PARTICIPATORY EVALUATION
Of
PARTNERS OF THE AMERICAS GRANT
FROM THE U.S. AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL
DEVELOPMENT
(LAG-G-00-93-00032-00)
focusing on the
Inter-American Democracy Network
FINAL REPORT
January 5, 2000
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER I – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................ 1
CHAPTER II – INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................. 7
A. PURPOSE OF THE EVALUATION............................................................................................... 7
B. TEAM COMPOSITION & METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH.................................................. 7
C. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS................................................................................................................ 9
CHAPTER III – BACKGROUND............................................................................................................ 10
A. MOTIVATING FACTORS AND EVOLUTION OF THE IADN ................................................ 10
B. KEY ASPECTS OF THE USAID-POA COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT .................................. 11
C. ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES ................................................................................................ 13
CHAPTER IV – FINDINGS...................................................................................................................... 15
A. GENERAL DESCRIPTION .......................................................................................................... 15
B. PROCESS AND COORDINATION PRACTICES ....................................................................... 17
C. IMPACT/RESULTS ...................................................................................................................... 27
D. SUSTAINABILITY....................................................................................................................... 50
CHAPTER V – CONCLUSIONS.............................................................................................................. 52
CHAPTER VI – RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................................................... 55
CHAPTER VII – LESSONS LEARNED ................................................................................................. 60
ANNEXES:
A. Scope of Work
B. Persons Interviewed
C. Documents Reviewed
D. Financial Information
E. Acción Ciudadana
F. Results Framework
G. North–South Partnerships & Citizen Participation Grants
H. List of Associate Members of the Inter-American Democracy Network
1
Chapter I – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On August 26, 1993, the Bureau for Latin America and the Caribbean of the U.S. Agency
for International Development (USAID) and Partners of the Americas (POA), a U.S.
private voluntary organization, signed a five-year cooperative agreement (Grant No.
LAG-G-00-93-00032) for $1,251,184 to support the Regional Civic Education Project.
That agreement was amended in September 1995, extending the completion date to
August 26, 2000, and providing funds for POA to work with the Inter-American
Democracy Network (IADN), which had been initiated by four Latin American non￾governmental organizations (NGOs) and one university: Conciencia and Fundación
Poder Ciudadano from Argentina, the Instituto de Investigación y Autoformación
Política (INIAP) from Guatemala, Participa from Chile, and the Departamento de
Ciencia Política de la Universidad de los Andes (UniAndes) of Colombia. Through
subsequent amendments, POA was also mandated to provide institutional-strengthening
assistance to Acción Ciudadana, a newly formed Guatemalan NGO which
USAID/Guatemala wished to support, and to carry out an initiative to link Cuban NGOs
and counterpart institutions in the Americas.
*
 For these purposes, by September 1998, the
total budget had been increased to $7,182,323.
In keeping with the cooperative agreement, the purpose of this evaluation is “to assess
the process, impact, and sustainability of citizen participation activities carried out under
the grant,both through partnerships [North-South Partnerships between POA chapters in
the United States and Latin America] and the Inter-American Democracy Network,”
giving primary emphasis to the latter. It was determined that this evaluation be
participatory, actively involving all major stakeholders (USAID, POA, and the five
southern NGOs). To initiate the process, the Scope of Work (SOW) was developed by
USAID and POA in consultation with the five southern Founding Members (FMs), and
representatives of those institutions also participated in data-collection tasks during six
field trips to 13 countries.
This report is divided into seven chapters. In addition to this summary, these include: an
introduction, with information on the evaluation team and methodology; background
material on the evolution of the Network, key aspects of the grant, and the allocation of
resources; findings; conclusions; recommendations; and lessons learned. All findings,
conclusions, and recommendations were compiled through document review, the POA
database that houses information on the objectives and indicators formulated by the six
FMs for performance monitoring purposes, and material collected in the field by
evaluation teams.
Among the principal conclusions of this evaluation is that, having successfully dealt with
start-up challenges, the Network has evolved into an effective mechanism for engaging
citizen participation across the region in the democratic process and is now in a position
to capitalize on experience to date and consolidate the gains made.
 
* Because of the special circumstances surrounding the relationship between Acción Ciudadana and
the Network, information on that organization is included in Annex E. The Cuban linkage activity was not
included in the Scope of Work for this evaluation.
2
This evaluation found that the Network has collaborated with over 150 civil society
organizations (CSOs)—some of which became Associate Members (AMs) through
formal agreements with FMs and went on to share the methodologies learned with their
clients and partners. The six component areas in which activities have been carried out
are: Deliberation, based on the methodology pioneered in the United States by the
Kettering Foundation, with which southern FMs had a prior relationship and which
continues to support their inclusion in its activities; Citizen Participation at the Local
Level; Civic Education, Voter Education, Social Responsibility, and Capacity
Building/Institutional Development. Over 7,000 people attended deliberation and civic
education events, and over 250 national issues forums were held. Network members have
incorporated fundraising methods, the deliberation methodology, civic education issues,
candidate databases, election monitoring techniques, and new partnerships into their
organizations.
Examples of increased participation included cases where citizens came together to
promote community change in the form of better water and sewage systems, community
centers, implementation of more participatory budget processes, and improved roads.
Deliberation techniques were used to advocate on behalf of children’s and women’s
rights and to prioritize citizens’ views and ensure their participation in post-hurricane
reconstruction efforts in Central America and education in Colombia. CSOs began to
form alliances with municipal authorities and the private sector, and other organizations
learned to mobilize resources, thus contributing to a strengthened civic society sector in
the region.
The assistance provided by FMs to the AMs targeted by them has taken the form of
training, technical assistance, and small grants. It was found that more than half of
Network activities have centered around the deliberation component (pursued by four of
the five southern FMs), the methodology that had originally brought them together at
Kettering, where discussions had led to their decision to form the Network and advocate
with USAID for support. (To avoid complications, it was USAID that suggested using
the existing POA grant for that purpose.)
Among the chief start-up challenges confronting the Network—as reported by southern
FMs—have been the inability of the six founding organizations to coalesce rapidly, the
lack of clarity concerning the role and decision-making authority of POA as “grantee”
and the five Latin American founders as “sub-grantees,” uneven communications,
inadequate exchange opportunities, and the need to establish administrative/reporting
systems. On the other hand, POA, while agreeing that maintaining a working agreement
among FMs on roles and relationships was a challenge throughout the grant period, felt
that communication and exchange practices among FMs were adequate. As mentioned,
these challenges have been largely overcome.
Findings and conclusions concerning North-South Partnerships can be found in Annex
G.
3
Based on a careful analysis of the findings reported in relation to the Network, and in
accordance with the SOW, the following conclusions were reached:
1. The Network has shown itself to be a valuable mechanism for engaging Latin
American organizations in the promotion of citizen participation in efforts to
strengthen democratic governance in the region. It is about to enter a period of
transition, during which the gains made to date could be consolidated through a
process of careful, participatory planning. This would include the identification of
strategically important challenges to further democratization currently present in the
environment and the improvement of the Network’s communications system,
governance structure, and decision-making procedures.
2. Working with the Network has increased participating organizations’ resource base,
enabled them to develop new contacts and a greater national and international
presence, and increased their capability to carry out citizen participation activities.
3. Initial evidence suggests that the Network has helped increase citizen participation in
the region. Findings indicate a wide range of examples of such impact. However, this
is difficult to document in a systematic fashion. In general, it is costly and difficult to
collect data regarding the impact of citizen participation activities. The Network has
been developing a monitoring and evaluation system; however, it is not yet in full
operation. There is significant overlap between activities in the six program
components, all of which tend to be process-oriented, leading to the risk of double￾counting and confusion when attempting to assess results.
4. While there were benefits associated with using six components to plan Network
programs when the IADN got started (a supply-driven strategy), a demand-driven
approach would produce more effective results in the future. By limiting services to
pre-determined components, the most pressing needs of the organizations served are
not always taken into account, thus diminishing prospects for longer-term
sustainability. A demand-driven approach within previously identified parameters
would likely produce more effective results.
5. While, over time, the FMs have increasingly coalesced as a group, they have
continued to work separately, as though each had its own grant. Issues of
organizational self-interest and control placed an undue burden on the process.
6. In the early phase, confusion among FMs with regard to Partners’ program
management and coordination role affected Network development. The need to
establish systems and procedures created additional challenges and confusion
between USAID-imposed requirements and those mandated by Partners, particularly
with regard to administrative procedures, pointing to the need for the periodic review
of procedures.
7. With regard to relations between Founding and Associate Members, most
interviewees reported strong professional ties. While FMs have taken advantage of
4
opportunities to establish communication with AMs, adequate communication and
opportunities for the exchange of experience and information across the entire
Network is a key challenge that needs to be addressed if the Network is to grow and
prosper.
8. While the structure of the Network has been hierarchical to reflect the transference of
methodologies from FMs to AMs, most IADN members feel it is now time to adopt a
more horizontal approach. The existence of two classes of membership has led to
resentment among AMs, especially those that feel they have much to offer the
Network but are only invited to receive services. Use of the term “Founding Member”
could become a means for simply recognizing Network pioneers, rather than for
designating decision-making status and funding eligibility.
9. In nearly all cases, the issue of follow-up by Network members after the provision of
services is key to the sustainability of the activities assisted, the level of confidence
engendered among participants, and the accurate assessment of the results obtained.
10. The deliberation methodology has been successfully transferred to a sizable number
of target AMs that, for the most part, have adapted it and incorporated it into their
work. In some instances, deliberation has served as a means to stimulate advocacy or
initiate specific projects. In other cases, where deliberation is viewed as an end in
itself, subsequent action is left up to participants, with no follow-up by sponsors.
While there is evidence that deliberation as a means can produce concrete results,
there are as yet no data to demonstrate that, if seen as an end, deliberation increases
citizen participation.
11. Given that there are significant differences in the way in which deliberative forums
are structured and conducted and that the Network has accumulated an impressive
amount of experience in this area, it is uniquely well-positioned to analyze these
differences as related to the results obtained to help inform the future international
efforts of the Kettering Foundation and others interested in this methodology.
12. The creation of the Central America sub-network is an interesting initiative that
provides insights into a number of aspects of network building. Through the process
of creating country chapters, members learned to work together towards a common
goal. However, some of the chapters are still weak and would need help in such areas
as strategic planning, team-building, communication, and conflict management if they
are to be consolidated. Further strengthening could be achieved by moving beyond
deliberation to incorporate other approaches to citizen participation. Also, the
experience points to the need for more fluid communication and information sharing
mechanisms across countries with less developed technological infrastructures.
13. Relations between POA and USAID have been very positive. There is potential for
greater interaction between IADN members and USAID missions that could be
explored to identify areas of mutual interest and potential funding opportunities. A
number of mission portfolios include areas such as human rights, justice sector
5
reform, civil society, or municipal development, all of which involve citizen
participation in democratic governance. Moreover, a good number of Network
members work in other USAID strategic sectors, including environment, health and
nutrition, education, and economic growth. Conversely, citizen participation is an
important element in mission programs in other sectors, such as environment and
health. Contact between missions and the IADN could be pursued by Network
members and facilitated by the sponsoring organization and the LAC Bureau through
direct contact with mission personnel and the sharing of timely information about
Network activities. This effort could be further reinforced if Network members took
the initiative to brief themselves on the strategic plans of the missions.
During the data-collection process, interviewees were invited to make recommendations
for strengthening the Network in the future. Literally dozens were presented and fell into
a number of major themes. They were therefore categorized and consolidated, resulting in
the following set of overall recommendations. Specific aspects of these
recommendations and the suggestions presented by interviewees for how they might be
implemented are also discussed in Chapter VI.
1. Strategic Planning: The Network should take advantage of the time still
available under the USAID grant to formulate a Strategic Plan to help ensure its
continued operation and guide its actions over the next three to five years. Such a
plan should be developed through a participatory process, involving all concerned
in the identification of strategic priorities, based on an analysis of current political
realities within the region, IADN experience to date, and the design of
appropriately targeted program initiatives.
2. Allocation of Resources During the Transition: Grant funds remaining for the
year 2000 should be used for two major purposes: a) to complete processes
already underway that are of strategic importance to the Network, and b) to
support joint activities by Founding Members.
3. Communication and Visibility: To support the consolidation of the Network,
and the full integration of all members, a regular, programmed system of
communication should be designed and put into operation. The new system
should be used to facilitate participation in the strategic planning process and
should include the continuation and expansion of the web page, plus the use of
other electronic means. It should also promote greater visibility of the Network
through contact with national and international donors, the media, and other key
actors.
4. Membership and Governance: There should be an orderly expansion of
Network membership, and decision-making should be democratized, allowing for
participation by all. The governance structure should be reorganized, becoming
horizontal rather than hierarchical and ensuring that all members have the same
opportunities to receive grants, give sub-grants, or request services.
6
5. Activities and Impact: Geographic divisions and the compartmentalization of the
Network’s offerings into six discrete components should be eliminated in favor of
an approach which is at once more strategic and more demand-driven. Moreover,
in planning future activities, Network members should give serious consideration
to the importance of follow-up for the achievement of longer-term impact and the
potential for sustainability.
6. Administrative Capacity: The administrative capacity of all Network
organizations receiving funding—grantees and sub-grantees alike—should be
assessed, and resources should be identified for providing training or technical
assistance to those that are weak in this area.
7. Continued support: In considering whether to continue funding Network
operations as a vehicle for pursuing its DG strategic objective, USAID should
recognize the cost–benefit advantages of capitalizing on its initial investment,
especially now that the difficult task of start-up has been accomplished, valuable
lessons have been learned, and results to date are most promising.
7
Chapter II – INTRODUCTION
In the past decade, Latin America and the Caribbean have experienced an unprecedented
movement towards democracy. All but one country in the region has made the transition
from authoritarian rule to democratically elected government. This trend has opened new
avenues for the participation of civil society and citizens in democratic processes. While
there have been many gains toward increasing the role that citizens and civil society play
in the hemisphere, there are a number of obstacles as well. These include, but are not
limited to: the fragmentation of the civil society sector in most countries, a weak tradition
of civic culture and participation in the political arena, and the negative effect of extreme
poverty on the effectiveness of CSOs and on the ability of citizens to participate actively.
A. PURPOSE OF THE EVALUATION
This report presents information developed through a participatory evaluation of Grant
No. LAG-G-00-93-00032-00 from the USAID Bureau for Latin America and the
Caribbean to Partners of the Americas for the Regional Civic Education Project. This
Cooperative Agreement, which provides a total of $7,182,323, went into effect on August
26, 1993, and has a completion date of August 26, 2000. The purpose of this evaluation is
“to assess the process, impact, and sustainability of citizen participation activities
carried out under the grant, both through partnerships and the Inter-American
Democracy Network,” giving primary emphasis to the latter (see Scope of Work in
Annex A).
The evaluation was carried out between March and October 1999 and involved the
participation of all major stakeholders in various aspects of the process. These included
USAID/LAC/RSD and the six Founding Members of the Network: Partners of the
Americas (POA), Conciencia and Fundación Poder Ciudadano from Argentina,
Universidad de los Andes of Colombia, Instituto de Investigación y Autoformación
Política (INIAP) from Guatemala, and Participa from Chile.
B. TEAM COMPOSITION & METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH
As outlined in the Scope of Work (SOW), the evaluation team consisted of two tiers:
Core and Extended teams. The Core Team, which coordinated the overall process, was
composed of four members: Joan Goodin of Management Systems International (MSI)
who, following development of the Scope of Work, was contracted by POA to serve as
Team Leader; Principal Investigator Stephanie McNulty, a USAID contractor from the
Academy for Educational Development; Karen Anderson, USAID/LAC/RSD Democracy
Officer; and POA Program Director Martha Cecilia Villada. Extended Team members
included representatives of all Founding Members (FMs) of the Inter-American
Democracy Network (IADN) and other personnel from USAID.
To initiate participation in the evaluation process, the SOW was developed in
consultation with all FMs and a number of other organizations that had participated in the
Network. While members of the Core Team reviewed documents and interviewed key
8
informants in Washington, field-based data collection was carried out by the Extended
Team through a series of six trips to a total of 13 countries. POA staff prepared
background materials for each trip and provided briefings for team members located in
Washington. In each case, the FM responsible for the activities to be explored at the
country level took responsibility for logistics and scheduling arrangements but did not
take part in interviews with participating organizations. Representatives of USAID, POA,
and other FMs (not working in targeted countries) were members of the various teams.
Thus, the approach employed became known as “cross evaluation.” While it had been
agreed that no FM would participate in interviews with another FM, those consulted
included representatives of all FMs, nearly 40 Associate Members, POA chapters,
USAID operating units, the Kettering Foundation, and other key informants. (See Annex
B for list of persons interviewed.)
The countries visited and the composition of the six field teams was as follows: *
ÿ Bolivia and Peru: Team Leader Stephanie McNulty, Robert Asselin of POA;
ÿ El Salvador and Guatemala: Team Leader Stephanie McNulty, Lelia Mooney of FM
Conciencia (Argentina), Andrea Allen of USAID/G/WID;
ÿ Honduras and Nicaragua: Team Leader Stephanie McNulty, Robert Asselin of
POA, Andrea Allen of USAID/G/WID;
ÿ Brazil and Paraguay: Team Leader Karen Anderson of USAID/LAC/RSD, Gabriel
Murillo of FM DECIPOL-UniAndes (Colombia), Elfidio Cano of FM INIAP
(Guatemala), Martha Cecilia Villada of POA;
ÿ Colombia and Ecuador: Team Leader Joan Goodin, Miguel Pellerano of FM Poder
Ciudadano (Argentina), Martha Cecilia Villada of POA;
ÿ Uruguay, Argentina, and Chile: Joan Goodin (visits to three FMs).
Activities in the countries visited included focus groups and key informant interviews,
observation of IADN-sponsored events, and the collection of additional documentation.
(See Annex C for list of documents reviewed.) Tailored interview protocols had been
drafted for this purpose. During interviews, those consulted were asked for any
recommendations they might have for strengthening the Network in the future. Following
trips, field teams drafted country reports in accordance with a format that had been
developed in order to facilitate the cross-country compilation of information needed to
address the questions posed in the SOW.
Other information for this evaluation of the Network came from the data submitted by
FMs in accordance with the indicators they had selected to measure progress in the
 
*
In April 1999, prior to initiation of the formal evaluation process, Karen Anderson of USAID
visited Panama and interviewed key informants regarding Network activities there. The findings of those
interviews are included in this report.
9
various activity areas. These data are maintained by POA, which is responsible for their
aggregation, analysis, and transmission to interested parties.
It was determined by the FMs, together with the Core Team, that because findings and
conclusions regarding North–South Partnership did not relate directly to the Network,
they should be presented in a separate annex to this report. (See Annex G for that
information.)
This draft report is a compilation of all findings, conclusions, and recommendations
gathered by the Core and Extended evaluation teams during the data collection process. It
was drafted in late September by the Team Leader and Principal Investigator and
presented to Partners on September 29. POA transmitted the draft to USAID and all FMs
for discussion and revision during the semi-annual founders’ meeting held at POA
headquarters from 20 to 22 October, 1999. Following a day-long discussion of the draft,
it was agreed that FMs would submit their final comments and suggested revisions to the
Core Team within a week for analysis and incorporation in this final version of the
evaluation report.
C. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The evaluation team takes this opportunity to express its gratitude to all who contributed
their time and the benefit of their experience to guide us through the information￾collection process. We also sincerely appreciate the many insights and recommendations
offered by those contacted. Indeed, without the ready cooperation of Network members
and supporters, as well as representatives of North–South partnerships, it would not have
been possible to complete our task in the time allotted and in a satisfactory manner.
We wish to thank the U.S. Agency for International Development and Partners of the
Americas for the trust they placed in us and for their continued support during the
evaluation process. We also thank the Academy for Educational Development’s Research
and Reference Services project, under contract to USAID/PPC/CDIE, and
USAID/G/WID for supporting the participation of Stephanie McNulty and Andrea Allen
respectively on the evaluation team.
We believe that, in addition to exploring successfully the questions posed in the Scope of
Work, all team members benefited greatly from this unique opportunity to learn about the
process of participatory evaluation. We hope that this effort will provide insight to
development professionals working in the field of democracy and governance, as well as
to those interested in the evaluation process.
10
Chapter III – BACKGROUND
A. MOTIVATING FACTORS AND EVOLUTION OF THE IADN
The five southern Founding Members of the Network met in the early 1990s during
sessions of the Kettering Foundation’s International Civil Society Exchange. The
executive directors of four FMs (Poder Ciudadano, Conciencia, Participa, and UniAndes)
began to discuss informally the utility of creating a regional consortium to promote
citizen participation in the democratization process sweeping across Latin America. They
agreed upon the importance of sharing the experience gained through work in their
countries and their affiliation with the Kettering Foundation, through which they had
gained knowledge of Kettering’s deliberation methodology, which brings citizens
together in National Issues Forums to discuss public policy issues.
Leaders of the four NGOs began to contact high-level USAID and Kettering officials,
requesting consideration of funding options. Because Kettering is an operating
foundation, funding from that source was not feasible. However, the Foundation did offer
to continue defraying expenses associated with participation by the organizations in its
two annual workshops and to provide assistance with materials and information. Some
recalled that USAID expressed interest in supporting such a network, believing that other
NGOs in Latin America could benefit from working with these high-profile
organizations. Others recalled that USAID suggested the idea of a network to share
knowledge with CSOs outside their countries.
Another important factor motivating USAID’s interest was that its missions in Argentina
and Chile were being closed, and direct grants to leading CSOs in those countries (i.e.,
Conciencia and Poder Ciudadano in Argentina and Participa in Chile) would no longer be
possible. Thus, the regional approach being proposed was seen as a feasible way to
continue providing funding, though at a reduced level.
During early conversations, USAID suggested that, because of the high priority being
given by the Agency to Central America and the transition from war to peace, an
organization from that region should be added to the group. For that reason, Kettering
recommended that INIAP, with which the Foundation also had relations, be invited to
participate in the discussions.
Originally, it was thought that one of the Latin American organizations would receive,
administer and manage the grant. However, it became apparent that there was no
agreement among them as to which one should assume this role. After considering
various options, and in order to avoid delays and contracting complications, the USAID
officer involved in the discussions suggested amending an existing regional grant to POA
for a Citizen Participation Project to include administration of the Network. All parties
finally agreed, and an unsolicited proposal was drafted, submitted to USAID/LAC, and
approved.
11
B. KEY ASPECTS OF THE USAID-POA COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
Since its initial approval in August 1993, this grant has been amended a number of times
to incorporate significant changes affecting administrative as well as substantive aspects.
Following is a brief description of the original agreement and the various revisions made
to the grant, including provision of funds for the IADN.
Phase I: The original grant agreement provided $1,251,184 and covered the five-year
period between 1993 and 1998. It was awarded by the USAID/LAC Office of Democratic
Initiatives in response to an unsolicited proposal submitted by POA in collaboration with
Conciencia Argentina and the Organización Cívica Panamericana (OCP, a network of 13
Latin American civic education organizations spearheaded by Conciencia). The goal of
the project was “to promote democratic skills and increase citizen participation in civic
organizations and agencies that promote open and free societies… realized through: 1)
education in democracy and civic arts for young people and adults; and 2) the
strengthening of civic organizations.” In an addendum to the original proposal, a third
item was added: “strategies to increase women’s participation in public life,” and in late
1994 $171,000 from the USAID/WID Office was added to the grant. Originally, a total of
$1,256,327 in matching funds was to be contributed by POA. However, in February
1994, it was determined by USAID that the “Standard Provisions regarding Cost
Sharing…. [were] not valid for the Citizen Participation Project Grant.”
Activities involved conducting regional and national needs assessments to develop
baselines for measuring “democratic arts,” recruiting country teams, developing country
plans, training, technical assistance, funding small projects, networking, and building
civic education models. Both Conciencia and OCP were sub-contracted by POA for
specific tasks, and a maximum of 20 POA chapters or partnerships were to be involved—
each to receive support and funding for a minimum of two years and a maximum of five.
These North–South partnerships were to “work in collaboration with USAID missions for
recommendations on the selection of participating civic organizations” (an average of 3
from each partnership, or a total of 60).
Phase II: In April 1995, POA submitted to USAID/LAC a proposed amendment to the
grant to enable Partners to work with five civic education organizations from Argentina,
Chile, Colombia, and Guatemala—Conciencia, Poder Ciudadano, Participa, Universidad
de los Andes, and INIAP—”to develop their capacity to provide technical assistance and
training to civil society non-governmental organizations (NGOs) throughout the region.”
In response, through amendment 2, on September 29, 1995, the grant was extended to
August 26, 2000, funding was increased to $6,685,206, and the Program Description was
revised. Thus, the Inter-American Democracy Network was born. This was to “directly
support the Summit of the Americas Plan of Action initiatives [and] also support AID’s
New Partnership Initiative (NPI) through empowerment, building networks and
strengthening democratic local governance.” Other important provisions included:
12
a) a “Strategy for Regional Impact” through which each of the five lead NGOs, “under
the management and coordination of Partners,” was to provide information, training,
and technical assistance (TA) to four targeted NGOs (total of 20) selected jointly by
lead NGOs and POA, with each of the 20 receiving $10,000 per year over three years
for training costs and publications. In turn, those NGOs were to reach at least 60 more
local organizations (three each) by transferring what they learned to other civil
society organizations (CSOs) in their countries;
b) the Kettering Foundation was to “serve as a collaborator by providing guidance as
well as resources to the five lead NGOs.” Kettering would continue to sponsor
participation by a representative from each of the five organizations in its two regular
annual events and provide guidance to their efforts to promote its National Issues
Forum (NIF) methodology on a regional basis;
c) activities were to include: NIFs, civic education of youth, leadership training for
youth and adults, citizen participation in the electoral process, government
accountability and decentralization, and promotion of philanthropy; two sub-networks
in civic education and philanthropy were to be formed;
d) internal project monitoring and evaluation was to be on-going, while mid-term and
final external evaluations were also to be conducted.
Amendment 3 of September 28, 1996 increased total funding to $6,910,084 and provided
for activities “to support the start-up and organizational development of a newly
established non-governmental organization in Guatemala called Acción Ciudadana,” an
NGO that promotes the participation of citizens in overseeing the performance of the
Guatemalan Congress. Two types of assistance were to be provided: a) resources to carry
out programs to monitor the legislative agenda and create opportunities for citizens to
provide input on these issues, and b) technical assistance for organizational capacity
building. *
Amendment 4 of September 29, 1997 increased funding to $7,082,323 and supported the
development of “linkages between Cuban NGOs and Community Organizations and
Counterpart Institutions in the Americas.”** Attached to this amendment was a document
dated June 30, 1997, which describes implementation to date of IADN activities and
incorporates adjustments to the program to “reflect a more complete description of the
LAC Democracy Network, the vision and mission, and the increased possibilities of inter￾institutional collaboration; update the evaluation schedule; and incorporate budget
changes which resulted from a change in Partners’ NICRA.” Noting that FMs had
reached agreements with some 35 CSOs for 1997 (thus surpassing the target of 20) and
that many were not yet capable of serving as multipliers and training others, the original
two-tiered approach was modified so that all CSOs receiving training could become part
of the Network. Thus, a more horizontal configuration was adopted, allowing FMs to
work directly with any of the member CSOs, either as a mentor (with target CSOs
receiving TA according to mutually developed plans) or as a provider of training
opportunities and information. Three categories of membership were established:
 
*
See Annex E for findings concerning Acción Ciudadana.
** This activity was not included in the SOW for this evaluation.
13
Founding Members (POA and the five sub-grantee organizations); Associate Members
(AMs)—CSOs targeted by FMs for training and TA; and Affiliate Members
(Adherentes)—organizations that can receive information through the Network and
participate in workshops but who neither make further commitments nor rely on IADN
resources for follow-up work. (This third category has never been formalized.) A fourth
category mentioned is Cooperating Member Organizations—institutions that possess
particular expertise or interest in supporting the work of the Network (USAID and the
Kettering Foundation are the only two mentioned). Lastly, it is noted that a final
evaluation is considered to be sufficient and a mid-term evaluation unnecessary, given
that IADN members and USAID representatives had met on seven occasions, which had
allowed for review and course corrections during the initial start-up phase.
Amendment 5 of September 10, 1998 added $100,000 for additional assistance to Acción
Ciudadana, bringing the total budget to $7,182,323.
C. ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES
The grant’s most recent budget breakdown for the full seven-year period shows a total of
$7,010,064 net of Cuba resources, of which $3,131,502 (45 percent) is to be awarded by
POA in the form of sub-grants to southern Founding Members, with $1,419,805 (20
percent) for other program-related costs (workshops, outreach activities, civic projects,
communication, materials, evaluation, audit, etc.), and $2,458,757 (35 percent) for POA
salaries, benefits, and indirect costs. If funds for Phase I and for Acción Ciudadana are
deducted from the total grant, the amount remaining for Phase II IADN activities as of
September 1995 is $6,041,200.
Through CY 1999, each of the five Network sub-grantees was to receive approximately
$130,000 per year to implement IADN activities. POA has provided guidelines for the
use of sub-grant funds, which cover personnel, program costs, administrative expenses,
and small grants to selected Associate Members (see Annex D for financial information).
For example, southern FMs may use approximately 40 percent to pay salaries, and up to
20 percent may be allocated for overhead costs. Annual plans, developed by FMs in
November of each year are submitted to POA to inform budget decisions for the coming
year. Support to selected AMs is included in FM plans and takes the form of training,
technical assistance, and small grants.
In terms of personnel expenses, the grant covers full salary costs for four members of the
POA staff, each with specific responsibilities. Other Founding Members have chosen to
allocate salary funds in different ways. While some cover one or two staffers on a full￾time basis, the majority have chosen to pay partial salaries to four or more professionals.
As will be discussed later, this has implications for the institutionalization of Network
activities and the sustainability of the positions covered in the event that no additional
funding is obtained.
While the completion date of the grant is August 26, 2000, once current sub-grants
terminate on December 31, 1999, there will not be sufficient resources to fund the
14
remaining period at the current level. Two years ago, a decision was made by all FMs to
end activities in December 1999. Thus, funds available in 2000 are “extra” and not
intended to be equivalent to prior years. The POA financial office estimates that
approximately $498,800 will remain for the final period. After deducting the current POA
indirect rate of 27.1 percent, a total of approximately $363,625 would be left for all other
costs.
15
Chapter IV – FINDINGS
This section presents the findings of the evaluation team with regard to the Inter￾American Democracy Network (IADN). It is designed to respond to the questions
concerning the Network posed in the Scope of Work.
A. GENERAL DESCRIPTION
As described in the September 1997 amendment to the grant, the Mission of IADN is “to
establish a Network of organizations in the Americas dedicated to strengthening
democracy and civic participation, through training, education, technical assistance,
communication and sharing of resources.” It is further stated that “the Network will serve
as a vehicle for both south–south and south–north cooperation among organizations
promoting the development of civil society.” Its activities are to be carried out in “ways
which reflect the democratic principles which its members advocate.”
Each of the five southern FMs works in two to seven countries, which were agreed upon
at the outset, based primarily on proximity. With regard to geographic focus, because
Argentina and Chile had become USAID close-out countries, activities were not to be
carried out there. This meant that three of the five southern FMs were barred from
working in their own countries. Subsequently, this restriction has been relaxed; both
Conciencia and Participa now conduct some IADN-funded activities in their own
countries. At the end of 1998, Participa began a Program to Promote Social
Responsibility in Chile, Bolivia, Paraguay, and Peru. In Chile, a working group was
formed with representation from businesses, NGOs, and the state. Several meetings were
held to design an 1999–2000 Action Plan, through which a Strategic Planning Workshop
is to be held. In Argentina, Conciencia is involved in implementation of the United
Nations model in schools throughout the country.
Southern FMs also agreed upon the five major activity components to be included in the
grant. These were areas in which those organizations had come to specialize and
therefore felt able to provide training and technical assistance to others. A sixth
component (Institutional Development/Capacity Building) was added to strengthen the
Network itself. A brief description of the six components follows:
® Deliberation: Following the Kettering methodology developed in the United States,
this involves facilitated discussion of civic issues by citizen groups for the purpose of
reaching a more thorough understanding of the complexity of public policy-making
and improving skills for making group decisions.
® Citizen Participation at the Local Level: A process whereby local stakeholders (both
public and private), acting individually or through their organizations, identify
priority problems and propose local solutions and community initiatives, while
participating in their development, implementation, and evaluation, resulting in a
more equitable sharing of political power and greater awareness of social problems.
16
® Civic Education: Formal and informal education designed to train and empower
citizens so that they may better understand their rights and duties and responsibly
apply conceptual, technical, and participatory methods to more effectively act in that
role. Thus, citizens are able to better understand political systems and to make use of
existing institutions, thereby becoming active players in more sustainable
democracies.
® Voter Education: A process by which citizens learn what they need to know in order
to participate actively and conscientiously in the election of their political
representatives.
® Social Responsibility: The mobilization of knowledge and skills, as well as human,
economic, and material resources to deal with problems which affect societies as a
whole and are in the interest of all citizens to resolve. Social responsibility requires
the development of new attitudes and an understanding of what citizens can do about
issues affecting sustainable development. (This is a broadening of the area of
philanthropy, as called for in the grant agreement.)
® Institutional Strengthening/Capacity Building: Activities designed to strengthen the
Network and member organizations.
Initially, there was disagreement among Founders as to whether deliberation should be a
separate component or a cross-cutting methodology incorporated in other components.
Those in favor of the latter option reported having lost the argument and, in the end,
accepted deliberation as a discrete element. As discussed later, there is still a difference
of opinion as to whether deliberation is an end in itself or a means to achieve more
concrete results. As reflected in this evaluation, to date the major portion of the effort and
resources made available through the Network have been dedicated to the deliberation
component. The chart below shows the countries and major components in which each
FM has worked.
Founding Member Countries Covered Components
Conciencia
(Argentina)
Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay Deliberation, Citizen
Participation at the Local
Level, Civic Education,
Capacity Building
INIAP
(Guatemala)
Guatemala, El Salvador,
Honduras, Nicaragua
Deliberation
Participa
(Chile)
Chile, Bolivia, Paraguay,
Peru
Citizen Participation at the
Local Level, Capacity
Building, Social
Responsibility
Poder Ciudadano
(Argentina)
Ecuador, Dominican
Republic, Mexico, Panama,
Uruguay, Paraguay,
Guatemala
Deliberation, Citizen
Participation at the Local
Level, Voter Education
17
UniAndes
(Colombia)
Colombia, Ecuador,
Venezuela
Deliberation, Civic
Education, Social
Responsibility
The Network seeks to accomplish its mission through training, technical assistance, and
small grants by southern FMs to other organizations in the region, some of which enter
into formal agreements with FMs, thus becoming Associate Members (AMs). Over 150
Latin American institutions, mainly NGOs, have participated in Network activities. In
1999, 77 of these were considered AMs by virtue of their close working relationship with
a Founding Member. This is consistent with the original target of 80 IADN members,
while the outreach to an additional 70 organizations far exceeds the initial project goals.
The small grants offered by FMs to target AMs are known as “complementary funds,”
since amounts designated by FMs from their own annual budgets, if approved by POA,
are “complemented” with roughly corresponding amounts from the “outreach” line item
of the budget. This practice began in 1997 and was designed as an incentive for FM
support of activities carried out by target AMs. As shown in Annex D, to date 30 such
small grants have been awarded, totaling $100,869 ($45,409 from POA and $55,460 from
FMs). The purpose of these awards (also shown in the annex) has run the gamut from
defraying meeting costs to training community promotors, strategic planning, promoting
social responsibility, the publication of various books and papers, and so forth. While the
AMs interviewed appreciated receiving this support, there was a strong sense that the
amounts are too small (average is around $3,000) to accomplish significant results. It was
therefore recommended by a number of interviewees that serious consideration be given
to increasing these grants—also linked to the “democratization” of the Network, as AMs
feel they could play a more meaningful role. (The original idea of providing $10,000 per
year for three years to 20 “tier one” AMs so that they in turn could provide services to a
second tier of 60 NGOs was abandoned with the 1997 amendment.)
B. PROCESS AND COORDINATION PRACTICES
1. Relations Within the Network
Among Founding Members
Interviewees involved in the early stage of the Network characterized that period as one
of “getting-to-know-each-other.” The grant proposal stated that the role of Partners was
to “assist the lead organizations in designing, implementing, monitoring and evaluating
the proposed activities.” In practice, lack of agreement has existed throughout the life of
the project between Partners and some other FMs about whether POA should directly
participate in program implementation and the degree of administrative oversight
Partners should exercise. This created tension and resistance to POA guidance on the part
of other FMs as they carried out activities they designed and frustration on the part of
Partners as it carried out its management responsibilities as grantee.
18
Since POA had been invited to participate in the project after discussions between
USAID and the other five FMs had already begun, some of the southern organizations
expected that POA’s role would be limited to administering funds. They explained that,
because POA had not been part of the Kettering training cadre and since it had no
experience with their methodologies, they did not see Partners as capable of playing a
substantive role in program implementation under the Network. Furthermore, a number
of FMs interviewed held that POA’s administrative role had never been clearly defined.
Particular confusion was expressed by southern FMs as to whether requirements
communicated by POA are actually USAID mandates or are those of Partners itself. On
the other hand, POA, having had years of experience as a USAID grantee, knew that it
was legally responsible for both program management and funds administration. POA
officials saw their role not only as administrative, but also as providing oversight of
grant-funded activities and participating in those activities with the other FMs. As
relationships evolved among FMs, Partners gradually accepted that its programmatic role
would be limited to facilitating program planning among the other five FMs and carrying
out occasional workshops.
With regard to administration of project funds, it took POA a while to stabilize its own
grant-related staff; several early changes among grant managers occurred, each bringing
different styles and expectations to the task. At the start of the project, USAID and POA
assumed that the capacities of the other FMs in financial administration would be
adequate to manage subgrants. As the project proceeded, Partners found that some of
them needed to improve their financial control procedures. The project did not include
funds for technical assistance in this area. Instead, during his periodic visits to each FM
to review administration of subgrants, POA’s Chief Financial Officer provided specific
suggestions and advice for consideration by the FMs. In essence, Partners reports that it
needed to spend more time on subgrant financial management issues than originally
intended and in retrospect believes it would have been wise to budget funds that FMs
could use to contract for TA in this area. Alternatively, POA explains that it could have
used such funds to bring FM administrators together for several-day workshops on the
financial aspects of their subgrants in order to overcome record-keeping and reporting
problems.
Current relations among the six FMs were described by all as good. One FM noted, for
example, that it was not easy for the FMs to initiate work together, and without Partners’
positive intervention, it would have taken them much longer to coordinate their work.
However, some discomfort lingers with regard to Partners’ relationship with the sub￾grantees. A case in point was mentioned by various FM interviewees involving activities
in Venezuela that were canceled by POA against the will of UniAndes. This caused other
FMs to call for increased participation in Network decision-making. It was felt that this
case raises key issues for the future of the Network, such as internal relations among
founders, decision-making levels, and the need to periodically review information and
administrative requirements. It also reflects the trade-off between the desire to increase
participation in IADN decision-making and the responsibility to ensure that grant
oversight requirements are fulfilled.
19
It was reported by most FMs that early tensions also resulted from a sense of competition
among southern FMs, who knew one another but had never shared project
responsibilities. Another view expressed was that, while it is true that initial relations
among FMs were marked by working as individual organizations separate from one
another, there was no sense of competition. As the Network took shape, FMs began to go
about working in the countries they had targeted, with few activities carried out jointly.
They followed the strategy outlined in the grant amendment, focusing on training target
AMs to promote democracy. This evaluation suggests that the IADN has moved into a
new phase in which the old strategy calling for FMs to target and nurture relations with
AMs has outlived its usefulness. It was reported that, from the beginning, it has been
difficult to coalesce the six FMs into a new entity, as originally envisioned by USAID.
Indeed, southern FMs have remained relatively autonomous units, working in their
respective areas. Two factors were suggested by interviewees to account for this. Some
felt there was reluctance among Founders to learning from or sharing with one another,
preferring instead to “do their own thing.” Others underscored the lack of opportunities
for exchanges and information-sharing as a major weakness of the Network that deserves
urgent attention. Most FMs interviewees held that, in reality, this is a “consortium,”
rather than a true “network.” These comments appear to reflect the evolving demands of
the participating organizations.
It was pointed out that, while the initial tendency was to work separately, over time FMs
recognized the need to work in a more coordinated and integrated manner and have tried
to overcome that initial tendency. Indeed, some cooperative efforts among FMs have
been undertaken. For example, in June 1996, Conciencia and Poder Ciudadano co￾sponsored a deliberation training workshop in Buenos Aires for existing or potential
AMs, in which 20 NGOs from Brazil, Uruguay, Paraguay, Panama, Peru, Bolivia, and
Ecuador participated. This was also attended by representatives of POA/W and the
Kettering Foundation. Another example was the publication in January 1998 by Participa
of a manual on fund-raising for NGOs (part of the social responsibility component), for
which UniAndes provided part of the text.
To support the relationship-building process, POA has convened at least two meetings
per year, many in conjunction with other events that took place in Latin America. The
purpose of these meetings has been to plan and coordinate programs and make Network
development decisions.
After working together for four years, FMs report an increased level of communication
among themselves; they now look upon the experience very favorably and are keen to
consolidate the gains already made while strengthening the Network in the future.
Between Founders and Associates
According to the IADN grant agreement, the criteria to be used by FMs when selecting
AMs include:
¸ Capacity and commitment to serve as vehicles for regional outreach;
¸ Track record and potential to gain in one or more of the six key work areas;
20
¸ Voluntary commitment of a key staff person/organizational leader to the project as a
participant in the regional network;
¸ Desire to reach a greater percentage of the public through citizen participation efforts;
and
¸ Ability to monitor and evaluate the results of their citizen participation projects in
order to develop model programs for replication.
FMs reported that those criteria were not always closely followed. Among AMs, track
records, capacity to commit personnel, and ability to monitor and evaluate vary greatly.
There is also a broad variance in terms of size, outreach capacity, and purpose.
In general, AMs vary in a number of ways. Annual budgets run anywhere from several
thousand to several million dollars, while target populations range from grassroots groups
to indigenous organizations, unions, youth, women, and municipal institutions and
activities are undertaken in all USAID strategic sectors. As will be seen in subsequent
sections of this report, the degree of assimilation by AMs of the methodologies provided
by FMs also varies widely.
When selecting target AMs, Founders took different approaches. POA chapters and
USAID missions were consulted in some but not all cases, as envisioned in the grant
agreement. USAID missions were informed of selection decisions once they were made.
The following examples will provide a sense of how FMs went about recruiting AMs
with which to work.
INIAP’s approach was aimed at forming a cadre of AMs in target countries to create
national chapters which together would form a Central American sub-network. Therefore,
INIAP officials contacted organizations with which they had worked in those countries,
requesting recommendations of other NGOs that met three criteria: 1) worked with
women, children, or indigenous people; 2) represented different positions on the political
spectrum; and 3) were interested in promoting citizen participation. In 1996, INIAP
selected and trained three organizations in each of the four countries targeted in the
deliberation methodology, forming national chapters. The following year, another three
NGOs in each country were chosen and trained, based on recommendations from the first
group. The second group was then to be integrated into the national chapters. Reportedly,
this has met with mixed success, since in some countries there was resistance to the
incorporation of new members into the group. Some from the second group reported that
they still do not feel fully integrated into the national chapter.
Meanwhile, Participa worked with pre-existing national networks in Bolivia and Peru to
identify NGOs that were interested in working with the IADN. The national networks
then recommended organizations that were active in the area of citizen participation. In
Paraguay, Participa initiated its first contacts with the POA Paraguay–Kansas chapter and
other well-known NGOs to find a group of organizations that wanted to take advantage of
Participa training and TA in the area of citizen participation at the local level or social
responsibility. Often, the AMs targeted received assistance in both components over time.
21
Conciencia began work in Brazil through two organizations with which it had already
established relationships: Organización Cívica Panamericana and POA/Brazil. It
approached a number of organizations that were interested in promoting citizen
participation and invited them to take part in various activities and discussions. They
were offered the possibility of working with the Network in any of four areas: 1)
deliberation, 2) civic education, 3) participation at the local level, and 4) capacity
building. Conciencia ultimately worked first with ten “first-level” or direct AMs, which
in turn transmitted methodologies to an “expansion group” of other associates.
To launch its IADN activities, in 1996 Fundación Poder Ciudadano held three
workshops, inviting organizations with which it had worked or been in contact from some
13 countries of the region. These covered: a) deliberation; b) citizen participation at the
local level; and c) voter education (candidate data bank) and served to identify
organizations interested in working with the Network. This FM explained that, while they
had been told about the need to focus on neighboring countries, when selecting AMs,
priority was given to those organizations best able to replicate activities and not to
geographic location. In 1997, the number of countries where Poder works was reduced to
seven; the current list of AMs resulted from existing contacts and other organizations
suggested by them.
With regard to relations between Founding and Associate Members, most interviewees
reported strong, professional ties. FMs tend to see themselves as mentors, and almost all
AMs described the training and technical assistance they had received as outstanding.
However, some AMs felt that, while useful, FM assistance was not particularly
meaningful in terms of their overall programs. Some explained that they do not feel part
of the Network, nor do they know anything about it, except from the FM with which they
are associated. Some interviewees failed to understand why their relationship with the
Network should depend on a single Founder, stating they would prefer to relate to any
IADN member working on the same issue or in countries closer to home. A number of
AM interviewees maintained that the Network has not achieved the impact it could have
had because of the lack of real linkages among the NGOs involved and the absence of
follow-up by FMs after training and other activities. They also explained that, due to the
vertical structure of the Network, the benefits they had received were due almost
exclusively to their direct relationship with the FM, not with the larger Network.
Meanwhile, the FMs also favored more horizontal relationships and expressed regret for
their inability to provide follow-up, explaining that the main reason is the lack of the
additional resources that would be required to do so.
There was also the perception that the two-tier membership structure is undemocratic and
that all members should have some role in the decision-making process. A number of
AMs commented on the “top–down” nature of Network’s approach, noting that FMs had
contacted them and offered services, that it was never a relationship of horizontal
learning and exchange. They asserted that, since they too have experience and expertise
to offer, they should be incorporated as equals. One FM explained that, because
performance was to be evaluated in accordance with the indicators established, they
22
never felt they could significantly alter the activities called for in the various components,
though they did consult with AMs with regard to the particular focus of the trainings
offered. Overall, FMs favor a change in Network structure.
In general, among AMs the level of knowledge about the Network and the degree of
information-sharing were found to be very limited. For example, it was reported that two
AMs in the same country did not know that the other was a member of the Network until
they found out by coincidence, though they work together frequently on issues of
common concern. Noting that members have no mandate to promote IADN visibility, one
AM representative recommended that there should be a Carta de Deberes (Charter of
Duties) for all members, including an obligation to disseminate information about the
Network on a regular basis.
In summary, over time, the IADN appears to have evolved into a varied set of
relationships among organizations with a shared interest in democracy-related themes. In
Partners’ opinion, up to now the IADN has sponsored a collection of TA/training
programs carried out by individual FMs in a parallel fashion, rather than the creation of a
network through which member organizations can take the initiative to share learning and
work together on joint initiatives.
Between Founders, Associates and Cooperating Members
Another membership category described in the grant agreement is that of “Cooperating
Member Organizations.” Mentioned are foundations, universities, training institutes, and
donor organizations interested in supporting the Network. USAID and the Kettering
Foundation are the organizations listed in this category.
As reported by USAID democracy officers, relations between POA and USAID/W (i.e.,
LAC/RSD) have been professional, efficient, and harmonious. Communication between
the two offices has been fluid and continuous, despite frequent personnel shifts within the
LAC Bureau—there have been five Program Officers to date. One former democracy
officer noted that centralizing the grant’s administration, including reporting
mechanisms, made the grant manageable. POA relations with missions have also been
positive, though infrequent.
Meanwhile, relations between other Founding Members and USAID have been limited
and generally occurred at the mission level in countries where the Agency still works.
Except in cases where FMs or AMs have previously established funding relations with
missions, IADN members do not generally approach local missions. One exception
relates to work in Bolivia, Peru, and Paraguay, where Participa reports that visits were
sometimes paid to the USAID mission to discuss Network progress in their countries.
One FM reported that in some countries it had been difficult to deepen relations with the
mission because of resistance to regional programming and work with the Network.
Overall, it was found that mission personnel had little or no knowledge of the Network,
though they may have heard of certain members. Thus, opportunities for the discussion of
mutual interests and potential funding options have been limited.
23
Some democracy officers in the missions expressed interest in learning more and working
with the Network in their countries. It was suggested by a number of interviewees that
USAID/W should play a more active role in facilitating communication and relations
between Network members and mission personnel. Indeed, the USAID democracy officer
who currently manages the LAC Bureau grant to Partners expressed a personal
commitment to building such relations through increased communication with DG
officers, notification of upcoming events, and so forth. Meanwhile, it was recommended
that the Network encourage its members to make contact with USAID missions, keeping
them up to date on plans and activities.
The Kettering Foundation plays a special role in the Network. The Foundation has
working relationships with all FMs and a number of AMs and defines itself as a “friend
of IADN—not a supporter or mentor.” International civil society fellowships lasting six
months have been hosted by Kettering for Network organizations, increasing the
knowledge of deliberation among the NGOs of the region. Fellows have been chosen
with support by FMs. In addition, all southern FMs are invited to the annual International
Civil Society Workshop in July and the Civil Society Exchange event in January—both
in the United States. Through years of experience with National Issues Forums in the
United States, Kettering developed the deliberation methodology that has been adapted
by Network members and now permeates IADN activities.
Emergence of Sub-networks & New Alliances
Several alliances and sub-networks have emerged as a result of Network activities. The
most memorable examples found during this evaluation include:
¸ As described earlier, INIAP has worked to form national chapters bringing AMs
together in Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, and Nicaragua and melding those
chapters into a Central American sub-network dedicated to deliberation and citizen
participation. Each chapter has worked on different activities, and the majority of
organizations have incorporated deliberation into their own programs.
¸ In late 1998, Participa launched a regional “Program for the Promotion of Social
Responsibility,” which involves the participation of entrepreneurs and other well￾placed individuals from Bolivia, Chile, Paraguay, and Peru. Objectives of the
Program include the promotion of greater interaction between the community and the
business sector within the framework of Social Responsibility at different levels.
¸ In Brazil, working through a “first level” of AMs, plus an “expansion group,”
Conciencia has been able to bring together a number of NGOs and universities from
various states (Sao Paulo, Rio Grande do Sul, and Parana) for the interchange of
experiences and collaboration among the various organizations in an effort to increase
citizen participation in local and national affairs. As a result of Network activities,
Associate Member AMNPPA formed various alliances with key local institutions,
including CSOs and business groups. Voto Consciente, Conciencia’s main
counterpart AM in Sao Paulo, has formed a strategic alliance with the State Secretary
of Education with the objective of developing curriculum and teacher training in civic
24
education. In August 1999, Conciencia launched an effort to integrate planning
among the various Brazilian associates. Plans are also under consideration to expand
activities to the northern part of the country, in collaboration with the Brazilian
Federation of Partners of the Americas.
¸ In Colombia, UniAndes has created an alliance with the leading newspaper (El
Tiempo) and the Corona Foundation in an initiative called Educacion: Un Asunto de
Todos. Through a series of Citizen Interest Forums, regional Citizen Agendas on
Education are being developed and published in the mass media. Also, gatherings
with public authorities and the different sectors related to the education system are
held in an effort to improve public policy in that sector.
¸ In Mexico, as a result of training by Fundación Poder Ciudadano in election-related
subjects, a sub-network has been formed by Alianza Cívica, involving local affiliates
in Chiapas and Coahuila, as well as the Movimiento de Ciudadanos por la
Democracia (MCD), the Frente Cívico Familiar, and others.
¸ Several IADN members are actively involved in and serve as national chapters (e.g.,
Argentina, Panama, and Ecuador) of Transparency International (TI), a global anti￾corruption network, which also has a regional office. Thus, these organizations not
only work together within the Network but also as members of TI.
2. Relations with Other Networks
In light of modern technology and the explosion of CSOs in all parts of the globe, it was
not surprising to find that IADN members maintain relations with a wide variety of other
organizations and national and international networks. A number of IADN members
reported affiliations with CIVITAS, a worldwide organization for civic education based
in France, as well as with CIVICUS, which is based in the United States and dedicated to
strengthening CSOs around the world. Indeed, to help build the Network, POA had used
grant funds to support the participation of FMs at events held by both CIVITAS
(Argentina) and CIVICUS (Hungary). Network organizations reported that the
information provided and contacts made during those events were useful. No significant
longer-term results were mentioned. Most FM interviewees attached greater significance
to their affiliation with other networks dedicated to more specific issues or to Latin
American affairs.
One FM is represented on the Board of the International Institute for Democracy and
Electoral Assistance (IDEA). Associate Members reported belonging to a variety of
national, regional, and international networks, such as Business and Professional
Women’s Association, Soroptimist International, the Inter-American Human Rights
Center, and a wide array of national networks dedicated to environmental, health,
community development, and other sector-specific issues.
The head of one AM, who felt strongly that IADN’s major deficiency is its failure to
facilitate effectively and efficiently the exchange of information and materials among
members, highly recommended the Latin America & Caribbean Civic Network of the
25
National Democratic Institute in Washington as a particularly good communications
system.
3. Communication Mechanisms & Monitoring and Evaluation System
Communication among Network members has occurred through both formal and
informal mechanisms. As required by USAID, regular reports (quarterly and annual
progress and financial reports sent to POA by each FM) are compiled by POA and
transmitted to USAID and all FMs. And, as noted earlier, POA convenes FMs twice a
year to discuss administrative and other matters. The June 1997 grant amendment notes
that seven such meetings, which included the participation of USAID officials, had been
held. In addition, two regional events have taken place for specific purposes in Costa
Rica and Guatemala. Meanwhile, Network members use a mixture of e-mail and personal
contact to stay in touch. Between meetings, FMs tend to rely on the Internet for most
correspondence. They communicate with target AMs through e-mail, phone calls, and
field visits. Regional meetings, seminars, and workshops are also used as occasional
forums for gathering and disseminating information among AMs and FMs.
The IADN grant amendment specifies that communication among all members of the
Network was to occur through a variety of mechanisms. First, the project would develop
a database of “NGOs and individuals with special expertise in the region.” It would also
“prepare and disseminate information regarding activities and training opportunities, and
highlight model civic education programs.”
In Phase I of the grant, Conciencia and OCP conducted an inventory of 73 organizations
that promote citizen participation in the hemisphere and published a resource directory
with profiles of those organizations and materials they produced. Over 500 copies were
distributed. The directory was also used to identify organizations with potential for
working with the IADN during Phase II. An update of the resource directory, as
mentioned in the 1995 amendment, was not done. POA explained that the emphasis had
shifted toward IADN members, rather than the more general list of organizations. Also, a
brief survey of computer capabilities in the region indicated that few organizations could
receive it on diskette, which would have been the preferred form of distribution.
Meanwhile, FMs felt an increasingly strong need for a mechanism to facilitate their
access to information about IADN activities and to integrate AMs into the Network.
Later, to improve communication, and following discussion among FMs, Participa
proposed the creation of a web page, which it had the capability and enthusiasm to
develop. Thus, with the agreement of all concerned, in early 1999 Participa submitted a
proposal to POA, arguing that, “after three years of work in the field, our Network has
results and concrete accomplishments to show in each of our components, but there is no
channel of mass communication to do so.” In response, POA awarded an additional sub￾grant of some $26,000 (from the “Outreach” line item) to Participa to overcome that
problem. Thus, the web page was created [http://www.redinter.org] and went into
operation by mid-year.
26
The web page houses general information about the IADN, its activities and the services
offered, publications, and a database of contact information for Network members by
category. It also includes an interactive users’ area (links) for notices, articles, offers, and
requests. We found that, while the existence of the web page is not yet known by all
AMs, many do know about it. However, few reported having used it as a resource. In
interviews, most AM representatives felt that the Internet should be used more
strategically to disseminate information to and encourage dialogue among Network
members.
With regard to monitoring and evaluation, the grant agreement states that evaluation “will
be an integral part of this project. Participant questionnaires and other techniques, such
as interviews, reports, information from in-country sources and surveys, will be used to
provide useful feedback. A system for tracking results will be developed and updated on
an on-going basis, with feedback to AID though quarterly reports and annual reports.”
Both USAID and the FMs recognized that measuring democracy programs is a
challenging task. However, as one interviewee noted, they all agreed to learn together.
The development of results-based objectives and appropriate indicators to monitor
performance was taken very seriously by Partners. In effect, this system is the first of its
kind.
In 1996, with the technical assistance of a specialist from Management Systems
International (MSI), POA and the five southern FMs worked on developing a
performance monitoring system designed to provide them with more comparable data
about the outcome of IADN activities, while furnishing USAID with the information it
required. First, objectives were identified for each of the six activity components. Then
indicators were developed for monitoring both outputs and progress in meeting
objectives. This was done in a highly participatory manner over a period of time,
culminating in a workshop held in March 1997 with all FMs, during which they reached
consensus on the objectives and indicators to be used. Data collection, in accordance with
the results framework, began on July 1, 1997. Interview protocols and other instruments
were drafted by FMs for information-collection purposes, based on the particular
component to be monitored.
According to POA, Founding Members have regularly reported on their activities in their
quarterly reports. These reports generally contain the basic process information, though it
is not always presented in the formats developed. All but one of the FMs has attempted to
collect impact data with AMs through follow-up surveys. However, in some cases, only a
limited number of surveys have been completed. This has resulted in gaps in data which
the program has struggled to overcome. Part of this is due to the fact that not all
organizations trained became AMs. In the beginning, training was offered to a broad
cross-section of organizations, and those that showed the most interest received further
attention and follow-up. The monitoring and evaluation system does not distinguish
between AMs and other organizations trained. The lack of an ongoing relationship with
some of the organizations trained and the number of these (some FMs report having
trained over 100 organizations) makes individual follow-up with each a time-consuming
27
task. In addition, while AMs are to report to FMs regularly regarding the status of the
activities they are carrying out with FM assistance, they do not always carry through.
POA reports that, overall, FMs took the monitoring and evaluation tasks seriously,
incorporating this into their work. In a number of cases, follow-up technical assistance
visits were used to conduct impact surveys and staff were hired or deployed specifically
for collecting data. Conciencia was particularly effective in training its AMs in the use of
the monitoring and evaluation system; these AMs understood what information was
expected from them and took responsibility for providing it. The experience of having
created their own system (after rejecting the initial framework proposed in July 1996),
strengthened the commitment and understanding of the FMs to the monitoring and
evaluation process. Nearly all representatives of FM organizations reported that the
IADN monitoring system had proven to be very helpful; some reported applying the
principles learned here to other programs. In one case, the staff member responsible for
evaluation has been motivated to seek additional training in this field. Only one
organization found the system to be overly time-consuming, explaining that its own
approach to monitoring is probably just as good. The value of having comparable data
across the Network was, however, acknowledged.
To supplement the indicator framework, the FMs are developing a series of case studies
to highlight significant achievements in particular component areas. Presently, there are
four case studies, which have been disseminated and are available in English and Spanish
on the IADN web page.
C. IMPACT/RESULTS
During the evaluation design process, two levels of impact resulting from IADN
activities were identified. One is the impact on member organizations as a result of their
association with the Network. The second is the impact of Network activities on citizen
participation in the region. It was agreed that the first level of impact is easier to identify
and document, and in fact, most of the following data fall under this category.
It was also agreed that it would not be possible for the Team to collect data for the second
level, the broader impact on society, given the evaluation’s time and resource constraints.
Because the IADN has, to date, focused on TA and training and since tracking impact on
overall levels of citizen participation in the region is difficult, very little regarding this
level of impact emerges in the evaluation.
Furthermore, data for this type of impact are not tracked by the Network’s monitoring
and evaluation system. Network members agreed from the outset that this type of
information was beyond the scope of the system, and that broader, societal impact, when
it did occur, could only be assessed in anecdotal form. Only in the area of deliberation are
there indicators relating to impact on the population, and these are very rudimentary. It
was determined that because the primary target of Network activities was Latin American
NGOs, indicators would focus on the assimilation of methodologies learned through the
Network by those organizations. Anecdotes concerning the results of the use of these new
28
methodologies on the NGO client population, submitted in “qualitative reports” and case
studies, would then supplement the data. Thus, while many of the examples that follow
suggest that citizen participation in the region has improved to some degree as a result of
the Network, it is impossible to know to what extent.
While the SOW identifies the “impact” on various actors as an area of inquiry,
interviewees were generally unable to assess true impact at this early stage. They could,
however, speak of the results observed. Due to the breadth of the activities undertaken, it
was not possible for the Team to comprehensively document all results in just three
months. Team members traveled to the field to interview IADN participants and observe
events that were taking place between June and August 1999 in order to get a better
understanding of where the Network is at present. The Team took a “snapshot” of the
Network at this time, a snapshot that could help inform the future as interviewees were
encouraged to think critically about ways in which the Network could improve.
The anecdotal information gathered in the field is complemented by data from the
Network’s monitoring and evaluation system.*
Partners noted that differences among
FMs in interpretation and adherence to the system led to inconsistencies in the data.
Adjustments to indicators, data collection instruments and procedures have been made all
along in order to make the system more consistent across areas and to reflect the focus on
NGOs as the primary target (or unit of measure). A shift from collecting aggregate
numbers from FMs to inputting more detailed information entailed a significant increase
in level of effort. The systems to manage this level of input are still being created. For
these reasons, data in this report are not exhaustive but are as complete as can be
provided at the moment.
The remainder of this section explores results at various levels and is designed to respond
to the questions posed in the impact section of the SOW.
1. Overall Network Results
FMs reported that their association with the Network has been a very fruitful experience
and one that they would not have wanted to miss. The Associate Members contacted also
felt that Network affiliation has been beneficial, though the degree of benefit perceived
varied. While all AMs were clearly positive, in some cases there appeared to be an
inverse relationship between the size and strength of the AM and the level of importance
attached to participation in the Network. The following specific results were mentioned:
® Working with each other: The six FMs reported that, while it was difficult at first,
they have succeeded in learning to work together. According to POA, this was
accomplished by having frequent meetings, particularly in the first two years, and by
working together on activities such as crafting the objectives and indicators for the
 
*
 According to POA, the indicators and data in the M&E system track numbers of NGOs trained by FMs,
person-days of training conducted, whether the methodology learned is being put to use by trained NGOs,
and the results achieved by those applying the methodology. As noted earlier, indicators were jointly
developed by all FMs in March 1997, and data collection began in July. Process indicators are tracked
quarterly, while impact information is collected annually.
29
program, developing a strategic vision and description of the Network and the
Network’s regional workshop on deliberation, in which each founding member
played a part.*
They tend to see themselves as very different organizations working
toward a common goal. IADN experience has also helped them learn to resolve
problems collectively.
® New contacts & greater presence: FMs reported that the Network has allowed them to
make new contacts and increase their visibility, both nationally and internationally.
For southern FMs, the Network provided opportunities for them to work on a regular
basis outside of their own countries, exposing them to new realities within which to
test their methodologies and linking those lessons back to organizations at home.
Some have used this experience to leverage additional resources or design other
regional initiatives. For example, POA reported that Participa received separate funds
to coordinate civil society positions and insert language on civil society into
documents adopted during the November 1998 Summit of the Americas in Santiago.
FMs actively participated in the pre-Summit process, taking a leadership role in
drafting the recommendations for civil society and education. Participa also received
a grant from USAID to assist civil society organizations to implement the
recommendations. It was reported that lessons learned from that experience have been
most useful when participating in other international forums and have opened doors
to new supporters.
According to POA, other regional activities in which FMs participated on behalf of
the Network include: the Kettering Foundation’s annual International Civil Society
Exchange, meetings of CIVICUS (March 1997 and September 1998), Civitas
Panamericano (September 1996), the IberoAmerican Encounter for the Social Sector,
and a pre-summit conference on civil society and Sustainable Development (August
1996). In November 1998, all FMs participated in a presentation about the Network
to organizations interested in civil society located in Washington, DC. FMs have also
made presentations about their work with the Network and have facilitated forums at
POA conventions. In short, it was felt that the IADN has increased the recognition of
its founders as players in the international civil society arena.
® Increased resource base: FMs reported that working with the IADN has increased
their resource base and has helped some become more sustainable. This has been of
less significance to AMs, as they have received only small amounts of funding.
Indeed, some AMs emphasized that, in receiving assistance from the Network, they
had to be willing to defray all overhead, administrative, and other costs from their
regular budgets. Others indicated that they would not have been able to carry out
IADN-sponsored activities without this assistance.
 
*
FMs met at least twice a year to develop program plans and discuss implementation. In 1997 two
additional meetings were held for strategic planning and evaluation purposes. In addition, FMs took
advantage of their participation in regional civil society events (see below) to discuss Network issues,
usually in a separate meeting prior to or following these events.
30
® Increased capabilities to carry out citizen participation activities: Without exception,
FMs felt that their capacity to provide technical assistance and training to other CSOs
has definitely increased as a result of their affiliation with the Network. Moreover,
their capability to plan, implement, and evaluate civic participation activities was
reported to have increased as a result of opportunities provided through the Network.
The degree to which increased capacity has been institutionalized appears to vary
among the FMs, accruing in some cases to individual staff members whose work is
treated as a discrete, peripheral effort.
The capabilities of a number of AMs to provide assistance to other organizations has
also increased, thanks to the Network—particularly through the use of deliberation.
However, many reported that they have not yet had enough experience to continue
this work without the ongoing support of the FM. Overall, AMs attributed any
benefits accruing to them from IADN-sponsored activities to their relationship with
the FM that recruited them, rather than to the Network as a whole. Indeed, a good
number of them had no knowledge of the Network. As will be shown in subsequent
paragraphs, the capacity of AMs to plan, implement, and evaluate civic participation
initiatives has increased.
® Transfer & assimilation of methodologies: For AMs, there is substantial evidence that
the methodology most highly assimilated is that of deliberation. That technique has
been adapted in a variety of ways and has also been incorporated by many AMs into
their other programs. Other methodologies transferred from FMs to AMs have
included those related to fund-raising, relations among municipal government, NGOs
and community groups at the local level, and so forth. With regard to FMs, there were
few reports of methodological transfers through the Network. As discussed
previously, these organizations continue to work in the component areas they chose at
the outset. One example of successful sharing was reported to be the transfer of
electoral database methods from Poder Ciudadano to UniAndes, resulting in a project
titled “Visible Candidates” which related to Colombian Congressional candidates and
later to those running for president.
® Institutional Strengthening: AMs that had participated in IADN-sponsored
institutional strengthening activities reported results within their organizations in
areas including organizational restructuring, development of new fundraising
strategies, and enrichment of their institutional vision. Often, the introduction of a
new methodology allowed institutions to develop new areas of expertise and forge
new alliances. Examples of this result are noted in the next section.
Before examining activities by component, it should be noted that it is not possible to
respond to two questions posed in the SOW regarding gender and impact. For example,
no quantitative data were available concerning the “grant’s impact on increasing
women’s participation in public life.” However, it appears clear that there is a high
degree of participation by women in Network activities. While the information provided
by FMs for inclusion in the POA database is disaggregated by sex, age, and so forth, the
31
lack of post-intervention follow-up makes it impossible to track longer-term impact. For
the same reason, it is not possible to quantitatively assess how “the individuals and
organizations participating in activities carried out by Associate Members [are] using the
knowledge that they acquire.”
However, qualitative information collected during the course of the evaluation does
suggest that such results have indeed been obtained in a number of cases and that women
and men are using the knowledge they acquire. For example, in Central America the AMs
interviewed reported having developed an internal capacity to master the deliberation
methodology and that often the majority of those trained were women. Results for several
of the organizations include:
· Groups of union women trained in deliberation. This has helped them to integrate
effectively in the union at large by giving them skills to communicate their opinions
and participate in the decision-making process.
· Women members of organizations using the deliberation methodology choose the
themes on which they will deliberate in a given community, and they then develop
action plans. Specific results include advocacy at the municipal level to provide
gynecological exams through the community health clinic. As a result, free exams
have been provided to 180 women to date. Another example is a community strategy
to manage waste, which included design of better dump sites, street cleaning, etc.
· One AM provides legal training for women promotoras on a regular basis, using
deliberation. They then return to their communities, using the method along with
other skills, to highlight issues relating to family violence and other human rights
concerns. As a result, both organizations and individuals are strengthened/trained.
In Brazil, while some AMs interviewed said that their programs affected men and women
equally, others noted special impact on women. An AM involved in deliberation forums
in Parana reported that, while more men than women attended their forums, women
seemed to become especially sensitized to the issues dealt with and were more involved
than men in follow-up actions after the forums. For many, this was their first experience
with citizen participation. A number of the AMs in Brazil are groups of women
volunteers (Voto Consciente, Soroptimist chapters, AMNPPA), so that the increases in
personal and institutional capacity as a result of Network activities there are particularly
concentrated among women.
2. Results by Component
To examine the results of Network activities as related to the overall goal of increased
citizen participation, this section looks at the six component areas in which those
activities have taken place. The Results Framework developed by FMs, including
performance indicators, may be found in Annex F. Since it is not possible to transmit all
of the anecdotal material collected by the evaluation team, the most illustrative examples
are presented.
The data available from the POA database for each component are presented first,
followed by examples of data gathered in the field during the evaluation team’s visits.
32
a. Deliberation
As noted earlier, to date the majority of IADN activities and resources have been
dedicated to this component. Four of the FMs worked in this area, transferring knowledge
of the deliberation methodology to AMs across the region. However, because FMs
employed different approaches and because conditions differ from one country to
another, the results of this transfer are varied.
Objective A: Greater use of the practice of deliberation
The most complete information in the database relates to this objective. Four FMs
held over 35 workshops to train NGOs to conduct forums. Thirty-eight NGOs
have held 258 forums, attended by 6,603 participants, 63 percent of whom were
women and 62 percent were youth (age 25 or younger). A total of 75 forums (29
percent) were conducted without any technical or financial assistance from an
FM, indicating a good level of institutionalization of the forum process.
Thirty-six issue guides (short documents which guide the process of deliberation)
have been developed on the following topics: Citizen Participation, Corruption,
Democracy, Women’s Rights, Children’s Rights, Education, Poverty, the role of
Government, Public Safety, Environment, AIDS, Youth and Participation, and
Drug Abuse. In numerous cases, the deliberative process was adapted for
facilitating community or institutional meetings, without the use of a pre-printed
guide.
A regional workshop on deliberation was held in April 1999 to provide
opportunities for FMs and AMs to exchange materials, approaches, and
experiences beyond their normal working groups; each of the FMs participated in
organizing and facilitating the workshop.
Objective B: Citizens have a better understanding of the complexity of public
policy issues
Data for this objective have been hard to collect and systematize for a number of
reasons. First, because four FMs are working in deliberation, they have had to
modify pre- and post-forum questionnaires to reflect the different contexts in
which they work. Thus, there is no standard form, and the responses are hard to
compare and aggregate. Second, some FMs have had difficulty obtaining this
information because, in some cases, participants are illiterate.
Central America
INIAP trained some 22 CSOs in Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, and Nicaragua,
working with each organization separately to train personnel in the deliberation
methodology, while facilitating efforts to develop country-level chapters and, later, a sub-
33
network of Central American AMs. For that reason, interviewees who had worked with
INIAP referred to results at the organizational, chapter, and sub-network levels.
AM representatives expressed an appreciation for the basic principles on which the
methodology is based. They argued that deliberation opens participants to other opinions
and promotes dialogue and that participants leave deliberation forums with increased
knowledge of the issue treated and a new respect for different opinions. They felt that
these are particularly important values to instill in the war-torn countries of the region.
However, a number of AMs referred to the “rigidity” of the methodology and the need to
adapt it. They also felt that deliberation should be used as one of many methodologies, as
part of a process to solve concrete problems or lead to action, holding that, since
deliberation alone does not lead to action, this is a serious weakness. Many AMs noted
this problem, reporting that the question always is, “Despues del foro, que?” (After the
forum, what’s next?)
To address this, nearly all organizations reported having incorporated deliberation to
some degree into their regular programs. In addition to increasing the potential for post￾forum action, this has resulted in the institutionalization of the methodology and its more
sustainable use. This, combined with the work AMs did together as a chapter resulted in a
number of significant achievements in promoting citizen participation. Specific examples
include:
In Nicaragua -
· Three AMs, Grupo Fundemos, Hagamos Democracia, and CED, worked together to
train facilitators from other CSOs, using the methodology throughout the country to
obtain citizens’ views on post-hurricane Mitch reconstruction priorities. These were
then presented to the GON and at the Consultative Group meeting in Stockholm.
· Hagamos Democracia, which works with representatives of local and national
government, citizens, and civil society, used deliberation at the community level to
define priority issues to present to local officials. Fifteen promoters were trained as
moderators in each department of the country, and they are now training others.
These moderators are tapping into already-existing community networks to achieve a
multiplier effect.
· CDC, another AM, provided legal training for women promotoras on a regular basis
using deliberation. These women then returned to their communities, where they
apply this and other skills to highlight issues relating to family violence and other
human rights concerns. CDC also combines deliberation with mediation to resolve
community disputes. It has used deliberation to organize groups in over 40
municipalities to focus on youth issues and define program priorities.
· CENIDH uses deliberation to prepare promotores/as in the area of municipal,
constitutional, and human rights law. Participants have included alcaldes, consejales,
policia, military personnel, Ministry of Education officials, and various CSOs. As a
result of deliberation, they have reached agreement on plans to increase
communication between citizens and authorities, a campaign to motivate citizen
participation, solicitation of information from authorities, and efforts to coordinate
with police to reduce delinquency.
34
In Guatemala -
· AMs used deliberation to begin general discussions on public policy issues that relate
to children’s rights. This helped them encourage participants to overcome the culture
of fear that permeates the country.
· One organization, ADEJUC, has trained 65 people to moderate deliberative forums.
· Deliberation has helped some AMs promote advocacy for the passage of a legal code
for children and youth (código de la niñez y juventud).
In El Salvador -
· One AM worked with students from around the country, who elected representatives
to form the National Youth Council. Through deliberation, their opinions on issues
facing Salvadoran youth have been documented in a position paper to be presented to
the National Assembly.
· The work of AMs with teenage gangs appears to indicate that they have discovered
the value of participation in the life of their community via deliberation and are now
less afraid to speak in public settings. It was felt that this may actually contribute to
lowering the incidence of gang violence, as such participation seems to serve as a
substitute by allowing teens to explore problems and help find alternative solutions.
· The El Salvador chapter is helping the municipality of Soyapango train local
authorities to use the deliberation method when solving community problems. They
have adapted the methodology to allow those who cannot read or write to participate
in the trainings.
· ISD and ACJ have worked with students throughout the country. One of these efforts
has been the election of representatives to form the National Youth Council. Through
deliberation, opinions about the problems faced by Salvadoran youth have been
documented, along with their position on the issue. This document is to be presented
to the National Assembly.
In Honduras -
· Deliberation was used in a barrio marginal in Tegucigalpa with community
associations working on water, health, education, and other issues to analyze existing
problems (e.g., the need for a potable water system) and then determine follow-up
actions (e.g., meeting with the alcaldia municipal). These forums were carried out
without issue guides, as many of the older participants were not able to read. Similar
activities are being carried out in six municipalities.
· CDH, working with and without issue guides, used deliberation in their activities with
rural and urban unions to choose a course of action for responding to post-Mitch
reconstruction and deciding how to relate to political parties. They also use and teach
deliberation in their programs for training young leaders.
· A person who works with COCOCH (an AM) conducts forums within the member
organization to which she belongs, Unión de Mujeres Campesinas Hondureñas
(UNCAH), to address issues related to health, the environment, and AIDS prevention.
Members choose the themes about which they will deliberate in a given community,
then they develop action plans. Specific results include, for instance, advocacy at the
municipal level to provide gynecological exams—provided to 180 women to date.
35
Another example is a community strategy to manage waste, which included design of
better dump sites, street cleaning, and so forth.
In addition to the results documented during field visits to AM organizations, INIAP has
reported that the AMs in Central America completed the following activities. In
Nicaragua, Asociación de Mujeres Nicaragüenses “Conciencia” passes along the
methodology to low-income clients. In Guatemala, CONANI is using the methodology to
help young educators teach at the community level. Another AM, PAMI, has adapted the
method to use in training programs with a number of organizations that work with youth.
IGESP and APJU work with youth groups and other CSOs around the country to host
FICs. Mujer y Vida has incorporated deliberation into its programs supporting rural
women and the peace accords. Fundación Agropecuaria de Guatemala (Fundación Uleu)
uses deliberation to work with non-Spanish speaking indigenous people about citizen
participation. They have adapted the Spanish issue guides to relate specifically to this
community. In El Salvador, Fundación Guillermo Manuel Ungo (Fundaungo) has used
deliberation extensively to increase citizen participation at the local level.
The Central American National Chapters & Regional Sub-Network: The AMs that
comprise national chapters are expected jointly to plan and conduct several deliberative
forums per year on issues of importance in their countries. For that purpose, AMs
reported that INIAP provides approximately $250 per forum as small grants to help
defray expenses.
A number of AM interviewees considered that the process of forming a national chapter
is a result in and of itself, stressing that coordinating efforts among organizations is often
time-consuming and difficult. Interviewees noted that working with the chapters demands
a high level of personal commitment, as the responsibilities often fall outside of their
organizations’ priorities. Learning to work together proved to be a valuable experience
for most Central American AMs. The amount of time, effort, coordination, and
communication that goes into a guide, forum, and the work plans of each chapter
reinforce the processes of coordination and respect—all important characteristics of a
democratic society. This process may also be considered a result, especially in a country
where civil society is so fragmented and disarticulated.
The results are especially interesting when viewed within the context of the FM’s
strategy and the region’s history. INIAP purposefully chose organizations that
represented different poles in the political spectrum working in the same issue areas
(women, youth, and indigenous). After working together as a chapter and using
deliberative methods, many new alliances were formed. For example, in one case, two
organizations that would never have worked together in the past are drawing up proposals
for new activities as a partnership. This is especially significant given the past of violent
and politicized conflict in the region (which is still present in society).
For example, working together as a chapter, Honduran AMs learned to utilize and adapt
the deliberation methodology, identifying problems and solutions when writing two issue
guides. In Nicaragua, working as a chapter allowed AMs to strengthen relationships and
36
maintain communication; address national issues, including citizen participation in post￾Mitch reconstruction efforts; and form a network of cooperating organizations, which
they feel will prove useful for future fund-raising, as networks or consortia seem to be a
priority among donors.
Efforts to meld national chapters into a regional sub-network include an annual meeting
of member organizations. These sessions have allowed AMs to learn more about the
issues facing other Central American CSOs. By sharing experiences, they have also
learned that they have issues in common. No institutional strengthening or other special
efforts to build the sub-network were reported, as these were not provided for in the sub￾grant. The strong perception among interviewees was that the Central American sub￾network appears to be continuing development of a common vision based on the
experiences of its members. However, it is as yet very weak.
Brazil
Conciencia worked with a group of six AMs from three states in Brazil, providing
training in the use of deliberation. In turn, those AMs trained an “expansion group” of
seven additional organizations. The “first level” or direct associates have demonstrated
substantial capability in carrying out forums on their own, though they continue to
receive assistance from Conciencia in areas such as designing issue guides on new topics.
The extent to which they have successfully assimilated the practice of deliberation is
demonstrated by their ability to act as “multipliers,” transferring the methodology to
other organizations. The quality of the deliberation “product” of the Brazilian associates
is evidenced by the growing demand for forums from diverse entities in the regions
where they work. For example, in the case of Voto Consciente, the demand for forums
has surpassed the organization’s capacity to conduct them. Among other requests, the
State Secretariat of Education of Sao Paulo recently asked that they perform 100 forums
as a regular feature of its new weekend school program aimed at keeping children and
youth off the streets.
There was also considerable evidence that associates from the “expansion group” are
building capacity in deliberation. In most cases, the members of the expansion group
receive assistance from AMs in carrying out forums. For example, the Soroptimistas of
Catanduva are newcomers to the Network, having organized their first forum in May
1999. As a result of a “tumultuous” forum on citizen security, the Soroptimistas were
invited to help form a local security council (Conseg) and received requests from local
officials to do a forum on drugs in another neighborhood.
The vast majority of the associates interviewed reported that acquiring deliberation skills
had been a valuable contribution to their work, particularly as a mechanism for putting
their organizations in contact with the community. Most of the organizations interviewed
had not used any similar tool prior to involvement with the Network, although some had
experience with other types of forums. The Brazilian associates involved in deliberation
forums, as a practice, try to lead forum participants to identify follow-on actions to
37
address the issues that have been raised. However, some of the associates that perform
large numbers of forums, while reporting information concerning the forums themselves,
do not regularly collect data regarding follow-on actions.
In cases of organizations that have created longer-term relationships with communities
where forums are held (e.g., the Rio Grande do Sul “subnetwork” and the State
Universities in Parana), they were able to report a number of results which grew out of
deliberation forums. Some examples follow.
· As a result of a forum in the municipality of Nova Harz, citizens identified the
institution of a participatory budget process (already a tradition in the state capital of
Porto Alegre) as one of the concrete actions they wanted to pursue. City councilmen
agreed to institute the process. Representatives of AMs did intensive follow-up work
with the municipality to implement the process. The associate from AGAPAN who
was most involved in the follow-up actions observed that creating this level of impact
is very time-consuming.
· As the result of another forum, citizens in a community in Rio Grande do Sul
organized to petition the secretary of public works for a sewage system which, as they
requested, was put in place by the municipality.
· Other forums in Parana have led to the creation of community councils on health and
education to lobby municipal officials on priority issues. One group succeeded in
preventing a particularly effective school principal from being moved to another area.
A mother’s club and other groups convinced city officials to create a public
competition to qualify teacher candidates.
· The State Universities of Ponta Grossa and Londrina have used the deliberation
methodology and materials designed by Kettering, while adapting them to their
community extension program.
Colombia
In 1997, UniAndes began working with the Urban Journalism program of the
Universidad Pontificia Bolivariana of Medellín, carrying out an activity called
Periodismo Cívico (Civic Journalism). First was a project called Voces Ciudadanas por
la Seguridad y la Convivencia, which through a series of deliberative Foros de Interés
Ciudadano (FICs) resulted in a citizens’ agenda on the issue of security. Again with FICs
as a core approach, in 1998 UniAndes, El Tiempo newspaper, and the Fundación Corona
joined together in an effort to put the issue of education on the national agenda.
This initiative, called Educación: un Asunto de Todos, is to be carried out in selected
regions of the country. The project was launched with a number of FICs in Bogotá, in
which various sectors of the citizenry participated. The issue guide had been developed
with guidance from a panel of seven experts/advisors (two women, five men) in the field
of education, convened to provide a basis for development (through FICs) of a “Citizens’
Agenda on Education” and to help UniAndes compile results. This produced a document
that was then presented as the Agenda (i.e., citizens’ voice). In May 1998 (before
presidential elections), El Tiempo published an entire supplement on the subject of
38
education, with answers from candidates to questions about the quality, management, and
financing of education. In March 1999, the paper published a special section on the
subject.
Through a second agreement with El Tiempo and Corona, the project is to be expanded,
now focusing on higher education through Regional Agendas being developed in el
Valle, Cundinamarca, and Antioquía (four FICs in each region), subsequently presenting
them to local and regional authorities, though UniAndes explained that they do not have
the capacity to provide follow-up to learn if participants have been affected by the
experience. These FICs are held in cooperation with local/regional entities identified by
UniAndes.
Ecuador
With assistance from UniAndes, AM Fundación Esquel (FE) has been carrying out a
two-pronged initiative based on the use of FICs to explore the “Role of the Education
Community in the Fight against Corruption” with children in schools run by the
municipality of Quito. This includes: a) FICs in the schools and b) workshops to train
teachers from Quito and Guayaquil as FIC moderators. FE interviewees explained that,
because FICs with unarticulated groups do not usually lead to concrete results, they
decided to shift their focus to schools, where students stay in touch with each other,
making follow-up action much more feasible. Approximately $27,000 is being provided
for the anti-corruption campaign described here. This amount is provided in the form of a
grant from the UniAndes annual budget, but this is a unique case in that it is administered
directly by POA/W, rather than by the FM.*
Panama, Uruguay, & Paraguay
Fundación Poder Ciudadano has worked with organizations in each of these countries:
Fundación para el Desarrollo de la Libertad Ciudadana (Panama), Asociación
Encuentro (Uruguay), and Decidamos (Paraguay). It was reported that the deliberation
methodology has been assimilated by the three AMs, which received initial training in
1996 during a workshop held jointly by Poder Ciudadano and Conciencia. Poder
Ciudadano reports that the three AMs have acted as “multipliers,” training new
moderators, and have also produced their own discussion guides on the subject of
corruption for the forums held. Representatives of Poder Ciudadano affirm that the
exchange with these organizations has contributed greatly to their own work in the area
of deliberation, as they have adapted the methodology to fit national environments,
making changes in the format, pre/post evaluation, and so forth. As an example of
positive results, the FM reports that, in 1998, following a forum on corruption organized
by Decidamos in the city of Caaguazú, Paraguay, a citizens’ organization was formed,
and a Contraloría Ciudadana was created. The objective chosen for the first year was to
 
*
Last year, through a special arrangement with UniAndes, FE began to handle all financial transactions and
reporting directly with POA. This was done to overcome the burdensome administrative bureaucracy at the university
and the resultant untimely delays. However, FE continues to submit activity reports to UniAndes.
39
inform and motivate citizens to monitor the administration of public funds by the
municipality.
Another example reported by Poder Ciudadano involves Encuentro in Uruguay. After
holding various forums on squatter settlements, that AM began to receive requests for
forums and materials, and Encuentro members have been invited to participate in
different seminars and panels, using deliberation methodology jointly with other civil
society organizations.
In Panama, the Fundación para el Desarrollo de la Libertad Ciudadana, which is the
national chapter of Transparency International, held numerous forums on the subject of
corruption in 1998/1999. These were aimed at engaging community members and high
school and college students in discussions about how corruption affects their daily lives.
This AM reported that there have been “spin-off” activities from the forums, including
publication of articles on corruption and a generalized increase in attention to the subject.
Fundación staff believe that their intensified focus on corruption, which included both the
forums and presentation of proposals on the topic to candidates in Panama’s May 1999
presidential elections, contributed to the fact that all three of the major candidates
included anti-corruption as a theme in their platforms.
General findings concerning deliberation: As noted, the application of the deliberative
methodology was found to vary widely from one FM to another and between countries.
During the forums observed, evaluators also found great differences in the way agendas
were structured and in the specific techniques employed. Differences were noted, for
example, in the role of the moderator, facilitation techniques, the synthesis of the
opinions expressed, the approach to closure, the clarity with which the purpose of the
event and the norms to be observed were described, and so forth. In one case, following
impressions offered by the evaluation team, the sponsoring FM expressed an interest in a
more in-depth discussion of advances in the field of organization development and how
they might strengthen the forum process. Since deliberation has been such a major focus
in many countries, the image of the Network and its impact over time will be closely
affected by those differences. Moreover, the Network is now in a position to provide
substantial feedback to the Kettering Foundation and others concerning the various uses
of the methodology and the results obtained.
b. Citizen Participation at the Local Level
Objective A: Trained NGOs increase their participation in community
initiatives, the development of public policies, and the monitoring of
government action at local levels.
This objective has been pursued solely by Poder Ciudadano, which conducted
three international workshops between 1996 and 1998. About one-third of the
organizations trained became AMs and received further in-country training.
Citizen efforts to monitor government and encourage transparency have begun in
those countries. Some of the work that Poder conducts in the areas of deliberation
40
and voter education overlap with this area, such as forums on the topic of
corruption and the use of databases to monitor government (similar to the use of
databases to provide voter information).
Objective B: Various sectors increase their interaction for the purpose of
identifying and resolving local problems.
Conciencia and Participa initiated activities to work toward this objective.
Information available in the database indicates that 25 NGOs, community groups,
and municipalities were trained to use a variety of methods to promote citizen
participation. Ten projects, ongoing and completed, that involve two or more
organizations or municipal representatives have resulted from these trainings.
With regard to Objective A, Poder Ciudadano reported that the issue of citizen
participation in local government has been approached from different angles. Trainings
have been conducted in such areas as parliamentary transparency, alternative ways to
access information, and citizen monitoring. Poder’s first workshop on citizen monitoring
of the public sector was held in 1996 with some 13 organizations from the region. Based
on their subsequent experience, Poder edited a book exploring six cases in various
countries, including two from Argentina. The book was distributed mainly to AMs within
the Network. In 1997, in conjunction with Transparency International, Poder convened
the same organizations for a workshop on use of the database for citizen monitoring of
social expenditures. After these two workshops, Poder began to follow up with certain
organizations. Thus, in 1998, Poder held on-site trainings on parliamentary transparency
in Guatemala (Acción Ciudadana) and Mexico (ANCIFEM and Alianza Cívica). In early
1999, training was also conducted in the Dominican Republic with an NGO that had
participated in the 1996/97 workshops (Participación Ciudadana). In each case,
agreements were signed with Poder, making those organizations AMs. In response to a
need identified during this process, in early 1999 Poder published a manual for
volunteers, to which ANCIFEM contributed a chapter on how they carry out the program.
Poder reports that, of the thirteen original organizations, eight continue to work with the
parliamentary transparency methodology. The Panamanian AM (Fundación para el
Desarrollo de la Libertad Ciudadana) that participated in the December 1997 Poder
workshop on citizen monitoring of local government has not yet had time to implement
the practices learned. They plan to apply them in a project to monitor public agency
purchases, together with the Contraloría.
In addition to training and TA, Poder Ciudadano reported that, in late 1998, a study tour
(pasantía) was arranged for a person from Acción Ciudadana in Guatemala to visit
Poder’s operations in Argentina. Also, to facilitate an exchange of experience among
organizations working in this field, Poder held the First Regional Meeting on
Participation and Monitoring of the Public Sector by Civil Society. The session was held
in Guatemala and emphasized work with volunteers. It was based on assessments of the
situation in each country vis-a-vis politicians, citizens, and institutions.
41
In pursuit of Objective B, Participa trained AMs in methodologies to increase citizen
participation at the local level in Bolivia, Paraguay, and Peru. They followed a three￾step training process, with representatives from NGOs, municipalities, and community
groups: a) basic training session; b) a pasantia in Chile (where local projects were
designed); and c) a follow-up visit to help implement the project. In a survey during their
1998 follow-up visit to each of the countries, Participa found that six of the seven
participants indicated that interaction between local governments and civil society
organizations had improved. In addition, Participa provided Complementary Funds to
some AMs in these countries.
Bolivia: Most AMs mentioned that the assistance offered by Participa had motivated
them to continue a process they had already initiated. They explained that the relationship
had begun at an “opportune moment.” The pasantias, or visits to Chile, provided by
Participa had helped them learn about the Chilean democratization experience and meet
other organizations from Peru and Paraguay. Workshops on the topics such as the
relationship between the State and civil society helped participants reflect on and analyze
their views about the issues treated—a luxury, given the hectic schedules of these NGO
professionals.
For instance, CIPCA personnel said that Participa workshops had taught them methods
for promoting participatory planning, project development, and implementation in the
municipalities in which they work. They cited as a key to success the fact that Participa
had provided for municipal authorities to accompany them on trips outside Bolivia. Later,
the trust CIPCA enjoyed with municipal leaders permitted them to support
implementation of the Popular Participation Law.
Paraguay: In 1997, a visit was made by Paraguayan NGOs to Chilean municipalities
where Participa has worked. The majority of interviewees from local AMs cited the high
quality of Participa seminars, pasantías, and materials. However, evaluators also heard a
common criticism from the majority of organizations visited: that there was little follow￾up support or communication by Participa once the seminars and other events were over.
Many felt that this limits the possibility for lasting impact from Participa’s assistance.
As an example, BASE-Ecta reported that participation in a Participa seminar had
coincided with their efforts to take a more integrated approach to their work in San
Joaquin, including the municipal government. With Participa’s assistance, they developed
three training courses for municipal authorities. They also carried out a diagnostic with
institutions in the district, which identified substantial problems in health, education, and
security. This diagnostic marked the first time that the different institutions had begun to
dialogue. Together they started to identify issues and try to resolve them. However, lack
of funds and time on the part of some authorities made subsequent work difficult.
Follow-up, which was to have included technical assistance by Participa, remains
pending until these difficulties are overcome.
Another organization, CIRD, reported that the quality of the events organized by
Participa and the materials used were very professional and that the approach was
42
systematic and organized. What was missing, they felt, was their adaptation to the reality
of the participants—sometimes very subtle nuances. They were disappointed with the
“packaged” approach and the fact that the program areas were already defined, with little
opportunity for participant input. This group also commented on their disappointment at
the lack of follow-through from Participa, explaining they came to produce an event and
then left.
In Uruguay, Conciencia worked with a national AM, training affiliates in three rural
communities. Here Conciencia worked with AM Fundación Mujer y Familia Rural
(FMFR), a volunteer-based NGO with affiliates around the country. This AM seeks to
motivate rural women to recognize/utilize their own knowledge and experience for their
own benefit and that of their communities, especially youth. Applying the inter-sectoral,
participatory methodology developed prior to the Network (Interacción para un
Proyecto), Conciencia provided training and TA for affiliates in Artilleros, Cardona, and
Carmen. This is a process that includes a number of workshops with representative
sectors and follow-up guidance as trainees carry out subsequent activities.
As a result, to date each of the three groups had identified community needs, prioritized
them, formulated plans to satisfying those needs, and launched project activities. This has
included successful efforts to win support from local authorities for initiatives such as the
construction of a community center (land and labor were donated), opening by the
municipality of a new road to a formerly inaccessible area, and so forth. Fundraising
approaches have included targeted contacts, a mass media campaign, special “fairs,” and
other events.
For this evaluation, a day-long workshop was held with the participation of 17 (11
women, 6 men) top FMFR leaders and representatives of the three communities to learn
their perceptions of the assistance provided. Each group was asked to prepare a brief
presentation on how the project idea got started, resources needed to sustain the effort,
difficulties, enabling forces, number of people involved, errors, and lessons learned.
Although this was the first time the three communities had met together to exchange
information about their projects, thanks to the enthusiasm and energy generated, it also
served to persuade FMFR that this initiative should be expanded to affiliates in other
communities.
With regard to relations with Conciencia, participants felt that identification with a
“foreign” (i.e., not Uruguayan) partner had helped to give the Foundation an international
image. Words used to describe the assistance received included: motivating, dynamic,
professional, reinforcing, sensitive, etc. They praised the quality of Conciencia-conducted
workshops and pasantías (trainings in Argentina) and the fact that Conciencia had
followed up even when problems had arisen along the way. Speaking about the larger
IADN, most participants had very little knowledge of it. Those who did perceived a lack
of “horizontal mobility” within the Network.
c. Civic Education
43
Objective A: Civic educators better prepare students and parents to increase
their participation and to exercise social vigilance.
From 1996 to 1998, over 370 people were trained in civic education, at least 250
of whom were parents and teachers. Over 27 NGOs and community groups
participated in the trainings. For example, in two schools on the Colombian side
of the Colombian/Venezuela border 25 students, 100 teachers, and 15 parents
were trained by DECIPOL-UNIANDES. A follow-up survey of participating
civic educators indicated that 70 percent are using the information in their classes
and promoting ideas discussed in the training, such as encouraging participation
in student government.
Objective B: Beneficiaries of civic education better understand their political
systems and the possibilities for participation in them.
The indicator for this objective is tracked by looking at the number of
organizations that are trained in civic education and replicate or undertake civic
education activities. Aggregate data are not yet available. However, for example,
Conciencia trained 20 educators in a pilot program to work towards this objective.
In addition, a regional workshop, “Advocacy: Working for Change,” was held in
April 1999, which 23 Network organizations attended.
In 1998, Conciencia convened NGOs from Paraguay, Brazil, and Uruguay for training
in implementation of a curriculum titled Formación Etica y Ciudadana, designed for
Argentina with support from the World Bank in collaboration with the Ministry of
Education. Organizations in Paraguay and Brazil requested further assistance from
Conciencia for adaptation and application of the curriculum in their countries.
Conciencia began working in Paraguay but found it was unable to continue, since efforts
in Brazil had become so intense. Nevertheless, one of the AMs interviewed in Asunción,
Sumando, expressed appreciation for Conciencia’s assistance in the development of a
“values education” curriculum. This assistance was provided during a seminar on civic
education conducted by Conciencia in Buenos Aires, described by Sumando as being of
very high quality. Interviewees also cited Conciencia’s openness in offering materials,
freedom to adapt them, and the on-going discussion and support provided. Although
Sumando has been unable to implement the program, due to changes in the Ministry of
Education, they are using the materials in other parts of their work and say that the
approach “permeates” their activities.
In 1997, AM Voto Consciente (VC) participated in the CIVITAS conference in
Argentina and, as follow-up, requested assistance from Conciencia for the development
of a civic education curriculum. VC began introducing the curriculum within a network
of private Jewish schools in Sao Paulo and has collaborated with the Sao Paulo State
Education Secretariat in its process of education for responsible citizenship. To help
forge a partnership, a high-level official of that Secretariat also traveled to Buenos Aires
to meet with the team that developed the civic education program there. Over the last
44
three years, VC has signed agreements with the Secretariat and has been invited to begin
training teachers on a pilot basis. This AM cited the value of Conciencia’s guidance and
mentorship in development of the civic education program. This initiative by VC with
Conciencia support was found to be very promising and is currently under development.
UniAndes supervised and managed the drafting of a Facilitator’s Manual on Vivamos
Nuestra Democracia, which included the participation of various NGOs from the state of
Apure in Venezuela. This civic education manual was for use in schools in the frontier
area between Apure, Venezuela and Arauca, Colombia by students, teachers, parents, and
local community leaders.
d. Voter Education
Objective A: Citizens participate actively in monitoring elections.
In October 1997, Poder Ciudadano co-sponsored a workshop with the Inter￾American Institute of Human Rights titled “Civil Society Elections Monitoring”
in which 20 organizations were trained. Since then, no further activities toward
this objective have taken place; no further data are being collected.
Objective B: CSOs provide systematic public information about election
candidates to better prepare the public to vote.
Over the course of at least nine international and national workshops, 13 CSOs
were trained, some of which attended two or three workshops, while others
attended only one. Seven of the CSOs trained have produced candidate databases,
and one has created a database about government officials.
Poder Ciudadano is the only FM working with this component. This FM focuses on voter
education, government transparency, anti-corruption, and related issues. In 1993, Poder
developed a specialized database to help educate citizens about candidates to electoral
posts, public functionaries, judges, and in general, anyone involved with the interests of
the community. Training is provided for the installation and use of the database, along
with workshops on such issues as parliamentary transparency. Poder has trained AMs
from Ecuador, Colombia, the Dominican Republic, Mexico, Panama, Venezuela, and
Guatemala. The process of installing and using the database generally relies on the
ability of the organization trained to recruit volunteers for the data collection phase
(interviews with candidates, etc.). It also requires the analysis and publication of the data
collected and contact with the mass media for the dissemination of results.
In Coahuila, Mexico, with AM Alianza Cívica, prior to the election of the governor of
Saltillo, Poder trained over 22 citizens (15 women, 7 men) from different municipalities
in the use of the database. Participant evaluations indicate that the group understood that
it was important for civil society to know the candidates, especially in a one-party
democracy and that power rests with the citizens. Meanwhile, for all elections held in
Chiapas since 1997, AM ANCIFEM has carried out a candidate database activity.
45
With AM Acción Ciudadana (AC) in Guatemala, Poder conducted a training of trainers
workshop on the database methodology. Participants included 75 volunteers. Remarks by
AC interviewees are included in a subsequent section of this report. Also in Guatemala,
in February 1999, Poder—with TA from Acción—held the first regional workshop on
participation and monitoring by civil society of the public sector. This was a three-day
event, and three major topics were covered: the Political Database, Parliamentary
Transparency, and Volunteer Work. The coordinator of USAID/Guatemala’s civil society
project also attended.
In Ecuador, Poder trained AM Corporación Latinoamericana para el Desarrollo (CLD)
and Panamanian AM Fundación para el Desarrollo de la Libertad Ciudadana in the use
of the database. During our site visit, CLD demonstrated that it is not only using the
Poder database but has also taken it to a further stage of development by producing
special software linked to a scanner for the incorporation of news clippings and other
documents related to candidates and public officials. CLD plans to use the new software
to produce and sell special reports on political leaders as a source of income.
In preparation for the May 1999 elections in Panama, Poder Ciudadano provided
additional training to AM Fundación para el Desarrollo de la Libertad Ciudadana on
establishment and operation of a database of candidate profiles. The AM used its training
to develop a voter education guide called “Candidatos Visibles,” which was published
and issued as a supplement to the major daily newspapers shortly before the elections and
publicized on television as well. AM staff reported that, as a result of the voter guide and
ensuing publicity, candidates became much more forthcoming about their backgrounds
and positions than they had been in the past. The Fundación described the relationship
with Poder Ciudadano and the opportunity to share experiences with them as “very
important” and “fundamental” to the process of implementing their vision of increasing
citizen participation.
e. Social Responsibility
Objective A: Resource mobilization plans for NGOs or grassroots groups
developed and approved in a participatory manner.
The database shows that 49 NGOs were trained under this objective during five
training events. Three of these developed and obtained approval for resource
mobilization plans. Three had developed plans and were awaiting approval. Eight
NGOs did not develop plans. Data on the other CSOs have not been provided.
POA, DECIPOL-UNIANDES, and Participa have worked in activities under this
objective; however, Participa is generally the lead organization that tracks result
data.
Objective B: The concept of social responsibility is disseminated more
widely.
46
The same 49 NGOs trained under Objective A were also trained under this
objective. Seven NGOs out of 19 responding by mail said they undertook
activities to promote this concept, and 12 said that they did not. Thirty NGOs
have not answered the questionnaire. Work in this area began in 1996 with a
meeting in Chile. Since then, Participa has disseminated information through
training workshops and a 1997 seminar in Paraguay, plus the work in Bolivia,
Peru, Chile, and Paraguay.
In support of social responsibility, Participa and UniAndes collaborated on the
publication of a manual covering NGO fund-raising. Also, Conciencia has developed a
training course on fund-raising for NGOs, based on the technique taught at the University
of Indiana. These materials overlap two component areas: social responsibility and
institutional strengthening or capacity building.
Participa has been working in Paraguay, Bolivia, Chile, and Peru to promote increased
social responsibility at both the national and regional level. A meeting of seven
foundation and business leaders from the four countries (one woman, six men) was
convened in Lima by Participa in December 1998. This was a strategic planning
workshop, at which the group drafted the basic elements of the Program for the
Promotion of Social Responsibility, its mission, objectives, principles, and plans of action
by country. It was determined that training and strategic planning at the national level
would follow. As reported by Participa, those responsible for the program in each country
received $3,000 in complementary funds from POA and Participa in order to support this
initiative and the activities to be carried out for the promotion of social responsibility in
those countries.
Participa has worked closely with the POA Paraguay/Kansas chapter to promote relations
between Paraguayan business leaders and local NGOs. The NGOs received training in
the development of fundable projects, while the business leaders identified by Participa
with the help of the POA chapter received training on the concept of social responsibility.
This group later determined to promote this concept within their country. Partners’
headquarters in Washington and the Paraguayan POA chapter organized an 18-day study
trip for a group of six entrepreneurs interested in community foundations and the
promotion of philanthropy. They visited Colombia, Kansas, Miami, and Washington and
later reported that their visit was key to motivating them to get involved; the group joined
the Association of Christian Entrepreneurs to work on promoting social responsibility
and philanthropy in Paraguay.
Interviewees from the social responsibility group reported that the materials received
from Participa and “knowing that they had support” were both important factors. They
referred to the manual prepared by Participa and UniAndes as their “Bible.” They have
carried out some of their own educational activities and also reported changes within
their own foundations and businesses. For instance, some businessmen reported
assimilating the philosophy of social responsibility by paying good salaries and benefits
and trying to avoid layoffs.
47
Chile: Here the Participa-inspired social responsibility group held its second meeting in
June 1999 with the participation of 17 representatives of the business sector, NGOs, and
the government. It is headed by a well-placed business executive, who explained that he
had worked with Participa to identify the other members. A strategic planning session
was to be held some two weeks after our visit. This businessman explained that he is
working to convince other leaders from this sector that social responsibility is “good
business.” With regard to the regional effort, while he had attended the planning session
in Lima, he explained that, in his view, before expanding to other countries, there’s a
need to “work at home” to test and consolidate the group, especially with the inclusion of
small business. Then, he envisions forming an organization “with a good manager.” In
the third stage, efforts could be expanded to the international field, working on the
macro-economic level. He feels that six years will be required to complete all stages, and
that “it would be good if government would give a hand.”
Peru: Here, the social responsibility group is represented by Perú 2021, which Participa
reports is to provide support, such as participating in meetings at the request of groups in
the other three countries.
Participa provided training and a seed grant to the Red San Martin, a network of ten
NGOs in the jungle region of the country. As a result, the network developed a plan to
obtain funds for a regional participatory strategic planning process, raising a total of over
$6,000. Interviewees reported that the relationship with Participa had helped them
organize their ideas and learn more about strategic planning. Their study trip to Chile and
the documents provided by Participa had helped them learn from the experiences of other
CSOs. They praised the high quality and professionalism of the Participa staff.
Participa reported a number of overall results from these activities. Participating
organizations met and exchanged experience and knowledge, their administrative
capacity was enhanced, and they began to form a cooperative relationship with the
private sector.
f. Institutional Strengthening/Capacity Building
Objective A: A Network of CSOs established which is: recognized for
promoting the growth of citizen participation through collaboration and
exchanges; appreciated as a resource to which member organizations turn to
share information, contacts, and training; and respected as a voice for civil
society in discussions with governments and the market sector.
This objective was developed to help capture the nature of the Network itself in the M&E
system. One indicator is the number completed of the following: establishment of the
structure and processes for making administrative and programmatic decisions,
establishment of categories and criteria for membership, establishment of program
components, strategic planning for the Network and the development of its programs, and
establishment of communication systems. POA reports that the IADN has achieved 100
percent of this indicator. The second indicator is the number of members in the Network.
48
As of 1999, there were 75 active AMs (see Annex H for list), six FMs, and two
collaborating members. The Network has also gathered data towards a third indicator for
this objective—examples of instances in which the IADN represented the voice of Latin
American civil society. On two notable occasions, the IADN served as an outreach
mechanism to the broader NGO community for the purpose of expressing the “voice of
civil society.” The first involved the insertion of language developed by FMs into
Summit of the Americas documents. The second was a joint IADN–Esquel Group
Foundation activity in which they helped the IDB to elicit civil society input for its local
government development plans. Together, the Network and Esquel reached over 125
CSOs in 14 countries.
Objective B: Member organizations make use of the capacity-building
resources to which they are introduced through participation in the Network
(i.e., information on nonprofit management).
Work toward this objective is measured through the number of organizations trained in
institutional strengthening methods. To date, at least 37 organizations were trained by
Participa and Conciencia.
This component is implemented in two ways: through training/TA and matching grants.
This evaluation found that, under different labels (institutional strengthening, capacity
building, institutional growth, etc.), Objective B of this component now relates mostly to
FM support to AMs. As already noted, there appears to be considerable overlap between
the NGO-strengthening efforts included under Social Responsibility and the fundraising
and other organizational support provided here. In fact, Participa and Conciencia use this
support to complement their efforts in other components. That is, when work with an AM
in one area reveals the need for institutional strengthening in order to better complete that
work, TA or a matching grant may be offered.
Examples include: 1) Participa, together with UniAndes, as well as Conciencia have
published manuals for training NGOs in the area of fundraising; and 2) AM Esquel
Foundation in Ecuador, which has an impressive track record in terms of resource
development, is under contract to USAID/Ecuador to strengthen the fundraising capacity
of Ecuadorian justice-sector NGOs, including another AM. Apparently, to date there has
been no effort within the Network to exchange information concerning the various
approaches used and the results obtained in order to strengthen this activity for the benefit
of all concerned.
Participa reports that, by early 1997, the need arose among targeted AMs for training in
different areas of organizational development in order to deal with the challenges present
in the environment. Thus, as part of its work plan, Participa designed a response to those
needs. The two approaches adopted were: 1) training NGOs and grassroots groups in
topics such as teamwork, effective communication, and leadership, and 2) the provision
of “seed” grants to replicate the knowledge acquired or to strengthen institutional
operations. From 1997 to the present, three workshops had been held (Bolivia, Paraguay,
and Peru), and grants had been provided.
49
In Peru, Participa worked with CEPCO to implement a program to increase youth
participation in the municipality of Soritor. CEPCO’s program trains youth in this region
to get involved in the community. With the help of Participa, CEPCO is using the
Chilean national youth initiative as a model. CEPCO personnel had extremely positive
remarks about the training and TA they had received. In fact, when their office did a
SWOT analysis, their relationship with Participa was one of the greatest strengths noted.
Participa also provided training and a seed grant to the Red San Martin. This Peruvian
NGO network used the funds to hold a workshop in which they began a regional
participatory strategic planning process.
Brazil: Interviewees who participated in activities carried out by Conciencia in this
component reported improvements in the area of institutional vision, internal
organization, and fundraising capabilities. Associate Member AMNPPA worked with
Conciencia to form a group of 14 NGOs in Porto Alegre interested in strengthening their
organizational capacities. At AMNPPA’s request, Conciencia carried out a workshop on
organizational self-assessment and planning in 1997. Conciencia and the Porto Alegre
NGOs then worked together to survey organizational interests and training needs, which
identified demand for training in fundraising. Conciencia then sought the collaboration of
the University of Indiana in applying the successful fundraising approach developed
there. It involves all parts of the organization in the resource development effort and calls
for a total review of all internal procedures and systems. So, working with AMNPPA,
Conciencia invited two individuals licensed by the university to conduct fundraising
training with the 14 NGOs. A number of the organizations that had been trained reported
beneficial results, including improvement of internal accounting and strategic planning
systems. One representative indicated that her organization had undertaken a process of
internal restructuring as a result of the knowledge gained at the seminar. Others indicated
that they had learned and applied specific new techniques to reinforce their fundraising
strategies. As part of the course, each organization identified a fundraising goal and
developed a strategy to achieve it. One organization reported a 12 percent increase in the
amount of funds raised and a 43 percent increase in the number of donors in the first part
of 1999, compared to the same period in 1998. Although the interviewee indicated that
the entire increase was probably not due solely to the training, he did attribute a
significant part of it to that experience. As an example of the “multiplier effect,” two
organizations that participated in the seminar had, in turn, trained another 40
organizations, though handicapped by the lack of resources to duplicate training
materials.
3. Future Challenges
In addition to the results reported, a number of challenges were also identified by
Network members as they work toward long-term impact on citizen participation. It was
noted that creation of a network and the networking process is only a means for members
to achieve effective results, rather than an end in itself. The challenges identified fall into
two major categories: those within the control of the Network and those that fall beyond
its control. While some of the issues raised will be discussed more fully in later sections
50
of this report, the following is a summary of the major challenges mentioned by
interviewees.
Internal: Need for a carefully-crafted and truly strategic plan to guide future decisions,
moving from the current focus on process to addressing key substantive issues (one of the
early designers asserted that, from the beginning a “strong conceptual framework” has
been lacking); transition from supply-driven to demand-driven approach;
“democratization,” making the Network more horizontal with greater participation by all
members in decision-making and the sharing of resources; improved governance
structure and administrative procedures; increased exchange of ideas and information;
expansion of the funding base.
External: Erosion of the enabling environment, with authoritarianism growing in some
parts of the region; persistence of poverty in all countries and seriously deteriorating
economic conditions in some; diminishing attention to and support for Latin America on
the part of the donor community.
D. SUSTAINABILITY
Overall Sustainability
Interviewees were queried about the sustainability of their IADN-supported activities,
and of the Network itself, in the event that no further funding is received from USAID
after the August 2000 completion date of the current grant. While responses varied, there
was general concern about the total dependence of the Network on a single funding
source. Some interviewees recommended that IADN put into practice the methodologies
it is teaching others in the area of fundraising, starting with SWOT*
 analysis and strategic
planning to sharpen objectives and produce fundable proposals. Overall, there was a
sense of urgency in terms of finding other funding sources, whether or not USAID
continues its support.
FM–AM Cooperation
Most FMs asserted that, while they would continue working in the area of citizen
participation in their own countries, it is unlikely that they would be able to maintain the
current level of effort in other countries in the absence of continued USAID assistance to
do so. In cases where Network activities have not been integrated into the organization’s
main program priorities, continuation was seen as unlikely unless further funding is
obtained. Overall, there was a strong feeling among FMs that, without time to consolidate
the gains made to date, the possibility of capitalizing on the investment of time and
money already made would be lost.
AM Programs
 
*
SWOT refers to Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities & Threats.
51
Among AMs, responses to the question of whether they would continue to use the
methodologies they learned seemed to vary in accordance with two factors: a) the size
and financial strength of the organization, and b) the component in which they have
received assistance. Larger AMs stated that, while they hoped the IADN could continue
and become stronger in the future, their activities did not depend on the availability of TA
and training through the Network. Organizations working in the deliberation component,
regardless of size, reported that, since they have now learned that methodology, they
intended to continue using adapted versions of it as part of their regular programming. A
number of those working in other components felt that the continued assistance of the FM
would be necessary if their activities are to succeed.
Some AMs have developed strategic alliances with other NGOs and government agencies
in the course of applying the techniques transferred by the FM. These alliances may
heighten prospects for longer-term sustainability. Other AMs mentioned the importance
of their own commitment to using the methodologies learned as elements of their
organizational strategies. FMs appear to have learned in working with AMs that
obtaining their formal commitment to using what was to be learned was key to successful
collaboration.
Technical sustainability was also raised as an issue by some AM interviewees. Aside
from the question of financial resources, a number of them indicated that lack of follow￾up had limited their capacity to sustain IADN-sponsored activities. This suggests the
need to include a provision for follow-up in the design of program activities.
52
Chapter V – CONCLUSIONS
Based on direct observation and an analysis of available data, evaluators reached the
following general conclusions concerning the implementation to date of activities funded
through this grant.
1. The Network has shown itself to be a valuable mechanism for engaging Latin
American organizations in the promotion of citizen participation in efforts to
strengthen democratic governance in the region. It is about to enter a period of
transition, during which the gains made to date could be consolidated through a
process of careful, participatory planning. This would include the identification of
strategically important challenges to further democratization currently present in the
environment and the improvement of the Network’s communications system,
governance structure, and decision-making procedures.
2. Working with the Network has increased participating organizations’ resource base,
enabled them to develop new contacts and a greater national and international
presence, and increased their capability to carry out citizen participation activities.
3. Initial evidence suggests that the Network has helped increase citizen participation in
the region. Findings indicate a wide range of examples of such impact. However, this
is difficult to document in a systematic fashion. In general, it is costly and difficult to
collect data regarding the impact of citizen participation activities. The Network has
been developing a monitoring and evaluation system; however, it is not yet in full
operation. There is significant overlap between activities in the six program
components, all of which tend to be process-oriented, leading to the risk of double￾counting and confusion when attempting to assess results.
4. While there were benefits associated with using six components to plan Network
programs when the IADN got started (a supply-driven strategy), a demand-driven
approach would produce more effective results in the future. By limiting services to
pre-determined components, the most pressing needs of the organizations served are
not always taken into account, thus diminishing prospects for longer-term
sustainability. A demand-driven approach within previously identified parameters
would likely produce more effective results.
5. While, over time, the FMs have increasingly coalesced as a group, they have
continued to work separately, as though each had its own grant. Issues of
organizational self-interest and control placed an undue burden on the process.
6. In the early phase, confusion among FMs with regard to Partners’ program
management and coordination role affected Network development. The need to
establish systems and procedures created additional challenges and confusion
between USAID-imposed requirements and those mandated by Partners, particularly
53
with regard to administrative procedures, pointing to the need for the periodic review
of procedures.
7. With regard to relations between Founding and Associate Members, most
interviewees reported strong professional ties. While FMs have taken advantage of
opportunities to establish communication with AMs, adequate communication and
opportunities for the exchange of experience and information across the entire
Network is a key challenge that needs to be addressed if the Network is to grow and
prosper.
8. While the structure of the Network has been hierarchical to reflect the transference of
methodologies from FMs to AMs, most IADN members feel it is now time to adopt a
more horizontal approach. The existence of two classes of membership has led to
resentment among AMs, especially those that feel they have much to offer the
Network but are only invited to receive services. Use of the term “Founding Member”
could become a means for simply recognizing Network pioneers, rather than for
designating decision-making status and funding eligibility.
9. In nearly all cases, the issue of follow-up by Network members after the provision of
services is key to the sustainability of the activities assisted, the level of confidence
engendered among participants, and the accurate assessment of the results obtained.
10. The deliberation methodology has been successfully transferred to a sizable number
of target AMs which, for the most part, have adapted it and incorporated it into their
work. In some instances, deliberation has served as a means to stimulate advocacy or
initiate specific projects. In other cases, where deliberation is viewed as an end in
itself, subsequent action is left up to participants, with no follow-up by sponsors.
While there is evidence that deliberation as a means can produce concrete results,
there are as yet no data to demonstrate that, if seen as an end, deliberation increases
citizen participation.
11. Given that there are significant differences in the way in which deliberative forums
are structured and conducted and that the Network has accumulated an impressive
amount of experience in this area, it is uniquely well-positioned to analyze these
differences as related to the results obtained to help inform the future international
efforts of the Kettering Foundation and others interested in this methodology.
12. The creation of the Central American sub-network is an interesting initiative that
provides insight into a number of aspects of network building. Through the process of
creating country chapters, members learned to work together towards a common goal.
However, the chapters are still very weak and would need help in such areas as
strategic planning, team-building, communication, and conflict management if they
are to be consolidated. Further strengthening could be achieved by moving beyond
deliberation to incorporate other approaches to citizen participation. Also, the
experience points to the need for more fluid communication and information sharing
mechanisms across countries with less developed technological infrastructures.
54
13. Relations between POA and USAID have been very positive. There is potential for
greater interaction between IADN members and USAID missions that could be
explored to identify areas of mutual interest and potential funding opportunities. A
number of mission portfolios include areas such as human rights, justice sector
reform, civil society, or municipal development, all of which involve citizen
participation in democratic governance. Moreover, a good number of Network
members work in other USAID strategic sectors, including environment, health and
nutrition, education, and economic growth. Conversely, citizen participation is an
important element in mission programs in other sectors, such as environment and
health. Contact between missions and the IADN could be pursued by Network
members and facilitated by the sponsoring organization and the LAC Bureau through
direct contact with mission personnel and the sharing of timely information about
Network activities. This effort could be further reinforced if Network members took
the initiative to brief themselves on the strategic plans of the missions.
55
Chapter VI – RECOMMENDATIONS*
As part of the interview process, those contacted were invited to make recommendations
for strengthening the Network in the future. While literally dozens of recommendations
were offered, they tended to fall into the same major themes. They were therefore
categorized and consolidated, resulting in the following overall recommendations.
Specific aspects of these recommendations, along with the suggestions presented for how
they might be implemented are also discussed.
1. Strategic Planning: The Network should take advantage of the time still available
under the USAID grant to formulate a Strategic Plan to help ensure its continued
operation and guide its actions over the next three to five years. Such a plan should be
developed through a participatory process, involving all concerned in the
identification of strategic priorities, based on an analysis of current political realities
within the region, IADN experience to date, and the design of appropriately targeted
program initiatives.
Discussion
The Network has the luxury of an eight-month transition period from January to August
2000. This should be used to involve all interested parties in a process of participatory
planning for the future. This would include consultation with political analysts, the
national and international donor community, and other organizations. It would also
include an examination of how other networks operate, especially those with which
IADN members are affiliated. (Transparency International, whose secretariat holds
monthly teleconferences with national affiliates and helps raise funds for their proposals,
or the NDI Civic Network with its communication system and resource directory, were
mentioned as examples.)
A good number of interviewees recommended that activities not be divided
geographically, but that they focus on actions or substantive programs that link members
in accordance with their interests.
2. Allocation of Resources During the Transition: Grant funds remaining for the year
2000 should be used for two major purposes: a) to complete processes already
underway that are of strategic importance to the Network, and b) to support joint
activities by Founding Members.
Discussion
There was a difference of opinion among founders concerning the allocation of available
grant funds once current sub-grants expire in December. The majority recommended that
funds be used for priority activities, rather than simply being divided into equal parts. It
 
*
 Recommendations were supported by all Founding Members, and a process for their implementation was
agreed upon at their October 1999 meeting in Washington.
56
was strongly recommended, for example, that this period be dedicated to formulation of a
longer-term strategic plan and for testing new approaches to internal communication and
joint action in priority issue areas. Others expressed reservations but may favor a
continuation of the equal distribution of funds. One concern shared by founders was that
current commitments in support of strategically-important processes already underway
not be prematurely terminated, leaving counterparts disillusioned and in an awkward
position vis-à-vis their own clients. These involve, for instance, plans for the
consolidation of national or regional networks, capacity-building at the municipal or
grassroots level, issue campaigns already launched, and so forth. All strongly
recommended that this question be discussed at the October meeting of FMs, with a
decision taken by the group at that time.
3. Communication & Visibility: To support the consolidation of the Network and the
full integration of all members, a regular, programmed system of communication
should be designed and put into operation. The new system should be used to
facilitate participation in the strategic planning process and should include the
continuation and expansion of the web page, plus the use of other electronic means. It
should also promote greater visibility of the Network through contact with national
and international donors, the media, and other key actors.
Discussion
By far the largest number of recommendations from interviewees called for strengthening
communications within the Network in the future. In support of this recommendation,
one AM interviewee asserted: “Information is the source of income of the future and is
very deficient within the Network.” The lack of channels for the exchange of experience
and information was also seen by FMs as a major obstacle to the consolidation of the
Network. A significant number of AMs called for improved communications across the
Network—not just with cognizant FMs, but also with members in other countries. They
felt that sharing agendas of members’ activities and other information is necessary in
order to achieve the real integration of the Network. Some also recommended that
information be arranged into categories, so that interested parties can access relevant
material more directly. Among the improvements recommended were: monthly e-mails; a
newsletter; local, national, or regional meetings on a regular basis; an annual meeting of
all Network members; and exchange visits among members with similar interests.*
A number of recommendations were made to enhance the visibility of the Network, as it
was felt that its existence and programs should be made more public. For example, one
interviewee noted that members have never been mandated to disseminate information
about the Network, recommending that there be a Carta de Deberes de Miembros
(Charter of the Duties of Members) which would require them to do so. Another
recommendation was that each member be urged to hold an annual “Information
 
* Various FM representatives serving on the Extended Team made a point of noting that the “cross
evaluation” process had permitted them to become acquainted with the work carried out by member
organizations based in the countries visited and lamented that this type of process had not been carried out
previously and periodically.
57
Meeting” for local and international donors and other key actors to brief them about the
Network and its current activities; if desirable, members in the same city could co￾sponsor such an event.
4. Membership & Governance: There should be an orderly expansion of Network
membership, and decision-making should be democratized, allowing for participation
by all. The governance structure should be reorganized, becoming horizontal rather
than hierarchical and ensuring that all members have the same opportunities to
receive grants, give sub-grants, or request services.
Discussion
It was strongly recommended by a number of interviewees that Network membership be
opened to any NGO that is willing to make a serious commitment to its mission and
purpose. A large number of those contacted strongly recommended that there be a single
class of active member (i.e., this does not apply to the existing “Cooperating Member”
category). Associate Members were virtually unanimous in that opinion, and founders
also tended to agree. It was suggested that Founding Member become an honorary title
awarded to the six original organizations as a form of recognition for their pioneering
efforts, rather than as a designation of attributes superior to those of other members. It
was generally acknowledged that the key issue is, in reality, the allocation of resources
and the basis on which those decisions are made.
To overcome that dilemma, one AM representative strongly recommended: a) that the
IADN dedicate its efforts to three or four issues of strategic importance currently facing
citizen participation in the democratization process, and b) that it offer funding to any
two or more Network members that join together to present proposals to address those
issues. Funds would then be awarded to those most capable of carrying out the work. It
was further noted that RFPs could be issued several times a year or whenever new
resources are obtained by the Network. It was argued that this would have a number of
advantages: provide incentives for serious membership; help to consolidate the Network
by stimulating collaboration; produce more concrete and significant results, which is
appealing to donors; and have a greater impact on the building of democracy in Latin
America. On the other hand, this approach could have one disadvantage—introducing
competition into a Network could weaken overall collaboration. Another interviewee
recommended that the Network be managed through a rotating coordinating committee of
three member NGOs, with no one of them having sole decision-making authority. One
recommendation was for adoption of a committee-structure to deal with the different
aspects of Network operations. It was further suggested that the transition period from
January to August next year would be an ideal time to try out whatever new system is
adopted.
These are just a few of the ideas offered by the individuals interviewed. Clearly, the
IADN as a group will need to weigh the pros and cons of each recommendation and come
to consensus on the future structure of the Network.
58
5. Activities & Impact: Geographic divisions and the compartmentalization of the
Network’s offerings into six discrete components should be eliminated in favor of an
approach which is at once more strategic and more demand-driven. Moreover, in
planning future activities, Network members should give serious consideration to the
importance of follow-up for the achievement of longer-term impact and the potential
for sustainability.
Discussion
A number of interviewees held that, in the next phase, there should be greater flexibility
as to where Network members work and what they do; it should not be simply “more of
the same.” It was noted that the “end all” has been to use the various methodologies and
that now the Network needs to be issue-oriented and problem-solving. The importance of
follow-up was raised by a large number of AMs, who strongly recommended that it be
built into all Network programming to better ensure the longer-term impact of the
assistance provided. Some noted that, otherwise, Network activities raise participants’
expectations but do not give them the tools to achieve them.
6. Administrative Capacity: The administrative capacity of all network organizations
receiving funding—grantees and sub-grantees alike—should be assessed, and
resources should be identified for providing training or technical assistance to those
that are weak in this area.
Discussion
Based on experience in the area of administration, the POA Financial Office
recommended that, when providing grants or sub-grants to IADN member organizations,
care be taken to accurately assess their administrative capacity and to ensure that
necessary support is provided to strengthen those that are weak in this area. Bookkeeping,
accounting, reporting, and other systems are important elements of the administrative
process that makes possible the accurate and timely reporting of appropriate substantive
and financial information. It was further recommended that, if possible,
information/training sessions be held with the administrators of grantee organizations to
facilitate a common understanding of contractual requirements and better ensure the
efficiency of administrative operations.
7. Continued support: In considering whether to continue funding Network operations
as a vehicle for pursuing its DG strategic objective, USAID should recognize the
cost–benefit advantages of capitalizing on its initial investment, especially now that
the difficult task of start-up has been accomplished, valuable lessons have been
learned, and results to date are most promising
Discussion
All IADN members expressed a desire for continuation and strengthening of the
Network. Founders were particularly concerned that there be an opportunity to
59
consolidate efforts to date and maximize the momentum that has been generated in
support of increased citizen participation in the democratization of the region. Most felt
that at least another two to three years would be required to incorporate needed changes
in Network operations and to map out and implement a strategy for obtaining funding
from other sources. They also felt that, if it is not possible for USAID to continue its
support (due to budget cuts or shifting Congressional priorities), it would be important for
Agency representatives to help find and cultivate other donors, particularly during the
transition period next year. (It was noted by Kettering representatives that their
Foundation would be willing to help facilitate such fund-raising efforts.)
POA believes Network members need to be more proactive in generating funding for
IADN activities. It was pointed out that willingness to do so is a good indicator of
organizational commitment to Network activities—and a good guarantee of success.
60
Chapter VII – LESSONS LEARNED
The following lessons learned were drawn from the experience gained through the
activities supported by this grant and are presented by the Core Team in the hope they
may be useful to any donors or organizations interested in the creation or successful
operation of collaborative efforts designed to promote sustainable development.
1. Networks are created for a variety of reasons and take various forms. Some, like the
IADN, are established to tap funding opportunities in order to address broad, cross￾cutting themes such as citizen participation. Other networks form to pursue narrower,
specific goals (i.e., environment, education, health, justice sector reform, etc.) and
together develop a strategy to seek the necessary funding. Whichever comes first—
the opportunity or the need—it is important to realize that the context in which the
network forms will affect its evolution as well as, perhaps, the ease with which and
degree of cohesiveness it is able to achieve.
2. Latin American CSOs working in the democracy area are eager to take advantage of
the contacts, support, validation, and opportunities for the exchange of information
and experience that a network can offer.
3. A key ingredient for the successful creation and operation of any network,
consortium, or other multi-actor initiative is clarity—clarity of purpose, roles,
responsibilities, decision-making, and other procedures, all of which should be made
clear and agreed upon by all interested parties at the outset and reviewed periodically
as conditions change and questions arise.
4. The exchange of experience and information and the maintenance of fluid
communication among members are essential for the successful integration of
participating organizations in any network or similar entity.
5. If resource limitations demand that a choice be made between providing short-term
services to a large number of organizations scattered over a particular geographic
area, as compared with more in-depth assistance and follow-up to a smaller, more
targeted group, the latter approach should be adopted if sustainability is a concern of
the sponsor.
6. Within networks or consortia of southern CSOs, it is likely that members vary greatly
in terms of their organizational skills and capacity. Therefore, to strengthen the entire
enterprise and better ensure the sustainability of individual and collective efforts, in
addition to program support, there is a need to provide organizational development
assistance to weaker members, as well as to the network itself. This means
recognizing and allowing for less-visible, institution-building support. If a network
does not have the funds needed to provide this service itself, it should serve as a
clearinghouse to guide fragile member organizations to cost-effective sources of
assistance in this area.
61
7. The potential value added of working with U.S. PVOs is to help southern CSO
networks or consortia maintain fluid relations with donors, administer resources, and
work to assist members find new opportunities for resource development and contacts
in the international development community.
8. Within a network, it is important to decentralize as far as possible the decision￾making process and governance structure. While it is generally not feasible for all
network members to participate in every decision, they should be represented on and
have access to a committee or other body of individuals they agree to empower to
make decisions on their behalf (i.e., an executive secretariat or board).
9. To help ensure the effective institutionalization of any new methodologies or
techniques transferred from one organization to another, the services provided should
be demand-driven and based on the most felt needs of the recipient institution.
10. There are two major purposes for deliberation: public education and taking decisions
for action. In countries without a strong CSO sector, forums among already-formed
groups, or among members of an organization, are much more amenable to decision￾making, as subsequent action can be channeled through the organization that sponsors
the forum. Meanwhile, forums among strangers, or people who have not yet agreed to
work together, can be effective primarily for educational purposes. The utility of both
uses of deliberation needs to be clarified and assessed prior to launching any such
initiative.
11. The success of efforts to achieve collaboration between organizations belonging to
two distinct networks will depend not only on their interest in the same programmatic
objectives and the availability of resources, but also on the types and interests of their
members and staff and the intensity and duration of the activities to be undertaken.
12. Evaluating civil society programs is a difficult task, as the definition of “success” and
the selection of indicators to measure that success are too often left open for
interpretation. It is hard to “know it when you see it.” Even more difficult challenges
arise when evaluating a regional network, with members scattered across a continent.
Adopting participatory evaluation techniques can help overcome some of these
challenges, since much of the knowledge and expertise needed can be found within
the evaluation team itself.
13. Participatory evaluation approaches in which both donor and grantee participate
strengthen mutually beneficial communication and learning, which can enhance the
future success of the activity. To be effective and legitimate, however, both parties
must be aware of the potential risk of conflict of interest, making very clear the line
between evaluating and planning. The inclusion of an outside facilitator on the
evaluation team can provide insurance against undue bias and, thus, enhance
confidence in the validity of the outcome.