US AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
EVALUATION OF
USAID/PERU’S DEMOCRACY EDUCATION ACTIVITIES
Contract No: AEP-I-00-99-00040-00, Task Order 801
FINAL REPORT
April 14, 2000
Management Systems International
600 Water Street, SW
Washington, DC 20024
(202) 484-7170
lcooley@msi-inc.com
Prepared by: Joan Goodin, Team Leader
J. Michele Guttmann
Lelia Mooney Sirotinsky
José Martín Vegas
H:\INCOMING\Margo\Pdabs285.doc i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER ONE – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
CHAPTER TWO – INTRODUCTION 6
A. BACKGROUND 6
B. EVALUATION OBJECTIVE 7
C. TECHNICAL APPROACH/METHODOLOGY 7
D. TEAM COMPOSITION 9
E. ACHNOWLEDGMENTS 9
CHAPTER THREE – FINDINGS 10
PART ONE – SUB-ACTIVITIES EVALUATED 10
I. HUMAN RIGHTS 10
II. CONCILIATION SERVICES AND LEGAL ASSISTANCE
FOR THE POOR 14
1. Ministry of Justice 17
2. Non-Governmental Organizations 19
III. WOMEN’S POLITICAL PARTICIPATION 27
IV. SCHOOL-RELATED CIVIC EDUCATION 35
V. DEMOCRACY & VOTER EDUCATION 43
VI. DEVELOPMENT OF A DEMOCRATIC AGENDA FOR
THE FUTURE 48
PART TWO – OVERALL FINDINGS 52
The Current Context 53
Overarching Findings Emerging from the Analysis of
SO1 Sub-Activities 53
CHAPTER FOUR – CONCLUSIONS 57
CHAPTER FIVE – RECOMMENDATIONS 60
Annexes:
A. Scope of Work and Evaluation Plan
B. Documents Reviewed
C. Persons Interviewed
H:\INCOMING\Margo\Pdabs285.doc 1
CHAPTER ONE – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
“Broader Citizen Participation in Democratic Processes” is USAID/Peru’s first Strategic
Objective (SO1). To achieve that objective, four Intermediate Results (IRs) were framed as part
of the 1997-2001 strategy:
® IR1: More Effective Selected National Institutions;
® IR2: Greater Access to Justice;
® IR3: Local Governments More Responsive to Their Constituents; and
® IR4: Citizens Better Prepared to Exercise Their Rights and Responsibilities.
Given the progressive weakening of the democratic system in the cuntry, and the resistance of
the Government of Peru to improving the effectiveness of state institutions, SO1 later shifted to a
demand-driven strategy. Details were laid out in a December 1998 document titled: Strategic
Focus of the USAID/Peru Democracy Program for the 18-Month Period Leading up to the Year
2000 [congressional and presidential] Elections (10/98-4/00). With that came a reduction of
activities under IR1 and IR2. Since the total SO1 budget for the past three years has been about
$3 million in DA funds, to increase activities under IR3, the Mission requested additional
resources of between $3 and $5 million in ESF funding to initiate a program of local government
development outside the coca-growing region (already covered by the SO5 Alternative
Development Program). However, that increase will not be forthcoming until at least the next
fiscal year. Sub-activities under all IRs include initiatives in various thematic areas: human
rights, conciliation services and legal assistance for the poor, women’s political participation,
school-related civic education, and democracy and voter education.
To help prepare for the Mission’s strategic planning exercise, scheduled for later this year, the
SO1 team contracted with Management Systems International (MSI) to conduct this evaluation
which, while based on an examination of selected sub-activities, is also designed to assess
progress at the level of SO1 and of its major umbrella project, Citizen Participation and Access
to Justice (PARTICIPE). Recommendations from this evaluation are also designed to facilitate
an in-depth Democracy and Governance Assessment (now being carried out by another MSI
team) and the subsequent design of a new USAID strategy for democratic development in Peru.
Based on a review of relevant documents and interviews with key informants in Lima,
Ayacucho, Trujillo, Tarapoto and Lamas, information related to the questions posed in the Scope
of Work was collected from all counterparts selected for this evaluation, as well as from other
grantees, donors and individual specialists. A careful analysis of the data gathered led to the
findings contained in Chapter Three of this report. Part One of that Chapter presents findings
organized by thematic areas at the level of the individual sub-activities studied. Part Two
presents overarching findings at the level of PARTICIPE and SO1.
Based on an analysis of all findings, the evaluation team then drew overall conclusions and
formulated recommendations, which are contained in Chapters Four and Five of this report.
H:\INCOMING\Margo\Pdabs285.doc 2
The Conclusions reached by evaluators are as follows:
A. Clearly, USAID/Peru’s decision to emphasize a demand-based strategy for its Democracy
Program during the period leading up to the year 2000 elections was a sound one. That
determination greatly enhanced the Mission’s potential for achieving SO1: “broader citizen
participation in democratic processes.”
B. Of the current sub-activities examined, it is clear that those working in the area of human
rights (Office of the Ombudsman, CNDDHH, IPEDEHP) have achieved significant impact
on citizen awareness and participation, including male/female and Quechua-speaking sub￾groups. Not only have these organizations achieved impressive results of their own, but they
have actively coordinated their efforts, making for a whole greater than the sum of its parts.
C. While many of the other sub-activities studied appear to be well on the way to meeting their
respective goals, objectives and expected results, it is not possible at this time to gauge their
impact on the civic/democratic awareness and participation practices of the intended
beneficiary populations. This is due to several factors:
® The impact of various sub-activities is directly related to the results of the April elections
(PROMUJER, SER, Transparencia) and can only be measured once that process is
completed;
® In two cases (FORO Nacional/Internacional and the APOYO Institute), impact will be a
function of the degree to which the agendas they have produced are considered by
candidates and are discussed and espoused by newly-elected political leaders;
® In other cases, the true impact on the awareness and participation practices of the
beneficiary populations will not be known except in the mid- or long-term
(CIDE/TAREA, Foro Juventud, IDS).
D. The lowest degree of impact on citizen education and participation corresponds to those sub￾activities that were designed to serve individual beneficiaries through conciliation services
and free legal assistance, and do not undertake policy-related advocacy or dissemination
efforts (Chamber of Commerce, IPRECON, APENAC, Ministry of Justice).
E. With regard to the institutionalization of sub-activities within grantee organizations, there is
no doubt that the desire to do so is strong. However, the ability of grantees to achieve this is
mixed. Most participating NGOs have small amounts of funding available for this purpose,
and many have already prepared proposals to obtain additional resources – either from
USAID or other donors. Organizations that are well established and whose primary mission
coincides with the sub-activities underway (Ombudsman’s Office, CNDDHH, IPEDEHP,
Manuela Ramos, Calandria, CESIP, SER, CIDE, TAREA, APENAC, Ministry of Justice) are
most likely to institutionalize results.
F. Increased communication and coordination among all SO1 counterparts could produce more
effective results at the SO level by capitalizing on potential synergies. Meanwhile, there are
H:\INCOMING\Margo\Pdabs285.doc 3
clear multiplier effects among those organizations using methodologies and practices
pioneered by other grantees including, for example, IPEDEHP’s training methodology and
the election-related materials produced by Transparencia and SER.
G. The cost-effectiveness of the various sub-activities is clearly a function of the size of the SO1
budget, the number of citizens reached and the efficacy of the program in terms of impact.
On that basis, we must conclude that, to date, the most cost-effective interventions have been
those related to human rights. Activities designed by IDS to use the electronic media for
democracy education are promising in terms of their potential for reaching large numbers of
citizens in a cost-effective manner. However, they are too new to have produced measurable
results. Using fore-mentioned criteria, we conclude that the least cost-effective sub-activities
are those that reach very small numbers of beneficiaries while not proactively advocating for
policy change (Chamber of Commerce, IPRECON, APENAC, Ministry of Justice, APOYO
Institute) and those that propose long-term solutions and involve a relatively limited number
of beneficiaries (FORO Nacional/Internacional, CIDE/TAREA, Foro Juventud).
H. Because of the diverse nature of, and results expected from, the various sub-activities
supported under the four Intermediate Results (IRs), it is not feasible to assess overall impact
at that level. This is further complicated by the fact that indicators lack consistency across
similar programs; different variables are being tracked, which makes comparison especially
difficult and creates an “apples and oranges” effect. Moreover, it is not clear that successful
completion of the goals, objectives and expected results of the sub-activities reviewed under
IR2 and IR4 will, in fact, produce the results expected at the IR level. Meanwhile, activities
under IR1 and IR3 are too few to achieve any significant progress toward meeting those
results as currently stated. A careful review and revision of IRs is needed to better match
sub-activities with desired results.
I. With regard to results at the level of the PARTICIPE program and the SO1 framework,
because over two-thirds of available funding is dedicated to election-related indicators (with
targets set for 2001), impact cannot yet be accurately assessed.
J. The five-year post-electoral period will be a crucial time of transition in Peru – marked by
both opportunities and challenges - during which to lay the groundwork for sustainable
democratic institutions and strengthen civil society as a sector. There is an urgent need for
carefully-planned strategies to maximize those opportunities and effectively deal with the
challenges that will surely arise during this critical period if increased citizen awareness and
participation are to be achieved.
K. Because democratic governance affects all substantive initiatives, a more proactive effort
within USAID/Peru to ensure that DG approaches are integrated into all areas of the
Mission’s portfolio, while not depending solely on the disproportionately small budget
allocated to SO1, would help to ensure the success of all concerned and broaden citizen
participation in democratic processes.
H:\INCOMING\Margo\Pdabs285.doc 4
Based on the foregoing Conclusions, the team offers seven Recommendations:
1. The bulk of SO1 support should be targeted to the achievement of clear and specific
results within the five-year period following the 2000 elections, rather than aiming for
longer-term impact. IRs should be revised and re-aligned in accordance with this new
focus. Citizen education through the media, particularly radio and television, along with
the strengthening of civil society and participatory approaches to local governance should
be given priority.
2. The SO1 team should take the initiative to achieve greater synergy among counterpart
organizations, while strengthening the civil society sector, by creating incentives for
increased cooperation among sub-activities. These might include support for a “Centro
de Encuentro de la Sociedad Civil Sobre Democracia” to coordinate the sharing of
materials and methodologies (to avoid duplication of effort), and organize capacity￾building activities, such as discussion groups, retreats and site visits among counterparts,
advocacy and other training, and so forth.
3. To reduce the management burden on SO1 team members, while providing more time for
strategic thinking and planning, activities designed and implemented jointly by consortia
of two or more organizations should be encouraged. A strong preference for such
collaborative efforts or “umbrella projects,” especially those that pair Lima-based
organizations with partners located in the provinces, with overall results frameworks and
the regular collection of performance data, should be clearly stated in future calls for
proposals. This does not mean to suggest that applicant organizations should be
encouraged to merge; only that two or more independent entities join together in a single
enterprise.
4. Because the need for democratic governance affects the potential for success of all
activities and is a high priority for the U.S. Country Team, USAID Mission officials
should ensure that democratic principles, such as transparency and citizen participation,
are incorporated into all programmatic initiatives. They should also seek to develop
increased cross-sectoral linkages between SO1 and other SOs, identifying and
capitalizing on opportunities for joint activities in pursuit of complementary objectives.
5. Mission management should give special attention to the re-location and consolidation of
efforts aimed at local government, moving those activities beyond SO5 in the pursuit of
overall Mission goals while taking advantage of the successes achieved by the Local
Government Development Project. This could be accomplished by placing all local
government initiatives under SO1/IR3 (or whichever IR is most appropriate in the new
DG strategy), with subdivisions for activities within coca-growing areas and those
undertaken outside of those areas, similar to SO2/PRA/MSP activities.
6. If it is determined that work in the area of basic education is to continue, and sufficient
resources become available, the Mission should consider creation of a separate education
SO, along with appropriate performance and impact indicators to measure results related
to basic education and the longer-term development of the country’s human resource
base.
H:\INCOMING\Margo\Pdabs285.doc 5
7. The DG Assessment Team should develop alternative political scenarios based on the
results of the 2000 elections. These should include in-depth examinations of the three
areas the evaluation team considers to be particularly important for USAID interventions
within the next five years:
® the structure and dynamics of Peruvian civil society, as well as its potential for
serving as a counterbalance to government and contributing to the process of
democratization;
® the policy and legal framework for decentralization, along with the strengthening of
local government and citizen involvement at that level; and
® the role of the media (particularly radio and television) in democracy education and
public debate concerning policy issues.
H:\INCOMING\Margo\Pdabs285.doc 6
CHAPTER TWO – INTRODUCTION
A. BACKGROUND
This report contains the results of an external evaluation of the democracy education activities
supported by USAID/Peru’s Office of Democratic Initiatives (ODI) between FYs 1997 and 1999
under its Strategic Objective No. 1: “Broader Citizen Participation in Democratic Processes.”
The evaluation took place between January 27 and April 7, 2000, and was conducted by
Management Systems International (MSI) through a Task Order issued under its Democracy
Analytic Services Indefinite Quantity Contract (IQC).
To achieve the above-mentioned Strategic Objective (SO1), the Mission had identified four
intermediate results (IRs) as part of the 1997-2001 strategy:
® IR1: More Effective Selected National Institutions;
® IR2: Greater Access to Justice;
® IR3: Local Governments More Responsive to Their Constituents; and
® IR4: Citizens Better Prepared to Exercise Their Rights and Responsibilities.
The SO1 annual budget for the past three years has been only about $3.0 million (3-5% of
USAID/Peru’s total budget), despite the fact that democratic governance is reported to be a
leading priority of the U.S. Country Team. In addition to this DA funding, the Mission requested
between $3 and $5 million in additional ESF funding in FY 1999 to initiate under IR3 a program
of local government development activities outside the coca growing region where SO5 currently
implements its local government strengthening activity with some $35 million in
counternarcotics funding. However, it has since been learned that the additional ESF monies
will not be forthcoming in the current fiscal year.
Activities in support of above IRs and the overall SO have been implemented under two large
umbrella projects: “Participatory Democracy” (PARDEM, which ends on September 30, 2000),
and “Citizen Participation and Access to Justice (PARTICIPE, which was authorized in March
1999). PARTICIPE was designed in response to SO1’s shift to a more demand-based strategy
in light of the progressive weakening of the democratic system in the country and the resistance
demonstrated by the Government of Peru (GOP) to improving the effectiveness of state
institutions. This, along with the upcoming congressional and presidential elections scheduled
for April 9, 2000, motivated this strategic shift. The full rationale for this decision was laid out
by the SO1 team in a December 1998 document titled, “Strategic Focus of the USAID/Peru
Democracy Program for the 18-Month Period Leading up to the Year 2000 Elections (10/98-
4/00).” PARTICIPE places special emphasis on IRs 2 and 4, and focuses on the most vulnerable
groups in rural and marginalized urban areas of the country. Its end date coincides with the end
of USAID/Peru’s strategic plan in September 2001.
Another shift in SO1’s approach was to move responsibility for the direction of various program
components from large cooperative agreements with U.S. and Peruvian organizations to a more
direct management mode. Those cooperative agreements had involved two U.S. PVOs:
Catholic Relief Services (CRS) for implementation of a project titled, “Promotion of Justice and
H:\INCOMING\Margo\Pdabs285.doc 7
Peace in Peru,” which focused on human rights and ended in December 1997; and the
International Foundation for Electoral Systems (IFES) for the Electoral Assistance Component,
which also ended in December 1997. A third cooperative agreement was with a Peruvian NGO
(Group of Analysis for Development, GRADE), which functioned as an “umbrella” organization
in charge of identifying, selecting, funding, and monitoring ongoing civil society initiatives
under IR4. The GRADE contract ended on January 31, 1998.
B. EVALUATION OBJECTIVE
The Scope of Work (SOW) for this evaluation included two fundamental objectives:
1. Determine the impact and degree of influence of selected democracy education and
awareness activities in terms of advancing the Mission’s democracy objective; and
2. Identify best practices, methodologies, lessons learned and make recommendations that will
facilitate an in-depth Democracy and Governance Assessment and subsequent design of a
new USAID strategy for democratic development in Peru.
To accomplish this, the evaluation team was asked to respond to a number of questions,
including those related to the goals, objectives and expected results of selected sub-activities, the
PARTICIPE project and the SO1 framework. Other questions related to the impact of sub￾activities on the civic/democratic awareness and participation practices of the intended
beneficiary populations, the relative institutionalization of sub-activities, their cost-effectiveness,
and so forth. The SOW also specified that the data collection process would extend to three field
sites outside of Lima. In addition to the written SOW, evaluators were also invited to review the
management mechanisms employed by the SO1 team and make any suggestions deemed
appropriate. (See Annex A for copy of the SOW and Evaluation Plan.)
It should be noted that for IR3, the SOW indicated that the evaluation might be limited to a
review of the latest evaluation of the activity funded under the SO5 Alternative Development
Program. However, a number of interviews, particularly with USAID/SO5 officials and
counterparts in Ayacucho and Tarapoto, provided additional information on local government
activities.
The Democracy and Governance Assessment referred to in the second objective was initiated in
late February by another MSI team, and will not be finalized until after the April elections. At
the conclusion of the evaluation team’s field work, the preliminary findings, conclusions and
recommendations presented to USAID were also made available to the assessment team.
C. TECHNICAL APPROACH/METHODOLOGY
The overall technical approach used during this assignment consisted of the following major
components:
H:\INCOMING\Margo\Pdabs285.doc 8
1. Pre-arrival document review at home base. (January 21/26)
2. Arrival in Lima; Team Planning Meeting (TPM) and in-depth briefings by USAID; selection
and review of additional documents; preparation of interview protocol; preparation/approval
of evaluation plan, including identification of the organizations and field sites to be visited.
(January 27/31)
3. Field work; discussions in Lima, Ayacucho, Trujillo, Tarapoto and Lamas with all sub￾activity organizations earmarked in the SOW, plus other grantees, key informants and
individual experts. (February 1/16)
4. Preparation of preliminary findings, conclusions and recommendations; de-briefing at
USAID. (February 17/18)
5. Departure from Peru; preparation and submission of draft evaluation report. (February
19/March 15)
6. Roundtable discussion of the draft report with evaluation team leader and one other team
member at USAID/Peru; incorporation of USAID comments; production of final report in
English and Spanish. (March 20/April 7)
Throughout the conduct of in-country activities, the team met frequently with SO1 managers to
report on progress and seek further guidance or clarification on specific procedural and
substantive matters. Since SO1 team members had collected and situated grant-related materials
in an office within their work area, evaluators also visited the Mission to consult those
documents.
As suggested in the SOW, in order to understand the link between activities over the period from
FY1997 through FY1999 and the context within which they have taken place, the MSI team
reviewed evaluation reports and case studies conducted under SO1’s PARDEM activity
(GRADE, CRS, IFES, IPEDEHP) and SO5’s Alternative Development Program. (See Annex B
for a full list of the documents reviewed.)
Evaluators met frequently among themselves on an informal basis to exchange news and views,
while more formal TPMs were held at least once a week to permit in-depth sharing of
information and impressions related to the objectives of the evaluation. At the final TPM, the
team agreed on the preliminary results that were to be presented to USAID, and all team
members participated in the de-briefing held at the Mission on February 18.
The methodology designed and employed by evaluators responded to the various tasks set out in
the SOW. The sites visited outside of Lima were chosen at the suggestion of, and were approved
by, USAID in view of the concentration of SO1 activities in those locations. In addition to
individual interviews, on a number of occasions focus group sessions were held at field sites with
participants of the various sub-activities selected. In every case, interviewees were invited to
make recommendations concerning SO1’s future strategy, based on their own experience and
H:\INCOMING\Margo\Pdabs285.doc 9
their reading of the future political context. Where appropriate, those recommendations are
included among the findings that emerged from the data collection process.
Initially, the team had planned to conduct interviews with 12 sub-activity organizations.
However, that target was surpassed, and interviews were held with a total of 138 persons,
including 27 organizations, four international donor institutions, various individual informants
and two members of the Democracy and Governance Assessment team who reside in Lima. (See
Annex C for a list of those contacted.)
D. TEAM COMPOSITION
Based on the SOW, MSI selected four highly-experienced program development/
implementation/monitoring/reporting specialists who are fluent in both Spanish and English to
serve on this team. Each team member has specific professional credentials and took
responsibility for the most relevant facets of the data collection process. The team included:
Joan M. Goodin Team Leader & Senior Civil Society Specialist
J. Michele Guttmann Justice Sector Specialist
Lelia Mooney Sirotinsky Civic & Voter Education Specialist
José Martín Vegas Education Specialist & Logistics Coordinator
E. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Members of the MSI evaluation team wish to express our deep appreciation to USAID/Peru for
the confidence placed in us and for giving us this opportunity to work with the SO1 team on such
a challenging and interesting assignment. The support and guidance provided by the Chief of the
Office of Democratic Initiatives, plus the ever-ready assistance of the entire SO1 team and other
USAID personnel, made a huge task feasible in the time allotted.
Our sincere thanks go also to all counterpart organizations contacted for the spirit of cooperation
with which they received our requests for interviews and information, and generally facilitated
our work. Likewise, we are grateful to all other institutions and individuals contacted. A very
special word of thanks goes to all those representatives and participants of the sub-activities
examined in the interior of the country who took time to share their experiences and opinions
with us. Without their views it would not have been possible to “ground-truth” many of our
findings. We can honestly say that each of the individuals contacted enriched this experience
and made a significant contribution to the overall results recorded here.
For each member of the MSI team, this opportunity to study first-hand the complexities of
democratic governance in Peru, and to better comprehend its impact on the lives of the citizens
of that country, has been a professionally enriching and personally satisfying experience. We are
grateful to all who made this possible.
H:\INCOMING\Margo\Pdabs285.doc 10
CHAPTER THREE - FINDINGS
The first part of this Chapter provides findings related to the various sub-activities evaluated,
which are grouped into thematic areas in order to provide a more comprehensive review of
potential impact. In each case, the IR under which funding was provided is identified. Also
identified are the sub-activities which were targeted for a full review during this evaluation, as
well as those other sub-activities which were visited or contacted but not fully evaluated.
Based on the findings outlined in part one, the second part of this Chapter presents a set of
overall findings related to sub-activity results at the level of PARTICIPE and SO1. It is on the
basis of all findings that conclusions are then drawn and recommendations presented.
PART ONE – SUB-ACTIVITIES EVALUATED
I. HUMAN RIGHTS [IR1, IR2 and IR4]
Overall, it appears that the sub-activities related to human rights have been the most effective of
those funded under SO1, and were found to have had a greater impact on democracy education
and citizen participation in Peru than any of the other areas examined. USAID, which has played
an active role in promoting respect for human rights, has been a leading supporter of key human
rights organizations, particularly the Office of the Ombudsman and two Peruvian NGOs.
Initiatives supported by USAID in this area have sought to: promote the rights of marginalized
groups, such as women and native communities; enhance public awareness and support for
democratic institutions; and promote synergies between the Ombudsman’s Office and civil
society groups. The three organizations receiving support from USAID/SO1 that were contacted
during this evaluation were found to be leading forces within the human rights community; not
only have they achieved impressive results of their own, but they have actively coordinated their
efforts, making for a whole greater than the sum of its parts. A fourth organization (the Instituto
de Defensa Legal, IDL, which provides legal defense for persons unjustly accused of terrorism)
was not included in this evaluation, as it was limited to democracy education activities.
The three organizations in question are: the Office of the Human Rights Ombudsman
(Defensoría del Pueblo, which literally means Public Defender); the Peruvian Institute of
Education on Human Rights and Peace (IPEDEHP), and the National Coordinator for
Human Rights (CNDDHH). While the first two were reviewed and contacted, only CNDDHH
was selected for evaluation.
A. The Office of the Ombudsman was created as an official, autonomous body in the 1993
Peruvian Constitution, which states that this Office is to “keep vigil over [citizens’] fundamental
and constitutional rights.” As required, the Ombudsman was elected by a majority of Congress,
and the Office became operational in 1996. The incumbent has proven to be an impartial,
independent and effective promoter of citizens’ rights, and was the only public figure for whom
all interviewees expressed respect, noting his honesty, courage and commitment. This Office
receives approximately 30% of its budget from a variety of international donors. USAID, which
provided early support to help establish the Office, has provided a grant totaling $1,472,170 for
the period from September 1996 to September 2001 under SO1/IR1. The purpose was to assist
H:\INCOMING\Margo\Pdabs285.doc 11
in strengthening the Office and promote and protect key human rights in Peru, including the
protection of innocent persons, the incorporation of gender in human rights initiatives and the
rights of native communities. To decentralize this fledgling agency, USAID support was then
targeted to assist in the establishment of 10 regional offices around the country by 2001 –
starting from a baseline of five decentralized units in 1998. To date, nine such offices are in
operation, including Ayacucho and Trujillo, which were visited by the evaluation team. It was
reported that the majority of cases presented to the Ombudsman’s Office involve economic and
social rights (i.e., pensions, child support, etc.), as well as complaints against municipal
governments. In Ayacucho, it was reported that 60% of those who approach the Office do so
because they simply do not know where else to go to register a complaint or file a claim. In
those cases, the Office contacts the appropriate entity, to which the person is then referred.
The February 2000 report of a national survey on Democratic Values and Citizen Participation in
Peru, conducted by the Instituto de Estudios Peruanos (IEP) shows the level of confidence
enjoyed by the Office of the Ombudsman. Among a representative sample of 1,751 citizens, the
level of confidence increased from 48.8% in 1998 to 50.9% in 1999. The IEP report states that
the Ombudsman’s Office is the institution of the State that arouses the highest degree of
confidence among citizens.
Observations
One question that surfaced during the course of this evaluation was the definition of human
rights. During the 1970’s and 1980’s (the Shining Path terrorist period), murder, torture and
other forms of physical violence were every day occurrences. Now that the war against terrorism
and acts of blatant physical abuse are largely (though not entirely) a thing of the past, human
rights are increasingly defined as economic, social and cultural rights. The Ombudsman and his
staff favor this broader definition, and reported they are now also adding environmental rights to
the list.
Another issue raised by various interviewees related to the fact that, though the Ombudsman
presents an annual report to Congress, his recommendations are largely ignored. Therefore, the
Office was seen to have little influence in the realm of legislation and policies aimed at
protecting human rights. It was also reported that the Ombudsman prepares special reports and
resolutions on relevant issues, and that several of his recommendations have been adopted by
several sectors.
It was also explained that the term of the current Ombudsman expires in April 2001, and that
even if he were to run for re-election (something he currently does not plan), Congress may not
want him to serve another term, given how well he has performed as a check on the executive
branch. This, it was felt by some, would lead to the decimation of the Office by the GOP. Other
interviewees believed that, given the national and international visibility gained and the positive
image it enjoys at home and abroad, plus its top-notch staff and existing programs funded
beyond the current term, it will not be possible to dismantle the Office easily.
When asked for his views regarding the future, the Ombudsman expressed concern about the
widening gap between citizens and their government, and recommended that the new SO1
H:\INCOMING\Margo\Pdabs285.doc 12
strategy give priority to activities aimed at facilitating relations between civil society and
selected government agencies (as opposed to the administration itself). He also felt that
decentralization is a priority issue for the future (particularly after the new Congress takes
office), and suggested that USAID support additional work with local governments and their
constituents, perhaps through a small number of pilots outside of the coca-growing region. In
principle, evaluators support these suggestions.
B. IPEDEHP, founded 15 years ago, is dedicated to training human rights promoters,
working in some 18 parts of the country. Its total annual budget is approximately $470,000, of
which nearly half ($200,000) is provided by USAID under SO1/IR4. A grant totaling $754,195
has been provided for the period from April 1997 through September 2001 for the purpose of
developing a network of human rights promoters throughout the country. IPEDEHP conducts
three-day “train the trainer” workshops for local leaders to prepare them to act as human rights
promoters and to train others. The organization has developed a highly participatory training
methodology, which appears to have produced impressive results. Workshops, with 60 to 100
participants, are held in collaboration with local organizations (often members of CNDDHH),
which help select community leaders who receive substantive and methodological training to
enable them to replicate workshops in their communities. Reportedly, in 1999, promoters trained
by IPEDEHP had disseminated human rights information among nearly 175,000 citizens.
IPEDEHP reported that one unexpected outgrowth of the training program has been the
development of a cadre of “promotorcitos” (young promoters). The head of IPEDEHP says she
now must develop a plan for working with children.
IPEDEHP works in close collaboration with CNDDHH and the Office of the Ombudsman
(representatives of which participate in all training events) and is highly regarded by that Office
(which lauded IPEDEHP’s “mystique”), as well as by other NGOs, some of which reported
using/adapting IPEDEHP’s training methodology for their own purposes.
Observations
The IPEDEHP director pointed out that, thanks to the Ombudsman, CNDDHH and other activist
NGOs, the topic of human rights is now “on the table” – something that was not true before. In
terms of the definition of human rights, she pointed out that one area is human rights defense (for
which the definition should be narrow) and another is human rights education, which should be
broader. She explained the close, collaborative relations between IPEDEHP and CNDDHH, but
felt that if an attempt is made to formally broaden the definition of human rights beyond torture,
disappearances, intimidation and the like, it will not be possible to achieve unity within that
network in the future. Both the Office of the Ombudsman and the CNDDHH appear to disagree
with this assertion.
With regard to SO1’s future strategy, the head of IPEDEHP spoke positively about the Partners
Retreat convened by the Mission Director last year, stating that USAID should promote such
gatherings in order to urge counterparts from different sectors to join together in “intermediate
agreements of cooperation.” She also recommended that USAID seek to influence authorities at
the local level, and support the strengthening of political parties. Finally, she noted the
H:\INCOMING\Margo\Pdabs285.doc 13
importance of forming human rights teams and explained that IPEDEHP would like to create a
university level “Diploma in Human Rights” to prepare future leadership.
C. CNDDHH, founded in 1985, is a network of 61 groups of various kinds around the
country (NGOs, committees linked to churches, community feeding programs, etc.). In July
1998, CNDDHH (which then had 50 members) received a two-year, institutional development
grant from USAID of $250,100 under SO1/IR2 in order to develop further its potential for
effective outreach and influence. The total budget of $292,100 includes $42,000 in counterpart
funds. According to the PARTICIPE Results Framework, it is expected that this sub-activity
will increase the capacity of local CNDDHH affiliates to collect data on human rights abuses
(particularly on torture) and advocate for redress of these abuses and improvements in the
country’s human rights record. The indicator used is the percentage of local affiliates that report
regularly on abuses to CNDDHH, with a target of 60% by 2001 from a baseline of zero in 1997.
Given the e-mail, web site and training provided to affiliates through this sub-activity, CNDDHH
appears well on its way to meeting this target.
The Coordinator has two types of members: Full Members (Miembros Plenos, of which there are
40) and 21 Permanent Invitees (Invitados Permanentes, which have voice but no vote). National
Gatherings (encuentros) are held every two years to determine the direction the network will take
in the ensuing period, accept or reject members, and elect the governing Council (Consejo
Directivo). The Council, which is responsible for formulating the annual work plan, is made up
of 13 Full Member organizations – six in Lima, and seven from the interior, elected for a two￾year term. Council meetings are held monthly in Lima. In addition, CNDDHH has a number of
Work Groups, including Juridical and International (which concentrates primarily on the UN and
OAS, including Peru’s withdrawal from the Inter-American Commission for Human Rights),
plus two broader groups dealing with economic, social and cultural rights, and non￾discrimination. There is also a Permanent Committee of six - a sort of “rapid response”
mechanism – which meets only when necessary. The Council names the Executive Secretary
who, in turn, selects staff members, of which there are presently 10, all of whom work under
one-year contracts.
CNDDHH Full Members include local human rights committees in 26 communities located in
14 departments of the country. Under the SO1 grant, CNDDHH has sought to: a) strengthen the
26 local committees by providing management and resource development training; b) collect
information on the priority topics agreed upon at the VII National Gathering, with special
emphasis on the issue of torture in preparation for the 1999 national CNDDHH campaign
(torture was later ratified as the national issue for the ensuing period to 2001); 3) connect all
local committees in an information network, using e-mail and a web page. These objectives
have been pursued through a phased approach which began with preparations for and conduct of
an organizational assessment carried out in each of the 26 sites. Following the collection of
information related to the organizational capacity of each local committee and the local context,
CNDDHH prepared a Report on the Institutional Diagnosis Applied to 26 Full Members of the
Coordinator (based on SWOT analysis1
), as well as a plan for the provision of individualized
advisory services and the collection of information on complaints related to torture. Interviewees
 
1
SWOT analysis is a strategic planning technique which examines internal Strengths and Weaknesses, as
well as external Opportunities and Threats.
H:\INCOMING\Margo\Pdabs285.doc 14
noted that local committees are in the process of transition, stating that “rights are different in the
post-terrorist period.” They also reported that these committees now tend to have closer
relations with local government authorities, since they are called upon by citizens “to do
everything.”
In the next phase (December 1998), CNDDHH installed computers and trained recipients in their
use where needed (some 19 local committees). With regard to fund-raising, CNDDHH not only
provides training, but also helps identify potential donors and endorses proposals developed by
local committees. In 1999, six institutional development workshops were held. The next step in
this process is to be two sets of three such workshops held in Arequipa and Chiclayo for each
local committee (4-6 persons per committee) for the purpose of developing strategic plans. The
first of these two-day events was scheduled for February 28-March 3. It was therefore not
possible for the evaluation team to examine the success of this process, which is to end in mid
May. CNDDHH reported that the main indicator they plan to use to measure the success of these
workshops will be the development of strategic plans by local committees. This series of
workshops is to be followed by a national meeting scheduled for July to coordinate local plans
with the Coordinator’s national plan and create a vision for 2005. The final phase of this activity
is to be an evaluation of the two-year USAID grant and formulation of a proposal for the next
two years.
Observations
By virtue of its participatory approach and active advocacy efforts both within and outside of the
country, CNDDHH appears to have established a high level of national and international
recognition, as well as significant citizen participation at the local level through its 26
committees. Clearly, development of the capacity of local committees to communicate by e-mail
and to exchange information through the CNDDHH web page (which 35 NGOs have now
become part of, and which by 1997 received some 5,000 hits per month) has been a significant
contribution to strengthening this national human rights network from the bottom up. CNDDHH
interviewees reported that they are committed to continuing this process of local institutional
development, which will also strengthen the Coordinator itself. They spoke of the need to
develop among citizens an awareness of their right to be respected as individuals, and to teach
authorities respect for persons - for which the commitment of the military, police and others is
needed. (The Ombudsman’s Office reported that, while the police force has been receptive to
human rights training, this is not the case with the military.) CNDDHH interviewees
recommended that the USAID SO1 team give priority to strengthening civil society, and that
human rights be viewed in an broader, integrated fashion, including economic, social and
cultural rights. This is at odds with the sentiments expressed by IPEDEPH.
II. CONCILIATION SERVICES AND LEGAL ASSISTANCE FOR THE POOR
 [IR1 and IR2]
SO1’s revised 18-month strategy up to the 2000 elections states under “Related Ongoing
Activities” for IR2: “The Mission is currently supporting the Ministry of Justice’s conciliation
and free legal clinics programs as well as conciliation activities implemented by NGOs in order
to expand access to justice for marginalized populations throughout Peru.” The introduction of
H:\INCOMING\Margo\Pdabs285.doc 15
conciliation programs in coca-growing areas to help reduce community conflict is also briefly
mentioned as an integrated activity with SO5. However, this evaluation found that the
conciliation and legal assistance programs reviewed failed to demonstrate an overall
comprehensive or cohesive approach to the pertinent IRs (IR1, More Effective National
Institutions; and IR2, Greater Access to Justice) that would clearly promote the democracy
Strategic Objective.
Four SO1 sub-activities within this area were included in this evaluation: the Ministry of
Justice, the Lima Chamber of Commerce, the Instituto Peruano de Resolución de Conflictos,
Negociación y Mediación (IPRECON), and the Asociación Peruana de Negociación, Arbitraje
y Conciliación (APENAC). The scope of these various programs is rather dispersed. Some
activities appear to have been motivated by an anticipated major change in the Peruvian legal
framework that has not developed as originally expected (as discussed below); thus, the
somewhat piecemeal evolution of this programmatic area.
The PARTICIPE Results Framework identifies “Increased access to conciliation services
through USAID-sponsored entities” as the expected result in this area. The Performance
Indicators are 1) the total number of USAID-sponsored conciliation centers around the country
(from a baseline of 17 in 1998 to a target of 24 in 2001); 2) the percentage of citizens who have
heard of extra-judicial conciliation (from a baseline of 8.7% in 1998 to a target of 30% in 2001);
and 3) the total number of conciliators trained (from a baseline of 600 in 1998 to a target of
4,000 in 2001). With regard to the second of these indicators, the 1999 national survey
conducted by IEP showed an increase in the percentage of citizens who had heard of conciliation
– up from 8.7% in 1998 to 13% in 1999. It is likely that USAID-supported initiatives played an
important role in achieving this increase, though direct attribution is not possible to verify. The
first and third indicators seem reasonably attainable within the allotted time frame. Perhaps the
more salient overarching inquiry, however, is whether and to what extent an increased number of
conciliators and conciliation centers will have a genuine, positive impact on the community, how
that will promote SO1, and at what cost.
It became clear in the course of the evaluation that the conciliation and legal assistance programs
supported under SO1 aim at resolving disputes that are unlikely ever to enter a courtroom, rather
than to reducing case backlog so as to facilitate access into the formal justice system. Although
most program efforts seem to have focused on training and education, and relatively little on
actual dispute resolution, the vast majority of conflicts ultimately addressed relate to single
mothers involved in domestic disputes over matters such as child support, visitation, and
custody.
As general orientation, it is important to report on the status of the legal framework surrounding
conciliation in Peru. A proposed new Conciliation Law was published in November 1997 and
enacted in January 1998. The law purports to facilitate access to justice by requiring parties to
engage in formal alternative dispute resolution efforts (i.e., conciliation) prior to litigation.
Conciliators and conciliation centers must be authorized by and registered with the Ministry of
Justice. The law applies to all civil matters in which justiciable claims are made concerning the
rights of parties, but not to criminal cases (except insofar as they may constitute the basis for a
derivative civil claim). Specifically included within the purview of the new law are family
H:\INCOMING\Margo\Pdabs285.doc 16
matters pertaining to support, visitation, and domestic violence.
2
 For the first two years
subsequent to enactment, submission to conciliation was voluntary. Thereafter, as of January
2000, conciliation was supposed to have become a mandatory first step before the initiation of all
civil judicial processes.
Mandatory conciliation under the new law did not take effect as originally planned and, as of the
date of this writing, is not legally required anywhere in Peru. Several months before the
scheduled requirement was to go into effect, the Ministry of Justice submitted a
recommendation, proposing that application of the law be gradual, rather than universal. The
basis for the recommendation was that the system was not prepared for such an extensive
procedural change, and would predictably fail. The Ministry of Justice recommended that
application of the Conciliation Law first take place in those regions best prepared to handle the
change (Lima, Arequipa, and Trujillo), and further that certain subject areas of litigation be
excluded until a later stage (family and labor disputes). Mandatory application of the
Conciliation Law was then deferred in its entirety until January 2001, and at this point it is
unclear whether, when, and to what extent it will ultimately be applied.
Although USAID’s sponsorship of legal services and conciliation programs was not motivated
by the new Conciliation Law, its prospective application clearly spurred on and encouraged
SO1’s involvement in and commitment to each of the programs below, although to varying
degrees. For example, Phase I of the Ministry of Justice program started prior to the new law,
but at that time emphasized provision of legal assistance to the poor; its focus changed
dramatically after the new law. USAID had been involved with APENAC prior to the new
Conciliation Law in a separate activity, but the IPRECON and Lima Chamber of Commerce
projects began only after the new law. Circumstances are much different now, and the future
application of this law is uncertain. In light of these developments, we found that SO1 would be
well advised to review this subject area with an eye toward determining whether and how
conciliation will predictably fit into its overall future strategy and the current legal reality.
Another issue that became apparent, especially through the field visits, was the existence of
significant duplication of services and activities within this area. Not only does this increase
costs, but it also appears to have nourished an unhealthy rivalry between competing programs.
For example, a minimum of two projects were involved in each of the following activities:
training of conciliators, establishment of conciliation centers (sometimes within the same
communities), preparation of manuals and training materials, public education, and school
training programs. The evaluation revealed both competition and overlap in the provision of
services not only between program grantees, but also with multiple other private and public
conciliation services. Moreover, many of the grantees were unaware of these other programs,
even when operating within the same communities. It appears that the advent of the new
Conciliation Law has engendered substantial opportunism without genuine consideration or
analysis of community needs and acceptance, or potential impact.
 
2 Without exception, everyone interviewed agreed that domestic violence is an inappropriate subject matter
for conciliation, and that conciliating such cases is rarely successful. Unfortunately, a high percentage of domestic
violence cases contribute to the caseload of disputes presented for conciliation, and differing and sometimes
inconsistent approaches are used. The Ministry of Justice indicated that efforts are underway to amend the law to
exclude domestic violence cases.
H:\INCOMING\Margo\Pdabs285.doc 17
1. MINISTRY OF JUSTICE [IR1 and IR2]:
USAID entered into a two-part Limited Scope Grant Agreement with the Peruvian Ministry of
Justice that began on July 31, 1997. Phase I (July 31, 1997-December 31, 1998) awarded
$250,000 to the Ministry for Strengthening of Public Legal Clinics for Lima and Callao. Phase
II awarded an additional $350,000 to extend the grant through April 30, 2000. It also amplified
the scope of the activity, which became Strengthening of Public Legal Clinics in Lima and
Callao, and Implementation of Conciliation and Legal Assistance Centers in the Provinces.”
USAID’s total funding has thus been $600,00, with an average annual commitment over the
course of the grant of approximately $220,000. The Ministry contributed a total of $928,000 -
$285,000 in Phase I and $643,000 in Phase II.
Some history behind this sub-activity will help to set the stage for USAID’s current involvement
and the evolution of the program and its goals. The Peruvian constitution guarantees free legal
assistance for the poor, but Peruvian law does not permit pro se representation and therefore all
litigants must be represented by attorneys. Access to justice is consequently difficult for the
great number of Peruvians who are unable to afford private legal counsel. The Ministry of
Justice carries the constitutional burden of providing free legal assistance to the indigent and,
toward that end, in 1986 created a small system of Public Legal Clinics (Consultorios Jurídicos
Populares), operating independently and mainly in Lima/Callao, although also in five interior
provinces. Those clinics began operations staffed by lawyers and law-school interns, and
provided legal consultations and representation in both civil and criminal litigation, as well as
conciliation.
As a complement to the Ministry’s efforts to provide legal assistance to the poor, SO1 funded an
18-month activity in 1996-97 to strengthen and support a similar set of free legal clinics being
operated by the Lima Bar Association in Lima/Callao. When that project ended, the Lima Bar
Association could not afford to finance the clinics, but the Ministry of Justice was interested in
assuming responsibility for most of their operations and incorporating them into their system of
Public Legal Clinics. Phase I of this activity funded that transfer of responsibility, and
strengthened the existing PLCs and the formation of a Legal Clinics Network and telephone
hotline, inter alia. The clinics were organized into separate divisions: 1) a Conciliation Center to
attempt to resolve conflicts outside the formal process, and 2) a Legal Clinic to provide
representation in formal proceedings for cases that could not be resolved through conciliation, or
were inappropriate for conciliation. The project sought to systematize and increase the quality
and quantity of free legal representation and conciliation services offered by the Ministry’s
clinics.
When Phase II began in 1998, the new Conciliation Law had already been enacted, and the
project was redirected largely to the implementation of that law. The Ministry of Justice has a
primary role in its implementation, both as a service provider and as the governmental entity
responsible for authorization, operation, registry, and supervision of all Conciliation Centers. In
addition to augmenting the provision of free legal services to the poor, the goal of the project
expanded to include the promotion and development of conciliation nationally as an alternative
conflict resolution mechanism. Expected results included the full establishment of the Legal
H:\INCOMING\Margo\Pdabs285.doc 18
Clinics Network to include additional Clinics/Conciliation Centers, the creation of a specialized
Technical Office on Conciliation within the Ministry, an informational database and registry to
control and evaluate the impact of extrajudicial conciliation, and a significant increase in the
quantity and quality of free legal and conciliation services provided through the Network.
Reporting appears to have been completed consistently and in a timely manner, and the reports
appear to contain full and reliable information concerning progress and numerical outputs.
Nonetheless, this does not provide a complete picture or reliable method of evaluating impact, as
opposed to output. Of particular concern is the lack of any follow-up to determine or ensure
compliance with successfully-negotiated agreements.
Any determination of cost-effectiveness is problematic, and would require a much lengthier and
more detailed investigation than contemplated by the terms of this evaluation. We can report
that records for February–December 19993
 indicate that 6,143 conciliation inquiries were
initiated in the 22 Ministry Conciliation Centers throughout the country. Of that total, 1,973
resulted in conciliation meetings, of which 1,582 resulted in partial or complete settlement
agreements. Approximately 80% of the matters conciliated involved domestic disputes over
child custody, visitation, support, and domestic violence. In the 24 Public Legal Clinics
throughout the country, the documents reviewed indicate that 44,881 consultation inquiries were
made in 1999, out of which 11,469 resulted in some type of judicial or administrative action
being either initiated or concluded during the year.4
 Although it is unclear from the figures
provided, the Chief Attorney of the Public Legal Clinic in Trujillo confirmed that approximately
70% of his caseload involved child support and other domestic matters. In addition to
widespread distribution of informational literature and flyers, it was reported that 650 people
attended conciliation training sessions or discussions.
The Director of the project in Lima was familiar with the SO1 Results Framework and Strategic
Objective, and mentioned that she had attended USAID events relating to citizen participation,
but quite candidly admitted that she did not see how her program furthered the goal of citizen
participation. The representatives in the Trujillo office were unfamiliar with the SO1
framework.
As noted, a significant problem with the Ministry’s conciliation process is the lack of any follow￾up to verify compliance with agreements. While this is not contemplated in the grant agreement,
such follow-up was seen by all grantees interviewed as being of great importance – a point about
which they expressed considerable frustration. The Trujillo representatives interviewed
expressed great concern over this failure, and had even undertaken to act as an escrow for child
support payments to monitor and ensure compliance, but were told by the Ministry that they
could not legally perform this function. Absent a client returning to the office voluntarily to
follow up, they have no way of knowing whether the conciliated agreements are honored.
Ultimate individual impact therefore cannot be determined.
 
3
It is unclear why January is omitted from this report.
4
It is unclear whether there is duplication in the statistical recording of these cases. For example, there were
935 administrative actions initiated in 1999, and 902 administrative actions concluded in 1999. If any or all of the
cases were both initiated and concluded within the same year, then they may be listed twice under this system of
record-keeping, and the total figures above would not reflect actual caseload.
H:\INCOMING\Margo\Pdabs285.doc 19
Observations
This sub-activity is a remnant of IR1 (national institution strengthening), and has a dual identity
under IR2 (greater access to justice). This is the only program that focuses on poverty as a
criterion for the provision of legal services, and the only one that provides legal services other
than conciliation. Obviously, indigent legal services are a critical need in Peru, but two
questions arise: 1) USAID is funding a national activity that the GOP is constitutionally
obligated to provide as a service to its indigent population; is this an appropriate role for the
Agency? 2) How does the program contribute to achievement of broader citizen participation?
It is clearly geared toward the resolution of specific individual needs and appears to have
developed primarily into a child custody and support determination mechanism for single
mothers. It seems unlikely that these women will gain meaningful access to justice or that they
will participate more actively in democratic processes as a result of conciliating domestic
disputes. If USAID’s goal is to benefit that population, this seems to be a costly way to do so,
especially absent any provision for follow-up. The activity was re-tooled in 1998 based upon the
prospective application of the new Conciliation Law in January 2000. However, as discussed,
the future of that law is now uncertain. Under these circumstances, it is perhaps advisable to
review and revisit programs that were geared toward the new law.
2. NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS [IR2]:
A. Lima Chamber of Commerce
USAID awarded two grants totaling $287,263 to the Lima Chamber of Commerce to fund a two￾year program titled Access to Justice through Alternative Conflict Resolution Methods. The total
program amount was $382,963, including a 33% cost-sharing provision. The initial grant was
made on September 23, 1998, and the activity is scheduled to conclude on December 31, 2000.
It appears that the SO1 grant constituted approximately 50% of the Chamber’s 1999 institutional
operating budget (although it is unclear whether that amount reflects operations other than the
Centro de Conciliación y Arbitraje Nacional e Internacional).
The stated goal of this activity is to improve access to justice, citizen equality, and peaceful co￾existence by providing alternative dispute resolution methods. Specific objectives include
citizen education with respect to their rights/obligations vis a vis the state and one another,
effective exercise of those rights, and improved access to justice through a networked system of
17 Chamber of Commerce Conciliation/Arbitration Centers. The first stage of the project was to
be devoted to citizen education on legal rights, responsibilities, and conciliation/arbitration as
alternative dispute resolution; training of potential conciliators; and formation of the Unidad
Central del Proyecto, which consists of a network including the Lima Chamber of Commerce
and four regional chambers (Unidades Coordinadoras Regionales). The next stage involved
expanding the network membership to other local chambers of commerce, conducting further
community outreach, education, and coordination programs, increasing training, and physically
equipping the centers to become operational. Additionally, two sub-projects were included: 1)
to provide training to Justices of the Peace in Lima (although this has since been abandoned
because they were already obtaining training elsewhere); and 2) to provide two groups of 40
H:\INCOMING\Margo\Pdabs285.doc 20
schoolchildren, ages 6 to 10, along with their parents and teachers, with training in “habilidades
sociales” over a nine-month period, thus giving them social skills to enable them to avoid
confrontation and violence, and resolve conflicts peaceably and appropriately. This second
activity - a pilot program for school children - began near the end of 1999 and is currently in
progress. Results of that initiative are therefore not yet available.
Reporting appears to have been completed consistently and in a timely manner, and the reports
appear to contain complete and reliable information concerning progress and numerical outputs.
Again, however, this does not provide a complete picture or reliable method of evaluating
impact, as opposed to output. With regard to identification of project beneficiaries, a February
2000 report to USAID states the following: in 1999, 1120 people attended conferences and 281
people attended conciliator training workshops (total 1,401); in 2000, 480 people are expected to
attend conferences and 320 are expected to attend training workshops (total 800). The budget
allocated $58,450 to conferences and workshops for both years. Divided by the sum total of
2,201 (1401 + 800), that results in a cost of $26.56 per person attending each workshop or
conference. Other than this single item, however, cost effectiveness of the following budget line
items cannot be evaluated because of insufficient information: $89,953 for dissemination,
$126,860 for establishment of the network (17 total members at a per capita cost of $7,462.35),
and $12,000 for evaluation.
As of this writing, the only operational conciliation center in this nascent network is the Lima
Center, which has just recently initiated official authorization procedures with the Ministry of
Justice. (Although it has provided arbitration and conciliation services at a fee to its members
since December 1993, the Center has primarily conducted arbitrations of commercial contract
disputes.) Official authorization from the Ministry has already been obtained for four other
Chamber-affiliated centers in the interior, but they are not yet operational. The Lima director
hopes to have some centers both operational and authorized by mid-2000. The Lima Center
appears to be firmly ensconced and well set-up; it has operated and assuredly will continue
operations for the foreseeable future.
Observations
The main goal of the Chamber is to strengthen the business community, and thus promote
commercial and community development. Although the broadly stated goals of this sub-activity
are to increase the general public’s access to justice through alternative dispute resolution
methods, evaluators observed that the Chamber of Commerce is clearly geared toward the
business sector and the resolution of commercial disputes. The Lima Chamber representatives
interviewed agreed with this characterization, but added their hope that the various Chambers
throughout the country could move away from their traditional elitism, develop more of a “social
conscience,” and ultimately address the needs of some lay people unrelated to the business
community.5
 Casting this broader net was also seen as a means of attracting wider donor
 
5 Note that the director of the Lima Center (understandably) expressed discomfort with the prospect of
having the Chamber-affiliated centers perform conciliations in the area of domestic relations, in particular domestic
violence. Domestic disputes, however, appear to constitute the main topic for conciliations sought by the public in
the other programs under review. Moreover, Chamber-affiliated centers charge for their services, albeit on a sliding
H:\INCOMING\Margo\Pdabs285.doc 21
support, specifically from USAID. Chamber representatives were unfamiliar with the overall
SO1 Results Framework and democracy Strategic Objective, and could not articulate how this
activity would ultimately promote the goal of broader citizen participation in a democracy
context. It was unclear to the interviewer how this activity would serve the marginalized
populations targeted by the Mission, particularly since no data were available about who had
attended Chamber conferences or what they had done with the information thereafter.
B. IPRECON
USAID awarded a grant of $132,000 to IPRECON in September 1998 to fund a one-year
Training Program for the Creation of Conciliation Centers ($173,000 total project cost with
cost-sharing of 31%). The completion date was later extended an extra two months (without
additional funding), and the project concluded on November 30, 1999. IPRECON estimates that
the USAID grant comprised approximately 60% of its institutional operating budget for 1999.
The stated goal of the project was to facilitate access to justice by means of extrajudicial
conciliation. Toward that end, IPRECON identified the following specific objectives: 1) citizen
education and promotion of conciliation as a means of dispute resolution through literature
distribution, radio ads, and other informational events; 2) improved conciliation services offered
through the training of university students, local leaders, and the Office of the Ombudsman in
Lima, Arequipa, and Piura in accordance with the proposed Conciliation Law, and a training
manual (to be drafted); and 3) establishment and follow-up of conciliation centers in Lima,
Arequipa, and Piura to resolve disputes referred by the Ombudsman’s Office and the local
community. Expected results and indicators were identified with respect to these objectives, and
monitoring was to be done by IPRECON, with reports to be submitted every trimester.
Apparently, however, only two reports were actually submitted: one covering January-June
1999, and the other a “Final Report” covering October 1998-November 1999. Each of these
reports is simply a checklist of activities, and each is approximately two pages in length. Neither
of the reports contains information on indicators that would demonstrate ultimate results or
impact of the overall activity.
With respect to training, the information provided by IPRECON appears to be somewhat
inconsistent or, at best, incomplete. In one report, IPRECON states that 221 people were trained
in conciliation courses, 148 of whom are staff of the Ombudsman’s Office (it is unclear why
emphasis was placed on training members of that Office when the project proposal indicates that
its primary anticipated role would be to refer cases to IPRECON’s private conciliation centers).
The information provided indicates that only 33 people out of those trained have been accredited
as conciliators; the SO1 activity manager explained that it takes several months for the Ministry
of Justice to register new conciliators. Based on the total number of 221 people who participated
in training sessions, divided into the budget line item of $58,100 for training, the result is a cost
 
scale depending on the type of dispute and locale. Clearly, these centers are not intended to nor are they likely to
serve marginalized populations.
H:\INCOMING\Margo\Pdabs285.doc 22
of $262.90 per person; if the 33 people ultimately accredited are used to calculate costs, that
would equal $1,760.60 per person accredited.
With respect to citizen education and the distribution of materials, IPRECON estimates the
audience reached as coinciding precisely with the entire populations of Lima, Arequipa, and
Trujillo. This bare estimate, without foundation, is not found to be credible or reliable for
purposes of this report. Therefore, the dissemination budget line item of $31,100 cannot be
evaluated for cost-effectiveness based on the information provided.
In charts given to the interviewer, IPRECON provided data with respect to conciliations in the
Lima and Arequipa centers. The Lima conciliation center is located in the IPRECON office, and
has been operating officially since January 4, 1999. During 1999, that center responded to 183
inquiries, out of which 63 conciliation attempts were initiated, of which 9 cases ultimately
proceeded to conciliation (6 of those cases settled; 5 of those complied with the settlement
terms). The Arequipa conciliation center is affiliated with the legal clinic at the law school of the
Universidad Católica Santa María and has been operating since July 1999. From July–
November 1999, the Arequipa center responded to 329 inquiries, out of which 20 conciliation
attempts were initiated, of which 12 cases ultimately proceeded to conciliation (11 of which
settled).
IPRECON encountered problems with the proposed center in Piura, and instead affiliated with
the Universidad Privada Antenor Orrego in Trujillo to set up a conciliation center in conjunction
with the law school’s extant legal clinic facility. The Trujillo center was inaugurated on
November 19, 1999, but was found to be essentially non-operational at the time of our site visit
in February. This was due to a variety of problems, claimed mainly to relate to lack of marketing
and money to staff the center. Only one case has been conciliated at that center in approximately
three months; it entailed setting child support for two minor children, was concluded within one
hour, and the settlement agreement contained an express disclaimer stating that the conciliator
was not competent to handle domestic matters. There is no coordination between this center and
other conciliation centers offering the same or similar services in Trujillo, which underscores the
lack of community involvement/awareness.
The budget line item allocated to setting up the conciliation centers was $42,800. Divided
equally by the three centers (although only two appear to be operational), the cost of each center
would be $14,266.67.
Observations
Evaluators found that the IPRECON sub-activity seemed to lack a solid plan or real strategy
from its inception, and appears to have been heavily reliant on the proposed application of the
Conciliation Law to ensure a supply of business. Absent the captive audience thereby
anticipated, the centers seem relatively inactive and unproductive (e.g., only 5 successful
mediations in all of 1999 in a city the size of Lima is difficult to justify in light of the
investment). The training similarly seems to have reached a minimal audience, only a small
percentage of whom became accredited. Reporting was inconsistent in terms of the original
project proposal and indicators, and internally inconsistent. The nature of the activity and the
H:\INCOMING\Margo\Pdabs285.doc 23
reporting makes it difficult to estimate with any predictable accuracy its impact and influence,
but it is likely quite low. The Ombudsman’s Office in Trujillo, which received IPRECON
training, agreed with the concept of conciliation training to change life attitudes and the climate
of confrontation in Peru, but commented that the IPRECON training was very focused on setting
up conciliation centers and obtaining authorization to operate. Their center in Trujillo was
described by the Ombudsman’s Office as having “nothing to do with the community.” Finally,
none of the IPRECON representatives interviewed were familiar with the SO1 Results
Framework in any meaningful way, and could not explain how conciliation serves to promote the
democracy Strategic Objective.
C. APENAC
USAID awarded this NGO two grants totaling $370,000 to fund a two-year program from July
1998 to July 2000. The total budget amounts to $446,600, including 21% cost-sharing. This
sub-activity is entitled Promotion of Alternative Mechanisms for Conflict Resolution in the Area
of the Apurimac-Ene Valley, Huamanga and Tarapoto. Funding was provided by both SO1
($150,000) and the SO5 Alternative Development program ($220,000). USAID financing
constitutes approximately 80% of APENAC’s total operational budget for these years.
The goal of the APENAC program has been to promote greater access to justice for
disadvantaged communities in coca-producing zones by providing those communities with
practical techniques and adequate strategies in alternative dispute resolution methods so as to
manage and resolve their disputes peaceably. The specific objectives included the following: 1)
creation and establishment of three conciliation centers; 2) strengthening of two existing
conciliation centers; 3) development of a pilot school mediation project; and 4) promotion of
alternative dispute resolution mechanisms through education and training at different levels,
including native communities, grassroots and neighborhood organizations, public institutions,
governmental entities and authorities, etc. Additionally, APENAC is in the process of
developing software to record and collect information concerning the initiation, processing,
conclusion, and follow-up of conciliation cases, and will be providing the software to the
Ministry of Justice to aid in the collection of uniform, consistent, and useful data at the national
level.
APENAC’s original proposal identified indicators purporting to quantify not solely numerical
output, but also success in actual conciliation efforts, as well as completion and follow-up
strategies. Subsequent reporting has been timely, thorough, consistent with the original proposal,
and has tracked progress against the original indicators. Of all the conciliation programs
reviewed for purposes of this evaluation, APENAC’s data collection, analysis, and reporting
were all clearly and definitively a substantial cut above the rest, and conveyed the most useful
information. Nevertheless, the inherent difficulties of gauging ultimate impact and influence of
the sub-activity as a whole remain a challenge not yet overcome.
Determination of cost-effectiveness is problematic. The award budget allocated $68,760 to
training, dissemination, and publications; APENAC calculates that 7,732 people have been
reached from August 1998-January 2000 within the relevant communities ($8.89 per person).
The award budget for the school component was $19,200. APENAC estimates 1,798 student,
H:\INCOMING\Margo\Pdabs285.doc 24
parent, and professor beneficiaries within that same time period ($10.68 per person). Finally, the
line item for creation and strengthening of conciliation centers was $111,600; APENAC’s
figures show that 1,488 consultations were made at all affiliated centers, out of which 758
conciliation attempts were initiated, of which 550 cases have to date been settled (43 are still in
process). This line item is not broken down by amounts required to create new centers, as
opposed to the strengthening and operation of already-established centers. Moreover, there is
insufficient information upon which to determine the cost-effectiveness of the amount
($170,440) allocated to “Executive and Training Unit” in the award budget.
Observations
Of all the conciliation programs reviewed, evaluators found that APENAC was the only
organization that exhibited understanding not only of the USAID Democracy Results Framework
and Strategic Objective, but further could explain how and where its program fits within that
framework to promote or effect a more democratic culture. APENAC identifies two distinct
approaches to conflict resolution: 1) formal (centros de conciliación); and 2) non-formal - i.e.,
the creation of capacities, education, and empowerment to resolve individual and community
problems, with emphasis on the process itself. APENAC’s theory is that increased capacity to
deal with individual and local problems will teach people how to solve problems in organizations
and communities by participating in the process of democratic development.
According to APENAC, the imposition of conciliation as a legal requirement will invariably be
treated as a business proposition by providers, and will never truly be accepted by the people
subjected to this imposition. Social dispute resolution through conciliatory mechanisms – rather
than confrontation or violence – can be successful, but only if it arises from training, education,
and changes made at the community level and based upon community norms, not business
interests or opportunities. Making conciliation mandatory will not change reality. For these
reasons, APENAC believes that the focus – especially in rural areas – is best placed on
community training in communication and conflict resolution methods and skills, rather than
emphasizing a physical location (conciliation center) and third-party conciliator. In this way,
such programs would have more promise of changing underlying attitudes and mentality.
Additionally, APENAC has made efforts to adapt ADR techniques so as to preserve local
cultural values, to train local leaders who can act as community mediators, and to use Quechua￾speaking conciliators in rural areas.
Insofar as the coca-producing regions are concerned, neighborhood conciliation (conciliación
vecinal) is seen as critical to peaceful reconstruction of the social framework. In these areas of
particularly high conflict, disputes (e.g., over property and debt such as family support or small
commercial matters) are frequently resolved either by violence or apathy, because the underlying
social structure has failed. There, the goal is to restore the public’s ability to envision peaceful
resolution to disputes, and start working to coalesce the communities to determine and work to
meet their common needs. APENAC has also worked with police and other authorities in these
areas to convince them to integrate themselves into the community and work with the people.
H:\INCOMING\Margo\Pdabs285.doc 25
A significant level of conflict and controversy permeates the country outside the coca regions, as
well. Recession has particularly affected the interior of the country, and the economic crisis has
led to increased social turmoil, which has revealed a similar breakdown of the social structure.
Observations from the Field
Site visits were made to the APENAC conciliation centers in Tarapoto, Lamas and Ayacucho.
These visits raised various issues and concerns.
The Tarapoto center is affiliated with a women’s NGO, PRODEMU, which has been in existence
since 1984 and has offered conciliation to women since 1988 (financed by different donors) to
resolve family matters. The vast majority of conciliations conducted there (between 20-27 a
month out of approximately 50 consultations) relate to child custody, support, and visitation
disputes, and they appear to be effective in handling such matters. Despite efforts made to
broaden the nature and scope of disputes handled since their affiliation with APENAC,
PRODEMU as an organization is firmly linked to women’s interests and it appears unlikely that
this will change, or that the nature of the conciliation caseload will enlarge or diversify
substantially.
When asked what will happen to the Lamas conciliation center once the USAID/APENAC
money ends, the interviewer was assured that it will continue somehow as it has in the past,
perhaps with other donor funding; they have little choice because PRODEMU serves as an
escrow to collect and disburse cash and food agreed upon as child support in successful
conciliations. This escrow-type service not only facilitates compliance with successfully￾conciliated support agreements, but it also represents the only follow-up or enforcement
mechanism seen in any of the conciliation programs reviewed. If compliance with support
agreements is not made as scheduled, PRODEMU facilitators contact the non-compliant party
and make various attempts to elicit compliance. Evaluators were told that compliance rates are
consequently high.
The Lamas conciliation center is located on the first floor of a private residence, and has been
operating since 1997 (pre-USAID funds) as a community-based representative (Defensoría) of
PRODEMU. APENAC’s role has been to strengthen this center. Unfortunately, the Lamas
center is doing quite poorly, as acknowledged by everyone present for our visit. They have only
handled 44 cases in almost two years, and only three in the last four months. Several factors are
likely contributors to this lack of success: 1) there are three other entities in the same community
providing similar conciliation services; 2) the conciliators are a mother and her 19-year old son
(this is a voluntary position, and therefore difficult to fill) with little training or experience; 3)
95% of the population speaks Quechua, but only the mother (who works only part-time) is a
Quechua-speaker; 4) people from this community have gone to the Tarapoto PRODEMU center
instead, perhaps due to privacy concerns; and 5) there are underlying community attitudes and
male antagonisms that are not conducive to dispute resolution other than through violence. The
Tarapoto PRODEMU conciliator expressed substantial concern over this poor performance and
the lack of community acceptance of this Defensoría as a conciliation center.
H:\INCOMING\Margo\Pdabs285.doc 26
In Ayacucho, the APENAC conciliation activity employs two full-time lawyers and three
support staff, who work in the main office. The Huamanga (Ayacucho) Conciliation Center is
located within the Court building, by way of an agreement with the Court that expires later this
year. This Center was launched in 1996, and has received the support of the Judicial Branch
(which refers cases to the Center) and the Bar Association (Colegio de Abogados). Activities fall
within three main components: attention to cases, dissemination, and training. Two types of
conciliation cases are handled – those referred by the Court, and those presented by the
individuals involved. Every year, some 8,000 cases enter the Court seeking administration of
justice; 20% are civil and commercial, while 80% are criminal cases. From 1996 to date, out of
a total of 646 cases referred to the Center by the Court, 546 proceeded to conciliation. Of the 89
conciliations that had not been referred by the Court, 61 reached agreement. No follow-up is
done to verify compliance with the agreements reached; it is only when the parties return for
some reason that the Center learns what happened.
In addition to the Huamanga Center, this office also carries out activities in San Francisco in the
Apurimac Valley in cooperation with the SO5 Alternative Development program. This program
is somewhat unique in that it is directed outward and more broadly toward community
conciliation and relationships with local authorities, rather than focusing simply on the provision
of services at a central conciliation facility. For example, APENAC provided a one-day
workshop to all NGOs working in the Valley to explain the conciliation process and invite
submission of disputes for resolution. APENAC also conducted outreach programs with area
police to promote and encourage their integration into the community, rather than representing
mere authoritarian imposition of power. As such, this program seeks to achieve a more
fundamental change in community relationships, attitudes, and interactions. The Center director
noted that this neighborhood conciliation program is based on the good faith and receptivity of
beneficiaries, to whom the service is free until USAID funds are exhausted. He stated that,
thereafter, it is unlikely that people would be both willing and able to pay for continued services.
Unfortunately, program operations in the Apurimac Valley were not observed because of
distance and logistical considerations.
In terms of training, the Huamanga office is involved in 32 “micro-projects” related to school￾based conflict and teacher training. These are one-day basic workshops, with hands-on training
in communication and conflict management, and are given in both Spanish and Quechua. The
director explained that they are now developing advanced workshops to train selected individuals
as trainers. The information provided indicates that 46 teachers have been trained for this work.
APENAC materials on alternative dispute resolution in schools are also used by both CIDE and
TAREA in Ayacucho.
The Huamanga Center director explained that the Judicial Branch has been highly discredited in
the eyes of the general population, particularly in this part of the country. He stated that if the
Conciliation Law goes into effect next year, it will likely exacerbate the situation by imposing
one more bureaucratic requirement on an already unwieldy system. Several other interviewees
also shared their concern that mandatory conciliation as presently proposed will impede, rather
than facilitate, access to justice by adding yet another layer of expense and bureaucratic “red
tape.”
H:\INCOMING\Margo\Pdabs285.doc 27
Several suggestions for future SO1 strategy were offered by the various APENAC
representatives interviewed. First, they believe that community work at the local level, and with
local governments, should be emphasized. Second, APENAC urges USAID to facilitate (even
require) the exchange of information among sub-activities, and to put together grantees that may
have potential synergies, even if such connections are not obvious. Third, APENAC suggests
that USAID needs longer-term activities; 1-2 years is not sufficient to see real results.
As a final point, the future sustainability of conciliation programs was discussed. in general. As
noted earlier, conciliation services through these centers are currently being offered without
charge, which will continue until USAID funding ends. Thereafter, people in these communities
are unlikely to pay for continued services, and the centers they have come to rely upon will
vanish. If USAID is providing a free service to people who have no money, that service is
unlikely to ever become self-sustaining and will disappear once donor support ceases. The
question then becomes: Is it wise or fair to create and then encourage community reliance on a
service provider whose days are clearly numbered?
It is worth noting that the Chamber of Commerce program has the greatest potential for
sustainability (based on income from other arbitration or a sliding scale of fees depending on
nature of matter, income of parties, or amount at stake). However, the Chamber operates
primarily in Lima, and the most pressing need for free conciliation services is in the interior.
The Chamber’s program seeks to develop a network of providers in the interior, but they will
likely serve the small business community, not marginalized populations. It was found that, if
these programs are to continue, this conundrum will somehow need to be addressed.
III. WOMEN’S POLITICAL PARTICIPATION [IR4]
As noted in various studies and Mission documents, on any socio-economic scale women (who
represent over half of the population) have traditionally been a “disadvantaged” group in Peru.
Thus, their increased awareness and ability to represent their own interests is considered critical
for the achievement of democratic governance. The participation of women as voters and in the
political arena is viewed as particularly important if broad citizen participation in democratic
processes is to become a reality. This appears to have been reflected in the legislation passed
before the 1998 municipal elections which requires that at least 25% of all candidates be women.
That law, which had been actively promoted by the leading women’s organizations, was seized
upon as a window of opportunity for preparing women to run for office at the local level. This
would mean not only identifying potential candidates, but also persuading them to run, training
them to negotiate with male political leaders for slots high enough on the ballot to actually be
elected (rather than at the bottom of the list), and preparing them to campaign. For those women
who won, it would also mean training them to fulfill their new obligations and to respond to the
needs of their constituents.
Thus it was that, in response to the late 1997 call for proposals conducted by the SO1 team, a
large number of NGOs proposed projects aimed at using the quota legislation to increase
women’s political participation. Four of those were judged to be viable and, in an effort to
reduce the number of grants to be managed, the SO1 team called them together and suggested
that, given their common interest, they collaborate under a single “umbrella” grant. The four
H:\INCOMING\Margo\Pdabs285.doc 28
agreed, and the sub-activity known as PROMUJER (included in this evaluation) was born.
Following an assessment of the administrative capacity of each organization, it was determined
that the grant be given to the Movimiento Manuela Ramos (MMR), which would in turn award
sub-grants to the other three NGOs and take responsibility for overall grant administration.
Phase one of the grant was for $595,428 and covered the period from June 1998 to June 1999,
during which municipal elections were held. In the second phase, which runs from June 1999 to
June 2000 and covers the April 2000 national elections, an additional $550,000 was provided,
making a grand total of $1,145,428. The grant carries a 35% cost-sharing provision. The
PROMUJER Coordinator noted that for phase one the result expected was a 25% increase in the
number of women elected to municipal government – a target that had been reached. USAID
records show an increase of 8.5% in Lima and 16% in the provinces. As shown in the
PARTICIPE framework, for phase two the expected result is an increase in the percentage of
women in the 120-member Congress – up to 17% in 2001 from a baseline of l0.8% in 1998.
In addition to MMR, the PROMUJER consortium includes: the Asociación de Comunicadores
Sociales Calandria, the Centro de Estudios para el Desarrollo y la Participación (CEDEP),
and the Centro de Estudios Sociales y Publicaciones (CESIP). The purpose of the grant is “to
empower women politically and prepare them to carry out ‘good governance’ at the local and
national level, as well as to promote the development of a democratic culture among women
within the framework of consolidating the process of their increased access to formal power.”
This is to be accomplished by advocating for the effective implementation of the quota
legislation; the identification, promotion and training of women candidates; efforts to increase
the number of women voters; and preparation of a “gender” agenda for candidates and
officeholders. The grant includes a matrix showing six sets of activities – each subdivided into
national and local efforts – with indicators and targets for each. The six activities are: lobbying;
dissemination; training; promotion; research; evaluation and processing of results. It was
explained by the PROMUJER Coordinator that, while indicator data were aggregated and
reported at the end of phase one, in phase two data are not collected on a regular basis, but will
be put together by the four organizations only at the end of the activity. For that reason, it was
not possible for the evaluation team to verify progress to date; the remainder of this section relies
on information derived from interviews and relevant documents.
The PROMUJER Coordinator regretted that, because the grant had been awarded only for one￾year periods, it had not been possible to establish a baseline against which to measure results, nor
is there a longer-term monitoring and evaluation plan built into the grant. Thus, targets are
quantitative measures of outputs. The promotion and training of women as candidates is targeted
for strategic provinces around the country, as related to the number of potential voters and level
of disenfranchisement. These have included areas in and around Lima as well as in locations
such as Trujillo, Ayacucho and Tarapoto (all visited by the evaluation team during field trips),
Carhuaz, Ilo, Arequipa, Cajamarca, Huancayo, Cusco and Iquitos.
The roles of the four organizations are complementary but different. MMR and Calandria
concentrate their efforts at the national level, while CESIP and CEDEP work at the
provincial/local level. In support of this activity, alliances were developed with a variety of
other organizations, which has enhanced overall outreach and dissemination potential. These
include, for example, agreements with such groups as MMR’s Reprosalud offices around the
H:\INCOMING\Margo\Pdabs285.doc 29
country, which help to identify potential candidates, disseminate PROMUJER information and
provide on-site TA; IPEDEHP, which also helps to identify candidates and disseminates
information through its network of human rights promoters; Transparencia, which sponsors local
gatherings and monitors the electoral process; ESAN, which has provided materials for
municipal management training; a myriad of local women’s organizations around the country;
local governments; and others.
Under PROMUJER, MMR and Calandria have collaborated on leadership training courses held
in Lima, identifying suitable participants from the areas targeted and making necessary logistical
arrangements. Around the 1998 municipal elections, two such courses were held with up to 80
participants and 3-5 facilitators each. While pre- and post-workshop questionnaires were
administered to estimate short-term change, it has not been possible to provide longer-term
follow-up, except with women later elected as mayors or council members (regidoras), as their
visibility within the community makes it easier to keep in touch.
In examining the evolution of this sub-activity, it is important to know something of the four
NGOs and their respective roles and views of PROMUJER.
A. MMR was founded by four women in 1979 to work on two issues: health and women’s
rights, which continue to be major priorities. Other areas of concentration now include: human
rights; women’s political participation and leadership (the PROMUJER component); and income
generation. The organization’s annual budget totals $8 million, of which about $6.5 million
comes from USAID. Reprosalud is MMR’s largest activity, with nine offices in the interior,
which provide administrative support for this reproductive/health services program and serve as
links to the community. The Reprosalud database includes 18,000 women. USAID (SO3) was
the first donor to provide funding for this activity; UNFPA, and other donors now provide
support. MMR’s work on women’s rights has been funded by the Ford Foundation.
MMR has a history of lobbying actively for women’s rights, particularly with female members
of Congress and key congressional committees – something for which the organization is
criticized by other women’s groups as being “gobernistas” (pro-government). Some 600 women
politicians receive the MMR newsletter. As part of PROMUJER, after the municipal elections, it
was MMR (using their own special German software) that processed and analyzed data on
women’s participation for the GOP voter registration office (which did not have the capacity to
do so efficiently). A report titled “Women in Power” was then produced and widely
disseminated, including publication in El Comercio, a leading newspaper. As part of its
advocacy and dissemination strategy, the organization sponsors a television program called
Palabra de la Mujer (Women’s Turn), which airs over the weekend on a cable station in Lima.
Under the PROMUJER award, this NGO has received $482,728 for the two-year period. With
regard to the administration of the grant, MMR interviewees reported that, while there had been
difficulties at first, these have been largely overcome and that working relations among the four
organizations (who already knew one another) have evolved over time. It was noted, for
example, that consensus had been reached on the PROMUJER slogan, indicators, timeline and
other programmatic details. For the most part, however, each organization continues to “do its
own thing.” These interviewees felt that, were this experience to be repeated, more emphasis
H:\INCOMING\Margo\Pdabs285.doc 30
should be placed on leadership training, noting that only MMR had been providing this type of
training for women, having begun as a small program funded by the IDB using the IPEDEHP
methodology. In retrospect, MMR interviewees also felt that PROMUJER had focused too
much on the 25% quota law, having neglected the electoral law and the political parties, both of
which they saw as crucial to improving women’s chances at the national/congressional level. As
a result, they predicted that the upcoming elections will not be as successful as were the
municipal elections in terms of the percentage of women who win. They felt that the most
successful strategy has been communication with civil society through the media, noting that
much demand has been created within both the written and electronic press.
Observations
If USAID support should end, MMR believes that the four NGOs would not continue to work
together on a project basis, but would continue to stay in touch, as they enjoy cordial relations
and share the same interests. MMR felt that it could obtain a small amount of funding to
continue the leadership training initiative, noting that others would undoubtedly keep doing
“massive awareness campaigns” through television sets placed in town squares, and so on.
In terms of the Mission’s future strategy, MMR recommended that USAID convene more
coordination meetings with all counterparts in order to maximize results through greater synergy.
It was also recommended that “pilot municipalities” be chosen (e.g., Puno, Huancavilica,
Ayacucho and one or two from the coast) for teaching women from the community and from
local government how to identify problems, design solutions, seek funding, and so forth. It was
further suggested that this be done around a core issue or concrete problem in order to teach
participatory practices, and that health might be a good place to start, as local health committees
already exist. Evaluators find that these suggestions merit attention as the USAID planning
process goes forward.
B. Calandria, founded in 1983, has received a total of $319,500 under the PROMUJER sub￾activity. The organization’s annual budget totals approximately $1 million, part of which comes
from the sale of consulting services. This NGO specializes in the area of social communication.
Programs include: gender and communications; local government; youth; and communications
and citizenship. Together with MMR and Flora Tristán, it is part of the Feminist Radio
Collective, which transmits regularly. Calandria is also active in the facilitation of Mesas de
Concertación, which work at the local level on policy issues with citizen participation, using
techniques related to communication, mediation and negotiation. This organization also
provides training for journalists in various locations, conducts opinion surveys and produces
informational videos which are widely disseminated in the areas where it works. To promote
women’s rights and participation, Calandria coordinates a campaign called “De Igual a Igual…,”
carried out with local counterparts in various parts of the country. It also runs a Women’s
Leadership Training School, funded by Diaconía.
Observations
Reflecting on the administration and evolution of PROMUJER, Calandria interviewees felt that
difficulties had arisen due to a lack of clarity, and that there had been a need to clarify functions
H:\INCOMING\Margo\Pdabs285.doc 31
at the outset. They explained that this had not been done due to “inertia” (i.e., the question had
simply never been dealt with, despite the fact that there had always been underlying tension).
Specifically, while it was clear that MMR was to assume administrative responsibility, the issue
of who was to assume responsibility for “political” coordination was never discussed. They now
feel that there could have been rotating coordinators, adding that there was a need to respect the
specialty of each organization. It was also noted that in the last year the SO1 program manager
has played a more active role as moderator of the group (they meet with the USAID manager
every 45 days), which they view as highly positive. They then stated that it would be good to
have more opportunities for exchanges, asserting that PROMUJER needs more political
discussion and clear leadership. Finally, interviewees noted that, should no additional USAID
support be available, they have “some funds” to continue and that the women who are now in
office help to cover costs.
Calandria interviewees see a need to test models for joint management (cogestión) at the local
level, which could be a basis for the formulation of public policy. They are also concerned about
making the media more of an interlocutor between the state and society. For future USAID
strategy, they recommend efforts to strengthen civil society and to create mechanisms for citizen
participation to democratize planning at the local level - promotion of municipal programs,
women’s watchdog systems, and so forth. Evaluators support these suggestions.
C. CEDEP is basically a think-tank founded 23 years ago by a group of male professionals
interested in macroeconomic development studies, particularly agriculture and rural
development. It now also works on citizen safety, democratic constitutionality and
decentralization. At its headquarters, CEDEP holds issue-based forums on priority issues.
Interviewees explained that the organization is sponsoring six forums to which presidential
candidates are invited to present their respective platforms, and that all except Fujimori’s Perú
2000 had accepted. The issues include education, health, citizen safety, decentralization, and
economic policy. CEDEP has a staff of 50 (21 in Lima) and also works in rural areas in places
like the Callejón de Huayalas and Ayacucho. Lima headquarters has three divisions: a)
Research, Studies and Proposals; b) Projects; and c) Administration. There is also a Planning
Office. The gender specialist, responsible for PROMUJER activities, reports directly to the
Executive Director, who described this as an important cross-cutting issue. The organization’s
annual budget runs between $500,000 and $1.5 million. The PROMUJER award for the two￾year period totals $168,250.
CEDEP participates in a number of issue-based networks and donor groups, including the
Consorcio Propuesta Ciudadana (six of the largest NGOs in Lima, Piura and Cuzco), NOVIB’s
Plataforma with 27 NGOs, a gender group and German-sponsored AgroAcción. Microprojects
in the provinces, which address issues such as environment, rural credit, etc., are funded by
Canada and Germany.
Before PROMUJER, CEDEP had never received USAID funding. The Executive Director
spoke positively of meeting the U.S. Ambassador, and USAID Mission officials at the
PROMUJER grant-signing ceremony. He also reported that CEDEP is pleased with this activity,
including the way it is administered by MMR. PROMUJER represents CEDEP’s first entry into
the world of “women’s” projects and, judging by the Executive Director’s comments, it appears
H:\INCOMING\Margo\Pdabs285.doc 32
that this experience has had a positive impact on the organization. He indicated that if it is not
possible for USAID to provide further support for this activity, they intend to seek other funds to
continue the work. He noted that Holland provides core funding for the Callejón de Huayalas,
where their main PROMUJER activity is located, and that in 2002 they expect additional support
for local government development – which they see as a high priority.
Under phase one of PROMUJER, CEDEP carried out a survey of rural women and trained 20
promoters in the province of Carhuaz to get women registered to vote. In phase two, they are
teaching women about the 25% quota law, the election law and how to vote. This activity covers
four provinces, including Huaraz and Carhuaz, and will be extended to Yunguay. It was
explained that the first objective is to reduce abstentionism among women and to register them to
vote, for which it has used materials from SER and Transparencia. Also, women candidates are
recruited and taught to negotiate in order to avoid being placed last on the party list. In the 1998
local elections, in Carhuaz the percentage of women elected to municipal office rose from 5% to
30%. Now, CEDEP works with these regidoras, and has agreements with local governments.
Under those agreements, five courses are conducted with all members (male and female) of local
councils on the basics of municipal government. Then, CEDEP works individually with female
members to bring them up to the level of their male colleagues (who generally have the
advantage of speaking Spanish, being literate, etc.). It was pointed out that these are very poor
municipalities with no staff, and that the council must do everything. To handle money (which is
illegal for council members), they obtain letters of authorization from the mayors. In five
district-level municipalities, CEDEP also helped with strategic planning. It was explained that
the process employed is not participatory at first – that the first step is “let’s do a plan.” But
once there’s a basic draft, the idea is to hold a consultation or open meeting (cabildo abierto) to
get citizen involvement and input. To date, one such consultation had been held.
Following the 1998 elections, the regidoras formed a network covering five provinces. The
network Board has had four meetings and, because of the logistical difficulties related to travel in
that part of the country, the president has said she will visit district by district to spread the word
about the network. CEDEP explained that its role is as an outside facilitator.
Observations
CEDEP interviewees believe that if Fujimori wins and does not hold a majority in Congress, it
may be possible to bring greater attention to the issue of decentralization. They believe it is
crucial to strengthen local institutions through real participation and by providing much-needed
training for local officials and organizations, stating that it is urgent to “tecnificar iniciativas
locales” (technify local initiatives). For USAID’s future strategy, CEDEP recommended that
local initiatives be supported, and that there be better articulation among grantees – a la NOVIB
Platform approach, as mentioned above. Evaluators find these suggestions to be a positive
contribution to USAID’s future planning. They reported having attended three monthly
meetings with some eight other NGO counterparts and USAID representatives – the last of
which had been held at CEDEP – to discuss the election process, and that the next meeting was
to be held later in the month, after our visit. They felt these meetings should continue after the
April vote.
H:\INCOMING\Margo\Pdabs285.doc 33
D. CESIP, founded in 1976, was originally active in Lima, doing research and publications
about children. It now works in four parts of the country, and promotes capacity building among
women and children through three programs: a) women, citizenship and politics (PROMUJER);
b) health and reproductive rights; and c) adolescent children’s concerns. CESIP’s first support
from USAID came indirectly for a study for PROMUDEH. It then received funding under
GRADE. CESIP’s PROMUJER budget is approximately $175,000. Its total annual budget runs
from about $700,000 to $1 million.
This NGO seeks to collaborate with other women’s groups; it serves as coordinator of the Grupo
Impulsor Nacional Mujeres por la Igualdad Real (the ongoing group organized for the UN
Conference in Beijing), with expenses covered by the Ford Foundation, but no paid staff. This
includes 20 women’s groups in each region – a total of 140 in all. The purpose is to monitor
government compliance with the Beijing agreements. Prior to PROMUJER, CESIP worked with
regidoras in Lima, Cajamarca and Chiclayo, through whom they were able to have Women’s
Commissions established within the municipalities to reach out to women citizens. They then
created a network called the Asociación de Mujeres Munícipes (Association of Municipal
Women), which is now promoting (with Calandria and others) working groups bringing together
reigdoras and female municipal employees.
As part of phase one PROMUJER training, CESIP worked with participants to develop a
women’s municipal agenda. This was to be taken back to all political parties represented and
become part of their campaigns and the subsequent municipal activities by those elected. No
specific information was available regarding the results to date of this effort. The only indicator
mentioned specifically by interviewees was that they had made 179 media presentations. In
phase two, CESIP took responsibility for developing a Women’s Agenda before the 2000
elections. This had just been completed prior to this interview, and was to be presented at a press
conference on February 18. The Agenda is meant to be considered by candidates and become a
tool for post-electoral use by women officeholders. It was also expected to be incorporated into
the work of women’s networks in the zones where CESIP is active. The Agenda includes five
issue areas: literacy, health, political participation, violence, and job equity. CEDEP’s survey of
rural women was used as input for formulation of the Agenda. However, though the Agenda was
to be published as a product of PROMUJER, it was developed without the participation of the
other organizations. It is worth noting that interviewees from those NGOs had not seen the
Agenda with which their names were to be associated. (Meanwhile, MMR had developed its
own Women’s Platform with funds from UNFPA, USAID and others - a non-PROMUJER
document which adds the issue of reproductive health.)
Observations
CESIP interviewees termed PROMUJER an interesting space for dialogue and political debate,
noting that the experience could be improved. They stressed the fact that PROMUJER has
established name recognition within the media and among other NGOs, explaining that the press
and electronic media frequently call upon PROMUJER spokespersons for interviews and
comments about breaking news or current events. It was noted that only recently have NGOs
participated at the political level, and that problems have arisen due to different “institutional
H:\INCOMING\Margo\Pdabs285.doc 34
dynamics” – i.e., some organizations are larger than others and have different agendas. They felt
that a weakness of PROMUJER is that the periodic processing of experience has not taken place.
These interviewees recommended that USAID’s future strategy give priority to activities at the
local level, working with municipal government and promoting citizen participation through the
creation of spaces for dialogue and other such approaches, which evaluators find to have merit.
They also recommended continued support for women’s political participation, as well as for the
strengthening of civil society, broadly defined (i.e., NGOs, universities, unions, grassroots
groups, etc.)
The view from the provinces: Thanks to the cooperation of the Reprosalud offices, the
evaluation team was able to meet with small groups of mayors and regidoras in Trujillo,
Ayacucho and Tarapoto. All were elected for the first time in the 1998 local elections. All had
participated in PROMUJER training workshops (both as candidates and as elected officials), and
expressed appreciation for the support and guidance provided, noting that without that
encouragement and assistance they would not have thought of running for office or been elected.
Interviewees were eager to continue strengthening relations with their peers and hone their own
skills. They confirmed what PROMUJER interviewees had reported in Lima – i.e., that while
there had been some slight degree of party tension at the beginning, all trainees soon united to
work for women’s common goals, and that party affiliation had become virtually irrelevant.
In all three sites visited, interviewees called for more direct contact with PROMUJER (not just
printed materials), as well as additional, more tailored training to increase their performance as
officeholders. There was a strongly-held view that the lack of adequate follow-up and more
individualized assistance, while not contemplated in the grant, was a weakness of the program.
They explained that during PROMUJER workshops they had learned to draft projects, carry out
campaigns, negotiate with party officials, and deal with municipal authorities and difficult
mayors. However, many emphasized that this training had been generic, and that in the future
PROMUJER needs to monitor the performance of those elected to make its investment more
cost-effective. They recommended that workshop planners design much more specific training,
taking into account the different levels of responsibility they now face. They also recommended
better coordination among NGOs working on gender issues, as they had felt overwhelmed by the
number of invitations received, which tended to “disorient the process.”
The question of networks was also raised at each site. In Lima, MMR had reported that, at the
last meeting with women mayors, participants had decided to form an Association of Women
Mayors, and had named an organizing committee and obtained legal recognition for this new
NGO. In response to their request, MMR has agreed to facilitate this process, but will not pursue
this until after the April elections in order to avoid its politicization. In Tarapoto, it was reported
that MMR, Calandria and another NGO are looking at plans to form an Asociación de Regidoras
de San Martín. In Ayacucho, interviewees felt that it was a mistake to separate mayors and
regidoras into two different groups. These interviewees noted that there are over 1,000 women
mayors and regidoras in Peru, and that together they should form a network similar to the Red de
Mujeres Políticas del Ecuador (Ecuadoran Network of Women Politicians). In Trujillo,
interviewees recommended the formation of networks at the provincial level, asserting that larger
groups become intimidating. They felt it would be helpful for PROMUJER to support creation
H:\INCOMING\Margo\Pdabs285.doc 35
of follow-up networks and meetings at the local level within a six-nine month period after the
elections, thus allowing time for officeholders to get their bearings and accumulate experience to
share with others. They felt that there is a real need for this type of re-connection. These
interviewees were also eager to learn how their colleagues have done since the elections (i.e.,
what kind of projects have been undertaken, how they did it, and so forth), which would keep
them motivated.
IV. SCHOOL-RELATED CIVIC EDUCATION [IR4]
USAID documents show that ODI has supported school-based civic education since at least 1995
when, under the PARDEM/GRADE activity, eight such projects were approved. In 1998, under
IR4, SO1 continued support for two of those initiatives aimed at democracy education and
student participation in public schools at both the primary and secondary level. This appears to
respond to the underlying contention that it is only by working with citizens from the earliest age
that the development of a strong democratic culture will be possible in Peru. As pointed out by a
number of interviewees, the country’s public education system suffers not only from a lack of
economic resources (especially in the marginal urban and rural zones), but also from the
hierarchical and authoritarian practices which have traditionally characterized that system. The
GRADE Mid-Term Evaluation Report (September 1997) states that all school-based civic
education projects addressed the issue of “how the educational system and environment
frequently reproduce an authoritarian culture, which invariably affects both teachers and
students.” It is further noted that: “The promotion of a culture of democracy, then, must start at
the early stage of socialization, with the hope of eventually reversing this situation.” Informed
interviewees also stressed that the school environment is not only undemocratic, but in many
cases it is downright unsafe, involving administrators and teachers who use violence and
intimidation as a way to deal with students.
Thus, attention has been given to the need to develop new approaches to civic education, based
on participatory practices that provide students with opportunities to experience and practice
democratic values on a daily basis. It was noted that, to be successful, this effort must not be
limited to the school environment alone. It also means identifying and reaching out to the other
actors involved in the process of laying the foundation for a more democratic culture, as well as
monitoring and maintaining it - parents and other family members, along with community-based
private and public institutions.
The need for new approaches to public education was reported to have been tacitly endorsed by
the Ministry of Education in 1998, when it created a new unit that is charged with developing
new curricula and teacher training and translating innovative practices into official policy. It
now appears important for Peruvian NGOs to advocate actively for measures for
institutionalizing citizen/democracy education at the policy level, despite any future personnel
changes that may occur. One way to address that challenge would be to demonstrate the
effectiveness of comprehensive strategies which not only set new behavioral standards among all
actors within the school (principals, teachers and students), but also bring to the table other key
actors from outside of the education system (parents, business leaders, public and community
organizations). It was reported by the USAID activity manager in Lima and the CARE project
director in Ayacucho that such a comprehensive approach has been a guiding principle of the
H:\INCOMING\Margo\Pdabs285.doc 36
girls’ education initiative, “Nuevos Horizontes para la Educación de las Niñas” under SpO6,
which has collaborated with SO1 by providing $100,000 to support the integration of girls within
the current school-based citizen education sub-activity.
While recognizing that the political context has led to instability within government institutions
(for example, the November 1999 change of key Ministry of Education officials), it was found
that the school-based democracy education sub-activities currently supported by SO1, which
began in April 1998, are still being developed, and appear to be somewhat scattered and
disjointed. The approach outlined in grant documents focuses on students, teachers and
principals, while the participation of parents and other family members is not contemplated in
the original design. As this need has become increasingly apparent, efforts to reach out to
parents are being added. Clearly, the activities implemented to date have been of good quality
and carried out with a high degree of commitment. However, they do not yet add up to a
proactive and comprehensive strategy. Rather, as indicated, it was found that some program
components have tended to evolve on a piecemeal basis in response to the challenges or
opportunities that arise, while de-emphasizing work at the policy level. In the second year of this
initiative, it would be helpful if the organizations involved jointly carried out a process to define
specific strategies in two areas: first, education policy advocacy to capture the opportunities and
confront the challenges that may arise as a result of the current electoral process and, secondly,
to incorporate parents and community organizations more effectively in this experience.
Two of the organizations funded in 1995 under PARDEM through GRADE sub-grants were the
Centro de Investigación y Desarrollo de la Educación (CIDE) and the Asociación de
Publicaciones Educativas (TAREA). It was not until 1998 that they started working directly
with the Mission as primary recipients of SO1 funds. Similar to the case of the NGOs involved
in PROMUJER, both CIDE and TAREA submitted proposals to USAID in response to the late
1997 grant competition – one to work at the primary school level, and the other in secondary
schools. USAID then suggested that, given the complementarity of their proposals, they work
together through a single grant for administrative purposes, carrying out an activity called:
“Democracy Education and Student Participation in Public Schools.” It was then agreed that
CIDE would receive the grant and, in turn, award a sub-grant to TAREA. USAID made an
award of $353,224 for the period from September 1998 to September 2000. As prime recipient,
CIDE is responsible for all administrative and financial reporting to USAID. However, on the
technical side, the two organizations operate separately, each maintaining a direct relationship
with the SO1 team. The CIDE/TAREA grant was included in this evaluation.
The purpose of the grant was to develop a special program in selected public schools to promote
and reinforce the development of democratic skills and attitudes among primary and secondary
students. Under this “umbrella” grant, CIDE was responsible for activities at the primary
education level, and TAREA took the lead at the secondary level. Together, they were to
implement a pilot experience in 30 primary schools and 40 secondary schools located in
marginal urban areas of Lima and in Ayacucho to promote democratic attitudes and values
among students through a series of pedagogical techniques and new course content.
These activities were to include cooperative agreements with the Ministry of Education at both
central and local levels, and the participation of school principals, teachers and students. CIDE
H:\INCOMING\Margo\Pdabs285.doc 37
and TAREA were to develop a series of educational materials; carry out training workshops for
teachers and school authorities; organize 40 “mock municipalities” (municipios escolares) in
secondary schools; coordinate with municipalities and local institutions to sustain the program;
and finally, towards the end of the project, develop two pedagogical proposals - for both primary
and secondary schools - which are to be endorsed by the Ministry of Education for dissemination
throughout the system and incorporated into the official curriculum. The PARTICIPE Results
Framework includes the submission of such a proposal to the Ministry for national dissemination
as a performance indicator to be achieved by 2001. It also includes an indicator related to the
number of students who are “aware of their rights and responsibilities and practice them.” This
is defined as “primary and secondary school students who attend at least one USAID NGO￾sponsored activity focused on civic education and practices of democratic processes in their
school communities.” The target is 41,000 students by 2001 from a baseline of zero in 1997.
Unlike PROMUJER, the CIDE/TAREA grant document itself contains no overall set of results,
indicators and targets. Each organization has been reporting programmatic activities separately
and directly to the SO1 team on a quarterly basis. The SO1 activity manager meets once a
month with each organization separately, and once a month with both together. Thus, from a
technical perspective, in reality this “umbrella” sub-activity is managed as if it were two separate
grants.
Because this is a pilot project still under development, it is not yet possible to predict results in
terms of the level of awareness achieved among the student population. Clearly, its true impact
in terms of behavioral change, the level of participation and the degree to which new practices
are internalized by individual primary and secondary school students will only be known in the
longer term. Moreover, it is important to remember that the success of this activity is also a
function of the degree to which this new type of democracy education is incorporated into the
school curriculum and official education policy. In short, while it is not yet possible to assess
accurately overall impact and cost-effectiveness, it is possible to affirm that the quantitative
outputs defined in the PARTICIPE Results Framework appear to have been met.
The experience was reported by both counterparts to have been productive in terms of working
under this “umbrella” grant. Nevertheless, both CIDE and TAREA stated that there has been a
lack of coordination between them, something they see as both a challenge and a situation that
needs to be remedied.
To continue this examination of civic education in the public school system, let us now look at
the activities carried out by each counterpart.
A. CIDE: In 1984, this NGO founded the Colegio José Antonio Encinas as a pilot project
for developing alternative educational patterns for elementary and high school students through a
school-based democracy approach. Formal certification as an NGO was received in 1996. CIDE
reports an annual institutional budget of approximately $750,000, of which the USAID grant
represents about $120,000. Other support is received from the European Union for an
environmental education program, and the organization also raises money through consultancies
for the Ministry of Education in the area of teacher training. CIDE focuses on four major areas
of intervention: the Colegio José Antonio Encinas; a Teacher Training Program; an
H:\INCOMING\Margo\Pdabs285.doc 38
Environmental Education Project; and this USAID-funded Democracy Education Program. All
activities are geared to addressing the public education system.
With regard to this sub-activity, the general objective, as stated in the CIDE proposal, is: girls
and boys have developed democratic skills and attitudes with the support of their teachers, and
participating schools have a valid proposal for Democracy Education that responds to the
challenges of a new democratic culture in the country. The four specific objectives listed target
students, teachers, principals and school involvement at the community level. During the first
stage, CIDE has worked in 20 primary schools in Lima (10 in the southern cone within the
Unidad de Servicios Escolares 1; and 10 in the north within USE 2) and in 17 schools in
Ayacucho (9 in Huamanga and 8 in Huanta), thus surpassing the original target of 30 schools. In
each school, a group of teachers (about 20% of the faculty) are trained and, once trained, CIDE
chooses two per school to act as “promoters.” These promoters serve as liaison agents,
providing follow-up for participating teachers and keeping CIDE informed of progress. Reports
indicate that some 14,000 elementary school students have been involved in the different
activities carried out by participating teachers and supervised by promoters. These activities may
involve, for example, choosing a “student of the week,” exercises to increase self-esteem,
learning to claim individual rights, and so forth. Data also show that 497 teachers have received
training, and that 67 have been trained as promoters. Work with parents has begun, but is at a
very early stage. Teacher training focuses on the following areas: Self-Esteem, Gender Equity,
Citizen Participation, and ADR in the classroom (with which APENAC has cooperated).
Towards the end of this sub-activity, CIDE plans to approach the Ministry of Education,
advocating that its curriculum be incorporated into official policy and disseminated as a cross￾cutting primary school subject called “Conciencia Democrática y Ciudadana” (Democratic and
Citizen Awareness).
In terms of the potential institutionalization of this sub-activity, CIDE interviewees spoke of the
organization’s dedication to the development and application of innovative practices within the
classroom, and underscored their intention to do all possible to continue with efforts now
underway. However, unless new resources are obtained, the organization would almost certainly
be unable to continue the same level of implementation. It was explained that this would likely
result in a staff reduction and a decrease in the number of activities undertaken. Whatever the
circumstances, it was explained that the methodologies developed, which have proven to be a
valuable tool for the promotion of democracy education, will continue to be used.
Observations from the field
Unfortunately, because this evaluation coincided with the summer vacation period, it was not
possible to observe activities in progress at participating schools. However, with the help of
CIDE staff members, while in Ayacucho the evaluation team was able to meet with a group of
six teachers (from six different public schools) from Huanta, Huamanga and Huamanguilla for a
focus group discussion. All had been selected to participate in CIDE´s initial pilot training in
early 1999, and expressed appreciation for the support and guidance provided through this new
opportunity. Interviewees stated that other teachers were eager to get involved, and they
emphasized that, while the “CIDE project” was found to be very promising, it should be
expanded to all the teachers and not limited to only a few. These interviewees felt strongly that
H:\INCOMING\Margo\Pdabs285.doc 39
for the project to succeed it must involve the whole school. It was also noted that, in this way,
the challenge of institutionalizing this alternative approach within the school could be easily
overcome, as it would no longer be considered an isolated program. It was also suggested that
the approach to teacher training should focus not only on students’ self-esteem, but also on that
of the teachers themselves because, as a body, there is no sense of unity.
These teachers also recommended that in order to promote mutual learning there should be
opportunities for exchanges, such as meetings to share experiences, internships and on-site visits,
not only among the promoters (which is now the case), but also at the level of participating
schools where best practices could be identified and eventually applied by others. Most of these
teachers reported some degree of collaboration with the Defensoría de la Mujer, el Niño y los
Adolescentes (DEMUNA) and the Office of the Ombudsman. Moreover, they explained that
CIDE had developed agreements with the Dirección Regional de Educación de Ayacucho
(DREA, the Ayacucho Regional Education Authority) and the Unidades de Servicios Escolares
(USEs).
All teachers interviewed agreed on the need to find effective ways of approaching parents and
inviting them to join in this initiative. They felt that this is particularly important in view of the
pressing need to obtain parents’ collaboration and their understanding of why it is essential to
change the authoritarian treatment of their children and raise their awareness about the benefits
of this innovative effort within the school. We agree. Interviewees also recommended that
special attention be given to school principals and to the need to advocate for the type of
education policies that favor this sort of initiative. Finally, these teachers stressed that, when
there is support from all concerned, it will be much easier to achieve a more democratic and safe
environment within the schools. Indeed, this coincides with major studies on this subject.
B. TAREA was founded in 1974 in an effort to provide education to the marginalized adult
sectors of Peruvian society. Over the years, it has broadened its target population to include
community leaders, teachers, teenagers, and so forth, and began to address the need to improve
public education policy. While TAREA’s total annual budget is approximately $800,000, the
budget for this activity is approximately $344,000, of which $160,000 comes through the
USAID/CIDE grant, $90,000 from Save the Children, and $85,000 from TAREA counterpart
funds.
Under this sub-activity, TAREA is pursuing five objectives: 1) 500 student leaders trained in
Lima/Ayacucho; 2) 40 mock municipalities organized and functioning; 3) 40 mock municipality
student projects implemented; 4) 40 schools have teams of teachers trained, promoting student
participation and the democratization of the school environment; 5) concertación/collaboration
with school and local officials to promote student participation. At the end of the last school
year, TAREA completed the first round of the Municipios Escolares (Mock Municipalities)
initiative, through which students participate in the election of a mayor and council which is
committed to undertaking a school project, as announced it the candidates’ platform. Forty-five
schools located in Lima, Huamanga and Huanta are participating in this initiative, thus
surpassing the original target of 40 schools. In September 1998, TAREA signed collaborative
agreements in Ayacucho with both DREA and USE to officially support this activity.
H:\INCOMING\Margo\Pdabs285.doc 40
 To begin the process, TAREA contacted groups of principals and teachers in the target high
schools, introducing them to this initiative and providing training to carry it out. Similar to the
approach employed by CIDE, following the teacher training component, TAREA chose from
two to four teachers at each school to form an Advisory Team. Those Teams then facilitated the
electoral process among students and the creation of the mock municipalities. Students elected
to office participated in a leadership and political awareness training workshop. They were then
expected to undertake implementation of a school project, and were also singled out for public
recognition, including a meeting with the Mayor of Huamanga.
The project focuses on four major components: training and follow-up; documentation and the
production of educational materials; community outreach; and evaluation. TAREA reports
indicate that a total of 59,397 high school students had voted on “election day” in participating
schools; no data on the level of post-electoral participation were available. It was also reported
that in Lima 95 persons participated on Advisory Teams, while in Ayacucho 105 individuals
were involved. Like CIDE, TAREA has also developed a collaborative agreement with the
Ministry of Education. In that regard, the organization is currently working on development of a
cross-cutting citizen education curriculum to be incorporated into official math and science
courses. This falls under the project component called “curriculum enrichment”
(“diversificación curicular”), for which 60 teachers have been trained.
The probability that TAREA will institutionalize this sub-activity is heightened by the fact that it
relates directly to the organization’s basic mission. Both Board and staff members stated that, if
USAID support should end, it may be difficult to continue with teacher training and to provide
follow-up for promoter and student activities with the same degree of dedication. However, they
affirmed that they will definitively continue with this citizen education activity and try to
persuade additional donors to support the effort. In short, they were optimistic about their ability
to institutionalize both the activities and the methodologies, especially given the fact that they
had managed to obtain funds from Save the Children, in addition to providing counterpart
resources. They are already working on new proposals to seek additional funding from USAID
and other current donors, and to approach new sources.
Observations by students in Ayacucho:
TAREA shares a local office with SER in Huamanga. Thanks to the cooperation of two TAREA
project coordinators, the evaluation team conducted a focus group interview at a local high
school (Colegio José Agustín Sánchez Carrió) with three elected student mayors (alcaldesas)
and one council member (regidor) from three different high schools in Huamanga and Huanta.
During this focus group session, evaluators noted references by participants to various issues that
appear to represent tensions within the Mock Municipality program, and that may merit attention
if this activity is to reach its full potential within the framework of IR4. One was the fact that the
elections described appear to have revolved around the personality of the candidates rather than
on their “platforms,” and in most cases the projects chosen for attention related to school
maintenance and infrastructure (including building a pool), rather than focusing on more civic￾minded or community-based initiatives. While there is no doubt that such improvements are
needed, a two-fold question arises: To what degree do such in-house activities contribute to
H:\INCOMING\Margo\Pdabs285.doc 41
students’ understanding of and ability to participate in the affairs of the communities in which
they live, and is it fair for students to absorb burdens that are the responsibility of school
authorities, when they could instead learn to advocate for the public education system to do its
job?
The second concern was that, according to these students, school principals tend not to support
this activity and, in many cases, erect barriers to its implementation and institutionalization.
They felt that it was important to include training for principals as an integral part of the
program.
Third, while it is true that students engage in an “electoral process” in which they have a chance
to exercise their right to vote, the approach employed appears to mirror the behavior of adult
politicians and the personality-driven, highly competitive nature of the current electoral process.
On the other hand, we found little evidence of methodologies geared to expose students to
alternative processes, such as promoting participatory dialogue as a means of creating new
democratic practices, or for developing skills in areas such as team-building, participatory needs
assessment, group decision-making, conflict management, consensus-building, and so forth.
All four of the students interviewed reported that their school mates are already getting ready to
compete in the upcoming elections, as they do not want simply to participate in the process by
voting, but also by being elected to the Mock Municipality.
Finally, evaluators wish to express a concern that was heightened by our discussions with
CIDE/TAREA participants in the field. Based on accounts by interviewees and a review of
relevant documents, we find that the methodologies employed in schools, which are based
largely on competitive rather than collaborative behaviors and practices, may be inappropriate
for achieving the results expected within the framework of SO1/IR4. In this regard, it was found
that greater emphasis on building skills for consensus-building and collaborative participation
could strengthen future activities.
C. Foro/Youth is another SO1 sub-activity within the general framework of school-related
civic education. It is sponsored by an NGO called Foro Nacional/Internacional, and, though
separate, is linked to that organization’s major SO1 sub-activity - building a national agenda for
the future (“Agenda: Perú”), which is treated in section VI of this Chapter. A one-year grant of
$62,700 was awarded to Foro in September 1996 to support a program titled, University Youth
and the Future of Peru. The completion date was later extended to March 31, 2000 and the total
grant was increased to $139,500.
In its strategic focus document for the 18-months leading up to the 2000 elections, SO1
expressed its support for the civic participation of university youth in selected provinces by
providing them with information on relevant issues and encouraging their involvement in
discussions and debates. The PARTICIPE framework includes a result calling for primary,
secondary and university students and other youth leaders to learn and practice democratic
values. The indicator selected is: “Number of youth leaders trained in Democratic Education,”
with a target of 5,000 by 2001 from a baseline of 2,000 in 1998. This is defined as “university
students and other leaders aged 18-24 who attend at least one training activity and participate in
H:\INCOMING\Margo\Pdabs285.doc 42
discussions on key issues related to democratic governance in Peru.” Based on that definition, it
appears likely that the target will be met.
In the initial phase of this sub-activity, Foro conducted an assessment of attitudes and
participation by Peruvian youth, and published a book titled, La Juventud Universitaria y su
Participación en la Vida Nacional: Actitudes y Motivaciones. USAID documents indicate that
results for 1998 included this ground-breaking study, plus the participation of 2,000 students in
Foro events on youth and politics, and a Foro university youth website, which had received 3,700
hits. SO1 personnel report that, in 1999, a total of 2,400 youth participated in some Foro event
related to democracy. It was also reported that, between August 1999 and February 2000, 400
youth leaders in six cities had received special training to reinforce their participation in the up￾coming elections; it was expected that by March more than 600 would have been reached. In
addition, SO1 personnel report that, for that same period, 713 youth had participated in
democracy fairs in six cities; projections included five more fairs in March, reaching an
additional 500 youth.
Among its other accomplishments, Foro reports note the following: a number of events co￾sponsored with other organizations, such as the Ebert Foundation and the Asociación Cristiana
de Jóvenes; support for student publications of which over 10,000 copies were distributed in
universities in Lima and the provinces; and operation and improvement of the web page which,
by November 1999, had received over 22,000 hits.
Observations
It is not clear how many of the Foro Youth events were also related to the Agenda: Perú sub￾activity, leading to some possible double-counting of attendees. Indeed, the two initiatives are
closely linked and focus largely on the formulation of the Agenda for the future. Because Foro
Youth’s reporting has tended to be incomplete and inconsistent (and not submitted in a timely
manner), it is not possible to verify the particulars of progress to date. Moreover, since results
are measured in terms of quantitative outputs, and given that regular follow-up is not included in
the program, it is not possible to assess (except anecdotally) the level of impact on the
civic/democratic awareness and participation practices of participants, nor the degree to which
specific sub-populations are involved (while all participants are “youth,” available data are not
disaggregated by gender, language group, etc.).
During interviews with Foro/Youth participants in Ayacucho and Trujillo (two in each site), a
lack of effective follow-up emerged as a key issue. All had been invited to travel to Foro events
in other parts of the country (some on several occasions), and found them to be exciting and
stimulating, but reported no significant post-event activity. In every case, interviewees called for
more communication and action by Foro; they exhibited no true civic awareness or altered
participation practices. In Ayacucho, two of the four students trained by Foro had formed an
NGO called Agenda Ayacucho, patterned after the Agenda: Perú initiative, but had not been able
to mobilize human or financial resources to plan or carry out any activity. In Trujillo, no
networks had been formed as a result of the working groups created by Foro over a year earlier
to mount the Agenda: Perú event there; interviewees reported that there were no plans for the
future.
H:\INCOMING\Margo\Pdabs285.doc 43
Foro documents indicate that the creation of NGOs or other groups, such as Pacto Perú,
Alameda and others, was stimulated by Foro events. However, there is only sketchy information
as to the purpose, membership and activities of these new groups. It appears that Foro has not
yet been able to provide the organization-development assistance needed to help build these
budding local entities – with our without USAID support. A November 1999 communication
from the Foro Youth Coordinator notes that: “Many of these young groups have gone from
simple protest or diagnosis, and are now looking for strategic approaches on which to base their
projects.” He stated that, “Foro’s AGENDA work on strategies interests them greatly and shapes
local visions and proposals based on Francisco’s [president of Foro] work.” Finally, he
expressed the hope that, in the future, training and dissemination programs will be able to rise to
the challenge.
It is also unclear as to Foro’s capacity to institutionalize this activity, or its ability to take
advantage of progress to date to fashion a solid strategic plan of its own which would lead to
meaningful longer-term results. We find the absence of OD assistance to newly-formed groups
to be a weakness of program design which diminishes the potential for achieving maximum
impact. Given the time horizon implicit in reaping results when dealing with youth, the
relatively small number of beneficiaries reached, and the very limited SO1 budget, we find the
cost-effectiveness of this sub-activity to be regrettably low.
V. DEMOCRACY & VOTER EDUCATION [IR4]
It should be noted that approximately two-thirds of the current SO1 budget is dedicated to
preparations for the 2000 elections. In addition to the sub-activities discussed in this section,
others such as PROMUJER, Foro and APOYO, which are covered elsewhere in this report, also
support aspects of this effort.
Two sub-activities related directly to democracy and voter education were included in this
evaluation – Servicios Educativos Rurales (SER) and the Instituto de Democracia y
Propuestas (IDS). In addition, the sub-activity carried out by Transparencia was reviewed.
A. SER was founded in 1980 to work with churches in rural areas. Nearly ninety percent of
its activities are carried out in the provinces through an office in Ayacucho and one in Moro.
SER’s main programmatic themes include: citizen education (electoral and civic education),
local government strengthening, rural women’s training, inter-institutional dialogue (Mesas de
Concertación Interinstitucional), teacher training and administration in rural schools, and rural
infrastructure. This NGO’s annual budget is approximately $800,000, and it receives support
from a variety of international donors. Under SO1/IR4, USAID provided a grant of $118,819 for
an electoral education sub-activity during the period from July 1998 through July 1999. In
August 1999, the grant was modified, extending it to July 2000, and increasing the total amount
to $253,335 (plus 25% counterpart funds from SER).
The first phase of this electoral education activity was designed to encourage the participation of
citizens in the 1998 municipal election process, especially in areas with a high incidence of
abstentionism and null or blank votes. Thereafter, this sub-activity focused on a series of
H:\INCOMING\Margo\Pdabs285.doc 44
initiatives geared to stimulate the exercise of civic rights and responsibilities as contemplated in
the Peruvian Constitution. In the second phase, SER seeks to: promote citizen participation in
the April 2000 elections, with a special target of reducing abstentions and decreasing the number
of null votes; provide a space for public debate between citizens and candidates regarding policy
issues; and stimulate the participation of youth, women and rural populations.
SER interviewees in Lima and Ayacucho reported that the organization has developed
participatory training methodologies and resource materials which have been disseminated with
highly positive results. Indeed, it was found that SER voter-education materials are being used
by several other SO1 counterparts. Two-day training workshops, which were reported to be one
of the primary activities, are held in collaboration with local organizations. Participants are then
expected to return home and serve as promoters, repeating the experience by conducting one-day
“transfer workshops.” Evaluators found that in Ayacucho the local SER office is working
closely with and providing technical assistance and capacity-building to the Federación de
Clubes de Madres (FEDECMA), a 100,000-member, department-wide, grassroots organization.
Others targeted as potential promoters of transfer workshops are school teachers, city council
members and community leaders. SER has recruited university students to conduct training
workshops for promoters. The Ayacucho office has an agreement with the Office of the
Ombudsman, which attends SER training sessions.
During phase one, SER carried out a series of these two-day training workshops for promoters in
11 provinces of Ayacucho (which has a 30% rate of abstentions and a high level of blank and
voided votes). These were titled, “Mandatario Significa Mandado,” and involved the
participation of some 50 community leaders in each event. Other activities included: holding
candidate forums involving representatives of different political parties and then engaging them
in a facilitated political debate around specific issues on the local public agenda; democracy
fairs, at which videos of candidates’ messages were played in public squares and community
centers, followed by cultural events; and training for local candidates on issues related to
municipal management and democracy. The same types of activities are planned for phase two
in connection with the April 2000 congressional/presidential elections. During our visit to
Ayacucho, SER representatives reported they were planning to hold a presidential candidate
debate in the second half of March, using the format developed by CADE. Three topics had
been chosen for debate: the state of emergency and strengthening of civil society; economic
development for Ayacucho; and decentralization. This was seen as an event targeted to elite and
educated members of the local community, and attendance is to be by invitation only. Before the
debate, SER planned to send candidates a report written by an anthropologist on the demands of
the citizens of Ayacucho. Preparations were also underway for a democracy fair. For that event,
SER planned to invite candidates to tape ten-minute campaign messages to be shown in the main
square.
Over the course of this sub-activity, SER has failed to submit to USAID the quarterly progress
reports called for in the grant agreement. Instead, a two-year report was filed for all of 1998 and
1999. That report estimates that 18,504 people attended the one-day transfer workshops carried
out by promoters, and that a reduction of up to a 50% of null votes was found in ten of the
participating provinces (Chumbivilcas, La Mar, Victor Fajardo, Huanta, Churcampa, Chupaca,
Chucuito, Huancane, Azangaro and El Collado) as compared with the 1995 election results,
H:\INCOMING\Margo\Pdabs285.doc 45
according to data provided by the Oficina Nacional de Procesos Electorales (ONPE). However,
it was also found that a smaller reduction of electoral abstentions and blank votes had been
recorded.
For the second phase of this initiative, various activities leading up to the April 2000 vote had
taken place or were in the planning stage. Forty (19 men, 21 women) phase-one promoters from
22 provinces gathered in Lima to evaluate the experience gained during the 1998 municipal
election process and to explore different future political scenarios. In addition, 24 workshops to
train promoters were held between November 1999 and January 2000 (data on the number and
types of participants had not yet been compiled). Two “Validation Workshops” with promoters
to refine the training methodology based on experience to date, and three transfer workshops at
the community level had been conducted by promoters. At the time of this evaluation, SER
representatives reported that one of the questions they were asking themselves was what to do
with these trained promoters after the elections. One possibility under consideration was to form
a National Network of Citizen Promoters (Red Nacional de Promotores Ciudadanos).
Observations
Since phase two results relate directly to the outcome of the April elections, it is not yet possible
to assess the degree to which expected results will be achieved. The performance indicator in the
PARTICIPE Results Framework that most closely relates to this sub-activity is the “number of
expert/citizen/congressional debates held on key issues (prior to 2000 elections).” The target is
five debates by 2001 from a baseline of zero in 1998. Once again, it is too early to assess
performance. Meanwhile, interviewees explained that SER analyzes impact by measuring
quantitative outputs - voter turnout, the number of valid ballots cast, the number of responses to
pre- and post-workshop surveys, and so on. For voter-related results, SER’s assessment will be
based on the post-election report issued by ONPE. Overall, SER does not appear to have a clear
understanding of impact vs. outputs or an institutional strategy for achieving and measuring
impact. As described to us, planning appears to be a reaction to events as they unfold, rather
than a more strategic approach to shaping those events. 
With regard to the institutionalization of this sub-activity, SER not only shows a strong desire to
do so, but also a deep commitment to continue promoting civic and voter education practices.
Interviewees stated that the institution has been working quite successfully in the area of
electoral and civic education since 1994, in partnership with different civil society and public
institutions and the support of other donors. In the event that USAID funding ends, SER
reported that it is ready to seek alternative resources, as they have done in the past.
When invited to share perceptions of the future, SER representatives pointed out that there is an
urgent need, within the overall political context of Peru, to generate political debate addressing
institutional democratization, and to intensify citizen education efforts at the local level. In this
regard, interviewees felt that the media holds great potential to accomplish this, and that this
should be used to maximum advantage. In Ayacucho, it was explained that, for obvious reasons
(i.e., cradle of the Shining Path), donors have made this part of the country a preferred area, and
that often activities within the same rural communities overlap. This was said to confuse
community members, who grow weary of so many disparate offers. In addition, it was reported
H:\INCOMING\Margo\Pdabs285.doc 46
that there is a lack of information and coordination among the many USAID counterparts based
in Ayacucho. Interviewees urged that USAID representatives understand that more orchestrated
interventions generate synergy (not only between the Agency and its partners, but also among
counterparts themselves), and that efforts should not be stove-piped “en compartimentos
estancos.” Evaluators agree with this view.
B. IDS
This NGO was founded at the height of the terrorist war in 1986 to address issues related to
pacification, political education, democracy, and citizenship. It has a staff of six full-time and
three part-time employees, and an annual budget of roughly $350,000. In July 1999, IDS was
awarded a grant of $105,990 by USAID to support a one-year program titled “Democracia Ayer
y Hoy” (Democracy Yesterday and Today), which is designed to provide democracy education
through provincial television stations, and is implemented in collaboration with TV Cultura, an
NGO founded in 1985 by social communications specialists.
The general objective of this sub-activity is to stimulate public discussion of topics related to
democracy and citizenship in 20 of the country’s largest cities during the period prior to the April
2000 elections. Specific objectives are to: promote the use of TV time for local and regional
discussion; train local and regional media representatives to handle modern techniques for
dealing with public interest issues; and produce materials and videotapes for local, regional (and,
if feasible, commercial national) television channels on democracy/citizenship themes to support
discussions by local leaders and citizens, also using closed-circuit cable. Impact indicators
included in the grant include: the number of agreements signed with local and regional TV
stations; the number of communicators who attend the training workshop; power of transmitters
and geographic area covered by participating stations; participation by local/regional leaders in
the programs; and the effect of debates within other communication media.
To date, IDS has made agreements with 47 local TV stations – far surpassing the 20-channel
target figure. It was explained that there are 120 televisions channels in Peru, most of which air
local news. The 47 stations recruited for this sub-activity are both commercial cable and local
public channels. IDS did not have information, for example, on how many of them handle paid
commercials to support programming or the total audience reached. At the outset, IDS brought
representatives from the 47 stations together for a workshop in Lima to explain details of this
activity. According to IDS and other interviewees, this was a highly motivational event, as it
brought together individuals with the same interests who had been working in isolation.
Interviewees in the field confirmed their strong desire to turn this into an ongoing network, so as
to solidify the group and work toward common goals. Meanwhile, IDS representatives stated
that without this type of follow-up, this initiative will fall apart. For that reason, they were
hoping to bring participants together again at the end of the program for a joint evaluation and
future planning. No concrete plans for this or other follow-up had yet been formulated.
IDS/TV Cultura selected 10 topics for the Democracia Ayer y Hoy series (i.e., expanding the
electorate, women’s political participation, history of political parties, history of municipal
government, etc.). Each topic is examined in an eight-minute videotape produced by IDS/TV
Cultura, which covers both the past and present status of the issue (five had been completed at
H:\INCOMING\Margo\Pdabs285.doc 47
the time of this evaluation). These tapes are then sent to the 47 participating TV stations, which
are to use them as tools for producing a one-hour, talk-show type program on each subject.
These are to be aired once a week over a 10-week period. Along with the tapes, local stations
are to receive accompanying manuals which provide hints and detailed ideas about how to plan
for and produce the hour-long program – inviting local leaders to form a panel, interviewing a
recognized expert, “man on the street” interviews, etc. After all programs have been produced
and copies have been sent back to IDS, the plan calls for production of a five-minute taped
overview of total programming, to be run as publicity for additional broadcasts.
To help ensure that this initiative would not be taken advantage of to benefit favored candidates
or political parties, IDS made agreements with Transparencia and SER to provide “monitors”
from among their volunteers to help facilitate and observe local program arrangements and
taping. Indeed, during our visit to Ayacucho, evaluators met, not only with local station owners
and the anchorperson who was to conduct the first show (about to be taped), but also with the
Transparencia representative who was serving as monitor. Clearly, this activity had produced
great enthusiasm and had awakened the interest of the station (a new public channel with nightly
programming from 6-10pm) in the subject of citizen education for democracy. All participants
in that discussion were eager to see that this activity continues and that the network of local
stations is consolidated.
Observations
As this evaluation was taking place, participating TV stations were in the process of producing
the first of the 10 programs. Therefore, it is far too early to assess results. However, assuming
all goes as planned, this sub-activity will have produced a total of 470 hours of local television
programming, plus a national network of local/regional stations (supposedly interested in other
civic issues), for a cost of about $106,000. We find that this holds great promise as a highly
cost-effective approach to reaching a significant number of citizens and to better prepare them to
exercise their rights and responsibilities; it therefore warrants close monitoring by the SO1 team.
In terms of institutionalizing this initiative, IDS interviewees stated that they are already thinking
of how to continue working with participating stations, using this format to produce citizen
education/political culture programming on other topics and possibly for school children or other
sub-populations. They were also contemplating the possibility of approaching channel N in
Lima, offering the material already produced for broadcast. If they were to repeat the
experience, these interviewees stated they would start by first listening to local producers in the
process of choosing the topics to be covered, and would ensure greater interaction between local
stations and IDS at the national level.
C. Transparencia
This NGO spearheads voter education and election monitoring efforts in Peru. It was created in
1994, in preparation for the 1995 presidential election, and has been a leading force in voter
awareness and education ever since. At that time, USAID supported Transparencia‘s work
indirectly through NDI, IRI and IFES; it also was a GRADE sub-grantee. It was not until 1998
that a direct relationship began with USAID. In FY 99/00, total SO1 funding is approximately
H:\INCOMING\Margo\Pdabs285.doc 48
$842,000; its current grant runs to August of this year. Transparencia interviewees considered
that receiving funds channeled through U.S. organizations is a waste, and that being funded
through GRADE was “disastrous.” They were clear that the current arrangement is far superior
to the two previous experiences. They also felt that the requirement for grantees to contribute
counterpart funds is a positive measure that should be maintained.
The PARTICIPE framework includes a result related to, “The presence on election day and prior
of an effective force of electoral observers that can pronounce on the quality and transparency of
the electoral process.” The performance indicator is the “Percent of polling places covered by
domestic and international observers, prior to and on election day (2000 elections).” The target
is 70%, up from a baseline of 32% in 1998. To help achieve desired results, the SO1 team
facilitates coordination among grantees. Meetings of the Eections Group are held every two
weeks. These generally include representatives of Transparencia, SO1, IDS, PROMUJER and
SER.
Representatives of this organization reported that it has a national network of 20,000 volunteers
around the country who help to educate citizens about how to vote, get out the vote and serve as
poll watchers. Thanks to these volunteers, on election day, Transparencia produces three reports
on results: one in the morning, one in the afternoon, and a quick-count. The organization has 16
paid regional promoters and 32 “tías” (godparents) who are people from the provinces who serve
as volunteer liaison agents. The latter were brought together for a workshop in Lima. Regional
promoters, in turn, train provincial coordinators who, it was reported, had carried out 194
workshops for volunteers in their areas in connection with the upcoming elections. As part of its
overall effort, Transparencia holds national and international conferences, conducts seminars
and holds other special events related to the electoral process.
VI. DEVELOPMENT OF A DEMOCRATIC AGENDA FOR THE FUTURE [IR4]
This section includes information on two sub-activities: Agenda: Perú by Foro
Nacional/Internacional, which was one of the grantees selected for evaluation, and the Instituto
APOYO, which was only reviewed. At the outset, it should be noted that, while both were
dedicated to developing agendas for the future, Foro’s aim is to lay out strategies for what Peru
might look like 20 years from now, while APOYO concentrates on the next decade. At the time
of this evaluation, both efforts were still underway. We found that the most potentially cost￾effective results could be achieved if the two efforts were compatible and mutually-reinforcing,
particularly as concerns the dissemination of their reports. Foro interviewees indicated that the
two grantees exchange information, and that their efforts are complementary, a view shared by
APOYO. However, no concrete steps to coordinate their activities were mentioned by either.
APOYO explained that there is much similarity between the two efforts, but that they prefer to
be more practical and present a shorter-term, less ambitious scheme. Finally, APOYO
interviewees perceived that Agenda: Peru was closely identified with a single institution,
whereas they had tried to bring others on board.
H:\INCOMING\Margo\Pdabs285.doc 49
A. Foro Nacional/Internacional6
: The December 1998 document describing SO1’s
strategic focus for the 18-month period from October 1998 to April 2000 includes “Development
of a democratic agenda for the 2000 elections and beyond” as an area of emphasis under IR4.
Among the programmatic actions to be taken was support for the efforts of the Agenda: Peru
project of the think-tank Foro Nacional/Internacional. The statement of hoped-for results
indicates that, to the extent possible, a consensus democracy agenda for the country would be
forged. Beginning in September 1997, four grants have been awarded to Foro for a total of
$136,000. The first three supported development of the Agenda, while the fourth (for the period
from January to May 2000) was for its dissemination. No specific results, indicators or targets
for this sub-activity are included in the PARTICIPE Results Framework. However, the above￾mentioned USAID document indicates that this effort was to be aimed at collecting and
reflecting back to Peruvians their visions of a future Peru, and that among the key groups to
whom Foro would present its preliminary findings would be political parties and movements,
with the idea that they may incorporate portions of this “consensus vision” into their political
platforms. It was also to be presented to the military, through the School of Advanced Military
Studies (CAEM).
Foro, which has four members, three of whom comprise the Board, was founded by the president
and a colleague following the departure of the former from the World Bank in 1992. Its annual
budget totals approximately $300,000, of which 20% is generated through private consultancies.
The organization is decentralized; the president and two other professionals work from their
homes, while the office is only used for administrative functions. Other services are contracted
out – for example, Transparencia manages the Foro web page. The president regretted that, to
keep up with USAID contract requirements, Foro is forced to employ an administrative staff of
three. He reported that relations with the SO1 team, which has demonstrated “sensitivity and
patience,” are very good. Further, he indicated that he knew SO1 well, as he had worked on the
PARDEM project paper. He felt that USAID’s decision to leave “lost causes” (i.e., work with
the GOP) was a good one.
In its first phase from 1993 to 1995, Foro conducted a national assessment of democratic
governability using a participatory methodology called, El Experto y El Ciudadano (the Expert
and the Citizen) to identify major problems. This resulted in publication of a book with analyses
of 15 issues by specialists in those fields. The president then chose the issues he considered most
important for further investigation, and Foro published a number of books on those subjects (i.e.,
Reform of the Executive Branch, Youth, Poverty, Sustainable Development, Environment,
Judicial Reform, Vision of Peru, and so forth – see the Documents Annex for more details).
While an interdisciplinary group was formed for the first book mentioned, for the most part
others have been written by individuals chosen as experts in their fields, with topics selected by
Foro.
At the time of this evaluation, the final Agenda report was being edited by the president, who is
also co-coordinator of the Agenda project. He stated that the full report will contain 320 pages,
and will also be published in comic book format and as newspaper supplements; it was not yet
clear when this might happen. Meanwhile, in January a summary of the activity and one chapter
 
6 A second Foro sub-activity dedicated to university youth is treated separately under the section on Civic
Education.
H:\INCOMING\Margo\Pdabs285.doc 50
was published in a document titled, Perú: Agenda y Estrategia para el Siglo 21, Informe Final
del Proyecto Agenda: Perú.
Observations
Based on a review of relevant documents and interviews with key informants, our major findings
concerning this sub-activity include the following.
There was no clear evidence that a “consensus democracy agenda for the country” has been
forged or that elements of the strategies elaborated by Foro have been incorporated into the
platforms of political parties. The delayed publication schedule and dissemination effort makes
it increasingly less likely that significant impact will be achieved during the current election
cycle.
Most SO1 counterparts were familiar with the individuals involved in Foro, and felt they were
highly-committed scholars and experienced professionals. However, an overwhelming majority
were unfamiliar with the Agenda. Those who did know about it felt it was a largely academic
exercise by a few individuals, rather than the result of a participatory process. Some termed the
effort “machista,” holding that it has failed to incorporate important gender considerations.
Because the strategies included in the Agenda are designed for 20 years hence, and given the
urgent sense of need for “institucionalidad democrática” (democratic institutionality – an need
expressed frequently during this evaluation), it seems unlikely that this sub-activity will produce
any meaningful impact on the body politic.
Based on criteria related to the expectations articulated in USAID documents and the limited
number of persons reached through this effort, its cost-effectiveness is found to be highly
questionable, particularly as compared with other sub-activities and in light of SO1’s extremely
small budget.
In reflecting on the future, the president of Foro mentioned a number of issues he sees as high
priorities, including reform of the state and of the judiciary, local government/decentralization,
citizen education/media dissemination, human rights training for teachers, advocacy training, and
the formation of rapid response teams within political parties. In terms of USAID strategy, he
felt SO1 should invest in preparing the next generation to govern. He suggested this could be
done by supporting a one-year, half-time masters program of technical courses on mid-level
management, conducted perhaps by a consortium with Catholic University and two other
universities, so that each would bear only one-third of the cost. Evaluators find these
suggestions to be impractical in light of SO1’s goals, the need to focus on the shorter-term, and
the limited resources available.
B. APOYO Institute (AI): This is the nonprofit arm of the Grupo APOYO, a for-profit
firm, which was founded 23 years ago to conduct economic surveys and consultancies for the
public and private sector. The Institute was created in 1989, and works only on social and
constitutional policy issues. It has 15 members, who are its employees, and its Board is made up
of representatives of the for-profit firm, plus the Executive Director of the Institute. AI was
H:\INCOMING\Margo\Pdabs285.doc 51
awarded an SO1 grant for $333,782 for the period from September 1996 to June 1998 to
implement an activity aimed at improving the functioning of the Peruvian Congress. Under
PARTICIPE, a second grant was awarded for the period from September 1999 to May 2000.
This provided $100,000 for a program titled, “Agenda for the First Decade” (AI is to provide
$42,800 in counterpart funds). No specific results, performance indicators or targets for this sub￾activity appear in the PARTICIPE Results Framework. In discussing indicators, AI interviewees
explained only the type of activities carried out and the number of individuals involved.
Phase one of the AI Agenda activity was funded by the National Endowment for Democracy. It
involved the formation of eight Task Forces to deal with key issues selected by the Institute:
Reform of the State/Decentralization; Local Government; Political and Legislative Reform;
Judicial Reform; Public Safety; Education; Health; and Poverty. Each Task Force (TF) included
a head researcher, a journalist, a representative of the business community, a politician, and a top
public official, among others. A total of 60 individuals were recruited as members of the various
TFs. A basic document for each TF was drafted by the head researcher, and three meetings of
the TFs were held between June and October 1999. Following those meetings and approval of
the resultant documents by the TFs, a conference was held in Lima to disseminate findings.
Each document contains a compilation of the various options identified by the TF for dealing
with the topic at hand, rather than a single consensus strategy.
The SO1 grant supports phase two of the TF activity. Specifically, it aims to: a) do further
research on specific topics; b) decentralize TF dialogue to the provinces in order to share results
and incorporate new perspectives; and c) broadly disseminate overall results (with the assistance
of the journalists on the various TFs). At the time of this evaluation, the first two components
had been completed. For the second component, two workshops had been held – one on
November 26, 1999 in Tarapoto with 50 participants and co-sponsored by AMRESAM
(Association of Municipalities of the San Martin Region), and the second on December 17 in
Piura with 40 participants and the cooperation of CIPCA (Center for the Investigation and
Promotion of Rural People). In each case, a USAID representative (from SO5 and SO1) was
present. At both events, selected topics among the eight were presented and discussed. The
conclusions reached by participants are included in the final TF reports as addenda to the basic
documents, thus adding to the number of options discussed, rather than being incorporated into
those already identified.
To initiate the third sub-activity component, on January 18 a Journalists Round Table with some
30 editors, reporters and anchors was held in Lima to disseminate results. At that session
(attended by the USAID/ODI Chief), two of the eight topics were presented, while a complete
set of TF documents was distributed to all attendees. This was followed on January 20 by
presentation of the eight TF documents at a meeting sponsored by CADE, an influential business
association. That event was attended by representatives of all presidential candidates, with the
exception of Fujimori. Both events generated considerable press coverage. The remainder of the
dissemination campaign was still in the planning stage at the time of this evaluation.
Observations
H:\INCOMING\Margo\Pdabs285.doc 52
If they were to repeat this experience, AI representatives said they would include a longer period
of time for planning and implementation. They would also include a greater dissemination
effort, but said they were unsure how to do this, noting that this could be taken advantage of for
political purposes (though it is unclear why this could not be used to advantage). These
interviewees also felt that simpler versions of the eight TF documents could be produced in order
to reach a broader audience. They are eager to capitalize on efforts to date, and reported they are
already seeking funding for annual meetings of the TFs – something that members responded
positively to in a brief AI questionnaire. The idea is that the documents already produced could
serve as a baseline against which TF members could monitor progress over time. Also, AI
would keep in touch with TF members and further strengthen this multi-sectoral network by
making greater use of the internet/e-mail.
With regard to the national context, AI interviewees were convinced that Fujimori will not have
a majority in the new Congress, and that this is both an opportunity and a threat. They felt that
the challenge will be to convert this into something positive. One way to do that, they opined,
would be to seize the period between April 9 and July 28 (when Congress takes office) as an
opportunity to provide training for new members and their staff. AI feels this is when newly￾elected and inexperienced members of Congress will be most receptive and appreciative of any
help they can get. To do this, AI reported it is developing a plan and seeking funding to conduct
a seminar for Congress and staff to be held during the interim period.
In terms of SO1 strategy, AI believes that a continuation of current support for civil society
organizations could impact the quality of the political parties by 2005, asserting that it is only
then that there will be an opportunity to improve the parties. Therefore, these interviewees
recommend that the priority now be to strengthen civil society. They wondered: “How well do
NGOs really function internally?” – a question they felt merits investigation, noting further that
“each piece now works separately.” AI representatives recommended that SO1 strategy be
divided into four time periods: now to the April 9 elections; April-July to see if Fujimori retains
a majority in Congress; July 2000-July 2002 when municipal elections will again be held; and
2002-onward. They strongly recommended that USAID should better orchestrate the efforts of
its counterparts by convening meetings to explain “a dónde vamos todos” (where we are all
going together).
PART TWO – OVERALL FINDINGS
This section discusses overall findings as they emerged from our examination of the various sub￾activities. This responds to the charge contained in the SOW to look at sub-activity impact
against the PARTICIPE objectives, and against the Mission’s strategic framework for democracy
(i.e., against the IRs and the SO itself).
To set the stage for that discussion, it is important first to share findings of a more contextual
nature, given that the general political situation significantly affects all SO1 sub-activities.
Therefore, the first four findings in this section should be viewed as an environmental framework
within which to consider further the information presented in Part One of this Chapter.
H:\INCOMING\Margo\Pdabs285.doc 53
The Current Context
1. The lack of political will on the part of the government of Peru to institute reforms in the
electoral, judicial and other key systems has continued to weaken the democratic process and
to mitigate against meaningful citizen participation in the country’s governance. Indeed, the
GOP’s resistance to strengthening the capacity of governmental institutions to respond to
citizens’ demands was reported to have increased in this pre-electoral period. A number of
key informants predicted that the gravity of this situation will worsen significantly in the
president’s next term.
2. The weakening of key private sector institutions in recent years, particularly political parties
and civil society organizations, has caused a further loss of faith among citizens in the
democratic process. This has been exacerbated by the worsening economic situation and the
sense that democracy won’t put food on the table. The civil society sector - which could
provide a counterbalance to government and help build citizen confidence – was found to be
fragmented, weakened and not well prepared to stimulate proactive citizen participation in
the governance process or to advocate effectively on behalf of citizens’ interests. No clear
evidence was found of proactive initiatives to strengthen this sector as a whole.
3. While the re-election of president Fujimori was seen as a foregone conclusion by all those
contacted, the high level of anxiety surrounding the post-electoral period appears to have
caused a correspondingly high level of uncertainty among civil society organizations as to
just what to do after the April vote. Questions such as whether it will take one or two rounds
to win, whether the government will retain a majority in Congress, what will happen between
April 9 and July 28, whether pending legislative initiatives will be taken up in the new term,
and so forth appear to be keeping many NGOs off balance. As a result of these uncertainties,
it was found that, for the most part, SO1 counterparts have not yet developed concrete plans
for dealing with the various scenarios that may emerge during the post-electoral period.
4. Political debate is highly segmented and limited, with that space occupied largely by political
elites and academic analysts. At the grassroots level, there is an underlying sense of fear and
intimidation which blocks meaningful engagement in the political process. This has resulted
in a serious disconnect between the population at large and those engaged in the
political/electoral process.
Overarching Findings Emerging from the Analysis of SO1 Sub-Activities
5. Relations between SO1 team members and counterparts were reported by one and all to be
excellent. It was found that there is universal high regard and respect for the team, which
means that USAID has significant influence or poder de convocatoria among SO1
counterparts. This sense of good will and confidence will be important for shaping and
implementing future DG strategies. USAID’s image among donors participating in the
Governance Group and other key informants was also highly positive; the current demand￾based DG strategy was even referred to as a “model” for others.
H:\INCOMING\Margo\Pdabs285.doc 54
6. While recommendations from past evaluations appear to have been addressed by the SO1
team in as far as possible given the deteriorating political climate, some still pertain. For
example, the September 1997 GRADE evaluation spoke of the need for the “design [of] a
better system for measuring program impact and sustainability,” the necessity of
“strengthening sub-grant evaluation and impact measurement,” and the establishment of
“greater communication among the diverse… initiatives in order to share strategies and
compare modes of delivery.” The latter view was again expressed in 1999 during the USAID
Partners Retreat, when the Development of Synergies group recommended that the Mission
should promote synergy in a participatory manner, focusing on joint activities within and
between SOs. While the SO1 team communicates with the other SOs, concrete collaboration
and joint funding at the activity level were found with SO3, SO5 and SpO6. Also, the
November 1997 IFES evaluation highlighted the need to strengthen an existing civil society
organization (Transparencia was mentioned as the likely candidate) as a “watchdog over
issues of electoral transparency, integrity and reform.” The evaluation suggested that this be
done through the development of a general endowment or trust fund to help ensure
sustainability. While SO1 support has clearly strengthened this counterpart, its future
appears to remain precarious. The SO1 team reported that this has been the subject of on￾going discussions this year, as well as a USAID-financed evaluation.
7. The successful mechanisms and methodologies outlined in the February 1998 evaluation
report on the Local Government Development Project (SO5) provide valuable clues for
developing approaches related to decentralization and the strengthening of municipal
democratic governance and community participation in other (non-coca) areas. The
emergence and operation of the Association of Municipalities of the San Martin Region
(AMRESAM) was found to provide particularly relevant lessons for possible application in
other parts of the country under SO1/IR3.
8. Nearly all counterparts were unfamiliar with SO1’s overall strategy and the array of
organizations receiving support. Nor were they aware that the three key themes identified in
the PARTICIPE activity description were to be integrated into all SO1 programs: 1) need for
and importance of independent institutions; 2) need for and importance of decentralization;
and 3) need for greater participation by all Peruvians in public debate and decision-making
processes. It was suggested by a number of interviewees that information be sent to
counterparts about all SO1 activities underway and appropriate USAID contacts, and it was
universally recommended that the SO1 team convene meetings of all counterparts to discuss
priority issues and ways to achieve greater synergy.
9. With few exceptions, there was a marked lack of coordination and collaboration among SO1
counterparts, who tend to work within their own spheres of interest, while unaware of what
others are doing within or outside of those areas. This was found to be the case not only in
Lima, but also in the smaller communities visited during field trips. The major exception to
this was found among counterparts active in the current electoral process. The SO1 team has
facilitated a highly-effective process of coordination among those organizations, whose
representatives meet together regularly to share information and discuss tactics.
Nevertheless, communication between that sector and others is virtually non-existent and,
H:\INCOMING\Margo\Pdabs285.doc 55
among individuals associated with other counterparts, communication was reported to be
largely at a personal level. Of the examples found of institutional coordination between and
among other sub-activities, some appeared to be almost accidental, rather than as a result of
joint planning processes.
10. Networks of varying size and purpose have been created or facilitated by nearly all
counterparts. However, these tend to work in isolation from one another, even when co￾located in smaller communities outside of Lima. Thus, potential synergies that could
maximize results for all concerned tend to be lost.
11. The activities undertaken by many of the NGOs contacted do not reflect an institutional
capacity for solid strategic planning; they tend to concentrate on the achievement of long￾term, generalized goals, with no clear indication of intermediate results. Exceptions to this
long-term focus were found among those counterparts engaged in the electoral process and,
to a lesser extent, those that concentrate on use of the media to inform members of the public
about their civic rights and responsibilities.
12. It was found that a number of sub-activities employ the use of press releases, videotapes, the
internet, and radio and television programs as part of their citizen and voter education efforts.
Because of the wide variety of these dissemination efforts, it was not possible for evaluators
to arrive at an overall finding with regard to their effectiveness. Though radio was reported
to be the most important medium for reaching the majority of the population, the sub￾activities underway within this arena concentrate largely on TV and the written press rather
than radio, and are designed mainly to support election-related efforts.
13. With regard to sub-activity performance indicators and the timely collection of data, there
appears to be a disconnect between the SO1 team and individual counterparts, some of whom
tend to measure progress by their own separate sets of indicators, while failing to gather and
transmit data in accordance with the results frameworks included in their grants or to submit
reports in a timely manner. Most counterparts seemed unclear about how to measure the
impact of their activities vs. the quantitative outputs, or how to develop appropriate
indicators for that purpose.
14. “Umbrella” grants involving two or more NGOs appear to be promising mechanisms for
administering sub-activities while reducing the SO1 team’s management burden. However,
as currently employed, their potential has not been maximized. The two umbrella grants
examined (PROMUJER and CIDE/TAREA), were created at the behest of USAID, which
suggested to applicants working on the same issue that their individual proposals be
combined in a single contract. The contracts office reported that it had encouraged such
arrangements as a way to save time. However, the time saved appears to accrue mostly to
that office. This is because, while financial reporting is combined, thus reducing the volume
of work for contract personnel, each NGO continues to carry out its own separate project
under the umbrella and files separate reports. In discussing future SO1 strategies, several
NGOs suggested the desirability of forming consortia, in which a number of organizations -
including groups from key regions of the country outside of Lima - undertake a single
project.
H:\INCOMING\Margo\Pdabs285.doc 56
15. There was broad consensus among interviewees that USAID DG strategies should give
priority to two areas: strengthening the civil society sector as a valid interlocutor and
facilitator of relations between citizens and selected government authorities, and work at the
level of local government to strengthen both municipal management and the ability of
citizens to represent their interests in the decision-making process. Such initiatives were felt
to be particularly important in view of the central government’s disinterest in democratic
reforms and greater citizen participation, and the consequent need to build an appreciation of
democratic governance by targeting institutions to which citizens can have direct access. It
was pointed out that work at the local level would also help to prepare municipalities for
decentralization, if and when that process should occur.
H:\INCOMING\Margo\Pdabs285.doc 57
CHAPTER FOUR – CONCLUSIONS
Based on an analysis of the foregoing findings, this Chapter presents the overall conclusions
drawn by evaluators in response to the questions posed in the Scope of Work, particularly at the
level of the PARTICIPE program and SO1. These conclusions then become the basis for the
recommendations offered in the next and final Chapter of this report.
A. Clearly, USAID/Peru’s decision to emphasize a demand-based strategy for its Democracy
Program during the period leading up to the year 2000 elections was a sound one. That
determination greatly enhanced the Mission’s potential for achieving SO1: “broader citizen
participation in democratic processes.”
B. Of the current sub-activities examined, it is clear that those working in the area of human
rights (Office of the Ombudsman, CNDDHH, IPEDEHP) have achieved significant impact
on citizen awareness and participation, including male/female and Quechua-speaking sub￾groups. Not only have these organizations achieved impressive results of their own, but they
have actively coordinated their efforts, making for a whole greater than the sum of its parts.
C. While many of the other sub-activities studied appear to be well on the way to meeting their
respective goals, objectives and expected results, it is not possible at this time to gauge their
impact on the civic/democratic awareness and participation practices of the intended
beneficiary populations. This is due to several factors:
® The impact of various sub-activities is directly related to the results of the April elections
(PROMUJER, SER, Transparencia) and can only be measured once that process is
completed;
® In two cases (FORO Nacional/Internacional and the APOYO Institute), impact will be a
function of the degree to which the agendas they have produced are considered by
candidates and are discussed and espoused by newly-elected political leaders;
® In other cases, the true impact on the awareness and participation practices of the
beneficiary populations will not be known except in the mid- or long-term
(CIDE/TAREA, Foro Juventud, IDS).
D. The lowest degree of impact on citizen education and participation corresponds to those sub￾activities that were designed to serve individual beneficiaries through conciliation services
and free legal assistance, and do not undertake policy-related advocacy or dissemination
efforts (Chamber of Commerce, IPRECON, APENAC, Ministry of Justice).
E. With regard to the institutionalization of sub-activities within grantee organizations, there is
no doubt that the desire to do so is strong. However, the ability of grantees to achieve this is
mixed. Most participating NGOs have small amounts of funding available for this purpose,
and many have already prepared proposals to obtain additional resources – either from
USAID or other donors. Organizations that are well established and whose primary mission
coincides with the sub-activities underway (Ombudsman’s Office, CNDDHH, IPEDEHP,
H:\INCOMING\Margo\Pdabs285.doc 58
Manuela Ramos, Calandria, CESIP, SER, CIDE, TAREA, APENAC, MinJus) are most
likely to institutionalize results.
F. Increased communication and coordination among all SO1 counterparts could produce more
effective results at the SO level by capitalizing on potential synergies. Meanwhile, there are
clear multiplier effects among those organizations using methodologies and practices
pioneered by other grantees including, for example, IPEDEHP’s training methodology and
the election-related materials produced by Transparencia and SER.
G. The cost-effectiveness of the various sub-activities is clearly a function of the size of the SO1
budget, the number of citizens reached, the efficacy of the program in terms of impact, and
the size of the SO1 budget. On that basis, we must conclude that, to date, the most cost￾effective interventions have been those related to human rights. Activities designed by IDS
to use the electronic media for democracy education are promising in terms of their potential
for reaching large numbers of citizens in a cost-effective manner. However, they are too new
to have produced measurable results. Using fore-mentioned criteria, we conclude that the
least cost-effective sub-activities are those that reach very small numbers of beneficiaries
while not proactively advocating for policy change (Chamber of Commerce, IPRECON,
APENAC, Ministry of Justice, APOYO Institute) and those that propose long-term solutions
and involve a relatively limited number of beneficiaries (FORO Nacional/Internacional,
CIDE/TAREA, Foro Juventud).
H. Because of the diverse nature of, and results expected from, the various sub-activities
supported under the four Intermediate Results (IRs), it is not feasible to assess overall impact
at that level. This is further complicated by the fact that indicators lack consistency across
similar programs; different variables are being tracked, which makes comparison especially
difficult and creates an “apples and oranges” effect. Moreover, it is not clear that successful
completion of the goals, objectives and expected results of the sub-activities reviewed under
IR2 and IR4 will, in fact, produce the results expected at the IR level. Meanwhile, activities
under IR1 and IR3 are too few to achieve any significant progress toward meeting those
results as currently stated. A careful review and revision of IRs is needed to better match
sub-activities with desired results.
I. With regard to results at the level of the PARTICIPE program and the SO1 framework,
because over two-thirds of available funding is dedicated to election-related indicators (with
targets set for 2001), impact cannot yet be accurately assessed.
J. The five-year post-electoral period will be a crucial time of transition in Peru – marked by
both opportunities and challenges - during which to lay the groundwork for sustainable
democratic institutions and strengthen civil society as a sector. There is an urgent need for
carefully-planned strategies to maximize those opportunities and effectively deal with the
challenges that will surely arise during this critical period if increased citizen awareness and
participation are to be achieved.
K. Because democratic governance affects all substantive initiatives, a more proactive effort
within USAID/Peru to ensure that DG approaches are integrated into all areas of the
H:\INCOMING\Margo\Pdabs285.doc 59
Mission’s portfolio, while not depending solely on the disproportionately small budget
allocated to SO1, would help to ensure the success of all concerned and broaden citizen
participation in democratic processes.
H:\INCOMING\Margo\Pdabs285.doc 60
CHAPTER FIVE – RECOMMENDATIONS
As explained by Mission management, later this year USAID/Peru will have an opportunity to
propose its new five-year strategy to Agency officials. Decisions concerning future
programming always involve complex trade-offs between competing priorities, and are often
constrained by budget allocations restricted to certain types of activities. Understanding the
challenges inherent in the planning process, and in response to the objectives laid out in the
Scope of Work, the evaluation team offers the following recommendations in the hope that they
will help to facilitate that process.
1. The bulk of SO1 support should be targeted to the achievement of clear and specific results
within the five-year period following the 2000 elections, rather than aiming for longer-term
impact. IRs should be revised and re-aligned in accordance with this new focus. Citizen
education through the media, particularly radio and television, along with the strengthening
of civil society and participatory approaches to local governance should be given priority.
2. The SO1 team should take the initiative to achieve greater synergy among counterpart
organizations, while strengthening the civil society sector, by creating incentives for
increased cooperation among sub-activities. These might include support for a “Centro de
Encuentro de la Sociedad Civil Sobre Democracia” to coordinate the sharing of materials
and methodologies (to avoid duplication of effort), and organize capacity-building activities,
such as discussion groups, retreats and site visits among counterparts, advocacy and other
training, and so forth.
3. To reduce the management burden on SO1 team members, while providing more time for
strategic thinking and planning, activities designed and implemented jointly by consortia of
two or more organizations should be encouraged. A strong preference for such collaborative
efforts or “umbrella projects,” especially those that pair Lima-based organizations with
partners located in the provinces, with overall results frameworks and the regular collection
of performance data, should be clearly stated in future calls for proposals. This does not
mean to suggest that applicant organizations should be encouraged to merge; only that two or
more independent entities join together in a single enterprise.
4. Because the need for democratic governance affects the potential for success of all activities
and is a high priority for the U.S. Country Team, USAID Mission officials should ensure that
democratic principles, such as transparency and citizen participation, are incorporated into all
programmatic initiatives. They should also seek to develop increased cross-sectoral linkages
between SO1 and other SOs, identifying and capitalizing on opportunities for joint activities
in pursuit of complementary objectives.
5. Mission management should give special attention to the re-location and consolidation of
efforts aimed at local government, moving those activities beyond SO5 in the pursuit of
overall Mission goals while taking advantage of the successes achieved by the Local
Government Development Project. This could be accomplished by placing all local
government initiatives under SO1/IR3 (or whichever IR is most appropriate in the new DG
H:\INCOMING\Margo\Pdabs285.doc 61
strategy), with subdivisions for activities within coca-growing areas and those undertaken
outside of those areas, similar to SO2/PRA/MSP activities.
6. If it is determined that work in the area of basic education is to continue, and sufficient
resources become available, the Mission should consider creation of a separate education SO,
along with appropriate performance and impact indicators to measure results related to basic
education and the longer-term development of the country’s human resource base.
7. The DG Assessment Team should develop alternative political scenarios based on the results
of the 2000 elections. These should include in-depth examinations of the three areas the
evaluation team considers to be particularly important for USAID interventions within the
next five years:
® the structure and dynamics of Peruvian civil society, as well as its potential for
serving as a counterbalance to government and contributing to the process of
democratization;
® the policy and legal framework for decentralization, along with the strengthening of
local government and citizen involvement at that level; and
® the role of the media (particularly radio and television) in democracy education and
public debate concerning policy issues.
H:\INCOMING\Margo\Pdabs285.doc
ANNEX A:
Scope of Work
Evaluation Plan
H:\INCOMING\Margo\Pdabs285.doc A-1
ATTACHMENT I
 MAARD Nos. 527-0000-T-00001
 527-0394-T-00002
Scope of Work
Evaluation of USAID/Peru’s Democracy Education Activities
USAID/Peru, through its Office of Democratic Initiatives (ODI), wishes to contract the services
of an evaluation team to evaluate the impact and effectiveness of selected activities that form
part of USAID/Peru’s program in support of its Strategic Objective No. 1: “Broader Citizen
Participation in Democratic Processes.”
Background
The USAID Mission in Peru is implementing a series of activities under its current strategic plan
that covers the period 1997-2001. The objective of this plan is to promote broad-based
sustainable social and economic development in Peru. The plan includes six strategic objectives:
broader citizen participation in democratic processes; increased incomes for the poor; improved
health, including family planning, of high-risk populations; improved environmental
management of targeted sectors; reduced illicit coca production in target areas; and expanded
opportunities for girls’ basic education in target areas.
USAID/Peru’s activities in support of democracy and implemented by the SO1 team place
emphasis on the areas of the country most affected by poverty and inequality of participation in
decision-making processes. To achieve its democracy objective, the Mission proposed four
intermediate results (IRs) in the 1997-2001 strategy:
· IR1-More Effective Selected National Institutions,
· IR2-Greater Access to Justice,
· IR3 Local Governments More Responsive to Their Constituents, and
· IR4-Citizens Better Prepared to Exercise Their Rights and Responsibilities.
The SO1 team implements activities in support of these IRs and the overall SO under two large
umbrella projects. These projects are “Participatory Democracy,” or PARDEM, which was
authorized in 1994 and is thus somewhat outdated in design given the constantly evolving
political environment in Peru7
, and “Citizen Participation and Access to Justice,” or
PARTICIPE, which was authorized just recently in March 1999. The PARDEM project is
nearing its termination date of September 30, 2000 and funding for its activities has been fully
obligated. The purpose of PARDEM has been to strengthen democratic systems of government
 
7 The design assumed increasing political will on the part of the government to institute democratic reforms and thus
proposed to work fairly intensively with government institutions. This assumption has unfortunately not withstood
the test of time and the Mission has deviated somewhat from the original design as a result.
H:\INCOMING\Margo\Pdabs285.doc A-2
that empower both Peru’s citizenry to express its needs and its government to respond
effectively.
The complex development of democracy in Peru over the last few years has been characterized
by the progressive weakening of the democratic system in the country. This new and significant
challenge, combined with the upcoming general elections scheduled for April 9, 2000, led the
SO1 team to revise somewhat its strategic approach to democratic strengthening in Peru. (See
“Strategic Focus of the USAID/Peru Democracy Program for the 18-Month Period Leading Up
to the year 2000 Elections,” the document referenced in Section V). In response to this strategic
shift, in March 1999 the PARTICIPE activity was designed and approved.
The purpose of PARTICIPE is to increase awareness among citizens of their rights and
responsibilities and to enhance the responsiveness of government institutions that citizens
interact with in exercising their rights. PARTICIPE supports the same four IRs described above
but places special emphasis on IRs 2 and 4 and focuses on the most vulnerable groups in rural
and marginalized urban areas of the country. The end of the PARTICIPE activity coincides with
the end of the USAID/Peru’s strategic plan in September 2001, and PARTICIPE will fund SO1
activities from now through the end of the current strategy period – September 2001.
Within the Mission portfolio, funding for democracy activities under SO1 has been limited in
comparison with funding for other activities under other Mission SOs. For the past three years,
the total fiscal year budget for SO1 has been approximately $3.0 million, or 3-5% of
USAID/Peru’s annual budget. Taking into account some alternative development monies spent
on local government strengthening and other democracy-related activities, over the last three
years approximately 10% of the Mission’s overall budget has been spent in support of
democracy activities.
During FY 2000, the USAID Mission will be developing a new five to eight-year Strategic Plan
to promote sustainable development in Peru. Part of this new Mission plan will be continued
support for democratic development. The evaluation of selected democracy activities (i.e., sub￾activities under PARDEM and PARTICIPE) will therefore provide important lessons learned for
this strategy development exercise.
With the need to develop a new democracy strategy on the horizon and with pivotal elections
slated for April 2000, the SO1 team is planning to contract as well for a Democracy and
Governance Assessment to gain a deeper understanding of the key issues facing democratic
development in Peru. The team expects this assessment to analyze the status of democratic
development in Peru, incorporate lessons learned from USAID’s democracy interventions, and
make concrete recommendations on programmatic directions for the future. USAID/Peru sees
the evaluation of selected sub-activities in democracy as an integral and preliminary component
of the Democracy and Governance Assessment and development of the new democracy strategy
for Peru. A separate Scope of Work, however, will address the work to be carried out for the
Democracy and Governance Assessment.
The evaluation of selected sub-activities in democracy -- the subject of this current scope of
work -- will assess the level of impact USAID/Peru has achieved through its democracy
H:\INCOMING\Margo\Pdabs285.doc A-3
education and awareness activities. The groups of sub-activities the evaluators will be asked to
review involve democracy education and awareness interventions in the following areas: human
rights education for community leaders, democratic education in public schools and with
university and other youth groups, voter education, and education of the public on extra-judicial
conciliation and other alternative means of access to justice for the poor, among other civic
education and awareness activities. The evaluators are being asked to examine the Mission’s
hypothesis that by educating and promoting awareness of Peruvian citizens – and particularly
disadvantaged citizens – about their rights and responsibilities, these citizens will participate
more, defend their rights more actively and demand more vigorously from the State effective
democratic institutions and respect for the rule of law. In preparing its new strategy, the Mission
is keenly interested in knowing to what degree its “demand-based” strategy of stimulating
democratic participation has been effective and whether similar interventions should be pursued
in the future.
Objectives of the Evaluation
The evaluation has the following fundamental objectives:
2.1 Determine the impact and degree of influence of selected democracy education and
awareness activities in terms of advancing the Mission’s democracy objective.
1.2 Identify best practices, methodologies, lessons learned and make
recommendations that will facilitate an in-depth Democracy and Governance
Assessment and subsequent design of a new USAID strategy for democratic
development in Peru.
The evaluation should emphasize and respond to the following:
· Goals, objectives and expected results of the selected sub-activites, the PARTICIPE project
and the SO1 results framework, in order to evaluate planned versus actual impacts of the
education and awareness components of the selected sub-activities.
· Degree of sub-activity impact on the civic/democratic awareness and participation practices
of the intended beneficiary populations.
· The relative institutionalization of the sub-activity impacts, including possible multiplier
effects and generalized usage of methodologies and practices.
· The cost-effectiveness of sub-activities.
· Identification of the principle lessons learned, difficulties and perspectives. The team will
assess the impact of each sub-activity or element thereof against the specific objectives
established for that sub-activity, for PARTICIPE and against the Mission’s strategic
framework for democracy (i.e., against the IRs, SO and indicators related thereto). Less
attention may be given to the goals and objectives for PARDEM as there has been substantial
“water under the bridge” since it was designed in 1994 and the Mission’s democracy
program has necessarily operated on a “rolling” design basis since then.
Period of Time the Evaluation Will Cover
H:\INCOMING\Margo\Pdabs285.doc A-4
The team will evaluate three fiscal years of support for democracy in Peru: FYs 1997, 1998 and
1999. In order to make the link between past activities and the current selected sub-activities
that are to be evaluated, and to provide adequate context to the current interventions being
carried out, the evaluation team will review previous evaluations and case studies conducted
under the PARDEM and Alternative Development activities, including those of the:
GRADE civic education project (PARDEM)
CRS human rights project (PARDEM)
IFES elections support project (PARDEM)
IPEDEPH project (PARDEM/PARTICIPE)
Transparencia project (PARTICIPE) (in process, preliminary sections available)
Municipal Development Programs (Alternative Development Project)
The SO1 team will make these reports available to the evaluation team immediately upon
commencing work.
Sub-Activities to Evaluate
The evaluation will involve a review of the various approaches to democracy education and
awareness that the Mission has utilized through the following activities (the evaluation plan will
give relatively greater weight to those activities with asterisks as the SO1 team has less
information on their possible impacts – either because they are newer activities or employ newer
approaches, or because the connection between the activities and possible participation–related
behavioral changes are less obvious or direct):
4.1 IR1: More Effective National Institutions
- Public awareness activities on human rights conducted by the Office of the Human
Rights Ombudsman
- Dissemination of rights, legal education, and benefits of conciliation as an alternative
dispute resolution mechanism, provided through free legal assistance and conciliation
services (Ministry of Justice) *
4.2 IR2: Greater Access to Justice
- Public awareness and training in conciliation and conflict resolution (Chamber of
Commerce, IPRECON, APENAC) *
- Human rights awareness through the National Coordinator for Human Rights *
4.3 IR3: Local Governments That Respond to the Needs of Their Constituents
- Training on mechanisms for citizen participation through the Local Government
Development Program (implemented through the Alternative Development Strategic
Objective - the evaluation may be limited to a review of the latest project evaluation as
this activity is funded through another SO)
H:\INCOMING\Margo\Pdabs285.doc A-5
4.4 IR4: Citizens Better Prepared to Exercise Their Rights and Responsibilities
- Training of community leaders as human rights promoters (IPEDEHP)
- Promotion of women’s political participation (PROMUJER) *
- Voter education in rural areas (SER) *
- Democratic education and student participation in public schools (CIDE/TAREA)*
- Participation of youth in national life (FORO Nacional/Internacional) *
- Voter education and public awareness on electoral issues (Transparencia)
- Democracy education through provincial television programs (IDS) *
- Dissemination of results of citizens’ consensus visions for a future Peru (FORO
Nacional/Internacional) *
- Dissemination of results of the Task Forces program which developed consensus-based
policy recommendations in eight areas (Instituto APOYO)
Methodology
- This evaluation will be an external evaluation, but should be conducted in consultation
with USAID/Peru to ensure the team has the fullest possible background and contact
information. The key issues to be addressed by the evaluation should be developed in
consultation with the SO1 team during the evaluation team’s first visit to Peru. The
methodological instruments to be used should focus on obtaining information and
opinions from counterparts, beneficiaries and other donors. The team is free to conduct
complementary techniques for evaluating the selected sub-activities as surveys and focus
groups.
- The evaluation team may wish to consider starting its work with a paper review. This
would include a review of: 1) the Mission’s 1997-2001 democracy strategy; 2) the
democracy analysis document prepared by the SO1 team; 3) previous activity
evaluations; 4) the “Strategic Focus of the USAID/Peru Democracy Program for the 18-
Month Period Leading up to the Year 2000 Elections” document; and 5) current activity
designs, to understand the context for the review and determine where to place emphasis
on field visits and interviews. The SO1 team will provide these and any other documents
the evaluations team requests.
- Once the evaluation team determines which sub-activities and/or elements thereof to
focus on, it shall develop an agenda of interviews with project implementors, field
visits/interviews and focus groups with beneficiaries and events in process to attend, and
will review didactic materials from the selected sub-activities. The SO1 team will
facilitate these visits and interviews by providing:
- a list of key contacts per sub-activity for interviews, including
experts in various sub-sectors of democracy, activity coordinators, counterpart
organizations, donor organizations and direct and indirect beneficiaries.
- Suggested locations for field visits, i.e., areas where there is a high concentration
of sub-activities to be evaluated.
H:\INCOMING\Margo\Pdabs285.doc A-6
In addition, for each sub-activity to be evaluated, the team should consider:
a) evaluating a representative sample that facilitates generalized results
b) assessing field activities in at least three locations in addition to Lima to
facilitate identification of basic points of comparison and analysis. In the
interests of cost and overall effort, the team will select areas where the
selected sub-activities are concentrated.
Evaluation Type and Team Composition
6.1 Type of Evaluation
This evaluation is intended to be an external evaluation. Members of the SO1 team will serve as
resources, facilitators and coordinators to the extent that the evaluation team requires or desires
such assistance.
6.2. Profile and Composition of the Evaluation Team
Given the nature of the sub-activities to be evaluated, the evaluation team should include the
following skills/characteristics:
- The evaluation team should be comprised of four members (1 team leader, 2 mid-level
professionals, and 1 Jr. professional). At least one team member will have intimate, in￾depth and broad-based knowledge and experience with the political context and
democratic development of Peru over the last 15 years, gained through living and/or
working in Peru. It is also expected that one team member should have expertise in
evaluating gender issues as a programmatic focus.
- The team will have expertise in democracy, preferably with experience in conducting
evaluations in Peru, or at a minimum in other countries in Latin America.
- Team members will have the ability to interact with people from many different social
and economic backgrounds.
- All team members will have fluency in Spanish (FSI 4/4 or higher). The Team Leader
will be fluent in English.
- The team will have knowledge of USAID operations and methodology for achieving
results (managing for results, development of strategic frameworks with strategic
objectives, intermediate results and indicators).
Schedule for the Evaluation
The evaluation will take place over a period of 8 weeks, from January 17, 2000 to March 10,
2000.
7.1 Preparatory Phase (one week): January 17-23 (in U.S. or other home of record)
- Review and analysis of documents
H:\INCOMING\Margo\Pdabs285.doc A-7
- Development of draft evaluation plan
7.2 Investigation and Information Collection Phase (four weeks): January 24 – February 18
(in Peru)
- Review of draft evaluation plan with USAID/Peru, preparation of final plan
- Approval of evaluation plan by USAID/Peru
- Meeting with SO1 team to finalize list of key questions to be included in the evaluation
- Interviews with counterparts
- Field visits
- Meetings with other donors
- Meetings with key people in civil society and government
- De-briefing with the SO1 team and other Mission personnel to present preliminary
findings and conclusions
7.3 Synthesis Phase (10 days): February 19 – 29 (in U.S. or other home of record)
- Analysis of all information gathered in-country
- Preparation of the first draft of the report, including recommendations
- Submission of the first draft to USAID/Peru’s SO1 team (February 25)
- Selection and preparation of complementary information (annexes)
7.4 Presentation Phase (3 days): March 1 – March 3 (in Peru)
- Presentation of results and principle findings to USAID
- Roundtable discussion of the draft evaluation report with USAID and selected
counterparts or experts (in Spanish and English)
7.5 Final Phase (one week): March 4 – March 10 (in U.S. or other home of record)
- Revision of the final report to incorporate suggestions and recommendations from
USAID and its counterparts in Peru
- Submission/presentation of the final report to USAID/Peru (in English and in Spanish)
7.6 Principle Products and Tasks
- The contractor shall abide by all the tasks and time frames established in these Terms of
Reference, particularly in Section VIII “Schedule for Evaluation.” If for any reason the
contractor cannot comply with this schedule, the contractor will contact USAID/Peru
immediately to agree on a solution to resolve any issues or problems that may arise with
respect to the schedule of work.
- Content of the Final Report: In addition to the key findings related to the evaluation of
the selected sub-activities, the final report shall include an analysis of the effectiveness of
SO1’s efforts in democratic education and whether and how it has advanced the
Mission’s democracy objective in Peru. The final report shall include an executive
H:\INCOMING\Margo\Pdabs285.doc A-8
summary, a brief description of the methodology used in the evaluation, the body of the
report, and a listing of recommendations for the Mission’s follow-on democracy strategy.
- Presentation of the final report: The final written report will be presented in both English
and Spanish. The contractor shall provide the SO1 team with three copies of the report in
English and three copies in Spanish. The contractor shall also provide USAID/Peru with
a copy of the final report on a 3.5” diskette in Microsoft Word for Windows, Version 97.
Evaluation of USAIDPeru’s Democracy Education Activities 
Evaluation Plan 
I. Preaaratorv Phase (three days): January 19-26 (in U.S. & ’ 
+ Review and analysis of key documents 
+ Begin developing draft evaluation plan 
11. Investigation and Information Collection Phase in Peru (Jan.; 
1 
4Qn Lj - r-& jq 
+ Review/approval of evaluation plan by USAIDEeru ’> 
+ Meeting with SO1 team members to identify interviewees and field sites and 
+ Interviews with counterparts and other key informants 
+ Field work in three sites 
+ De-briefing with the SO1 team and other Mission personnel to present 
finalize questions 
preliminary findings, conclusions and recommendations 
The chronology of this phase is as follows: 
~~ 
Date 
ThurJan 27 
Friday 28 
9:OOam 
2:30pm 
Sat 29 
9:OOamJ 
1 : OOpm 
Afternoon 
Mon 31 
8:30am 
Event & Person to Visit 
US & Argentine team members arrive in Lima 
Team Planning Meeting (TPM) at Hotel Las Americas 
Entry briefing at USAIDFeru 
TPM at Hotel: 
Assign responsibilities by IR & counterparts 
Distribute documents for paper review, including: 
- Mission’s 1997-2001 democracy strategy 
- Democracy analysis doc. prepared by the SO1 team 
- Previous activity evaluations 
- Doc. On “Strategic Focus of USAIDE Dem. Prog. 
for 1 8-month Period Leading to 2000 Elections” 
- Current activity designs & relevant contracts 
Completion of evaluation plan and data collection 
instruments 
Work individually on respective components 
TPM at Hotel to verify status of preparations 
Responsible 
Goodin, Vegas, 
Guttmann, Mooney 
(full team) 
Full team 
Full team 
1O:OOam 
1 1 :OOam 
12noon 
2: 30pm 
3:30pm 
Tues. Feb 1 
9:ooam 
1 0: ooam 
1 1 :ooam 
2:OOpm 
Wed 2 
Thurs 3 
Friday 4 
Saturday 5 
9:ooam 
Afternoon 
Monday 7 
Tuesday 8 
Wed 9 
Thurs 10 
Friday 11 
Saturday 12 
Sunday 13 
3:30pm 
Monday 14 
Interview with Maria Antonieta Delgado at USAID 
Interview with Sobeida Gonzdez at USAID 
Interview with START team at USAID 
Interview with Violeta Bermtidez at USAID 
Meeting with Carrie Thompson for discussiodapproval 
of proposed evaluation plan, field sites & report outline 
Initiate scheduling of interviews & field trip logistics 
Interview with USAID Mission Director Tom Geiger 
Other interview(s) at USAID 
Initiate interviews with other key informants in Lima * 
Interviews in Lima 
Interviews in Lima 
Interviews in Lima 
TPM at Hotel 
Interviewddata collection in Lima 
Interviews in Lima 
Interviews in Lima 
Travel to Ayacucho 
Travel to Trujillo 
Field work in Ayacucho & Trujillo 
Continue field work 
Return to Lima 
TPM to discuss findings and begin shaping conclusions 
Resume data collection in Lima 
Travel to TarapotoLamas 
Data collection in Lima & TarapotoLamas 
Vegas 
Full team 
bb 
bb 
bb 
bb 
bb 
bb 
Soodin, Mooney 
Suttmann, 
Goodin, Mooney, 
Guttmann bb 
bb 
Full team 
Goodin, Mooney 
Guttmann 
Full team 
Tuesday 15 
Wed 16 
Thurs 17 
Friday 18 
9:OOam 
3:30pm 
Saturday 19 
Monday 21 
9:OOam/ 
5:OOpm 
Tuesday 22 
Notes: 
1. Durir 
with 1 
Return from TarapotoLamas 
Drafting & TPM to agree on preliminary findings, 
conclusions & recommendations; prepare for de￾briefing & report drafting 
TPM to agree on preliminary results & de-briefing 
preparations 
Final preparations for de-briefing & departure 
De-briefing with the SO1 team and other Mission 
personnel to present preliminary findings, conclusions 
& recommendations & elicit comments 
Departures from Peru 
Prepare Assessment Team TPM & work on draft report 
Facilitate Assessment Team TF" 
Morning departure from Peru 
Guttmann 
Full team 
66 
66 
66 
Mooney & Guttmann 
Goodin 
Goodin 
Goodin 
the course of this evaluation, it is our intention to maintain regular contact 
5 SO1 team, consulting on any outstanding issues or questions and keeping 
the COTR informed of progress. 
2. While all team members will participate in initial meetings with the SO1 team and 
interviews with critically-important informants, in order to ensure the broadest 
possible coverage, individual team members will take lead responsible for the 
specific sub-activitiedcounterparts selected. 
3. While members of the MSI team will meet frequently (even daily) on an informal 
basis, more formal TPMs are built into the evaluation plan to permit in-depth 
sharing of information and impressions related to the objectives of the evaluation. 
Thus, during the final debriefing with USAID on February 18, the team will be in 
a position to present a concise outline of preliminary findings, conclusions and 
recommendations and seek initial reactiondcomments from those in attendance. 
Those comments will then be taken into account when preparing the draft 
evaluation report. 
4. Where possible, individual interviews will be supplemented by discussions/focus 
group interviews with sub-activity beneficiaries, as well as on-site observations of 
activities in progress. 
~~ 
* Interviews are contemplated with representatives of the following sub-activities: 
Subject 
IR1: More Effective 
National Institutions 
IR2: Greater Access 
to Justice 
IR3: Local Govt. 
IR4: Citizens Better 
Prepared 
TOTALS 
Organization # of Inter. 
1. Ministry of Justice Rep.; Unit Chief 2 
1. Chara de Comercio (Pres.& Area) 2 
2. IPRECON (Director & group) 
3. APENAC " 
1 
4. CNDDHH (Director & Area) 2 
1 
5. Defensor del Pueblo 1 
(Review latest project evaluation) 0 
1. PROMUJER (each NGO) 4 
2. SER 1 
3. CIDE 1 
4. TAREA 1 
5. Foro NacionaYIntemacional 1 
6. IDS 1 
66 
12 Sub-Activity Organizations 18 Intervs. 
Respon. 
MG 
MG 
66 
66 
JGLM 
JG 
JG 
LM 
LM 
LM 
JGLM 
JGLM 
&< 
In addition to above counterparts and individuals recommended by the SO1 team, 
evaluators will collect information from other relevant organizations and donors, 
including: 
1. 
2. 
3. 
4. 
5. 
6. 
7. 
8. 
9. 
111. 
USAID Assessment Team members present in Lima 
Transparencia 
APOYO 
IPEDEHP 
IDL 
World Bank 
IDB 
GTZ 
European Community 
Synthesis Phase: February 23-March 10 (at home base) 
+ Analysis of all information gathered in-country 
+ Preparation of draft evaluation report 
+ Submission of draft report tu USIDPeru's SO1 team (March 8) 
+ Selection and preparation of complementary information (annexes) 
IV. Presentation Phase: 3 days between March 12-16 (in Peru) 
+ Presentation of draft report to USAIDPeru 
+ Roundtable discussion of the draft report with USAID and selected 
counterparts or experts (in Spanish and English) 
V. Final Phase: 1 week between March 17-30 (in U.S.) 
+ Revision of the draft to incorporate suggestions and recommendations from 
+ Submission of the final report to USAIDPeru (in English and Spanish) 
USAIDPeru 
H:\INCOMING\Margo\Pdabs285.doc
ANNEX B:
Documents Reviewed
H:\INCOMING\Margo\Pdabs285.doc B-1
DOCUMENTS REVIEWED
USAID/Peru
The Democratic Process in Peru, 1992-1997, Office of Democratic Initiatives, 2/5/98.
Results Review and Resources Request (R4), March 12, 1999.
R4 Documentation and FY2001 Indicator Data for Peru, Internet, January 5, 2000.
Proposed Country Strategic Plan for Peru, Drafted 1996.
USAID/Peru Democracy Summary of Activities, Strategic Objective No. 1, August 1998.
Strategic Focus of the USAID/Peru Democracy Program for the 18 Month Period
Leading up to the Years 2000 Elections (10/98-4/00), December 1998.
Team Charter, Strategic Objective No. 1 “Broader Citizen Participation in Democratic
 Processes."
SO1 Results Framework.
Action Memorandum for the Mission Director from Madeline Williams, Acting Chief
SO#1 re Approval of New Citizen Participation and Access to Justice
“PARTICIPE” Activity, April 8, 1999.
PARTICIPE Results, Indicators and Targets for SO1.
Performance Monitoring Plan SO1 and Related Intermediate Results.
USAID Performance Monitoring System for the Country Development Strategy for Peru FY 1997
– FY 2001, Sept. 1997.
Local Government Development Project, Evaluation Report, February 1998.
Experiencia Municipal y Asociacionismo en la Región San Martín, Información
Adicional Trabajada en la Pasantía.
Mid-Term Evaluation Report; Cooperative Agreement GRADE-USAID; Sept. 8, 1997.
Project Evaluation “Justice and Peace Promotion in Peru;” (CRS/Peru-USAID),
 October 1997.
Final Evaluation of IFES/Electoral Assistance Component; Development Associates Inc.,
November 1997.
Elementos para el Desarrollo de las Ciudades Intermedias en Apoyo a la Lucha Contra
 Pobreza Extrema, Borrador Final del Documento, 1997.
Proyecto PRA, Una Visión Empresarial al Servicio del Desarrollo, brochure.
Peruvian Government
Defensoría del Pueblo:
Resumen Ejecutivo del Segundo Informe del Defensor del Pueblo al Congreso de la República,
April 1998-April 1999.
Sobre Género, Derecho y Discriminación, August 1999.
Ley del Servicio Militar, Hacia un Modelo Voluntario, October 1999.
Debido Proceso y Administración Estatal, September 1999.
Voces newsletter, Sept. & Nov. 1999.
Kit containing books and brochures related to women’s rights.
INFORME: Defensoría del Pueblo y Gobiernos Locales, Encuentro con los Alcaldes de la
Región La Libertad Huamachuco 1999.
Evaluación, Defensoría del Pueblo, Agencia Canadiense para el Desarrollo Internacional, 1999.
H:\INCOMING\Margo\Pdabs285.doc B-2
Ministry of Justice:
Limited Scope Grant Agreement Between USAID and the Government of Peru through the
Ministry of Justice, July 31, 1997 (Phase I) and Sept. 28, 1998 (Phase II); Amendment One,
March 2, 1998.
Legislación Sobre Conciliación, Ministerio de Justicia, Dirección Nacional de Asuntos Jurídicos,
Noviembre 1998 (Edición Oficial).
Colegio de Abogados de Lima, Director Ejecutivo Proyecto MINJUS-AID, 2 de Octubre de
1997.
Informe Narrativo, Proyecto de Fortalecimiento de Consultorios Jurídicos Populares en Lima y
Callao (Julio–Diciembre 1997); Director Ejecutivo Proyecto MINJUS–AID, 21 de Enero de
1998.
Informe sobre los Cursos de Conciliación Gratuita, Proyecto MINJUS–USAID (Fase II), 26 de
Agosto de 1999.
Información Estadística de los Consultorios Jurídicos Populares, Centros de Conciliación y
Línea de Orientación Legal, Oficina General de Economía y Desarrollo, Marzo, Octubre,
Noviembre y Diciembre de 1999.
Informes, Gráficas, y Resúmenes de Estadístcos Sobre Capacitación, Conciliación, Juzgados,
Jueces de Paz, Casos, etc., varias fechas.
Informe Final Proyecto MINJUS–USAID (Fase I), Mayo de 1999; Resolución Ministerial, 17 de
Mayo de 1999.
Resolución de Secretaría General, 20 de Octubre de 1998, 6 de Noviembre de 1998. Resolución
Suprema; Presidente Constitucional de la República, 24 de Octubre de 1998.
Actas de Conciliación con Acuerdo Total, (varios, Noviembre 1999-Enero 2000), Centro de
Conciliación Gratuita del Ministerio de Justicia (Trujillo).
Estadística Trimestral Detallada del Centro de Conciliación de Trujillo Correspondiente al Mes
de Agosto–Octubre de 1999, Noviembre–Diciembre 1999 y Enero 2000.
Solicitudes de Conciliación del Año 2000 (Trujillo).
Plan de Trabajo.
Hoja Sumaria del Servicio Jurídico Consultorio Jurídico Popular de Trujillo, Diciembre–Enero
2000, Centro de Conciliación y Consultorio Jurídico Popular de Trujillo.
Informe Final del Proyecto Fortalecimiento de Consultorios Jurídicos Gratuitos.
Imagen: Boletín Informativo, Enero-Marzo 1998, Enero–Febrero 1999; various brochures and
posters.
USAID Counterpart Organizations
AMRESAM - Asociación de Municipalidades de la Región San Martín:
Plan de Capacitación 1999.
Experiencia Municipal y Asociacionismo en la Región San Martín: Información Adicional
Trabajada en la Pasantía.
Plan de Capacitación 1999; Tantanakuna (Revista de AMRESAM), Febrero de 1999.
APENAC - Asociación Peruana de Negociación, Arbitraje y Conciliación:
USAID Grant, July 31, 1998; Modification Number One, Sept. 24, 1999.
H:\INCOMING\Margo\Pdabs285.doc B-3
Informes Trimestrales y otros (sobre talleres, jornadas, viajes, modificaciones al proyecto, etc.),
Diagnósticos, Evaluaciones, Formatos, Fichas, Cuadros Estadísticos, Planes Operativo y de
Trabajo, Cronogramas, Manuales, Fotografías.
Informe Final y Resúmen de Seguimiento de (Previo) Proyecto del Banco Interamericano de
Desarrollo, etc., 1998–2000.
Proyecto para Promover los Mecanismos Alternativos de Solución de Conflictos en el Valle del
Río Apurimac-ENE y las Ciudades de Huamanga y Tarapoto 1998–2000, Resultados de Avance
del Proyecto Agosto 1998-Enero 2000; Resolución Ministerial, Lima, February 17, 1999.
Ayacucho contribuye a la Conciliación Nacional, articulo preparado por el Dr. Eduardo Moane
Drago, Presidente.
La Conciliación: A propósito del Centro de Conciliación de Ayacucho, artículo periodístico
publicado por El Peruano, Lima, 12 de marzo de 1998; various articles & news clippings.
CALANDRIA – Asociación de Comunicadores Sociales Calandria:
Campaña “De igual a igual…” brochure.
Escuela de Formación de Lideresas, Ciudadanas de Primera, various pamphlets.
Cámara de Comercio de Lima:
USAID Grant, Sept. 23, 1998; Modification Number One, August 27, 1999.
Informe de las Actividades del Centro de Conciliación y Arbitraje y del Centro de Formación y
Capacitación de Conciliadores, 1998.
Informes Trimestrales, Enero–Marzo 1999, Julio–Setiembre 1999.
Documento de Trabajo, 1999.
Informe del Proyecto USAID-Cámara de Comercio de Lima, Enero–Diciembre 1999, 1 de
Febrero de 2000.
CARE/Perú:
Análisis Situacional de la Educación de las Niñas en Ayacucho: Resumen Ejecutivo, March
1999.
Red Nacional de Educación de la Niña, brochures.
CEDEP - Centro de Estudios para el Desarrollo y la Participación:
Memoria 1998.
Reforma del Estado: Debate y alernativas, December 1996.
En Carhuaz, las mujeres Sí podemos; Cómo se administra una municipalidad? (PROMUJER
election kit), 1999.
Socialismo y Participación Nos. 82, 85, 86, anthologies, September 1998, August 1999,
December 1999.
CESIP - Centro de Estudios Sociales y Publicaciones:
Municipios con Rostro de Mujer, newsletter, year 1, No. 1 & 2.
Es Tiempo de Mujeres, May 1999; kit with various brochures & seminar kit on Promoción de la
Participación Política de Mujeres en los Gobienos Municipales.
CIDE - Centro de Investigación y Desarrollo de la Educación:
H:\INCOMING\Margo\Pdabs285.doc B-4
USAID/Peru notification of award (and attachments), September 16 1998, for project titled
Educación Democrática y Participación Estudiantil en Escuelas Públicas; Entidades Ejecutoras
CIDE, EDUCALTER, TAREA, 12 de Agosto de 1998.
Convenio USAID-CIDE/TAREA (presentación general del programa), enero 2000.
Resúmenes de Informes Trimestrales de Avance, Septiembre/Noviembre 1998, Diciembre
1998/Febrero 1999, Marzo/Mayo 1999, Septiembre/Noviembre 1999.
Memo explicativo de resultados obtenidos por CIDE para USAID/Perú-Portfolio Review, 3 de
Noviembre de 1999.
Plan Programático 1999.
Memo sobre logros alcanzados al concluir el primer año de trabajo, enero 2000.
Memo Resumen Avances del Proyecto (información cuantitativa/cualitativa).
Publicación Educación Democrática, Hojas Informativas Nos. 1-10.
CNDDHH - Coordinadora Nacional de Derechos Humanos:
USAID Grant, August 14, 1998; Modification No. 1, August 1999.
Informe Annual 1998.
Análisis de la Poblemática de la Tortura en el Perú, October 1999.
Informe sobre el Diagnóstico Institucional, July 1999.
Proceso de desarrollo institucional (various papers). 
Organismos Miembros (list).
ESAN - Escuela de Administración de Negocios para Graduados:
Proyecto Desarrollo de Gobiernos Locales, Fortalecimiento Institucional, Informe Trimestral del
1 de octubre al 31 de diciembre de 1999.
FORO Nacional/Internacional:
USAID Grant, September 13, 1996.
Perú: agenda y estrategia para el siglo 21, Informe Final del Proyecto Agenda: Perú, January
2000.
Documento para Estudiar, Guardar y Consultar, April 1998.
Gobernar en Democracia Agenda y Desafío, August 11, 1994.
Jóvenes construyendo ciudadanía, Cajamarca workshop, August 26-28, 1999.
El Experto, el Ciudadano y la Gobernabilidad Democrática: El Enfoque Metodológico de
AGENDA: Perú, March 1997.
Qué Hacer con el Sistema Judicial?, October 1999.
Democracia y Buen Gobierno, October 1999.
Reforma del Estado en el Perú, October 1999.
Simposio y coloquio sobre sociedad civil, juventud y participación política, October 1999.
Equidad, Integración Social y Desarrollo, November 1999.
Visión del Perú: Historia y Perspectivas, September 1999.
Pobreza, Exclusión y Política Social, March 1997.
Desarrollo Sustentable en el Perú, October 1999.
Políticas Ambientales en el Perú, October 1999.
Los jóvenes a la obra?: juventud y participación política, November 1999.
Imaginemos un Perú Mejor, November 1999.
H:\INCOMING\Margo\Pdabs285.doc B-5
IDL – Instituto de Defensa Legal:
Informe de Actividades Proyecto Solución de agenda pendiente en torno a inocentes acusados
por error de terrorismo o traición a la patria, aprovechando lo avanzado, Convenio AID-IDL; 1
de abril de 1999-31 de junio de 1999, 1 de julio 1999-30 de septiembre de 1999, 1 de octubre de
1999-31 de diciembre de 1999.
Para construir la democracia: Manual para autoridades y lideres comunitarios, Serie: materiales
para la educación ciudadana, Lima 1999.
Aprendiendo a educar: texto autoformativo del promotor de derechos humanos; Serie: materiales
para la educación ciudadana, Lima mayo de 1999.
Ciudadanos del campo: Textos, ejercicios y relatos para afirmar la democracia.
Justicia de Paz: El Otro Poder Judicial, Lima, abril de 1999.
Civil Society assistance programs in Peru: Reflections from experience, Carlos Basombrío
Iglesias, unpublished draft.
Administración de Justicia y Terrorismo: En nombre de los Inocentes - Una experiencia exitosa
de derechos humanos, documento elaborado para el Seminario Internacional En camino al siglo
XXI, desafíos y estrategias de la comunidad latinoamericana de derechos humanos, Lima, 23 y
24 de julio de 1999.
IDEELE, Revista Nos. 106, abril de 1998; 122, septiembre-octubre de 1999; 123, noviembre de
1999; 124, diciembre 1999-enero 2000; 125, febrero de 2000.
Alerta, No. 3, 16 de febrero del 2000.
IDS - Instituto de Diálogo y Propuestas:
USAID Grant, July 22, 1999.
Cuestión de Estado, magazine, Nos. 24 & 25.
Democracia Ayer y Hoy, Taller de Capacitación para una Televisión Ciudadana, Dec. 2-6, 1999,
workshop kit & photo album.
Democracia Ayer y Hoy, Guía de Apoyo para el Conductor (Tema 1-5) & press kit.
Instituto APOYO:
USAID Grant, September 17, 1999.
Agenda for the First Decade/Task Forces, Activities Report & 8 Task Force reports, January
2000.
IPEDEHP - Instituto Peruano de Educación en Derechos Humanos y la Paz:
Informe: Avances del Proyecto Formación de Líderes Sociales para la Promoción de los
Derechos Humanos, la Democracia y la Participación Ciudadana, 1999.
IPRECON – Instituto Peruano de Resolución de Conflictos, Negociación y Mediación: USAID
Grant, Sept. 16, 1998.
Plan de Trabajo; Informe de Actividades (Enero–Junio 1999), 22 de Julio de 1999.
Estadísticas Anuales Sobre Centros de Conciliación (1999), Febrero de 2000.
Informe Final Proyecto: Capacitación para la Conformación de Centros de Conciliación, 17 de
Enero de 2000.
Iván Ormachea, Análisis de la Ley de Conciliación Extrajudicial, Noviembre de 1998 (Segunda
Edición).
Iván Ormachea Choque, Manual de Conciliación, 1999.
H:\INCOMING\Margo\Pdabs285.doc B-6
MMR - Movimiento Manuela Ramos.
USAID Grant for PROMUJER, June 26, 1998; Modification No. 1, June 28, 1999. Plataforma
de Acción por las Mujeres: Una Propuesta, January 2000.
PRODEMU - Asociación Promocion y Desarrollo de la Mujer, Tarapoto:
Flor Angulo Tuesta y Yolanda Rojas Vargas, Conciliación Extrajudicial, 1997.
Dolly Arévalo Bartra y Flor Angulo Tuesta, Manual del Defensor Comunal Conciliador, Mayo
de 1998.
PRODEMU/APENAC Tarapoto: Plan Operativo 1999–2000.
Información Estadística de los Casos Atendidos por el Centro de Conciliación de PRODEMU￾Tarapoto (10/25/99–1/28/00) y la Defensoría (8/2/99–10/22/99).
Informe de las Actividades Realizadas en la Defensoría de PRODEMU, Correspondiente a los
Meses de Noviembre, Diciembre ’99 y Enero 2000.
SER – Servicios Educativos Rurales:
USAID/Peru notification of award (and attachments), July 31, 1998; Modification of Grant,
August 27 1999.
Informe Narrativo del desarrollo del Proyecto: Educación Electoral y Ciudadana, 1998-1999,
Convenio SER-USAID.
Informe provisorio (dos páginas) presentado via e-mail sobre estado de avance del proyecto
SER-USAID, 15 de Febrero del 2000.
Mandatario Significa Mandado, y Para Votar Bien, folletos del promotor electoral, elecciones
generales 2000.
La pirámide invertida, Proyecto Educación Electoral y Ciudadana 1998-1999.
Memoria de la Asociación SER.
La mujer y su vida en el campo, Febrero 2000.
Revista Andenes No. 104, Agosto 1999.
Nuestra organización y el trabajo de las dirigentas, folleto de reflexión sobre el trabajo de
FEDECMA, Ayacucho.
Buen Alcalde, Buen Candidato: Liderazgo Positivo, trabajo en equipos y participación en la
comunidad.
Intervención, Boletín de la Red de Intervención Ciudadana, No. 8, Diciembre de 1999; No. 4,
Marzo/Abril 1999; No. 5, Mayo 1999; No. 6 y 7, Septiembre 1999.
Video El Poder de la Gente.
CD SAQRA, Manuelcha Prado y el proyecto Kavilando.
TAREA - Asociación de Publicaciones Educativas:
Proyecto Educación Democrática y Participación Estudiantil en Escuelas Públicas
(presentación general del programa); Fundamentación del programa con matriz de indicadores
del proyecto, enero de 2000.
Informe Trimestral de Avance de TAREA a USAID/Perú, 18 de enero 2000.
Información sobre ejecución presupuestaria y cronograma de desembolsos CIDE-USAID/Perú,
Septiembre 1998-agosto 1999; septiembre 1999-agosto 2000.
Memo explicativo de resultados obtenidos por TAREA para USAID/Perú Portfolio Review, 10 de
diciembre de 1999.
H:\INCOMING\Margo\Pdabs285.doc B-7
Información sobre resultados, ejecución programática y actividades, Septiembre 1998-agosto
1999; septiembre 1999-agosto 2000.
Revista de Educación y Cultura No. 44, septiembre 1999.
Revista Perfiles para el Desarrolo Educativo Local No. 10, julio 1999; No. 9, noviembre 1999;
No. 8, abril 1997.
Encuentro de Líderes del Municipio Escolar, folleto explicativo, 11 de diciembre de 1999.
Transparencia - Asociación Civil Transparencia:
USAID Grant, July 22, 1999.
Manual de Gestión Municipal, 1999.
Plan de Trabajo al 2000.
Letter to the Jurado Nacional de Elecciones from Luís Jaime Cisneros regarding the
inconstitutionality of the presidential re-election, December 28, 1999.
Ten Guidelines for Free and Fair Elections.
Datos Electorales newsletter Nos. 8-20.
Primer Borrador, Proyecto Transparencia en el Fortalecimiento de la Democracia en el Perú
(septiembre 2000-agosto 2002).
Other Organizations
AIBAD: Bases del Programa de Implementación de la Ley de Conciliación Extrajudicial, Junio
de 1999.
CAJ - Comisión Andina de Juristas: Manual de Capacitación en Justicia de Paz, October 1999.
European Union (Peru Delegation): Un Compromiso Solidario, Diciembre de 1999 (Primera
Edición).
FIDH - Federación Internacional de Derechos Humanos: Informe de la Misión de Observación
Electoral a Perú, February 14, 2000.
Foro Educativo: La hora de la sociedad civil, La experiencia peruana de participación en
políticas educativas, 1998; Educación y Ciudadanía: Propuestas de Política, 1997.
GIIDA: Actores Sociales y Ciudadanía en Ayacucho, February 1999.
IDB - Inter-American Development Bank: Peru: Improving Access to the Justice System,
approved Nov. 25, 1997.
IPAZ - Instituto de Investigación y Promoción del Desarrollo y Paz en Ayacucho: various
brochures & kit titled Derecho a la Justicia en Consejos Escolares Andinos; Creatividad y
Administración de Justicia.
NDI – National Democratic Institute: Findings of the First NDI/Carter Center pre-election
assessment trip to Peru, November 28-December 3, 1999.
H:\INCOMING\Margo\Pdabs285.doc B-8
PACT/Peru: Programa de Capacitación para ONGs, brochure, 1998.
World Bank: Peru Judicial Reform Project, Oct. 27, 1997 (Staff Appraisal Report); Enlaces
(Lima Office), Diciembre de 1999; miscellaneous press releases.
Other Documents
Bernbaum, Marcia; Weaving Ties of Friendship, Trust, and Commitment to Build Democracy
and Human Rights in Peru; Case Study of the Peruvian Institute for Education in Human Rights
and Peace (IPEDEHP), February 1999.
Contact Peru, magazine of The American Chamber of Commerce of Peru, Vol. 5 No. 1
January/February 2000.
Sanborn, Cynthia A., et al; Peru, Chapter 23 of Global Civil Society: Dimensions of the
Nonprofit Sector by Lester M. Salamon, et al; Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Center for Civil Society
Studies, 1999.
Sanborn, Cynthia A.; Philanthropy and Corporate Social Responsibility in Peru, paper prepared
for a workshop at Harvard University on November 23, 1998.
H:\INCOMING\Margo\Pdabs285.doc
ANNEX C:
Persons Interviewed
H:\INCOMING\Margo\Pdabs285.doc C-1
PERSONS INTERVIEWED
USAID/Peru
Thomas L. Geiger, Director
Carrie Thompson, Chief, Office of Democratic Initiatives (ODI)
María Antonieta Delgado, Activity Manager, ODI
Violeta Bermúdez, Activity Manager, ODI
Sobeida Gonzales, Activity Manager, ODI
Maruja Novoa, Program Assistant, ODI
Cecilia Velasco, Program Assistant, ODI
Teresa Pfeiffer, Program Assistant, ODI
Tom Kellermann, Chief Program and Project Development Office
Miriam Choy, Program Specialist, Strategic Analysis & Results Team (START)
Rosa María Chávez, Program Specialist, START
Esaú Hidalgo Murrieta, Office of Local Government & Alternative Development
Peter Deinken, Coordinator, Alternative Development
David L. Bayer, Deputy Executive Officer
Kristin Langlykke, Coordinator, Girls’ Education Project, Office of Health, Population
 and Nutrition
Allen Eisenberg, Regional Contracts Officer
Martin Fischer, Adquisition & Assistance Specialist
Peruvian Government
Defensoría del Pueblo:
Jorge Santistevan, Defensor del Pueblo
Rocío Villanueva Flores, Defensora Especializada en los Derechos de la Mujer
Yolanda Falcón Lizaraso, Representante del Defensor del Pueblo en Trujillo
Eliana Revollar Añaños, Representante del Defensor del Pueblo en Ayacucho
Ministerio de Justicia:
Natalia Ceballos Ríos, Directora Ejecutiva, Proyecto MINJUS-USAID
Marco Antonio Moreno Gálvez, Jefe del Consultorio Jurídico Popular de Trujillo; Silvia
Gutierrez Quesada, Conciliadora Extrajudicial del Consultorio Jurídico Popular de Trujillo
Municipalidad Distrital de Huanchaco; Trujillo: Fernando Bazán Pinillos, Alcalde; Jone
Purizaga Chuyes, Regidora
Municipalidad Provincial de San Martín; Tarapoto: Marina Aguilar Zamora de Arévalo,
Alcaldesa; Lily Tavera Pinto, Regidora; Belén Reátegui Valles, Jefa de la División del Programa
del Vaso de Leche
H:\INCOMING\Margo\Pdabs285.doc C-2
Provincia de Julcán; Trujillo: Maribel Nery Mozo, Regidora de Educación, Cultura, Deportes,
Espectaculares, y Turismo
Provincia de Julcán, Distrito de Carabamba; Trujillo: Rosa Brisenio Rodríguez, Regidora
Peruvian Organizations
AMRESAM – Asociación de Municipalidades de la Región de San Martín, Tarapoto: Consuelo
Rivero Ruíz de Tuesta, Secretaria Ejecutiva; Irma Hidalgo, Integrante del Comité de
Capacitación
APENAC – Asociación Peruana de Negociación, Arbitraje y Conciliación: Eduardo Moane
Drago, Presidente; Gabriela Goñi, Coordinadora de Proyectos; Angela María Elorrieta,
Consultora; César Arce and Coordinator of the Ayacucho Conciliation Center
Asociación de Comunicadores Sociales Calandria: Rosa María Alfaro, Co-Directora del
Departamento de Investigación; Mirtha Correa Alamo, Directora Programa de Género; Tatiana
Acurio Cáceres, Responsible de Proyectos – Programa Género
Cámara de Comercio de Lima, Centro de Conciliación y Arbitraje Nacional e Internacional:
Franz Kundmuller Caminiti, Secretario General; Carlos Ruska Maguiña, Coordinador General
Proyecto USAID
CARE: Emilio Laynes Luján, Representante Proyecto Nuevos Horizontes para la Educación de
las Niñas Regional Syscucho
CESIP – Centro de Estudios Sociales y Publicaciones: Ana Vásquez, Directora; Ana María
Miranda, Coordinadora, PROMUJER
CEDEP - Centro de Estudios para el Desarrollo y la Participación: Félix Wong Carpio,
Presidente del Consejo Directivo; Emma Zevallos Aguilar, Coordinadora, PROMUJER
CIDE – Centro de Investigación y Desarrollo de la Educación: Sheila Mogrovejo, Directora;
Elizabeth Moscoso, Capacitación/Coordinadora Actividades de Ayacucho; Elvira Atrogneo,
Contadora; Pepe Rentegui, Desarrollo de Materiales; Amelia Valdez, Educadora; Carlos
Moreyra, Colegio Estatal Gonzalez Gil-Huanta; Wilfredo Mesias, Escuela Castillo; Edgardo
Pino; Escuela 19 de Ayacucho; Jaime Gimenez; Escuela 9 de Diciembre de Ayacucho; Rosa
Perez, Colegio Los Licenciados de Ayacucho; y una profesora de Huamanguilla; Proyecto
Educación Democrática en Escuelas: Focus Group en Huanta con: Director de la USE local, 6
maestros de 6 escuelas y 2 representantes de CIDE (Elisabeth Moscoso y Amelia Valdez)
CNDDHH – Coordinadora Nacional de Derechos Humanos: Miguel Herta Barrón, Adjunto de la
Secretaría Ejecutiva; Esther Cárdenas, Area de Desarrollo Institucional
H:\INCOMING\Margo\Pdabs285.doc C-3
Compañia de Radiofusión Cordillerana, Ayacucho: Migues Baez de la Cruz, Socio; Luís
Ledesma, Conductor; William Sandoval, Monitor de Transparencia
FEDECMA - Federación de Clubes de Madres de Ayacucho: Vilma Ortega, Presidente;
Margarita Soto, Vice Presidente
Foro Cívico/Foro Por Cable (Casa Grande Televisión), Casa Grande: María del Pilar Uzátegui
Perea, Administradora; Luís García Heras, Conductor; Eduardo Francisco Guevara Córdova,
Conductor; Osvaldo Moreno Cuzco, Publicista; Bárbara Méndez Cotrina, Publicista; Andrea
Llanos Ríos, Asistente.
FORO Nacional/Internacional: Francisco Sagasti, President & Co-Coordinator Agenda: Perú;
Jorge Chávez, Investigador Asociado; Agenda: Perú/Foro Juventud: Efrain Quicaña y Otoniel
Sullca en Ayacucho y Luís Ezeta Uceda y Blanca Ganoza Grey en Trujillo
Instituto APOYO: Gabriel Ortíz de Zevallos, Executive Director; Alejandro Salas, Project
Coordinator; Giuliana Scerpella, Project Manager
IDL – Instituto de Defensa Legal: Ernesto de la Jara, Director; Carlos Basombrío Iglesias, Sub￾Director
IDS - Instituto de Diálogo y Propuestas: Percy Medina Masías, Executive Director; Carlos
Cárdenas Tovar, Project Coordinator, TV Cultura; Katherine Sanabria, TV Cultura
IPAZ - Instituto de Investigación y Promoción del Desarrollo y Paz en Ayacucho: José Coronel
Aguirre, Presidente; Noemí Cabana, Area Mujer y Niño; Roberto Códoba, Area Legal; José
Inostroza, Coordinador, Red de Promotores de Derechos Humanos
IPEDEHP - Instituto Peruano de Educación en Derechos Humanos y la Paz: Rosa María Mujica
Barreda,
IPRECON – Instituto Peruano de Resolución de Conflictos, Negociación y Mediación: Iván
Ormachea Choque, Presidente del Consejo Directivo; Gustavo Moreno Hermoza, Consultor en
Negociación y Conciliación, Psicólogo; Universidad Privada Antenor Orrego/Centro de
Conciliación de IPRECON en Trujillo: Mario Torres Mendoza, Secretario del Consultorio
Jurídico y Centro de Conciliación de la Facultad de Derecho
Micaela Bastidas Centro de Promoción de la Mujer, Trujillo: Carmela Pérez Herrera, Directora;
Lidia Carrión Melgarejo, Programa Municipios Escolares
MMR - Movimiento Manuela Ramos: Ana María Yañez, Coordinadora General, PROMUJER;
Lisbeth Guillén, Coordinadora General Adjunta, PROMUJER; Janeth Espinoza Feria,
Coordinadora Regional de Reprosalud, Trujillo; Focus Group en Ayacucho con Celina Salcedo,
Coordinadora de Reprosalud y 3 regidoras: Melialuz Quindanilla Melgar (Huamanga), Elizabeth
Alarcón Alacope (Cangallo) and Rosa Gutiérrez Palomino (Huanta)
H:\INCOMING\Margo\Pdabs285.doc C-4
PRODEMU – Asociación Promoción y Desarrollo de la Mujer/APENAC, Tarapoto: Dolly
Arévalo Bartra, Conciliadora; Mercedes Toledo Soldevilla, Psicóloga/ Conciliadora; Lloy Mery
Ríos Rios, Obstetrica; Defensoría de la Mujer, el Niño y la Familia/APENAC, Lamas: Manuela
Amasifuén Sangama, Conciliadora; Robinson Shupingahua Amasifuén, Conciliador; Domitila
Piña Salas, Conciliadora
SER – Servicios Educativos Rurales: Fernando Romero, President; Sandro Venturo,
Coordinador de Programas; Iván Caro, Responsible del Proyecto de Educación Electoral y
Ciudadana en Ayacucho
TAREA – Asociación de Publicaciones Educativas: Marita Palacios, Presidenta Consejo
Directivo; Estela González, Coordinadora Area Educación Ciudadana; Pablo Flor, Promotor;
Gonzalo Espino, Promotor/Publicación Perfiles; Magali Mora, Evaluación del Proyecto;
Jacobo Alvarez, Promotor; Eduardo Leon, Propuesta Pedagógica de Diversificación
Curricular/Ayacucho; Gerardo Soto, Concertación Municipios Escolares/ Autoridades Locales;
Jose Luís Carbajo, Miembro Consejo Directivo/Coordinador Actividades Ayacucho; Dario
Ugarte, Programa de Capacitación/Elaboración de Materiales; Focus Group en Huanta con:
Alicia Cisneros, Coordinadora del proyecto en Huamanga; Coordinadora del proyecto de
Huanta; 4 estudiantes: Rene Boitello, Alcaldesa Municipio Escolar Colegio Jose Sanchez
Carrio, Huamanga; Iuliana Espinosa Muñoz, Alcaldesa Municipio Escolar San Juan de la
Frontera, Huanta; Cesar Augusto Medina, Regidor Municipio Escolar San Juan de la Frontera,
Huanta, y Alcaldesa del Colegio María Auxiliadora, Huanta
Transparencia: Rafael Roncogliolo, Secretario General; José Estremadoyro, Gerente General
TV SAM (Televisión San Martín), Tarapoto: Hugo Azáldegui Gómez, Gerente de Promoción;
Santiago Uzátegui Perea, Gerente Administrativo
Other Organizations & Individuals
Asociación Pro Derechos Humanos: Manuel Boluarte Carbajal, Area de Comunicaciones
European Union: Margarita Migallon Corella, Agregada de Cooperación, Delegación de la
Comisión Europea en Perú
GTZ: Peter Luhmann, Director, Agencia de la GTZ en Lima
Inter-American Development Bank: Hugo Flórez Timoran, Especialista Sectorial Nacional
PACT: Judy Schroeder, Director
World Bank: Pierre Werbrouck, Representante Residente en el Perú; Elizabeth Dasso,
Especialista en Sociedad Civil y Desarrollo Social
Cynthia Sanborn, Universidad del Pacífico, Democracy Assessment Team Leader
Francisco Eguigueren, Consultant, Democracy Assessment Team Member