave them confidence 
to “stand up” – both figuratively and literally. Staff gained the confidence to take on new and expanded 
roles as community leaders, organizing the community and interfacing with local government 
counterparts. They also learned that they could “stand in front of 400 people” during community 
workshops and town hall meetings. In the same vein, a leader from a CSO partner in Mpumalanga 
reported that she has grown tremendously as a leader and now has the confidence to stand “in front of 
50 people” to lead community activities, noting that she “couldn’t imagine” being able to do so at the 
start of the program. Others mentioned the transformative effects of the trainings on core staff. For 
example, one CSO leader in Durban observed that, “the biggest impact we’ve had is on the staff itself.” 
Another CSO leader in Mpumalanga reported that, “Freedom House made me who I am.” 
Some of the more established groups had significant organizational capacities prior to PCEP. 
Nonetheless, leaders from these CSOs noted that the technical assistance trainings provided important 
benefits. For example, the leader of a long-standing CSO partner in Mariannridge noted that the 
organization benefited from assistance in several areas, including how to use the civic education tools in 
their work, photography and website development, community mapping, and strategies for engaging 
community members.
The citizen response to activities organized by PCEP partner CSOs was often overwhelmingly positive, 
suggesting that program activities filled an important unmet need in the target areas. Specifically, CSOs 
reported that town hall meetings with local officials sometimes attracted hundreds of attendees. 
Without Freedom House we would 
not have achieved this…[We] learned 
tools for social change, for monitoring 
and evaluation of frontline services, 
how to hold people accountable, 
study circles, bill of rights, how 
government works. Teachings from 
Freedom House gave us power. As an 
organization, some things we tried do 
not work, but we learned how to do 
things. (CSO staff member, Limpopo)
CONTRACT No.: GS-10F-0033M / ORDER No. 7200AA18M00016
USAID.GOV PROMOTING CIVIC EDUCATION AND PARTICIPATION IN SOUTH AFRICA PROGRAM | 17
Participants in all four activity interventions rated them very positively (see below), reflecting the CSOs’ 
success in developing the capabilities needed to deliver effective programming in their areas. Partner 
organizations and some stakeholders – including a local councilor – noted that the PCEP partner 
organizations were often more successful in organizing community workshops than government and that 
councilors, municipal, provincial and even national officials sometimes relied on these organizations to 
create platforms for community engagement. 
CSOs reported that PCEP increased their collaboration with other local groups and government 
counterparts. The technical assistance trainings encouraged and supported partner CSOs in establishing 
working relationships with various community and interest groups, including some that had previously 
been difficult to work with. An example is the hostel dwellers in Alexandra, often perceived by 
community members to harbor criminals and so feared that the police are reluctant to enter the 
hostels. Other groups included community organizations and NGOs, local radio stations, councilors and 
government officials, and universities. These collaborations gave rise to new initiatives, such as anti￾crime patrols. Some of the stakeholders we interviewed said that they also learned how to network and 
collaborate better with different interest groups through their participation in PCEP activities. Partner 
CSOs also credit PCEP with making them aware of the need to work more closely with government, 
especially local government, and equipping them to do so effectively.
Partner CSOs have established themselves as 
trusted intermediaries and community 
representatives. CSOs have come to play a 
critical role as an interface between target 
communities and local leaders. For example, in 
Marikana CSO leaders noted that one of their key 
roles is to bridge the divide between citizens and 
government by arranging for local leaders to 
participate in public meetings. The group has 
convened meetings with the police to address 
tensions with the community and has brought in officials from the Electoral Commission of South Africa 
(IEC) and the municipal council to explain how local government works, creating new opportunities for 
interaction and citizen engagement. Likewise, CSO staff in Durban noted that PCEP “really changed” the 
CSO, which is now “getting connected to the community in new ways.”
Results from the telephone survey substantiate these experiences, indicating that the CSOs are some of 
the most trusted groups among respondents who participated in their activities. Asked the extent to 
which respondents trusted selected institutions, 92% expressed that they trust the local CSO partner
“somewhat” or “a lot” (Figure 3). By comparison, only 51% trust the local government council, with 
even lower trust ratings for other government leaders and institutions. These results reflect the CSOs’ 
ability to stand with citizens and advocate on behalf of their needs.7
7 The telephone survey asked about trust in the PCEP CSOs and various government leaders and institutions. The survey piped 
in the name of the relevant PCEP CSO in each respondent’s target area, e.g., Alexandra Peace Ambassadors for respondents in 
Alexandra. 
In most cases, you don’t hear about 
important issues due to the fact that the 
people that are responsible to take that 
information to the communities aren’t doing 
that. [The CSO leader] is filling that gap in 
the sense that her office takes this 
information to the communities and 
encourages people to have debates and 
discussions. (FGD participant, Eastern Cape)
CONTRACT No.: GS-10F-0033M / ORDER No. 7200AA18M00016
USAID.GOV PROMOTING CIVIC EDUCATION AND PARTICIPATION IN SOUTH AFRICA PROGRAM | 18
Figure 3. Trust in PCEP CSOs and Government Leaders/Institutions (n=624)
To summarize, PCEP contributed to the CSOs’ capacity to implement civic education and engagement 
activities, bolstered their ability to collaborate productively with other local groups and the government, 
and helped the CSOs establish themselves as trusted community advocates and intermediaries. These 
benefits were reported by staff from all 10 CSOs. As noted, the capacity increases were likely greater 
among the smaller and more recently-created groups, though established organizations also reported 
substantial gains in capacity and increased ability to collaborate, especially with local government officials. 
Likewise, regarding trust, the survey data show that all 10 CSOs enjoy high levels of trust from 
respondents who participated in their activities, ranging from 80% to 97%, suggesting that all groups 
have succeeded in establishing a strong connection to local community members in their respective 
areas.
Objective 2. Increase understanding of citizen rights and government functions, as 
established under the Constitution, and effective ways to hold elected leaders 
accountable in targeted communities.
This section describes overall program findings related to Objective 2; we discuss each of the specific 
tools separately under Evaluation Question 2 below. The implementing partner (Freedom House) and 
the 10 CSO sub-grant recipients successfully conducted a range of activities that led to increases in 
knowledge and awareness of rights, government functions, and how to hold elected leaders accountable. 
One partial exception is Intermediate Result (IR) 6: while citizens in the target areas do have increased 
exposure to information, they often face challenges in holding local leaders accountable. Also, for IR9, it 
CONTRACT No.: GS-10F-0033M / ORDER No. 7200AA18M00016
USAID.GOV PROMOTING CIVIC EDUCATION AND PARTICIPATION IN SOUTH AFRICA PROGRAM | 19
appears that citizens in some areas are still unable to access data, particularly related to the IDPs, that 
would allow them to hold elected leaders accountable.8
PCEP, on the whole, led to self-reported gains in knowledge and awareness of rights and 
strategies for engaging local leaders. Participants surveyed for this evaluation report positive 
changes due to PCEP and high levels of awareness on key issues. Asked about the program’s influence 
on a battery of questions related to knowledge and participation, substantial shares of respondents
report positive gains (Figure 4). Because social desirability bias may inflate self-reported changes, it is 
impossible to determine with precision the size of increases attributable to PCEP’s activities. Yet, the 
fact that large majorities of surveyed participants ranging from 68% to 90% across individual items in 
Figure 4 report positive effects suggests that the program likely did produce positive shifts in knowledge 
and behaviors. Looking across items, we observe a meaningful difference related to the participation 
questions, with a larger share of respondents reporting participation in local meetings (90%), being more 
likely to participate in peaceful marches (85%), and engaging with local leaders (81%) – relative to being 
more likely to contact local government leaders or authorities through letters or petitions (69%). 
Consistent with these findings, most survey respondents believe that the PCEP program somewhat or 
very much increased awareness of rights and responsibilities in their communities (88%), increased 
citizen participation in local affairs (89%), and increased local leader accountability (77%), as shown in 
Figure 5. 
Figure 4. Self-Reported Individual-level Changes in Knowledge and Participation
(n=624)
8 Two important caveats should be noted. First, as explained, because baseline data is not available, we cannot quantify changes 
in knowledge or participation over the program’s period of performance. Second, because the data on citizen-level effects are 
based on self-reported attitudes and behaviors from program participants, there is a risk that some effects may be overstated. 
Despite these limitations, the evaluation team is confident that PCEP produced positive changes within the target communities
with respect to knowledge and participation, in some cases leading to meaningful changes in relationships between citizens and 
leaders and/or substantive improvements in community problems.
CONTRACT No.: GS-10F-0033M / ORDER No. 7200AA18M00016
USAID.GOV PROMOTING CIVIC EDUCATION AND PARTICIPATION IN SOUTH AFRICA PROGRAM | 20
Figure 5. Assessments of Community-level Changes in Knowledge and 
Participation (n=624)
 
FGD participants also noted changes in awareness and knowledge, consistent with the survey results. 
A common theme across the FGDs was that participants learned about the process for making claims, 
expressing concerns, and accessing local government officials. An FGD participant in Alexandra
concluded:
“Now, we know when things are not supposed to happen a certain way, and we know directly 
where to go for matters. If a project is at court level, we know to follow up with the court. We 
no longer go to irrelevant places, like housing. We know that we should call JRA when pipes are 
blocked, and we make sure to follow up on that.” 
PCEP empowered citizens to advocate for their rights more assertively. FGD respondents 
indicated that the project did not merely increase knowledge; rather, it also helped to embolden citizens 
to speak out and advocate for their needs, producing durable shifts in mindsets and behaviors. An FGD 
respondent from Marikana shared that through PCEP activities, he/she became more vocal and 
developed new ways of thinking about citizenship: “Sometimes I plan not to say anything in the meetings,
but while there I realize that I have a lot to say, and my voice should be heard because it counts for 
something.” Another FGD participant from Durban reported becoming more assertive in relation to 
local service delivery problems: “I never used to call when there were no lights. I never used to call 
when there was no water. I generally used to say, ‘when it comes back, it comes back.’ But now, I know. 
I actually call. I know how to follow up.” 
Beneficiaries report that PCEP led citizens to employ constructive strategies for engaging 
local leaders rather than turning to violence. According to CSO leaders and citizen participants, 
PCEP activities encouraged citizens to adopt peaceful strategies for engaging local leaders, in place of 
strikes and other methods that were seen as less fruitful for solving service delivery problems. For 
example, a CSO leader in KwaZulu-Natal (KZN) said that, “we have moved from a community that 
responds to issues with violent protest to one that negotiates, knows who to call, looks at identifying 
the right people.” This point was conveyed also by FGD participants, including a volunteer in 
Mpumalanga, who observed that, “people know what to do, unlike before where people used to burn 
tires or destroy government infrastructure. Today, they just [mobilize] themselves and go to the right 
authorities or invite them to come to the community and hand over the memorandum.”
CONTRACT No.: GS-10F-0033M / ORDER No. 7200AA18M00016
USAID.GOV PROMOTING CIVIC EDUCATION AND PARTICIPATION IN SOUTH AFRICA PROGRAM | 21
Program participants in some areas still struggle to access data needed to hold leaders 
accountable. PCEP envisioned that as a result of greater awareness and engagement, citizens would 
have increased access to information about government functions, budgets, and policymaking that would 
allow for more meaningful citizen oversight and input (IR9). Regarding the IDPs, the main planning 
instrument for South African local governments, participants noted mixed success. In Marikana an FGD 
participant reported positive results: “We have managed to change the way the municipality handles the 
IDP. What they used to do is draw up a document which they will come and present on an appointed 
day and that’s it…We told them that the correct approach is to let the community come up with the 
IDP then the municipality looks at it and decides what they can start with based on the circumstances.” 
In other areas, however, efforts remain blocked. For example, an FGD respondent in Alexandra
observed that, “at the government, they hide information that empowers the community members 
because they want to stay in power.” In Limpopo an FGD participant noted that, “we couldn’t get 
feedback, because they [local leaders] switch off their phones, and don’t attend meetings.” Respondents 
in Limpopo described a failed effort to get local leaders to increase the budget for public lighting (known 
as Apollo lights) in the IDP, noting that the existing IDP included provision for just one new light and the 
local government was unresponsive to requests for lighting in other areas. One respondent observed 
that, “we also want the Apollo lights, but we are not going to get it.” 
The scope of PCEP activities was perceived as modest in some areas given the magnitude 
of the challenges communities face. In some locales, interviewees observed that the reach of the 
PCEP programs is limited. A CSO volunteer in Alexandra, a large urban area with more than a million 
inhabitants, noted that program activities are “like a drop in the ocean.” As an example, the participant 
mentioned that, “we go to the hostel [a marginalized and dangerous area] and train 10, 20, 60 people” 
out of the thousands who live there. Others reported that many people in their communities are still 
unaware of their rights. For example, a stakeholder in Marikana noted that the local CSO has a small 
base and that they need more mobilization and “a bigger scope” to be able to address the community’s 
needs. These comments suggest that there is a substantial unmet need for civic education programming 
in the target areas.
Objective 3. Strengthen citizen participation with local and national levels of government 
in the context of the electoral cycle.
PCEP participants reported increased participation, especially with local levels of 
government. As noted above, survey participants reported increased participation on a range of 
outcome measures, with larger self-reported effects on participation in community meetings, 
engagement with local leaders, and willingness to participate peaceful marches – relative to contacting 
local government leaders and authorities through letters or petitions (see Figure 4). As an example, 
an FGD participant in Marikana reported that, “when we come as a group, we are able change the 
perspective or agenda of the Municipality people…When we go to them in numbers, they would 
hear us.” 
Participants reported several examples of increased community engagement. In addition to 
increasing citizen engagement with local government, the program also helped to foster a network of 
community leaders who share information with other community members and contribute to 
community mobilization around local priorities. Several participants reported having become important 
resources within their communities. For example, an FGD participant in Alexandra explained, “I was 
CONTRACT No.: GS-10F-0033M / ORDER No. 7200AA18M00016
USAID.GOV PROMOTING CIVIC EDUCATION AND PARTICIPATION IN SOUTH AFRICA PROGRAM | 22
informed to the point where I could inform others…So 
after the meeting I would go back to my community and 
report back.” Others noted that the PCEP activities gave 
them a greater ability to communicate effectively within 
their communities. An FGD participant in Durban 
mentioned that, “Sometimes I’ll know something, but I’ll 
wonder how I can relate it to someone else…These 
meetings assist a lot so we can engage with people and be 
able to stand on a platform where there’ll be a crowd so 
you can communicate with them.” Some members or 
stakeholders who participated in PCEP activities have taken on new roles in local government, becoming 
Ward Committee representatives or serving on school governing bodies.
Participation with national levels of government in the context of the electoral cycle 
remains mixed. CSO staff reported that the primary focus of PCEP activities in target areas was local 
government, often with little connection to national government. Nonetheless, some interviewees 
believe that PCEP activities have increased participants’ desire to vote, including in national-level races. 
For example, CSO leaders in Transkei noted that they believe citizens in the target area are more 
enthusiastic about voting as a result of participating in the study circles and other PCEP activities. CSO 
staff in Mpumalanga also report that there seems to be greater interest in voting stemming from 
increased engagement between the community and local leaders: citizens are now more invested in 
what is happening in government and have more of a stake in following up on whether leaders fulfill the 
promises they have made. While these dynamics have greatest relevance at the local level, they could
increase voting in national elections too. Others, however, reported limited enthusiasm for national 
electoral politics. For example, CSO leaders in Durban reported that it has been hard to convince 
people in their target area that voting matters. The group has tried to link voting to representation, 
encouraging citizens to think of it as part of an ongoing process of political engagement that also includes 
being involved in the IDP process and working with local leaders to improve service delivery. Given the 
overall political environment in South Africa, it will be a challenge for CSOs to develop activities that 
counter voter apathy and disaffection, particularly among those who have become cynical and 
disengaged.
Objective 4. Increase usage of tools that improve citizens’ ability to more effectively hold 
government officials, elected and non-elected, accountable.
PCEP participants reported greater use of tools designed to increase accountability and 
provided myriad examples of improvements in local policymaking that resulted from local￾level mobilization. Political accountability in democracies entails voters delegating responsibility to 
government officials to act on their behalf and represent their interests, with elections providing an 
opportunity to reward or sanction elected leaders for their actions. Increases in accountability can occur 
if leaders take actions that better reflect citizens’ priorities and/or if the threat of electoral sanction 
motivates action by these actors. While measuring accountability is difficult, interviews with the CSOs 
suggest that improvements mainly came through increased engagement with local leaders through 
meetings, public events, and advocacy campaigns. As described in detail in response to EQ2 below, 
CSOs reported that PCEP support helped them articulate community demands to local officials, bring 
greater attention to local priorities, and work with officials to devise solutions. The various tools form a 
It helps us to go and teach others who 
didn't attend the meeting. How do 
you do if you come across with this 
challenge and or if you are already in 
this challenge? there is channel #1. 
There is channel #2. You can do this 
and do that so that you can get help.
(FGD participant, Limpopo)
CONTRACT No.: GS-10F-0033M / ORDER No. 7200AA18M00016
USAID.GOV PROMOTING CIVIC EDUCATION AND PARTICIPATION IN SOUTH AFRICA PROGRAM | 23
coherent, inter-connected model. Often it was the combination of small-group meetings, advocacy 
campaigns, and town hall gatherings that brought about greater understanding of community needs 
among local officials and increased responsiveness. CSOs also noted instances in which these tools failed 
to bring about changes due to the sometime difficult local governance context in which government 
officials – including elected leaders – proved unresponsive, as described at the end of this section. In 
part, this is likely due to fact that elected local-level leaders often face limited electoral pressures to 
perform since under-performing councilors in South Africa can be difficult to remove through elections.
The following section under EQ2 details the usage of tools designed to increases accountability, 
examining each of the four tools separately. To avoid repetition, we focus in this section on examples of 
successful efforts to realize service delivery improvements. It is important to note that this section does 
not provide an exhaustive list; rather, it offers illustrative examples of the positive changes that occurred 
in response to the PCEP activities implemented by the 10 CSOs.
Before turning to accounts provided by the CSOs, we present findings from the survey of PCEP 
participants. As show in Figure 6, participants reported more positive change attributable to PCEP in 
some areas than others, particularly social cohesion, schools, GBV, and access to health care. Smaller 
shares of respondents noted improvement in crime and public safety, water and sanitation, or
unemployment. As with other self-reported outcome measures, some caution should be exercised in 
relation to these results, since social desirability bias may lead respondents to overstate perceived gains. 
For example, CSOs did not consistently report major advances on social cohesion and xenophobia or 
on schools, both of which are rated highly by respondents in the survey data. However, as described 
below, CSOs did report positive effects in most areas, save for unemployment, which was outside the 
scope of the project in most areas.
Figure 6. Perceived Improvements in Communities due to PCEP (n=624)
CONTRACT No.: GS-10F-0033M / ORDER No. 7200AA18M00016
USAID.GOV PROMOTING CIVIC EDUCATION AND PARTICIPATION IN SOUTH AFRICA PROGRAM | 24
Service delivery. A CSO partner in Durban described positive results on water and sewage in one 
target area. CSO staff reported that a Councilor who attended a community event organized by the 
group promised to improve the local sewage system and has delivered. The connections made with local 
officials also proved useful for dealing with subsequent water shortages. CSO leaders in Mpumalanga 
worked with the local community and government administration to address problems with the local 
health clinic. A key issue was that people from the target area had to travel to the clinic, at a 
considerable distance, and then faced long wait times. As a result of the group’s activities, which 
included a community indaba in June 2022, the clinic created a new system for making appointments, 
reducing wait times, and created a mobile clinic that now provides services in the target area. CSO staff 
in Marikana also reported a partial success regarding the local health clinic. After mobilizing the 
community to meet with relevant officials, the group succeeded in getting the clinic staff to use local 
languages when meeting with patients, a key priority given the diversity of the community. One 
interviewee noted that as a result of this change, “people can [now] be treated as humans.” However, 
calls for the clinic to remain open 24 hours have so far not been successful.
Public security. CSO staff from Marikana provided a compelling example related to public security. 
Following the “Marikana massacre” in which 34 striking miners were killed by the South African Police 
Service (SAPS) in 2012, relations between the community and the police were so tense that the SAPS 
could not enter many areas. The CSO held a series of meetings with citizens and police representatives 
to discuss the tensions. As a result, the SAPS is now able to enter the area when crimes are reported, 
contributing to public safety. In other locales, such as Mpumalanga, the PCEP program helped enhance 
police presence in the target area. 
Gender-based violence. Several CSOs reported positive results on gender-based violence (GBV). For 
example, the local partner in Durban reported that it has conducted activities to raise awareness about 
GBV and rights, including children’s rights. The CSO joined with other groups and government 
counterparts to address the issue. Efforts to create a new center for GBV survivors at a local hospital 
are proceeding, and CSO staff reported that the network of actors, including municipal officials, are 
working together well. 
Environment / land use. In Transkei, the PCEP partner CSO has achieved a number of major 
victories despite considerable challenges. The local partner is an established community group with a 
long track-record of mobilizing the community to protect the land and ensure that traditional cultural
and spiritual practices are protected. With support from PCEP, the partner developed new strategies 
for addressing local problems, including advocacy campaigns designed to increase awareness that citizens 
have a right to say no to external development projects – e.g., road construction and mining – that do 
not serve community interests. While the group was well established prior to PCEP, volunteers 
reported that the program added new strategies to their repertoire and provided new tools. As an 
example, the group has begun to work more closely with government leaders at all levels, including the 
national government, to increase awareness of local concerns and advocate for community needs. The 
group has been able to increase understanding among key leaders of why the community has prioritized 
feeder roads and opposed the construction of a new road near the coastline that would bypass many 
settlement areas. In another example, CSO staff in Mpumalanga noted that an advocacy campaign 
brought greater attention to environmental issues, particularly rubbish. The group worked with the local 
CONTRACT No.: GS-10F-0033M / ORDER No. 7200AA18M00016
USAID.GOV PROMOTING CIVIC EDUCATION AND PARTICIPATION IN SOUTH AFRICA PROGRAM | 25
administration, which subsequently agreed to provide rubbish bins. As a result of these activities, the 
rubbish problem has improved. 
Despite the success in deepening engagement with local leaders and addressing 
community problems, the relationship with government, and especially local government, 
remains fraught. Many interviewees expressed negative views of the performance of their local 
councilors. Interviewees repeatedly highlighted the challenges of dealing with government leaders, 
including local councilors who view community initiatives and organizations as competition or a threat, 
fearing they might be exposed as ineffective or be held accountable and the SAPS viewing rights activists 
as troublemakers. This has in some cases led to an antagonistic relationship between communities and 
local leaders / officials. In some instances, leaders have simply stopped responding to requests to meet 
or provide assistance. One stakeholder interviewed in Marikana reported that, “at times the officials tell 
you to stop meddling.” Similarly, an FGD respondent in Mpumalanga reported that, “When you go to a 
community meeting, counsellors are not happy once they see you're there…because of the questions 
that you're going to ask…They feel pressured most of the time. And you're going to ask direct 
questions, so they're afraid.”
CONCLUSIONS
Overall, the PCEP program had beneficial effects on participating CSOs’ ability to conduct civic 
education activities and engage local communities and leaders in the target areas. The activities 
produced positive gains in knowledge and participation, as measured survey assessments with a large 
sample of participants and more detailed accounts from interviews with focus group participants. While 
challenges remain in reshaping accountability relationships between citizens and leaders in the target 
areas, many tangible improvements across various sectors were reported. 
EVALUATION QUESTION 2
WHAT APPROACHES AND TOOLS APPLIED BY PCEP (SUCH AS COMMUNITY INDABAS/TOWN HALLS) 
WERE MOST EFFECTIVE AND SUSTAINABLE (WITH EXPLANATION OF WHY, WHERE, WITH WHICH 
GROUPS—WOMEN, YOUTH, MARGINALIZED GROUPS, ETC. —AND AT WHAT SCALE)? WHICH WERE 
THE LEAST SUSTAINABLE?
In this section, we consider in more depth PCEP tools in terms of their influence on outcomes and 
sustainability. The evaluation finds that PCEP tools – town halls, civic education trainings, advocacy 
campaign, and study circles – were effective along a number of dimensions, including: introducing and 
expanding citizen knowledge of rights and responsibilities; promoting learning around democratic tools 
of community engagement and political processes; and providing forums for the articulation of demands. 
The discussion that follows considers each, in turn. 
STUDY CIRCLES
PCPE study circles promote learning and discussion at the micro-community level. Study circles are 
typically comprised of approximately eight to 12 individuals who meet up to 12 times to discuss various 
issues including, but not limited to: 
CONTRACT No.: GS-10F-0033M / ORDER No. 7200AA18M00016
USAID.GOV PROMOTING CIVIC EDUCATION AND PARTICIPATION IN SOUTH AFRICA PROGRAM | 26
South Africa Constitution Working for Change
Bill of Rights Dealing with Conflict
Service Delivery Building Public Relationships
Building a Good Community Storytelling and Listening
In addition to promoting awareness around political processes and civic engagement, the study circles 
provide an opportunity for PCEP program partners to engage with community members, promote peer￾to-peer learning, and generate interest in civic education issues and activities. The circles are informal 
sessions to which a government official or leader may be invited. On average, 12 meetings are convened 
around the eight study topics above, though participants may also choose topics to study in greater 
depth. The sessions are guided by modules that may be facilitated by PCEP program staff or community 
members using a training of trainers approach. According to PCEP project leadership, the study circle 
discussions inform topics for the PCEP civic education literacy trainings and advocacy campaigns.
Study circles bring transformative change in 
knowledge and participation, by catalyzing 
participant interest. Although each of the PCEP 
activities interact with one another, and by design are 
not mutually exclusive, the study circles are described 
by many interviewees as a significant “change agent.” Sessions stimulate citizen interest and awareness
around rights. PCEP program CSO partners and stakeholders valued study circles for building and 
expanding citizen awareness around rights and responsibilities that are enshrined in the South African 
Constitution. Many PCEP program partners said study circle participants expressed surprise when made 
aware of constitutional rights to which they are entitled.
“After people did the study circles, they were surprised they even had rights. ‘South Africa belongs 
to everyone’, is in the preamble of the Constitution. Many didn’t even know they belonged. Going 
through the preamble and constitution, they now know.” (CSO staff member, North West)
These viewpoints are reflected in the PCEP evaluation survey findings, which asked study circle 
participants which topics they found most useful for 
enhancing participation in their communities. As 
shown in Figure 7, The Bill of Rights was among the 
most frequently cited topic (36%) among survey 
respondents, with another significant share (20%) 
citing the South African Constitution. Respondents 
also highlighted the importance of other key PCEP 
topics, particularly those related to community 
building (35%), service delivery (35%), building 
relationships (26%), and dealing with conflict (20%).
People learn they are supposed to be 
community activists, rather than political 
activists. (CSO staff member, Eastern Cape)
They opened people’s eyes on how to 
communicate. They [study circle facilitators] 
already try to deal with GBV, because they 
deal with men and the perpetrators are 
usually men. We also try from our side to 
speak to the women on how to escape GBV 
and what signs they should look out for 
when GBV starts so that they can exit 
immediately. (FGD participant, Alexandra) 
CONTRACT No.: GS-10F-0033M / ORDER No. 7200AA18M00016
USAID.GOV PROMOTING CIVIC EDUCATION AND PARTICIPATION IN SOUTH AFRICA PROGRAM | 27
Figure 7. Views of Which Study Circle Topic Contributed Most to Enhancing
Participation (n=624)
Study circles created interest among youth. PCEP partners and stakeholders further appreciated 
the study circles for stimulating interest in community development among youth. In one PCEP locale, 
stakeholders credited the study circles with increasing youth desire to participate in anti-dumping 
campaigns, cleaning schools, and monitoring local sewage systems. For example, after floods in the 
North West province, youth conducted a mapping of areas in need of assistance. In Alexandra, focus 
group participants praised the circles for expanding knowledge of GBV for women, boys and girls, and 
what to do when they encounter violence. 
Moreover, the informal structure of the study circles introduces a variety of participants to issues 
related to democratic governance in an accessible manner. Anyone can facilitate a circle discussion using 
the guide, which does not require expertise, according to PCEP leadership staff. For youth, in particular, 
the circles are useful for those who may want to engage in community organizing or advance 
development in the community. “With the circles, people get democratic tools,” explained a CSO staff 
member in Flagstaff. A CSO in KZN reported that after youth attended study circle sessions there, they 
wanted to seek jobs so they could contribute to productive and more prosperous communities, perhaps 
evidence that the circles “created ownership of space and responsibility,” in the words of the CSO staff 
member.
Study circles may be more sustainable than other PCEP program activities, as evidenced 
by the ease of group expansion and the informal management of groups. Evaluation fieldwork 
suggests that while there are components of each PCEP program activity that are sustainable, the study 
circles are most likely to endure. The study circle implementation is fairly flexible, as they can be 
moderated by experts or by study circle members themselves. Importantly, study circles can be easily 
replicated without significant material support or funding. Respondents provided examples of study 
circle participants initiating expansion of groups to non-PCEP communities and managing the circles 
effectively. They facilitated the sessions independently and identified issues for follow-up. This also points 
to the ability of circles to expand in a way that is inclusive of other communities. 
CONTRACT No.: GS-10F-0033M / ORDER No. 7200AA18M00016
USAID.GOV PROMOTING CIVIC EDUCATION AND PARTICIPATION IN SOUTH AFRICA PROGRAM | 28
Sustainability of study circles may also be enabled by the existing activities of some of the PCEP CSOs. 
The YMCA, for instance, has a local action group (LAG), a program component of the YMCA that is 
separate from the PCEP. Staff explained that when the PCEP comes to an end, the study circle concept 
could be absorbed into the LAGs. Moreover, communication may be facilitated and even enhanced by 
social media tools and technology such as WhatsApp. A YMCA staff member in KZN noted that,
“WhatsApp is incredibly important for connectivity, information-sharing and mentoring.” A similar 
dynamic was noted in Alexandra, where PCEP beneficiaries use WhatsApp for information and 
mobilization. 
“We’ve got WhatsApp groups to alert in terms of crime. We’ve got a WhatsApp group in terms of 
community services. If we’re going to conduct a training workshop or we’re going to conduct a 
community Indaba, we have got a WhatsApp group where we have even followers to inform them 
about what is happening in Alex.” (FGD participant, Alexandria)
PCEP CSO program partners that are larger and/or have more of a national scope may be better 
positioned to expand the study circles beyond current target areas. The YMCA, in particular, operates 
on a national level and has presence in four provinces in South Africa. 
Nonetheless, there are some challenges related to expanding the study circles. Although study circles 
are transformative and can be conducted without a great deal of funding, development of new material is 
a challenge, and the circles tend to be limited to those who are better educated. While increasing youth 
interest in finding jobs is a positive outcome, it also means that younger facilitators and participants may 
not be available to train future study circle facilitators. 
CIVIC EDUCATION LITERACY TRAININGS
PCEP civic education trainings provided deepened instruction on citizens’ rights, roles and 
responsibilities, and the political process. Study circle discussion outcomes in some cases provide ideas 
for the trainings, which may be attended by special guests who provide information to participants on 
how governing institutions and agencies work. Study circles provided the “what”, while PCEP trainings 
provided the “how.”
Civic education trainings advance learning around peaceful democratic tools and skills of 
engagement and can enhance effective participation that can lead to improved 
government response. Stakeholders praised the civic education trainings for providing critical 
information on the tools available for peaceful engagement in political processes (letters, petitions, 
peaceful marches, meetings, voting, etc.), how to use those tools, and with which local government 
actors to engage as points of entry. These skills enabled more effective participation overall for PCEP 
communities, many of which previously lacked knowledge regarding how to approach local government 
agencies and authorities. Increased engagement led to tangible positive outcomes that improved 
community-government relations, as well as socio-economic conditions in communities, as illustrated in 
the discussion under EQI, Objective 4 above. 
For example, in Mpumalanga, civic education trainings by PCEP program CSOs provided critical detailed 
information to community participants regarding where and to whom they should turn if they have a 
security concern or incident to report, and the process for doing so. Community members faced poor 
CONTRACT No.: GS-10F-0033M / ORDER No. 7200AA18M00016
USAID.GOV PROMOTING CIVIC EDUCATION AND PARTICIPATION IN SOUTH AFRICA PROGRAM | 29
safety and security conditions, in part, due to limited presence of the SAPS. Frustrated with the rise in 
theft and violence crime, community members prior to PCEP program trainings, launched protests that 
became violent. PCEP instruction on peaceful methods of engagement saw adaption in the community’s 
approach in engagement, and subsequently, a positive response from the SAPS. 
Similar to study circles, the civic education trainings’ learning curve on rights and political 
processes is dramatic. Perhaps one of the more significant contributions of the civic education 
trainings lies with the activity’s exponential effects. Partners across the project described participants 
beginning the activity with little or no knowledge of their rights, or of the roles and responsibilities of 
citizens and officials. However, after participation in the trainings, learning increased significantly and 
substantively. In Mpumalanga, stakeholders and CSO staff noticed that community members became 
aware of peaceful forms of engagement that were previously unknown, after the program began and 
held civic education trainings for community members. Instruction and guidance on how to peacefully 
mobilize and express concerns to engage local officials, such as councilors and wardsmen, expanded 
knowledge around issue identification and political processes. According to Freedom House and PCEP 
CSO staff in Mpumalanga, relations between community members of the SAPS improved, as did crime 
levels in the view of community member interviewed during data collection. These points were echoed 
by another PCEP program CSO in Limpopo: 
“People know who to turn to, what to do, and how to identify and be informed about priorities. 
People know how the municipality works. We know how to write letters and to which 
department to send it to. Since VP [Vumbanani Peacebuilding], officials now come because they 
know VP.” (Stakeholder respondent, Limpopo)
Additionally, the trainings build esteem 
and efficacy to influence others. Participants 
said the trainings gave them confidence to speak 
on political and social issues, which bolstered 
their self-esteem.
Over the long term, though, the trainings, while 
effective, may be challenging to continue after the 
project ends due to costs, such as those related 
to transportation for participants. Identifying 
funding and means as well as support for potential 
revision of training materials may be required. 
TOWN HALLS / INDABAS
The town halls, or indabas, are a PCEP-supported 
forum for community and government dialogue on issues of importance to community members. They 
provide opportunities for citizens to engage with leaders and to hold them accountable by requesting 
information and updates on policy and action-items or requesting services.
Indabas are often the first experience of government-citizen interaction. In some cases, the 
indabas were the first time PCEP program community members ever met a government official – and 
I am able to speak, and your self-esteem as a 
person, it grows as a result of the attendance. 
You gain more knowledge of your 
constitutional rights. It [gives you capacity to 
deal] with certain things pertaining to human 
rights. For example, if this scenario happens to 
your community, how would I deal with it? It 
then makes it easier for me to invite people 
and explain people about civic education and
say , for example, what is the Bill of Rights and 
constitutional rights. It [gives capacity] to the 
point where you are knowledgeable. (FGD 
participant, North West)
CONTRACT No.: GS-10F-0033M / ORDER No. 7200AA18M00016
USAID.GOV PROMOTING CIVIC EDUCATION AND PARTICIPATION IN SOUTH AFRICA PROGRAM | 30
the first time government officials (wardsman and councilors) met with large segments of communities. 
One councilor mentioned that he never engaged with citizens, and the PCEP indaba was the first time he 
did so. In instances where indabas resulted in information-sharing or response to citizens demand, the 
meetings are a testament for citizens of the potential of participation in political processes.
Indabas are a useful forum for information-sharing and collective action. In Limpopo, where 
immigrants from Mozambique, Zimbabwe and Malawi reside, a PCEP CSO conducted trainings on 
xenophobia to raise awareness on labor migration, challenges migrants face, and address misinformation 
that migrants were responsible for a spate of vandalism and thefts in the community. Attacks resulted in 
the deaths of five migrants. PCEP-supported meetings, attended by chiefs, councilors and community 
members, provided accurate information about the migrant community including, their lack of food, 
shelter, and other basic needs. The meetings, according to a stakeholder, prevented disintegration and 
violence, moving the community instead towards cohesion. The meetings also brought attention to the 
needs of youth in the community who were allegedly the culprits responsible for thefts due to lack of 
jobs and drug consumption. Concerns expressed in indaba meetings led to advocacy campaigns targeted 
toward youth around the dangers of drug use. 
Figure 8. Perceived Benefits from the Indabas (n=624) 
(% agree or strongly agree)
Survey results in Figure 8 highlight the perceived benefits of indabas among program participants, 
including providing opportunities for communities to work together to solve issues (93%). The meetings
also gave communities a chance to express concerns (90%), approach leaders to follow-up on issues 
(89%), and learn about party manifestos, though a smaller percentage find them useful for this purpose 
(81%). As with other survey-based results, we caution that social desirability bias may lead respondents 
to overstate these effects; nonetheless, the overwhelmingly positive assessments in the data suggest that 
participants found these events to be quite beneficial. For government officials and authorities, the 
indabas are an opportunity to forge or deepen relationships with communities. 
CONTRACT No.: GS-10F-0033M / ORDER No. 7200AA18M00016
USAID.GOV PROMOTING CIVIC EDUCATION AND PARTICIPATION IN SOUTH AFRICA PROGRAM | 31
Yet, as alluded to above in EQ1, government accountability could be uneven. CSOs credited councilors 
who were responsive, attended meetings, and addressed citizen concerns. Some CSOs, however, 
pointed to local councilors not showing for meetings and/or being uncomfortable receiving community 
complaints or demands in a public setting. Although this may be suggestive of how power is allocated 
between communities and local government, it may also speak to leaders’ lack of familiarity and 
experience with actually meeting and engaging citizens, which could be an area of opportunity for future 
programming. 
These findings have implications for the sustainability of indabas, which may not be a comfortable forum 
for government officials. Smaller forums may be more suitable, or more preparatory work and training 
may be required for government officials and authorities.
ADVOCACY CAMPAIGNS
The PCEP program links citizens’ rights and advocacy through campaigns that garner support for 
community demands, interests, or ideas among key local actors, such as government officials, local 
authorities, and faith-based leaders. PCEP program activities may include holding rallies, peaceful 
marches, petitions, contacting or meeting with public officials or authorities, and lobbying these actors. 
PCEP advocacy campaigns are linked to citizen rights, and may address a wide array of issues, such as 
GBV, water and sanitation, access to health, schools and education, and public safety. The campaigns, 
whose focus is drawn from study circle discussions and other input, are designed by PCEP partners in 
collaboration with community members. 
Advocacy campaigns translate knowledge into action. Evaluation results find that advocacy 
campaigns complemented, and in many cases, augmented study circle outcomes. For example, advocacy 
campaigns launched in Mpumalanga to address sanitation and trash collection included awareness-raising 
activities for the community on the importance of trash collection and keeping communities clean. Local 
officials responded to the campaign by providing the community with trash bins, reducing littering in 
public streets.
Campaigns result in improved relations between communities and local authorities.
Stakeholders reported that the community campaigns facilitated better relationships with local 
authorities. The EQI, Objective 4 discussion referred to improved security outcomes attributed to the 
PCEP program. For example, in Mpumalanga the CSO launched a campaign that included a peaceful 
march on public safety, which led to greater police presence, increased investigations and ultimately 
enhanced SAPS visibility. The campaign led to one or more officers being positioned at the local tribal 
office, which is closer to the community than the more distant police station. It is now easier for citizens 
to file cases and follow up on them, which is seen as having reduced crime. One CSO member conveyed 
that, “now, they [police] go to the tribal offices to take cases.” A volunteer asserted that, “if you take a 
problem to the police, the people are now more likely to have some results.” Similarly, in North West 
advocacy campaigns led to more collaborative relations between the community and SAPS. The 
campaigns, with support of the PCEP CSO, have created a reservoir of trust that brings new 
opportunities for listening and dialogue with SAPS, according to staff members. 
Although the advocacy campaigns achieved goals related to citizen mobilization, they 
require a great deal of work in order to be sustainable. Moreover, without monitoring activities, 
CONTRACT No.: GS-10F-0033M / ORDER No. 7200AA18M00016
USAID.GOV PROMOTING CIVIC EDUCATION AND PARTICIPATION IN SOUTH AFRICA PROGRAM | 32
they may be difficult organize. That said, advocacy campaigns are the closest to the type of work CSOs 
were already involved in prior to the PCEP program effort. For example, continuation of campaigns 
around GBV and human rights may enable CSOs to do this kind of work better. 
Survey results show widespread beneficiary willingness to participate in political processes 
after the program. A look at respondent perceptions (Figure 9) suggests that after the PCEP project 
ends, there will be considerable enthusiasm for actively participating in advocacy campaigns, as well as 
other activities supported by the PCEP program. Between 86% and 97% of surveyed participants say 
they are inclined to participated in future town hall meetings, campaigns organized by their communities, 
vote, peacefully engage local leaders, and work to develop their communities.
Figure 9. Assessments of Future Participation (n=624)
CONCLUSIONS
On the whole, the PCEP program tools – study circles, civic education trainings, indabas, and advocacy 
campaigns – are effective in expanding citizen participation and work well under challenging 
circumstances. Beneficiaries and CSO partners report success with enhancing democratic and civic 
awareness, increasing willingness to participate in peaceful political processes, and cultivating 
appreciation for collective action to solve problems. 
The study circles, civic literacy trainings, and advocacy campaigns each contributed to closing the gap 
between citizens and government by creating spaces and opportunities for dialogue and information￾sharing. In this sense, the program also enhances social cohesion and creates social capital by building 
networks, trust, and cooperation. 
The more exponential effects of the study circles may make them more sustainable. They require little 
expense, small numbers of participants (making mobilization fairly easy), and can be facilitated by almost 
anyone who has received previous training. On the other hand, the study groups lend themselves to 
population segments that are better educated. 
CONTRACT No.: GS-10F-0033M / ORDER No. 7200AA18M00016
USAID.GOV PROMOTING CIVIC EDUCATION AND PARTICIPATION IN SOUTH AFRICA PROGRAM | 33
EVALUATION QUESTION 3
WHAT ARE SOME GAPS OR MISSED OPPORTUNITIES IN IMPLEMENTATION?
From data collection and the above findings, we identify several opportunities for implementation. 
First, there seemed less program support for developing deeper relationships with national 
government. The PCEP program focused on local government relationships, which the evaluation 
team acknowledges is essential. However, some activities and trainings could emphasize national 
government relationships, which may provide more opportunities for PCEP CSOs to build cooperative 
alliances that could create alternative avenues of engagement and thus facilitate greater responsiveness. 
For example, CSOs could establish relations with national-level health, education, and sanitation 
authorities, sharing concerns and information that could trickle down to local level authorities. 
Second, the PCEP program did not, by design, emphasize training for local officials on 
their roles and responsibilities vis-à-vis civil society, which could increase leader 
accountability to communities and improve leader understanding of the role of CSOs. As 
noted, some PCEP partners reported that their activity was the first time local officials really engaged 
with communities on a mass level. More work among officials could prepare leaders for effective 
engagement with both communities and CSOs. 
Third, the project could dedicate activity towards navigating risks for CSOs in the 2024 
election climate, particularly in volatile areas such as KZN. KZN and Gauteng were hit hardest 
by election unrest in 2021, and these provinces were also two of the ANC’s worst performing areas. 
Finally, CSOs mentioned a need to reach more remote marginalized populations, such as 
migrant communities and those who are illiterate. Those who have less education may find it 
challenging to participate fully in study circles, for example. Thus, study circles need to be broadened so 
these population segments can participate and moderate discussions. 
CONCLUSIONS
The PCEP program faces formidable challenges in its operational environment. Holding leaders 
accountable was difficult in some communities. Local leaders and authorities sometimes resisted 
community attempts to encourage responsiveness and acquire information from officials and authorities. 
In some cases, this was due to perceived competition by CSOs. In other cases, the large forum of the 
indabas was awkward for leaders. 
Identifying implementation gaps, PCEP stakeholders pointed to the need for training for local leaders on 
their roles and responsibilities to enhance responsiveness and accountability, as well as their ability to 
engage citizens in large forums, like the indabas. CSO and stakeholders acknowledge that this may be a 
long-term process, but one that is necessary. 
Also, the PCEP project activities could extend more to those who are less educated, migrants, and 
those in remote communities. 
CONTRACT No.: GS-10F-0033M / ORDER No. 7200AA18M00016
USAID.GOV PROMOTING CIVIC EDUCATION AND PARTICIPATION IN SOUTH AFRICA PROGRAM | 34
Finally, with 2024 elections on the horizon, programming to help CSOs navigate potential tensions 
between leaders and CSOs could be useful and an opportunity to enhance relationships of trust 
between CSOs and local leaders. 
EVALUATION QUESTION 4
WHAT ARE LESSONS LEARNED?
PCEP-supported CSO coaching, mentoring, and capacity building for engaging with local 
government enabled CSO efforts to increase civic participation in project areas. The suite of 
capacity building tools also provided knowledge and skills that raised confidence of CSO personnel to 
address local officials. CSO ability to design and conduct trainings and implement advocacy campaigns
contributed to the success of CSO civic participation activities in communities. Importantly, the design 
of the tools – study circles, civic literacy training, advocacy campaigns and indabas, which were 
structured to interact with one another – resulted in activities that were mutually supportive. This 
coherence and linkage among PCEP tools advanced CSO efforts to enhance citizen 
awareness and civic activity in communities, because each activity informed and built upon the 
others. 
Interviews and FGDs indicate that some communities were able to develop relationships with local 
government, while others struggled to do so. The evaluation team notes that where PCEP 
CSO-local government relations improved, local officials were more likely to continue 
community engagement. CSOs are a lynch-pin actor that mediates between government and 
community and are important for creating relationships built on trust and familiarity. PCEP-supported 
CSOs bridged communities and local officials by facilitating awareness of citizen rights and 
responsibilities and translating that knowledge into concrete action and engagement with 
local officials through the four activities. 
The context of local government in the PCEP program communities influenced project 
activities. A key PCEP objective is to strengthen citizen participation with local and national levels of 
government. While some of the project CSO partners gave examples of how they started engaging with 
provincial and national government, most of the PCEP program focus of engagement was, by necessity, 
on local government as the sphere of government closest to citizens and tasked with the provision of 
most basic services.
However, local government bodies in South Africa face significant challenges in delivering basic services 
to communities. Many municipalities struggle with issues such as inadequate infrastructure, insufficient 
resources, poor management, and corruption. As a result, there have been widespread protests and 
demonstrations by residents demanding better service delivery. According to the Auditor General 
Report, only 16% of the 257 municipalities received a clean audit for the 2020-21 financial year, and by 
February 2022, over 30 municipalities were deemed completely dysfunctional and under provincial 
administration.9 As noted in the Auditor General report, “Low levels of trust and public frustration at 
the lack of service delivery and financial mismanagement are high. The frustration finds expression in a 
9 Auditor General South Africa. 2022. Consolidated general report on local government audit outcomes: MFMA 2020-21. 
Government Printers, Pretoria. 
CONTRACT No.: GS-10F-0033M / ORDER No. 7200AA18M00016
USAID.GOV PROMOTING CIVIC EDUCATION AND PARTICIPATION IN SOUTH AFRICA PROGRAM | 35
number of ways, from service delivery protests to citizens opting out of public services in favor of 
providing their own services or using private services. Citizens have also resorted to litigating against 
municipalities for failure to deliver services. Businesses are moving out of municipal areas with poor 
service delivery, resulting in increased unemployment and a loss of municipal revenue in those areas.”
Related to the circumstances above, PCEP partners and stakeholders expressed concern 
over local government responsiveness, especially local councilors, although councilors who 
served their communities well were also credited with being helpful. Challenges building 
relationships with councilors was a common theme, with PCEP CSO partners and stakeholders 
describing councilors as sometimes uncooperative, absent, or unreliable. This could be due to councilor 
uncertainty of their roles and, importantly, how to relate to communities and how receive and interpret 
citizen demands. One councilor interviewed by the evaluation team even stated that he learned of his 
role through his participation in PCEP activities.10 Even though local officials in South Africa 
receive training on their roles and responsibilities, there may be a gap between training 
and actual implementation of training principles on the ground. 
Moreover, there may be a disparity in power between councilors and the communities 
they serve as a consequence of the prevalence of the ruling party and party politics. There is 
a tension between accountability to political parties versus accountability to constituent voters. 
Councilors, dependent on their parties for nominations during elections, have to manage the two. 
Efforts to promote accountable governance in communities should, therefore, take care to ensure that 
program efforts work towards empowerment of citizens to enable them to exercise influence in a way 
that would increase the cost of underperformance for councilors – during elections – but also using a 
wide range of advocacy tools between elections. 
The involvement of PCEP CSOs proved critical to the achievement of program outcomes 
and effectiveness of interventions. Sustainability for some activities may depend partly on 
the stewardship of CSOs given the cost and effort required to maintain activities, such as 
the indabas, advocacy campaigns, and civic literacy trainings. The study circles seem most 
sustainable, owed to their informal structure. The small groups are easy to expand and maintain, as long 
as there is a facilitator, who may or may not be an expert. 
10 The evaluation team notes that there are many South African government initiatives designed to improve the performance of 
municipalities and councilors. These include the Municipal Infrastructure Support Agent (MISA) program, the District 
Development Model (DDM), performance agreements that councilors must sign, and Municipal Public Accounts Committees 
that hold councilors accountable for their role in financial management. Most importantly, councilors in South Africa receive 
training to prepare them for their roles and responsibilities. The Municipal Systems Act requires that all newly elected 
councilors undergo training within the first three months of taking office. The training covers a range of topics, including the 
legal and policy framework for local government, municipal finance, and the roles and responsibilities of councilors. The 
Department of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs (COGTA) is responsible for providing training to councilors, 
and it works with provincial and municipal governments to deliver training programs. The training is designed to help councilors 
understand their roles and responsibilities, develop the skills needed to perform their duties effectively, and promote good 
governance practices. In addition to the mandatory training, councilors may also attend additional training programs throughout 
their term of office. These programs may be organized by COGTA, political parties, civil society organizations, or other 
entities.
CONTRACT No.: GS-10F-0033M / ORDER No. 7200AA18M00016
USAID.GOV PROMOTING CIVIC EDUCATION AND PARTICIPATION IN SOUTH AFRICA PROGRAM | 36
In other learning from the evaluation, PCEP CSOs believe the program could conduct 
more focused targeting of citizen beneficiaries in more remote areas, migrant 
communities and youth, including the school-aged. CSOs said they would like to reach those in 
more isolated areas who face poor service delivery, as well as migrants, whose inclusion in PCEP 
programming would contribute to improved community cohesion, and ease communal tensions. There 
was also mention that migrants lack services as well, cut off from access to basic services. To reach 
these populations, expanding the program to smaller, less established CSOs within PCEP target 
communities may be fruitful avenues for growth, as might expansion to more isolated 
areas. Larger, more established CSOs could provide mentorship and coaching. This would 
create a network of groups with activities dedicated to civic participation. 
The current method of providing awards to subgrantees worked well, and the financial 
capacity trainings were helpful, as they could be provided flexibly as needed. The method, 
therefore, could be replicated in future programs. 
CONCLUSIONS
In summary, party politics and the context of governance in South Africa, in part, shaped CSO-local 
government collaboration around core issues, which influenced PCEP outcomes in some communities. 
Successful collaboration resulted in government responsiveness and thus positive CSO-government 
relations and improved perceptions of trust in government among community members. 
The presence of CSOs at the moment seems critical for collaboration. CSOs play a vital intermediary 
role between government and communities, and they are therefore essential for maintaining that 
relationship, at least for the time being. 
Nevertheless, the PCEP program has laid the ground for fruitful civic participation and dissemination of 
knowledge of rights, peaceful democratic tools of engagement with local officials, and collective action.
Migrant communities, youth, and illiterate populations are those that should be targeted for future PCEP 
participation, according to CSOs interviewed. 
PCEP CSO successes are attributed, in part, to the capacity building trainings provided by the PCEP 
program. From trainings on advocacy campaign and civic literacy session design, to financial capacity 
assistance, CSOs found the instruction improved knowledge and skillsets in ways that ultimately helped 
them increase citizen participation in PCEP project communities. 
CONTRACT No.: GS-10F-0033M / ORDER No. 7200AA18M00016
USAID.GOV PROMOTING CIVIC EDUCATION AND PARTICIPATION IN SOUTH AFRICA PROGRAM | 37
5. RECOMMENDATIONS
WHAT ARE THE MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE PROGRAMMING?
DID THE APPROACH OF WORKING THROUGH SUBGRANTS TO COMMUNITY-BASED CSOS 
CONTRIBUTE TO PCEP’S EFFECTIVENESS IN ACHIEVING ITS OBJECTIVES? WHY OR WHY NOT? SHOULD 
OTHER APPROACHES BE CONSIDERED?
1. The approach of working through subgrants to community-based CSOs worked well and 
should be continued. All of the PCEP CSOs reported little or no difficulty receiving grants and using 
the required mechanisms to implement activities, after an initial period of learning. Freedom House’s 
flexible approach enabled fairly easy receipt and distribution of funds. Freedom House should continue 
its method of providing subgrants to CSOs, with the provision of financial training that could be made 
available either upon request or regularly for smaller CSOs that are newer and may have less 
experience with program implementation. Several CSOs reported that learning to work with the 
required budgeting and reporting processes strengthened their internal capacity and helped to position 
them to be able to seek funds from other donor agencies. Periodic trainings conducted by Freedom 
House were especially useful. This constitutes an important capacity-building achievement and will help 
to ensure the future sustainability of the project if and when USAID support comes to an end. The 
evaluation team does not recommend alternative approaches for any future projects that build on 
PCEP’s accomplishments.
WHAT ARE THE OPPORTUNITIES FOR A FUTURE PROGRAM TO BUILD ON THE ACHIEVEMENTS IN THE 
SAME TARGET COMMUNITIES IN WAYS THAT ARE SUSTAINABLE?
2. CSO capacity-building workshops and trainings could be expanded for current PCEP 
CSOs in the target communities. The evaluation found that training activities were highly effective 
in helping the CSOs develop the managerial skills and technical capacities to implement a range of civic 
education and participation activities. For existing CSOs, it will be valuable to continue to support the 
growth of fundraising abilities that will be critical for sustaining local activities if and when USAID funding 
ends. CSOs noted mixed experience with initial fundraising efforts and some groups will likely need 
additional input on identifying potential donors and writing grants. As existing CSOs shift their 
programmatic focus to voter engagement in the up-coming 2024 election, they will likely also need 
support to develop appropriate strategies for voter mobilization in their target communities. The 
evaluation team noted considerable disillusionment among citizens in the target area related to electoral 
politics. Developing messages and activities to counter such cynicism and despair should be a priority 
between now and the 2024 election. USAID should support knowledge sharing across the 
CSOs and may want to engage subject-matter experts who can provide assistance to 
them. 
3. Capacity-building workshops and trainings could be expanded for other CSOs in the 
target communities. Given the success of the capacity-building model implemented by Freedom 
House, USAID could leverage the materials and expertise to develop training opportunities for other 
CSOs in the target communities. This would expand PCEP’s reach and help to foster a denser web of 
high-capacity CSOs able to collaborate to address community needs and encourage citizen participation. 
Expansion could also include smaller, less established CSOs either within PCEP target communities or 
CONTRACT No.: GS-10F-0033M / ORDER No. 7200AA18M00016
USAID.GOV PROMOTING CIVIC EDUCATION AND PARTICIPATION IN SOUTH AFRICA PROGRAM | 38
communities that are in close proximity. USAID could solicit input from the current CSOs on topics 
that might have broader interest and could ask them to help conduct trainings for other groups.
4. Future programs could support the expansion of all four project activities within the 
target communities. The evaluation found that all of the PCEP intervention tools – study circles, civic 
literacy training workshops, town hall meetings, and advocacy campaigns – were useful components of 
the PCEP program. These activities are highly related and form a coherent model, working in 
conjunction with each other. For this reason, future programming should consider funding all of the 
activities at once. At the same time, some activities could likely be expanded more easily and at lower 
cost. In particular, the experience under PCEP shows that study circles expanded easily and organically 
to non-PCEP communities and can be facilitated at low cost. Moreover, given the transformational effect 
of the study circles, they should be a priority for future programming. Civic literacy training workshops 
were viewed as highly effective. The downside, however, is that in some areas these workshops are 
costly since CSOs typically provide small monetary contributions to participants to cover travel costs. 
The experience with town halls was more mixed. In several instances, local officials avoided these public 
forums, though the activity nevertheless facilitated collective action in communities around issues 
deemed critical for community development. With additional training or awareness activities for local 
officials, and more training for CSOs and communities on building relationships with officials, the town 
halls may be valuable to strengthening citizen-government ties, and therefore, greater accountability and 
citizen trust in governing institutions. Advocacy campaigns served to both raise awareness and increase 
government responsiveness to citizen needs in some areas and may be another activity to prioritize in 
future programming.
5. For the current phase of PCEP activities leading up to the 2024 election, CSOs should 
prioritize extending their reach beyond the “hard core” of existing participants from prior 
events. The survey data shows that PCEP participants are substantially more engaged in local and 
national politics than the overall South African public. For example, 76% of PCEP survey respondents 
reported having voted in the 2019 election, relative to 56% among the general population based on data 
from the Afrobarometer. Given this, PCEP CSOs should avoid “preaching to the choir” as they 
implement activities related to voter education and participation in the lead-up to the 2024 election. 
CSOs should re-double efforts to reach marginalized and disaffected citizens (including illiterate 
populations and youth), among whom election-related programming might have a greater effect. 
WHAT, IF ANY, INTERVENTIONS FROM PCEP COULD BE REPLICATED AND SCALED UP BEYOND THE 
TARGET COMMUNITIES?
6. For the PCEP program to have tangible impact at the national or provincial level in 
South Africa, scaling up is essential. The CSOs can be used to expand programming. As mentioned, 
some larger CSOs already have a national presence and have programs in other provinces. Such CSOs 
can incorporate PCEP activities into their programming to bring activities to the national level. The 
YMCA, for instance, in well-positioned to do this. 
The study circles should also be scaled-up by creating a cadre of leaders and through continued 
generation of awareness and knowledge among citizens. As mentioned earlier, it may also be possible to 
inculcate some of the ideas in the circles in schools or through extracurricular school activities. By doing 
so, youth are exposed to democratic ideas and tools at an earlier age. However, the circles should be 
CONTRACT No.: GS-10F-0033M / ORDER No. 7200AA18M00016
USAID.GOV PROMOTING CIVIC EDUCATION AND PARTICIPATION IN SOUTH AFRICA PROGRAM | 39
broadened to include those who are not as well educated and who may reside in remote or isolated 
communities. Migrant communities, for example, would be a likely target group for expansion. 
Still, some of the PCEP program interventions will be difficult to continue without funding; continued 
support is needed. Continued training on fundraising might be valuable, as well as joining or linking CSOs 
with national CSO coalitions or networks that may be better resourced or have access to resources. 
The program should harness to the best of its ability social media and information communication 
technology (ICT) tools to scale up and promote sustainability. CSOs reported the value of WhatsApp 
and Facebook for monitoring, knowledge dissemination, and information sharing. 
7. Programming in the near-term should prepare CSOs for the risks around the upcoming 
2024 elections. In some PCEP program areas, CSOs expressed concern about rising political tensions 
as the 2024 elections approach. While elections may provide opportunities for increased community￾local government engagement given leaders’ desire to garner votes, electoral contests may also see 
attempts to subdue criticism and citizen demand that may favor opposing parties. 
8. For the project overall, the evaluation team notes that where PCEP CSO-local 
government relations improved, officials are more likely to continue community 
engagement. Overall, however, the presence of CSOs is key for sustainable activity, at least in the 
short-term and mid-term. CSOs are a lynch-pin actor mediating between government and community, 
and for creating a relationship built on trust and familiarity. USAID should continue to support partner 
CSOs for the medium term and prioritize their fundraising capacities for longer-term influence. 
9. USAID should explore opportunities to develop and disseminate resources and tools for 
non-participating CSOs. Freedom House has developed considerable expertise and valuable tools 
for building the capacity of CSOs working on civic education and participation in South Africa. USAID 
should work with Freedom House to explore potential strategies for creating resources that could be 
shared with other groups. This might include manuals for CSOs interested in learning how to conduct 
study circles, advocacy campaigns, town hall meetings, and civic literacy training workshops. Freedom 
House should work to identify possible online locations to store electronic versions of these materials, 
so that they can be widely accessed by other groups.
10. USAID should consider making provision for impact evaluation methods for future 
civic education / participation programs. While the evidence collected for this evaluation 
consistently indicates that PCEP met its core objectives related to CSO capacity building and citizen 
knowledge and engagement, it is difficult to fully “tell the story” of these successes because it is not 
possible to quantify changes attributable to the project without baseline data and/or a control group. 
While some components of the current program, particularly CSO capacity building, may not be well 
suited for impact evaluation approaches, particularly those that introduce randomization into the project 
implementation, other components, particularly those focused on citizen outcomes, may be amenable. 
The quantitative findings that impact evaluations generate can serve as a powerful evidence base for 
demonstrating program effects and would complement the findings obtained through IDIs and focus 
group discussions. Moreover, given that rigorous scholarship on civic education around the world has 
CONTRACT No.: GS-10F-0033M / ORDER No. 7200AA18M00016
USAID.GOV PROMOTING CIVIC EDUCATION AND PARTICIPATION IN SOUTH AFRICA PROGRAM | 40
found mixed evidence that major interventions work,11 USAID could make a valuable contribution to 
general knowledge that would benefit the agency’s broader portfolio of civic education programming and 
have relevance to other donors and implementing partners. To do so, USAID would need to integrate 
evaluation planning at the start of subsequent programs, since impact evaluations require baseline data 
and/or implementation plans that include randomization to generate treatment and control groups.
11 Dunnng, Thad, et al., eds. Information, Accountability, and Cumulative Learning: Lessons from Metaketa I. Cambridge University 
Press, 2019. 
CONTRACT No.: GS-10F-0033M / ORDER No. 7200AA18M00016
USAID.GOV PROMOTING CIVIC EDUCATION AND PARTICIPATION IN SOUTH AFRICA PROGRAM | 41
ANNEX A. DATA COLLECTION DETAILS FOR THE FOCUS 
GROUPS AND TELEPHONE SURVEY
FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS
NORC conducted 13 focus groups in the six Provinces where PCEP local partners are based. We used 
a random sampling procedure to recruit participants, based on lists of individuals who participated in the 
four types of PCEP activities implemented by the 10 CSO partners: study circles, civic education training 
workshops, advocacy campaigns, and town hall meetings (indabas). The final interview guide can be 
found in Annex B.
Participant lists. To select potential respondents, we started by collecting participant lists from the 
CSOs, which were required to record names of participants at all major events and periodically convey 
these lists to Freedom House. We contacted each of the 10 PCEP partner organizations and Freedom 
House in December 2022. In total, we obtained 335 lists from these partners. Of these, 177 contained 
the required information to be usable for sampling (participant names, phone numbers, and activity 
type). We then catalogued the lists in the spreadsheet that recorded whether each list contained the 
required information, activity type, and the number of names on the list. 
Table A1 shows the number of usable lists (and participants) by activity type. In total, the usable lists 
contained 8,497 names. It is important to beat in mind that a substantial share of the names are likely 
repeat individuals, since community members often participate in multiple activities organized by each 
CSO. The largest share of names came from civic education trainings (44.2%) and advocacy campaigns 
(30.2%), with smaller shares from town hall meetings (15.4%) and study circles (10.2%). Table A2 shows 
the number and type of usable lists by CSO. The number of usable lists obtained from each CSOs varied 
considerably, from a low of 6 to a high of 44. We note also that most lists came from the most recent 
year of activity, though there is variation in the date range for the lists provided by different partners.
Table A1. Participants by Activity
Activity type No. of activity lists No. of participants
% of total
participants
Civic ed trainings 79 3,757 44.2%
Advocacy campaigns 47 2,568 30.2%
Town Halls 14 1,308 15.4%
Study circles 37 864 10.2%
TOTAL 177 8,497 100%
Notes: This table shows the number of useable activity lists obtained from each CSO partner. To be usable, lists 
needed to include information on activity type and phone numbers.
Sampling and recruitment. Our sampling strategy was designed to produce a random sample of 
potential focus group respondents from the usable lists, stratifying by partner organization and activity 
type. Because the number of lists of names from each CSO differed, we chose not to use a simple 
CONTRACT No.: GS-10F-0033M / ORDER No. 7200AA18M00016
USAID.GOV PROMOTING CIVIC EDUCATION AND PARTICIPATION IN SOUTH AFRICA PROGRAM | 42
random sample approach since this would yield a larger number of potential respondents from CSOs 
that happened to provide more lists. We opted instead to select an equal number of potential 
respondents (8 primary respondents and 8 alternates) from each CSO’s lists to ensure an equal 
representation of participants from each CSO’s activities. We allocated the sample proportionally across 
activity types for each CSO. Thus, for example, if 50% of the names from a CSO came from civic 
education training workshops, we chose 50% of the names (and alternates) from those lists. For one 
partner (ACC), we faced the challenge that none of the provided lists indicated activity types. Thus, for 
this group, we simply chose a random sample without stratifying by activity. 
During the pilot test in Johannesburg, the local data collection partner (Infusion) found that many of the 
chosen individuals could not be reached because phone numbers had changed or were no longer active. 
We therefore randomly selected another 16 potential respondents for each CSO, bringing the total to 
32 per CSO. Even with this larger sample, Infusion still found it difficult to recruit the target of 8 
respondents per CSO. Thus, Infusion adopted a snowball sampling procedure whereby they asked 
respondents who were successfully recruited from the initial random sample to suggest friends or other 
acquaintances who might be willing to participate. While the final sample of participants is not a perfect 
random selection, these strategies assured the inclusions of a wide set of participants.
Table A2. Activities by CSO
CSO
No. of 
activity 
lists Date range
Civic ed 
trainings
Advocacy 
campaigns
Town 
Halls
Study 
circles TOTAL
ACC - - - - - - - 
APA 9 10/21 - 12/22 2 1 0 6 9 
FCAC 6 4/22 - 11/22 5 0 0 1 6 
ILDA 9 6/20 - 9/22 6 1 0 2 9 
LLCDA 26 8/18 - 11/22 20 2 2 2 26
LYF 14 3/20 - 9/22 10 2 2 0 14
MCC 44 3/19 - 9/22 15 14 6 9 44
MPT 8 5/21 - 10/22 3 2 1 2 8 
VFP 32 2017 - 8/22 9 13 2 8 32
YMCA 29 3/21 - 12/22 9 12 1 8 30
TOTAL 177 79 47 14 37 177
Notes: This table shows the number of useable activity lists obtained from each CSO partner. To be 
usable, lists needed to include information on activity type and phone numbers. 
Pilot test & data collection. NORC personnel participated in a pilot focus group discussion 
organized by Infusion on February 7 in Johannesburg with participants from activities conducted by 
Alexandra Peace Ambassadors (APA). We then made final changes to the interview guide and launched 
the main period of data collection. The full list of focus groups conducted, including the pilot, is shown in 
Table A3. During the pilot test, Infusion found that volunteers had distinct experiences relative to other 
participants. For this reason, we conducted three subsequent focus groups with volunteers only. For 
CONTRACT No.: GS-10F-0033M / ORDER No. 7200AA18M00016
USAID.GOV PROMOTING CIVIC EDUCATION AND PARTICIPATION IN SOUTH AFRICA PROGRAM | 43
logistical reasons, we combined respondents from two CSOs in the same location. In total 103 
individuals participated in the focus group discussions, including the pilot.
Table A3: List of Focus groups by Organization and Area
Group Province Date Beneficiaries Volunteers Total
APA Gauteng 07-Feb x x 9 
MPT North West. Marikana 17-Feb x 8 
MPT North West. Marikana 17-Feb x 8 
ILDA Port Elizabeth / 
Uitenhage 17-Feb
x 8 
ILDA Port Elizabeth / 
Uitenhage 17-Feb x 8 
LLCDA / LYF Mpumalanga 16-Feb x 8 
LLCDA / LYF Mpumalanga 16-Feb x 8 
VFP Limpopo / Elim 18-Feb x 8 
VFP Limpopo / Elim 18-Feb x 8 
ACC / FCAC Transkei 16-Feb x 8 
ACC / FCAC Transkei 16-Feb x 8 
MCC / YMCA KwaZulu-Natal 15-Feb x 6 
MCC / YMCA KwaZulu-Natal 15-Feb x 8 
TELEPHONE SURVEY
NORC engaged a local data collection partner, Ikapadata, to conduct a survey of PCEP participants. 
After initial discussions about survey mode (email vs. phone), we chose to conduct the survey by phone 
only, due to concerns about connectivity in rural areas and among poorer respondents. The survey 
questionnaire, contained in Appendix Annex D, included a broad set of questions on the perceived 
effects on attitudes and behaviors, using separate modules for respondents who participated in each 
activity type. The instrument was translated into six languages used during interviews (in addition to 
English): Tswana, Xhosa, Zulu, Swati, Tsonga, and Venda.
Sampling. We used an identical sample selection strategy as for the focus groups, with a target of 600 
respondents evenly split across CSOs and stratified by activity type based on the participant lists 
provided by each CSO. To implement this plan, Ikapadata generated a random ordering in Stata of the 
names on each CSO’s lists, with the first 60 names as the primary target and subsequent names as 
alternates. 
Pilot. Ikapadata conducted a pilot test during March 14-17. Subsequently, minor changes were made to 
the survey instrument to clarify ambiguous questions and improve survey flow. 
CONTRACT No.: GS-10F-0033M / ORDER No. 7200AA18M00016
USAID.GOV PROMOTING CIVIC EDUCATION AND PARTICIPATION IN SOUTH AFRICA PROGRAM | 44
Fieldwork. Interviews were conducted between March 17 and April 21, 2023, yielding a total sample of 
624 respondents, including 17 partial interviews that are included in the analysis. As shown in Table A4, 
Ikapadata’s call agents made a total of 5,922 call attempts, with an overall success rate of 13% and refusal 
rate of 4%. Slightly more than 60% of call attempts went to voicemail or had no response, another 13% 
were invalid numbers, and 3% were wrong numbers. In one instance, the call agent couldn’t speak the 
respondent’s language. 6.4% requested to be called back at a later time. Of the 778 successful calls, 102 
individuals indicated that they did not know the CSO and were deemed ineligible to proceed with the 
survey. Another 8 respondents indicating they did not participate in any PCEP activities organized by 
their CSO. This meant a total of 668 beneficiaries were eligible after completing the screening questions. 
Of these, 642 (96.1%) consented to doing the interview. After final data cleaning, the resultant sample is 
624 respondents, with 607 completing the entire interview and another 17 partial completes. 
Sample bias. As noted in the discussion of methodological limitations, the telephone sample may be 
biased toward more participatory individuals since these people may be more willing to participate in a 
phone survey. To the extent that more participatory individuals may have benefited more from the 
PCEP program, this bias could inflate self-reported estimates of program effects on knowledge and 
participation. To explore this possibility, Table A5 tests for differences on the main outcome variables 
related to these concepts, disaggregating the survey sample into low participators (those who report 
having taken part in one activity type) and high participators (two or more). We observe limited 
differences between these groups, suggesting that if the sample disproportionately draws from the 
higher end of the participation continuum, there is not likely to be much of an effect. We also 
speculated that the telephone sample might disproportionately include wealthier participants because 
individuals could only respond if they had a working telephone during the time of the field work. To test 
for possible effects due to wealth within the sample, we disaggregate the sample using an asset index, a 
common strategy for measuring wealth, based on ownership of several household items - a computer, 
bicycle, car, radio, mobile phone, and bank account. As reported in Table A6, we observe that wealthier 
respondents systematically report higher knowledge and participation gains, indicating that the overall 
assessments of PCEP effects could be biased upward due to the over-representation of wealthier 
individuals from the participant lists, though the substantive magnitude is likely small. 
CONTRACT No.: GS-10F-0033M / ORDER No. 7200AA18M00016
USAID.GOV PROMOTING CIVIC EDUCATION AND PARTICIPATION IN SOUTH AFRICA PROGRAM | 45
Table A4. Call Status
Call status Number % of total
Successful 778 13.1
No response / voicemail 3,568 60.3
Wrong number 174 2.9
Refused to participate 234 4.0
Asked to be called back later 379 6.4
Call agent doesn’t speak the language 1 0.02
Invalid number 788 13.3
Total 5,922 100.0
CONTRACT No.: GS-10F-0033M / ORDER No. 7200AA18M00016
USAID.GOV PROMOTING CIVIC EDUCATION AND PARTICIPATION IN SOUTH AFRICA PROGRAM | 46
Table A5. Self-Reported Knowledge and Participation by Number of Activity 
Types
Viewpoint 
(1)
Activity 
types=1
(n=395)
(2)
Activity 
types=2 or 
more
(n=147)
Difference
(2-1)
I am more knowledgeable about the Constitution of 
my country
0.69 0.70 0.10
I know how to contact local government leaders or 
authorities if I have a problem
0.82 0.76 -0.06
I understand how to hold local government leaders 
and authorities accountable
0.73 0.80 0.06
I participate more in local meetings in my 
community 
0.88 0.94 0.06
I engage with my local government leaders more to 
make them aware of issues that are important to 
me or my community
0.80 0.86 0.05
I am more likely to participate in peaceful marches 
to express my views or interests
0.84 0.94 0.10**
I am more likely to contact local government 
leaders or authorities through letter or petitions
0.71 0.75 0.04
Notes: Differences are based on two-sided t-tests. Each variable is a dummy that takes a value of 1 for 
respondents who indicated that the statement describes them somewhat or a lot, and 0 otherwise. 
Column 1 reports variable means for respondents who reported participating in 1 PCEP activity type
(the mode); Column 2 reports means for individuals who participate in 2 or more activity types. *p<.05; 
**p<.01
CONTRACT No.: GS-10F-0033M / ORDER No. 7200AA18M00016
USAID.GOV PROMOTING CIVIC EDUCATION AND PARTICIPATION IN SOUTH AFRICA PROGRAM | 47
Table A6. Self-Reported Knowledge and Participation by Number of Activity 
Types (Wealthier Respondents)
Viewpoint
(1)
Asset index 
below median
(n=208)
(2)
Asset index = 
median and 
above
(n=370)
Difference
(2-1)
I am more knowledgeable about the Constitution of 
my country
0.55 0.77 0.22**
I know how to contact local government leaders or 
authorities if I have a problem
0.69 0.86 0.17**
I understand how to hold local government leaders 
and authorities accountable
0.65 0.80 0.15**
I participate more in local meetings in my 
community 
0.86 0.92 0.05*
I engage with my local government leaders more to 
make them aware of issues that are important to 
me or my community
0.72 0.85 0.13**
I am more likely to participate in peaceful marches 
to express my views or interests
0.83 0.85 0.02
I am more likely to contact local government 
leaders or authorities through letter or petitions
0.59 0.73 0.15**
Notes: Differences are based on two-sided t-tests. Each variable is a dummy that takes a value of 1 for 
respondents who indicated that the statement describes them somewhat or a lot, and 0 otherwise. 
Column 1 reports variable means for respondents below the median on wealth measured by an asset 
index; Column 2 reports means for individuals at or above the median. *p<.05; **p<.01
CONTRACT No.: GS-10F-0033M / ORDER No. 7200AA18M00016
USAID.GOV PROMOTING CIVIC EDUCATION AND PARTICIPATION IN SOUTH AFRICA PROGRAM | 48
ANNEX B. FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION GUIDE
SECTION 1. WARM UP
First, I want to learn about your community. 
1. Please tell me about your community. 
Probe: What are the social and economic conditions like in your community? 
Probe: What in your view are the biggest issues for your community?
Probe: What do people usually do about these issues? 
Probe: In your view, is it important for citizens to participate in community affairs and engage with 
local politicians? Why or why not? 
2. Please describe how you/your organization became involved in the Promoting Civic Education and 
Participation (PCEP) program. [MODERATOR: citizens may know the program as “Civic Ed” or may 
just know the name of the local CSO/CBO in their area.]
SECTION 2. INFLUENCE OF PCEP ON ATTITUDES AND BEHAVIOR OF CITIZENS
[MODERATOR: be sure to explain that “political engagement”, “political processes”, and “political 
activities”, does not refer to party politics or party affiliation.]
3. In what Civic Education program activities were you involved?
Probe: Indabas/community meetings, advocacy campaigns, civic education workshops, and study 
circles.
4. In what ways did the Civic Education program influence your community’s ability to hold local 
government leaders accountable? [MODERATOR: Explain that “accountable” means that leaders 
represent citizen interests, respond to citizen demands, needs, and questions] 
Probe: Can you give examples? 
5. Did the Civic Education program influence your community’s participation and engagement in 
politics/political processes and elections? 
If YES: How? Can you give examples? 
If NO: What prevented community participation and engagement?
6. How did the PCEP influence community TRUST in political institutions and government? Can you 
give examples?
CONTRACT No.: GS-10F-0033M / ORDER No. 7200AA18M00016
USAID.GOV PROMOTING CIVIC EDUCATION AND PARTICIPATION IN SOUTH AFRICA PROGRAM | 49
Probe: Do you believe that local government leaders will address community concerns and interests 
(provide critical services like health care, education and infrastructure, provide safety and security 
for your community, etc.)? Why or why not?
7. What about community members’ KNOWLEDGE OF YOUR RIGHTS AND OF THE ROLES AND 
RESPONSIBILITIES OF LOCAL LEADERS AND AUTHORITIES. How has knowledge and rights and 
responsibilities changed since community involvement in the Civic Education program? Can you tell 
me more?
Probe: Do you feel that OFFICIALS LISTEN to community concerns now more than in the past? 
Can you give examples?
8. In what ways did the Civic Education program influence citizen participation in local governance and 
political processes? [MODERATOR: This can mean going to meetings; raising issues with local 
leaders and authorities like the police; identifying issues that are important for the community; 
writing letters to local authorities and leaders]
Probe: In what ways did the Civic Education program influence community members’ INTEREST / 
ENTHUSIASM for participating in community governance and political processes?
Probe: In what ways did participating in Civic Education project activities change BEHAVIOR in 
public participation or governance?
Probe: How do people feel about participating in meetings about your community development 
plan? 
Probe: What about having access to information such as the local budget?
Probe: How people now feel about participating in peaceful marches or writing letters?
Probe: Meeting with local leaders and authorities to bring change to your community?
Probe: Engaging in discussions about rights and responsibilities with friends, family or other 
community members? 
9. Thinking of what community members may have learned from the Civic Education program, in what 
ways will they be engaged in politics in the future?
Probe: Do you think they will engage with officials? [MODERATOR: For those who say no, ask why 
not?]
Probe: Will they engage in discussions about citizens’ rights and responsibilities? Why or why not
Probe: Do you think they will participate in the upcoming 2024 elections in our country by voting? 
Why or why not?
10. How has the Civic Education changed YOUR attitudes and behavior?
11. Do you have any recommendations for future programming?
CONTRACT No.: GS-10F-0033M / ORDER No. 7200AA18M00016
USAID.GOV PROMOTING CIVIC EDUCATION AND PARTICIPATION IN SOUTH AFRICA PROGRAM | 50
ANNEX C. IN-DEPTH INTERVIEW GUIDE 
PARTNER COMMUNITY-BASED CSOS
1. How long were you/your organization with the PCEP program?
2. Please describe the work of your organization.
3. What were your organization’s core activities under the PCEP program?
Probe: What populations did you serve?
Probe: What were the geographic locations of focus?
4. What were the key challenges your community faced during the period of PCEP program 
implementation?
5. What, if any, were the main external challenges to CSO implementation of PCEP activities (e.g., 
town halls, advocacy campaigns, citizens trainings, study circles, etc.)?
6. What, if any, were the main internal challenges to CSO implementation of PCPE activities (e.g., town 
halls, advocacy campaigns, citizen trainings, study circles, etc.)?
Probe: What was your CSOs’ experience with strategic planning and campaigning?
7. Which PCEP trainings or workshops were particularly useful for your CSO?
8. What are some of the most significant outcomes from the PCEP workshops and trainings your 
organization participated in? 
Probe: Building coalitions
Probe: Making persuasive arguments
Probe: Monitor and evaluation plans/self-evaluation
Probe: Developing campaign ideas
Probe: Mobilization tactics 
Probe: Building plans that crossed demographic segment expanding the base of supporters
Probe: Identifying key stakeholders that can advance work
Probe: Understand organizational strengths and weaknesses 
Probe: Understand external environment
Probe: Fundraising, general organization 
Probe: Others?
9. Which PCEP trainings or methods on communication techniques were most effective and why?
CONTRACT No.: GS-10F-0033M / ORDER No. 7200AA18M00016
USAID.GOV PROMOTING CIVIC EDUCATION AND PARTICIPATION IN SOUTH AFRICA PROGRAM | 51
Probe: Were there any methods or techniques that were less useful and why?
10. In general, did PCEP advocacy methods increase CSO and citizen engagement with the government 
of South Africa and local government actors?
Probe: Can you provide examples?
11. Thinking about the trainings/workshops you received under the PCEP, where there workshops that 
would have been beneficial for your organization?
Probe: Are there any that would have been useful for implementation?
12. How effective were PCEP workshops at achieving key program objectives around citizen 
participation and engagement? How effective was the PCEP with… 
Probe: Strengthening or building your organization’s ability to implement outreach campaigns? 
(workshop topics included Strategic development; citizens’ participating in political processes; 
political communication; evidence-based advocacy). Can you provide examples?
Probe: Enhancing citizens’ knowledge and understanding of the roles and responsibilities; and the 
responsibilities of elected officials?
Probe: Increasing citizen engagement and participation in political processes and elections?
Probe: Improving citizen trust in institutions?
Probe: Improving citizen ability to hold government officials accountable?
13. Overall, how effective were tools such as advocacy campaigns for enhancing citizen knowledge and 
awareness of their roles and responsibilities and enhancing citizen engaging in political processes in 
their communities?
14. How effective were town halls/indabas for enabling citizens to hold government officials 
accountable?
15. Which tools and approaches were least or most effective?
Probe: Which are sustainable?
16. Were there any groups (women, youth, persons with disabilities) among whom activities were more 
less or more effective? Why?
17. Were there any gaps in implementation among these groups that should be addressed in future 
programming?
18. Tell us about the One Mark Facebook page. What online strategies and content worked well for 
creating awareness, knowledge and building civic engagement?
19. Do you have any recommendations for future programming?
CONTRACT No.: GS-10F-0033M / ORDER No. 7200AA18M00016
USAID.GOV PROMOTING CIVIC EDUCATION AND PARTICIPATION IN SOUTH AFRICA PROGRAM | 52
Probe: How effective was the approach of working through subgrants to community-based CSOs in 
achieving PCEP’s objectives? Why or why not? Should other approaches be considered?
Probe: How can opportunities for a future program to build on the achievements in the same target 
communities in ways that are sustainable?
Probe: What, if any, interventions from PCEP could be replicated and scaled up beyond the target 
communities? 
Probe: What support from USAID would be most useful for your organization in the future? Are 
there any types of support that are no longer necessary?
CONTRACT No.: GS-10F-0033M / ORDER No. 7200AA18M00016
USAID.GOV PROMOTING CIVIC EDUCATION AND PARTICIPATION IN SOUTH AFRICA PROGRAM | 53
MAIN IMPLEMENTING PARTNER ORGANIZATION 
1. Please describe the work of PCEP and its core activities.
Probe: What populations did you serve?
Probe: What were the geographic locations of focus?
2. How long were you with the PCEP program?
3. How effective were PCEP workshops at achieving key program objectives around citizen 
participation and engagement? How effective was the PCEP with… 
Probe: Strengthening CSO capacity to implement outreach campaigns? (workshop topics included 
Strategic development; citizens’ participating in political processes; political communication; 
evidence-based advocacy). Can you provide examples?
Probe: Enhancing citizens’ knowledge and understanding of their roles and responsibilities; and the 
responsibilities of elected officials?
Probe: Increasing citizen engagement and participation in political processes and elections?
Probe: Improving citizen trust in institutions?
Probe: Improving citizen ability to hold government officials accountable?
4. Overall, how effective were tools such as advocacy campaigns for enhancing citizen knowledge and 
awareness of their roles and responsibilities and enhancing citizen engaging in political processes in 
their communities?
5. How effective were town halls/indabas or advocacy campaigns for enabling citizens to hold 
government officials accountable?
6. Which tools and approaches were least or most effective?
Probe: Do you have any success stories? 
Probe: Which are sustainable?
7. Were there any groups (women, youth, persons with disabilities) among whom activities were more 
less or more effective? Why?
Probe: What groups were difficult to reach? 
Probe: How did you resolve this challenge?
CONTRACT No.: GS-10F-0033M / ORDER No. 7200AA18M00016
USAID.GOV PROMOTING CIVIC EDUCATION AND PARTICIPATION IN SOUTH AFRICA PROGRAM | 54
8. What capacities tended to be lacking among CSOs?
Probe: Are there any remaining gaps that need to be addressed in addressing CSO capacity
9. Were there any gaps in implementation among these groups that should be addressed in future 
programming to increase citizen engagement?
10. Tell us about the One Mark Facebook page. What online strategies and content worked well for 
creating awareness, knowledge and building civic engagement?
11. Do you have any recommendations for future programming?
Probe: How effective was the approach of working through subgrants to community-based CSOs? 
Why or why not? Should other approaches be considered?
Probe: How can future programs build on the achievements in the same target communities in ways 
that are sustainable?
Probe: What, if any, interventions from PCEP could be replicated and scaled up beyond the target 
communities? 
Probe: What interventions, if any, could be phased out?
CONTRACT No.: GS-10F-0033M / ORDER No. 7200AA18M00016
USAID.GOV PROMOTING CIVIC EDUCATION AND PARTICIPATION IN SOUTH AFRICA PROGRAM | 55
NON-CSO STAKEHOLDERS (CITIZENS, LOCAL AUTHORITIES, POLITICAL PARTY 
REPRESENTATIVES, COMMUNITY AND FAITH-BASED LEADERS)
INTERVIEWER: This is a master protocol for a variety of stakeholders. Questions 3, 4, 5 and 7 and 10 
may be targeted for citizen respondents, though the others are as well with rewording
1. Please describe to me how you were engaged with the PCEP program?
Probe: In what type of activities were you engaged in related to engagement and participation: 
for example, advocacy campaigns, town halls, etc.? ?
2. When were you involved in these activities?
3. How has your understanding of your role and responsibilities as a citizen / local leader / party 
representative changed as a result of your engagement with the PCEP program?
Probe: How did PCEP engagement change your understanding – through which activities?
4. What about your knowledge of rights, legal frameworks, constitutional mandates? In what ways 
have these changed? 
5. In what ways has your engagement with CSOs / communities / citizens changed? Can you 
provide examples?
Probe: What changes in citizens’ political engagement and participation have you noticed as a 
result of the PCEP program?
Probe: Is there anything that stands out in particular?
Probe: Are there any activities that were especially effective from your point of view?
6. To what extent were program activities inclusive for all demographic segments (women, youth, 
persons with disabilities, etc.)?
7. What activities or aspects of the PCEP program worked well and which did not?
Probe: What did you find most useful?
8. Are there any additional activities or groups that should be included to enhance citizen 
engagement and government accountability?
9. What activities, approaches, tools are most likely to contribute to sustained collaboration and 
engagement between government actors / local actors and citizens?
CONTRACT No.: GS-10F-0033M / ORDER No. 7200AA18M00016
USAID.GOV PROMOTING CIVIC EDUCATION AND PARTICIPATION IN SOUTH AFRICA PROGRAM | 56
Probe: What activities and practices do you think are likely to continue following your 
participation in the PCEP program? Is there anything you might do in upcoming elections in 
South Africa that is different from what you have done in the past as a result of the PCEP 
program? 
Probe: And what is most likely to contribute to sustained citizen participation and engagement 
in general?
Probe: Are there any successes or opportunities the PCEP program can build on in the same 
target areas? 
10. Do you have any recommendations for future programming?
Probe: Are there any activities that should be expanded?
Probe: Are there any activities that should be phased out or eliminated?
CONTRACT No.: GS-10F-0033M / ORDER No. 7200AA18M00016
USAID.GOV PROMOTING CIVIC EDUCATION AND PARTICIPATION IN SOUTH AFRICA PROGRAM | 57
ANNEX D. TELEPHONE SURVEY INSTRUMENT 
RESPONDENT INFORMATION [ENTERED PRIOR TO SURVEY]
Q1. Which CSO’s list is the respondent from? 
- Amadiba Crisis Committee (ACC)
- Alexandra Peace Ambassadors (APA)
- Interchurch Local Development Agency (ILDA)
- Flagstaff Community Advice Centre (FCAC)
- Lifa Lesive Community Development Agency (LLCDA)
- Londisizwe Youth Foundation (LYF)
- Mariann Co-ordinating Committee (MCC)
- Marikana Peacebuilding Team (MPT)
- Vumbanani For Peacebuilding (VFP)
- Young Men Christian Association (YMCA)
INTRODUCTION AND CONSENT
Good day. My name is ------------------------. I am from Ikapadata, an independent research
organization based in Cape Town.
We are contacting individuals who participated in activities conducted by the Promoting Civic Education 
and Participation (PCEP) program to conduct a survey that explores your experience with the activities. 
We were given your name by [pipe in CSO from Q1] and are interested in hearing your views about 
the activities you participated in. 
This survey is part of an independent evaluation of the PCEP program that is supported by the United 
States Agency for International Development (USAID) and implemented by Freedom House.
NORC, a research center associated with the University of Chicago, is a conducting this independent 
survey on behalf of USAID to assess the extent to which the program accomplished its goals The 
assessment will contribute to USAID learning for similar programs in South Africa and elsewhere. 
This survey is an important way for getting representative opinions of beneficiary experiences. We value 
your opinion, which will be used to help to improve international programs supporting CSOs and 
citizens in communities in your country. 
This survey should take approximately 30 minutes to complete. Your participation in this survey is 
voluntary. If you are unable or do not wish to answer a question, you do not have to answer it. There is 
no penalty for refusing to participate or answering a question. Your answers will be confidential. 
The information you provide will be used for analysis only and will not identify you as a participant of 
this survey.
CONTRACT No.: GS-10F-0033M / ORDER No. 7200AA18M00016
USAID.GOV PROMOTING CIVIC EDUCATION AND PARTICIPATION IN SOUTH AFRICA PROGRAM | 58
If you have questions or need assistance in any way, please e-mail Jan Schenk at jan@ikapadata.com . 
Thank you very much for your participation.
Do you wish to proceed? [Proceed with interview only if answer is positive.]
[If respondent agrees to proceed, add:] We can do this interview in English, Afrikaans, Xhosa, Pedi, 
Sotho, Tswana, Venda, or Zulu. Please, tell me which language you would like to use. 
[If interviewer does not speak selected language, then make an appointment for later in the day with a 
member of the team who speaks that language.]
PARTICIPATION IN PCEP ACTIVITES
Q2. As I mentioned, you were selected for this survey based on your participation in civic education 
activities organized by [pipe in CSO name from Q1]. Do you know this organization?
- Yes
- No [end interview]
Q3. Did you participate in each of the following civic education activities organized by this group:
A. Study circles 
B. Civic literacy training workshops 
C. Indabas 
D. Advocacy campaigns
- Yes
- No
- Don’t know [Do not read]
Q4. Are you a volunteer who helps lead these civic education activities?
- Yes
- No 
Q5. Can you recall some of the issues that the civic education activities focused on? [Don’t read answer 
options; multiple response]
- Service delivery
- Rights and responsibilities
- Voting
- Gender Based Violence (GBV)
- Crime
- Social cohesion
- How government works
- Other
- Don’t recall
CONTRACT No.: GS-10F-0033M / ORDER No. 7200AA18M00016
USAID.GOV PROMOTING CIVIC EDUCATION AND PARTICIPATION IN SOUTH AFRICA PROGRAM | 59
MAIN EFFECTS ON INDIVIDUALS AND COMMUNITIES
Q6. I now want you to think about changes that may have occurred in your attitudes or behaviors 
because of your participation in the civic education activities. As I read each statement, please tell me 
how much each one describes you: [After each statement, ask: Does this describe you very much, 
somewhat, just a little, or not at all?] 
A. I believe that local leaders are more likely to respond to my views
B. I participate more in local meetings in my community
C. I am more likely to participate in peaceful marches to express my views or interests
D. I am more knowledgeable about my country’s Constitution 
E. I am more likely to contact local government leaders or authorities through letters or petitions
F. I know how to contact local government leaders or authorities if I have a problem
G. I understand how to hold local government leaders and authorities accountable
H. I engage with my local government leaders and authorities more to make them aware of issues that 
are important to me or my community
- Very much
- Somewhat 
- Just a little
- Not at all
- Don’t know [Do not read]
Q7. From what you have seen, how much has the civic education program increased awareness of rights 
and responsibilities among people in this community? [Read options]
- Very much
- Somewhat
- Just a little
- Not at all
- Don’t know [Do not read]
Q8. How much has the civic education program increased citizen participation in local affairs in this 
community? [Read options]
- Very much
- Somewhat
- Just a little
- Not at all
- Don’t know [Do not read]
Q9. How much has the civic education program increased the accountability of local government 
leaders and authorities to citizens in this area? [Read options]
- Very much
- Somewhat
- Just a little
- Not at all
- Don’t know [Do not read]
CONTRACT No.: GS-10F-0033M / ORDER No. 7200AA18M00016
USAID.GOV PROMOTING CIVIC EDUCATION AND PARTICIPATION IN SOUTH AFRICA PROGRAM | 60
Q10. How much has the civic education program increased trust in local government leaders and 
authorities? [Read options]
- Very much
- Somewhat
- Just a little
- Not at all
- Don’t know [do not read]
Q11. How much confidence do you have in your ability to influence decision making in your community? 
- A great deal 
- A fair amount 
- Only a little 
- None 
- Don’t know [Do not read]
Q12. How likely is it that you will share information you learned in the civic education activities with 
others regarding citizens’ rights, responsibilities, or political processes? [Read options]
- Very likely
- Likely
- Unlikely 
- Very unlikely
- Don’t know [Do not read]
Q13. Next, I am going to ask about some problems that communities face in this country. Please tell me 
how much each problem has improved in your area because of the civic education program: [After 
reading each item, ask: Has this improved a lot, somewhat, just a little, or not at all?]
A. Water and sanitation
B. Public safety and crime
C. Schools
D. Access to healthcare and clinics
E. Gender-based violence
F. Social cohesion and xenophobia 
G. Unemployment 
- A lot
- Somewhat
- Just a little
- Not at all
- Don’t know [Do not read]
CONTRACT No.: GS-10F-0033M / ORDER No. 7200AA18M00016
USAID.GOV PROMOTING CIVIC EDUCATION AND PARTICIPATION IN SOUTH AFRICA PROGRAM | 61
STUDY CIRCLES 
[If R participated in study circles, based on Q3]:
Now I would like to ask you a few questions about the study circles you participated in.
Q14. How useful were the study circles for enhancing your participation in your community?
- Very useful
- Fairly useful
- Not very useful
- Not at all useful 
- Don’t know [Do not read]
Q15. Which study circle topics contributed most to enhancing your civic participation in your 
community? [Multiple response; Do not read answer options]
- The South African Constitution
- Service delivery
- Building a good community
- The Bill of Rights
- Working for change
- Dealing with conflict
- Building public relationships
- Storytelling and listening
- Other
- Don’t know
CIVIC LITERACY TRAINING WORKSHOPS 
[If R attended civic literacy training workshops, based on Q3]:
Now I would like to ask you a few questions about the civic literacy training workshops you participated 
in. 
Q16. How useful were the training workshops for enhancing your participation in your community?
- Very useful
- Fairly useful
- Not very useful
- Not at all useful
- Don’t know [Do not read]
CONTRACT No.: GS-10F-0033M / ORDER No. 7200AA18M00016
USAID.GOV PROMOTING CIVIC EDUCATION AND PARTICIPATION IN SOUTH AFRICA PROGRAM | 62
Q17. Which topics did you find most useful? [Multiple select; Don’t read options]
- Service delivery
- Rights and responsibilities
- Voting
- Gender Based Violence (GBV)
- Crime
- Social cohesion
- How government works
- Other
- Don’t recall
CONTRACT No.: GS-10F-0033M / ORDER No. 7200AA18M00016
USAID.GOV PROMOTING CIVIC EDUCATION AND PARTICIPATION IN SOUTH AFRICA PROGRAM | 63
INDABAS 
[If R attended Indabas, based on Q3]:
I now want to ask you some questions about the indabas you attended.
Q18. Can you recall the issues that were discussed with local government leaders and authorities at the 
indabas you attended? [Multiple mention; Don’t read answer options]
- Service delivery
- Rights and responsibilities
- Voting
- Gender Based Violence (GBV)
- Public safety and crime
- Social cohesion and xenophobia
- How government works
- Other
- Don’t recall 
Q19. How responsive were local government leaders and authorities to the issues raised by you and 
other community members during the indabas? [Read options]
- Very responsive
- Somewhat responsive
- Only a little responsive
- Not at all responsive
- Don’t know [do not read]
Q20. Next, I am going to read some statements about the community indabas. Please tell me if you 
agree with each one. [Read items.]
A. I am more knowledgeable about party manifestos
B. I met my local leaders and authorities
C. I had an opportunity to express my concerns to leaders and authorities
D. I had an opportunity to ask local leaders and authorities to follow up on issues
E. It was an opportunity to gather and work collectively to solve problems
- Agree
- Don’t agree
- Don’t know [Do not read]
CONTRACT No.: GS-10F-0033M / ORDER No. 7200AA18M00016
USAID.GOV PROMOTING CIVIC EDUCATION AND PARTICIPATION IN SOUTH AFRICA PROGRAM | 64
ADVOCACY CAMPAIGNS
You may have participated in campaigns or efforts to bring change to your community through engaging 
with local leaders and authorities. I would now like to ask you about those campaigns.
Q21. How much did these campaigns increase your awareness about how to solve problems in your 
community?
- A lot
- Somewhat
- Just a little
- Not at all
- Don’t know [don’t read]
Q22. To what extent did local government leaders or authorities take action to respond to the issues 
raised by the campaigns? 
- A lot
- Somewhat
- Just a little
- Not at all
- Don’t know [don’t read]
Q23. And how much did conditions improve in your community after the advocacy campaigns?
- A lot
- Somewhat
- Just a little
- Not at all
- Don’t know [don’t read]
LOCAL GOVERNMENT 
Q24. Next, I will read two statements and then ask which is closer to your view:
Statement A: When community members raise an issue with municipal council leaders, officials usually 
try to solve the problem
Statement B: The municipal council leaders usually doesn’t do anything to respond to our needs, even 
when community members raise an issue
- Agree with Statement A
- Agree with Statement B
- Don’t know [Do not read]
CONTRACT No.: GS-10F-0033M / ORDER No. 7200AA18M00016
USAID.GOV PROMOTING CIVIC EDUCATION AND PARTICIPATION IN SOUTH AFRICA PROGRAM | 65
SUSTAINABILTY
Q25. Thinking about the future, to what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements 
– do you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree?
A. I will participate in future town hall meetings that may be organized by members of my 
community 
B. I will participate in campaigns organized by my community
C. I will vote in the upcoming elections in South Africa
D. I will peacefully engage government leaders if I have an issue that concerns me
E. I will organize activities on my own to bring change to my community
- Strongly agree
- Somewhat agree
- Somewhat disagree
- Strongly disagree
- Don’t know [Do not read]
DEMOGRAPHICS AND GENERAL DEMOCRACY QUESTIONS
Q26. Here is a list of actions that people sometimes take as citizens. For each of these, please tell me 
whether you, personally, have done any of these things during the past year.
A. Attended a community meeting 
B. Got together with others to raise an issue 
C. Participated in a demonstration or protest
- Yes
- No 
- Don’t know [do not read]
Q27. Let’s talk about the last national election held in 2019. People are not always able to vote in 
elections, for example, because they weren’t registered, they were unable to go, or someone prevented 
them from voting. How about you? In the last national election held in 2019, did you vote, or not, or 
were you too young to vote? Or can’t you remember whether you voted?
- I did not vote
- I was too young to vote 
- I can’t remember whether I voted 
- I voted in the election 
- Don’t know [Do not read] 
CONTRACT No.: GS-10F-0033M / ORDER No. 7200AA18M00016
USAID.GOV PROMOTING CIVIC EDUCATION AND PARTICIPATION IN SOUTH AFRICA PROGRAM | 66
Q28. Overall, how satisfied are you with the way democracy works in South Africa? Are you: [Read out 
options. Only one option to be chosen. Read the question in the language of the interview, but always 
read “democracy” in English. Translate “democracy” into local language only if respondent does not 
understand the term in the official language.]
- Very satisfied?
- Fairly satisfied?
- Not very satisfied?
- Not at all satisfied?
- South Africa is not a democracy [do not read]
- Don’t know [do not read]
Q29. How much do you trust each of the following, or haven’t you heard enough about them to say? 
[Read out options]
A. The president
B. Parliament
C. Your local government council
D. [pipe in CSO from Q1]
E. The police
F. Traditional leaders
- Not at all
- Just a little
- Somewhat
- A lot
- Don’t know / haven’t heard [do not read]
The final set of questions ask about your current living situation and your background. 
Q30. Which of these things do you personally own? [If “No,” ask]: Does anyone else in your household 
own one?
A. Radio 
B. Television 
C. Motor vehicle or motorcycle 
D. Computer 
E. Bank account 
F. Mobile phone
- Yes (personally owns)
- Someone else in household owns
- No, one in household owns
- Don’t know [do not read]
CONTRACT No.: GS-10F-0033M / ORDER No. 7200AA18M00016
USAID.GOV PROMOTING CIVIC EDUCATION AND PARTICIPATION IN SOUTH AFRICA PROGRAM | 67
Q31. Over the past year, how often, if ever, have you or anyone in your family gone without: [Read out 
options] 
A. Enough food to eat? 
B. Enough clean water for home use? 
C. Medicines or medical treatment? 
D. Enough fuel to cook your food? 
E. A cash income?
- Never 
- Just once or twice
- Several times
- Many times 
- Always 
- Don't know [do not read]
Q32. What is the primary language you speak in your home now?
- English
- Portuguese 
- Afrikaans
- Ndebele
- Xhosa
- Pedi
- Sotho
- Tswana
- Swazi
- Venda
- Zulu
- Other
- Don’t know
Q33. How old are you?
Q34. Respondent gender [record without asking]
- Female
- Male
CONTRACT No.: GS-10F-0033M / ORDER No. 7200AA18M00016
USAID.GOV PROMOTING CIVIC EDUCATION AND PARTICIPATION IN SOUTH AFRICA PROGRAM | 68
Q35. What is your highest level of education? [Code from answer. Do not read options]
- No formal schooling 
- Informal schooling only (including Koranic schooling)
- Some primary schooling 
- Primary school completed
- Intermediate school or some secondary school / high school 
- Secondary school / high school completed 
- Post-secondary qualifications other than university, e.g. a diploma or degree from a polytechnic or 
college
- Some university 
- University completed 
- Post-graduate 
- Don’t know [Do not read]
Those are all the questions I have for you today. Do you have any questions for me?
Thank you very much for participating in this survey. Goodbye.
END INTERVIEW
ALL SUBSEQUENT QUESTIONS SHOULD BE ANSWERED BY THE INTERVIEWER AFTER THE 
INTERVIEW IS CONCLUDED
Q36. What was the primary language used in the interview?
- English
- Portuguese 
- Afrikaans
- Ndebele
- Xhosa
- Pedi
- Sotho
- Tswana
- Swazi
- Venda
- Zulu
- Other
- Don’t know
CONTRACT No.: GS-10F-0033M / ORDER No. 7200AA18M00016
USAID.GOV PROMOTING CIVIC EDUCATION AND PARTICIPATION IN SOUTH AFRICA PROGRAM | 69
Q37. What proportion of the questions did the respondent have difficulty answering?
- All 
- Most
- Some
- Few 
- None 
Q38. Interviewer’s name [pick from list]
Q39. Interviewer’s age
Q40. Interviewer’s gender
Q41. Interviewer’s home language
- English
- Portuguese 
- Afrikaans
- Ndebele
- Xhosa
- Pedi
- Sotho
- Tswana
- Swazi
- Venda
- Zulu
- Other
- Don’t know
U.S. AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20523