Looking Back and Looking Forward: Iraq Community Action Program (ICAP) Evaluation IBTCI Consortium Building on Transition Iraq Civil Society Program (ICSP) Evaluation Final Report – Consolidated Annexes May 24, 2007 This publication was produced for review by the United States Agency for International Development. It was prepared by Kathleen Webb and Stark Biddle, with sample design and statistical analysis by Robert Torene and Harvey Herr, of International Business & Technical Consultants, Inc. ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium Iraq Civil Society Program (ICSP) Evaluation Final Report - Annexes International Business & Technical Consultants, Inc. 8614 Westwood Center Drive Suite 400 Vienna, VA 22182 USA Contracted under: Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) DISCLAIMER The author’s views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for International Development or the United States Government. Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE ANNEX A: Final Scope of Work dated February 5, 2007 .............................................................1 ANNEX B: List of Contacts .........................................................................................................14 ANNEX C: Final Work plan .........................................................................................................17 ANNEX D: Timetable ..................................................................................................................22 ANNEX E: Evaluation Questionnaires ........................................................................................26 ANNEX F: Analysis of Civil Society Organization Survey Data ..................................................31 ANNEX F: CSO Survey Analysis Figures and Tables ................................................................31 APPENDIX A: Basic Tables ..................................................................................................80 APPENDIX B: CSO Survey Data File Description ..............................................................162 ANNEX G: Additional Survey Data - Cross Tabulations with Grants........................................170 ANNEX H: Finalized Survey Questionnaire ..............................................................................194 ANNEX I: Sampling Frame .......................................................................................................208 ANNEX J: Inventory of Documents Studied..............................................................................229 ANNEX K: ICSP Organigram....................................................................................................232 ANNEX L: Results Monitoring Plan...........................................................................................233 Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 1 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium ANNEX A: Final Scope of Work dated February 5, 2007 USAID Iraq SOW for Iraq Civil Society Program I. Strategic Objective to be Evaluated To assist Iraq’s transition to democracy, USAID initiated a comprehensive program in support of Democratic Governance as described in the USAID/Iraq’s Transition Strategic Plan and outlined in the Mission’s Performance Management Plan (PMP) under Strategic Objective(SO) 9; Effective Local Government Strengthened. The Iraq Civil Society and Independent Media Program (ISCP) is being implemented as part of IR 9.3: Outreach Mechanism and Capacity for Citizen Participation in Decision-Making and Local Development are Institutionalized USAID is implementing the ICSP to strengthen the country’s civil society organizations (CSOs) and their abilities to effectively link community issues and advocacy with their respective local, provincial, and national officials. In addition, the ICSP is working to build the capacity of Iraqi journalists, media managers and the institutions needed to promote a thriving, independent media. ICSP’s goal is two-fold: 1) to contribute to the development and institutionalization of a broad cadre of indigenous civil society organizations (CSOs) in Iraq in an effort to foster participatory democratic governance, and 2) to provide assistance to the independent media. There are three core activities being implemented under the first goal. These are: 1. Develop strong and sustainable Civil Society Resource Centers (CSRCs or Centers) 2. Support Civil Society Capacity Building through technical and/or grant assistance; and, 3. Targeted training, technical assistance and grant support to CSOs involved in civic education, women’s advocacy, anti-corruption and human rights. The second goal of the ICSP is to support the development of a thriving independent media. The program builds up media outlets throughout the country that provide quality information in response to public needs. Training and technical assistance are provided in three main areas: a. Professional media skills development for journalists and editorial staff; b. Media business development, including the development of public broadcast institutions; and c. Media law advocacy to facilitate the establishment of a legal, regulatory, and policy environment that supports the development of independent media. II. Background The fall of Saddam Hussein's regime opened a new chapter in Iraqi history. After decades of tyranny, Iraqis are now starting to build a free civil society. The former Ba’athist regime did not encourage the development or formation of community or CSOs. Despite the country’s current unstable political situation, communities across the country are experiencing an increase in small, community-level CSOs thanks in part to USAID and its implementing partners. Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 2 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium Since USAID/Iraq began its work in 2003, some improvements have been made in Iraq’s ability to effectively run the country without outside help. However, Iraq’s institutions, the economy and its capacity to deliver social services remain weak. Significant challenges still lie ahead before Iraq can stand on its own feet. The Iraq national government is organized into 18 provinces (also known as governorates). Traditionally, each province has had a governor and a provincial advisory council. Under the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA), enabled by the Transitional Administrative Law (TAL) and by relevant Administrative Orders, members to the Provincial Councils (PCs) were elected by popular vote. Interim provincial elections were held in January 2005 concurrently with the elections to the Transitional National Assembly (TNA). The Iraqi Constitution was validated in a referendum held on 15 October 2005 and the Council of Representatives was elected two months later on 15 December. The Government of Iraq (GOI) is expected to hold a new round of provincial elections, but it is unclear whether or not provincial elections will be held in 2007. Since the start of the war, fledgling civil society groups were voluntarily formed to meet some of the basic needs of the Iraqi people such as security, water, electricity, education and health. With the intent to keep this momentum going and to provide on-going training and technical support to these groups, USAID signed a contract with America’s Development Foundation (ADF) in August 2004 to develop a program that would strengthen civil society’s role in the economic, political, and social development of Iraq. To achieve this goal, ADF was charged with opening five regional CSRCs to serve as the locus for providing training and technical assistance to Iraqi CSOs, with a plan towards self-sustainability by the end of the project, currently slated for June 2007 under Option 2. The objective of the Centers is to develop technical service organizations that offer sustainable resources of ideas, organizational innovation, and provide technical training on a broad range of issues, sectors, and strategies with increasing Iraqi ownership. While ADF is to enable the centers to provide training and technical assistance to a broad range of Iraqi CSOs during the contract period, the contract also requires ADF to target special attention and resources to civic education, women’s advocacy and anti-corruption CSOs (with human rights as a cross-cutting element). Additionally, ADF is focusing its technical assistance efforts on the emerging Iraqi commercial media sector with an emphasis on developing news and public affairs reporting capabilities. The USAID contract with ADF includes a base period of August 16, 2004 through December 31, 2005 with five options, extending through December 31, 2008. On December 8, 2005, USAID exercised Option 2, which extended the program through June 30, 2007. Options 4 and 5 provide an opportunity for extending the ICSP through 2008. III. ICSP Activities Implemented by ADF Strengthening Civil Society The primary objective of the civil society strengthening component is to establish an informed, sustainable and active indigenous Iraqi civil society that effective and responsibly participates with a democratic system of governance, This component of ICSP focuses on establishing sustainable Civil Society Resource Centers, building the capacity of Iraqi CSOs to be effective Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 3 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium public actors and providing special targeted assistance to organizations working in civic education, women’s advocacy, anticorruption, and human rights. i. Establishing four Civil Society Resource Centers. Four Centers have been established, in Erbil (covering the North), Baghdad (covering Central Iraq), Hillah (covering South-Central Iraq), and Basrah (covering the South) to provide services for civil society development in all 18 governorates. These Iraqi-staffed Centers provide training, technical assistance and grants designed to develop the capacity of CSOs. The Centers serve as hubs for CSO activities and provide services and information. The Centers have conducted 1,144 training workshops with supplemental by technical assistance to develop CSO core capacities. Also, the Centers linked CSOs together for joint action and advocacy through 275 Forums and 30 National and Regional Conferences. Additional results from the Centers are as follows: 1 • Provided direct services to over 3,000 CSOs. Each Center provides services to an average of 750 CSOs and 1,000 other institutions through its networking and coalition building activities; • Established a community advisory board that solicits input from key CSOs and other stakeholders and help the CSRC staff to develop sustainability plans that will guide the Centers toward becoming independent Iraqi civil society resource organizations; • Sponsored 283 regional and national conferences and forums that brought CSOs together to examine key issues and develop a common plan of action; • The creation of an extensive resources library on civil society development in Iraq, with material available in Arabic, English and (in the north) Kurdish; ii. Training and technical assistance. ICSP has: • Sponsored 218 events to promote CSO networking. • Worked nationally in Iraq including eight activities in the restive and unsettled Al Anbar and Salah Al-Din provinces. • Assessed the institutional capacity of approximately 1,600 CSOs at the CSRCs for sound management, advocacy, and internal governance. • Conducted 476 training workshops in core capacity areas and an additional 1,208 training workshops in sector-specific topics. • 3,506 technical assistance sessions have been conducted with CSOs, including advanced training and consulting services. iii. Supporting Civic Education CSOs In supporting the ongoing development of civic education CSOs, ICSP has: • Delivered 317 workshops and 410 technical assistance sessions to build civic education capacity which have led to nearly 254 documented actions by partner CSOs in pursuit of their self-defined agendas. • Tracked its network of over 1,000 CSOs and documented activities executed by hundreds of ICSP partner CSOs in support of the election – mostly through workshops, forums, and training. • Awarded grants to CSOs to support 18 elections projects, ranging from local grassroots activities to large-scale, nationwide initiatives. 1 All statistics cited in this SOW were taken from the October 2006 ADF fact sheets provided by the organization. The numbers provided reflect statistics from the inception of each sector of programming. These statistics were taken from the ADF data base. Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 4 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium • Recorded 254 civic education actions taken by CSOs using their strengthened capabilities which reached an estimated 20,000 people. • Media reports such as PSA’s, print media etc, covering ICSP and CSO civic education are estimated to have reached hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. iv. Women’s Advocacy CSOs Through the ICSP, Iraqi CSOs working to advance women’s legal, economic, social and political rights have been strengthened resulting in: • The adoption of 12 constitutional provisions, including an electoral quota of 25% of the seats reserved for women on the Council of Representatives; • Training and technical assistance for more than 600 CSOs increasing their capacity to take action that contributes to the advancement of women; • The organization of forums of regional and national conferences giving women’s CSOs the opportunity to network, organize coalitions and develop advocacy campaigns for gender equality, political participation and rights protection; • More than 400 CSOs having increased knowledge and capacity to take action to advance the position of women in Iraq; • The women’s Advocacy team supporting thirty-four forums, three regional conferences and three national conferences involving participants from the civil society sector to network and plan joint activities; • The development and distribution of key reference materials for education and advocacy on women’s issues to CSOs covering the following areas: Introduction to Gender Issues; Advocating for Women’s Issues; CEDAW – the Convention for the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women; Women’s Participation in Political Life; Women in the Media; and Women’s Rights as Human Rights. v. Local Capacity to Undertake Anti-Corruption Work. To this end, ADF has: • Supported CSOs in having 13 Anti-Corruption Provisions included in the Iraqi Constitution; • Reached an estimated one million Iraqis through a national anti-corruption campaign; • Increased the knowledge and capacity of more than 2,165 CSOs to undertake anti￾corruption work as a result of 251 training workshops and 1,344 technical assistance sessions. There are also forums focused on specific public issues that have reached another 650 participants. • Provided training to more than 4,000 government officials at the national, regional, and local levels, using ICSP’s seven anti-corruption training workshops and technical assistance. vi. Promoting Human Rights Advocacy Iraqi human rights organizations have been supported in developing their capacities for human rights education, monitoring, documentation and reporting. • Significant inroads in improving respect for human rights have been achieved through the training and technical assistance provided to 4,000 CSO and government officials; • Many CSOs have improved their abilities to monitor and report on human rights abuses, including poor conditions of detention centers and unlawful detainment; • CSOs have developed partnerships with police departments, human rights departments and other government agencies to provide for observance and protection of human rights; Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 5 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium • More than 50 training workshops and technical assistance sessions have increased the capacity of 40 partner human rights organizations and close to 100 smaller groups; • ICSP has awarded 30 grants to support Iraqi CSO initiatives that promote or protect human rights. vi. Provision of Small Grants to CSOs Through its small grants component, the ICSP provides funding to CSOs to reinforce training and technical assistance and support activities that increase civic activism and promote the role of CSOs in advocacy and policy-making at the national, regional and local levels. The CSRCs ability to manage and administer grants has improved dramatically over the past year, and there is now an array of support, including small, rapid grants that the CSRC can offer. The grants are designed to be appropriate to the mission and capabilities of the CSOs. In the past 18 months, ICSP has awarded 433 grants supporting effective action by 339 CSOs totaling $3,401.00. IV. Purpose and Focus of the Evaluation USAID’s contract with ADF has been in place since August 2004. Consistent with the USAID/Iraq Transition Strategy Plan, the Mission now wishes to evaluate, in detail, aspects of the ICSP as implemented by ADF. This evaluation should provide guidance and, if needed, recommendations for course corrections for the current program. The evaluation will determine if objectives are being achieved in the components of the program under review and will provide lessons learned in the event of a follow-on project. The purpose of this evaluation is to review and make recommendations on the following ICSP activities being implemented under SO 9. - The CSRCs are one of the critical mechanisms for implementing ICSP. As such, the focus of the ICSP evaluation is to examine the efficacy and sustainability of the CSRCs as tools to achieve the program objectives as stated in the contract and vis-à-vis USAID’s SO 9. The evaluation of the CSRCs will be to determine the extent to which deliverables are being achieved and in particular focus will include the following: 1) An in-depth look at the training, curriculum and activities being offered through each CSRC. This will include a list of all the training programs offered (duration, location, subject), the numbers of participants attending each and a look at the curriculum. 2) An in-depth look at the technical assistance offered at each CSRC; a list of the different types of assistance; who is benefiting from this assistance; is the assistance translating into tangible results etc. 3) Review of each CSRC’s financial and programmatic sustainability action plan and the implementation status of the plans. Targeted training and technical assistance to civic education, women’s advocacy, human rights and anti-corruption CSOs are the second main focus of ICSP. Focus areas for the evaluation in this area will include the following: 1) A look at the CSOs that have been strengthened under each of these sectors; 2) An examination of the extent to which targeted training and technical assistance is translating into an increase in civic activism and increased activity in advocacy and policy making at the national, regional and local levels; 3) An examination of the extent to which deliverables of the contract are being achieved. Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 6 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium The third component of the Civil Society Strengthening Component is the Grants Program. Focus areas include: A detailed look at the grants being issued, to which CSOs, for how much and for what purpose. Also any follow up on recipients of the grants including feedback from the grantees regarding grant process, administration of grants by ADF etc. - Additionally, the evaluation will determine if the media component is meeting its objectives and deliverables according to the contract. - Further, the evaluation will focus on the impact of the CSOs – working to identify successes and failures (ultimately encapsulated in a statement of lessons learned). The evaluation will also be forward looking, considering how the lessons learned might be applied to the future ICSP activities and how they might better be integrated into the PRT system. Given that the ICSP work complements other USAID programming (Iraq Community Action Program II and Local Provincial Governance II), this evaluation will consider whether or not there is effective collaboration among the USAID partners providing recommendations if needed on how to improve collaboration. Finally, the evaluation will look at the overall management model used by ICSP to determine its effectiveness in ensuring that strategic and programmatic objectives are being met in the most efficient and cost-effective manner possible with particular attention paid to the regional structures that are currently in place. V. Evaluation Questions ICSP’s vision is to promote participatory governance by developing and training CSOs with the primary ability to “effectively contribute to more responsive government.” To meet this goal, the ICSP has developed a broad and complex program targeting CSOs for training to build capacities, provide resources (both material and financial) and provide assistance in developing a strong independent media. Keeping in mind the SO and indicators from USAID’s 2006 PMP, questions (through surveys) will be asked of the ICSP staff, randomly selected CSOs, attendees of the various training that have been provided, users of the CSRCs, local and national government officials, and the population at large. These questions will aim to identify achievements as well as problem areas in the program. Informing these questions are the ADF contract and contract modifications, program descriptions, work plans, the Grants Manual, the ICSP PMP, priorities of the ICSP USAID CTO, as well as the weekly and monthly reports submitted by ADF to USAID. Below is a sample of the types of questions (by no means exhaustive) that will be addressed in the key-person interview process. Questionnaires will be developed for the key-person interview process by the evaluation team. These may include grant recipients and beneficiaries, provincial council members, journalists, staff at media outlets, government officials who received anti-corruption training etc. Further information on key-person interviews can be found in the ‘Design Strategy’ section of the SOW. Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 7 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium A. Civil Society Strengthening Component • Physical location of each Center – size, number of rooms, photographs of each room; • Accessibility to CSOs vis-à-vis geography and security; • Management structure of each CSRC; • Sustainability plans and status of their implementation; • Staffing levels of each center – number , skill set of staff members, and types of value added, needs-based services provided by the local staff to the CSO’s; • Purpose of the visit; • Reach of each Center – how many municipalities each serves; • Review of each training program by sector (civic education, women’s issues, human rights and anti-corruption), as well as the scope, effectiveness and usefulness of curriculum by survey of attendees. • Compare and contrast trainees taught directly by ADF trainers and those taught by the CSOs; • Technical Assistance Review by Center and sector; • Grants Review (including an assessment of the Organizational Assessment Tool (OAT) (e.g., how effective is it in identifying the strengths and weaknesses of a CSO? Is it being consistently used as a requirement before a CSO receives a grant?) • What have been the results from increased International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement (INL) funding on anti-corruption activities; Has a more robust program resulted from the increased funding? If so, how, where and impact. • Review of Advisory Board Meeting minutes – with survey of Board members to determine: Composition of Board; Board selection process; Frequency with which they meet; Discussion of the sustainability plans for each center and where they are in the process; will they be fully self-sustainable by June 2007; if not, why not and what needs to be done to move the process forward; are there any income-generating activities; what kinds of activities and how much income has been generated; what is the income used for: how are decisions made on the income etc.? What accounting procedures are in place for any income generated? For what is the income used and who decides? Is there a business plan in place outlining operating costs needed per year and where these revenues will come from? • Review of curricula of regional and national conferences with sample survey of conference attendees to determine: Which conference(s) were attended; how has what they learned at the conference changed the way they operate their CSO, giving concrete examples; what pertinent issues were discussed; review of common action plans – are they being implemented; where are they in the implementation process etc. • Resource Library: types and numbers of resource materials available; ability of CSOs to check materials out of center – if so, what procedures are in place to ensure materials are returned? • Are the centers used for other community activities? If so, what activities? • Are there satellite centers available for the rural communities? If so, where are they? How many people do they serve? What types of resources are available? • Sample survey of CSRCs visitors to determine if the center is meeting their needs. If so, how? If not, why not? Suggestions for improvement? • Number of new CSOs formed as a result of each center broken down by type of advocacy being done. • Review of internal assessments done of each center. What corrective actions if any were suggested? Have they been implemented? Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 8 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium B. Management Review • What problems occur, if any, in the relationship between ADF/ICSP field office and the ADF/ICSP HQ; • LES and expatriate staff survey of job satisfaction and retention within ADF; • What problems occur, if any, in the relationship between ADF/ICSP and USAID? • How often does ADF/ICSP management (regional and national) visit each CSRC? • To what degree does the Regional Director influence, direct and/or manage the CSRC staff and programming? • Define the role and responsibilities of the Regional Directors and CSRC Directors; • What role, if any, does the ADF/ICSP Regional Manager play in the operations of each center? • What mechanism is used to track each CSO, its activities and successes/failures? • What have been the major findings – weaknesses and strengths of CSOs assessed through the OAT for each of the CSRC; • From a management point of view, what characterizes a successful CSO? • What program management steps were taken to ensure that the Statement of Work is being achieved? • Do HR policies for staff capacity building lead to more responsibility for indigenous staff? • Are there any problems in the relationship between ICSP and local staff? • Provide internal project audit reports; • What are the major program achievements? What factors do you consider important to determine achievements; single most important achievement? ** Each Regional Director to prepare a success story. • What are the lessons learned, including the most important, since the onset of the ICSP? • Did you (or do you) work together with the other USAID partners on any level; explain how you worked together; what recommendations do you have to improve the working relationships among the other USAID partners? (LGP II, CAP II, IFES); • What steps have been taken to coordinate ICSP activities with other agencies that may be active in the same area (e.g., State Department, Military Civil Affairs); Do you find the PRT structure helpful in the implementation of the ICSP? If not, why not; what opportunities exist for the ADF/ICSP to interact with the PRTs; what concerns do you have in working with the PRTs in the future? VI. Evaluation Methods: A. Design Strategy The ICSP program is multi-faceted. There are several possible units of analysis that may be used for the evaluation. Each level of analysis will require a different method. The different levels of analysis and the methods proposed are described below: • ISCP HQ and Regional Staff (structured interviews around objectives of the contract agreement and PMP indicator achievement); • Civil Society Resources Centers (CSRC) (structured interviews with Iraqi director and key staff; including with selected governorate outreach staff, Board of Directors, reviewing sustainability plans, income generating plans); • Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) (Sample survey of CSOs focused on the following issues: CSOs that have received ICSP training vs. those that have not, types of training Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 9 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium received, how the training has been used, number of events held, type and frequency of advocacy, services provided, CSO sustainability through other donors, relationship to local and national authorities, evidence of policy changes achieved, confirmation of organization status (informed by organizational assessments done by ICSP)); • CSO grant recipients, (Sample survey of grant recipient CSOs; how they managed the grant and what was the result, number of other grants). Note: This may be included as a subset of CSO survey; • Anticorruption CSOs, will be included as a subset of CSO survey; • Media – a review of the media program as a sub-set of anti-corruption through the CSO’s to determine impact of anti-corruption messages, and the sustainability of NINA; • Number of people reached through national anti-corruption campaign; • ICSP activities (track the result of events and training provided sampled from the ICSP activity databases kept by the regional ICSP offices); • Individual beneficiaries from CSO activities (track sample of CSO event beneficiaries); • ICSP staff who received training (confidential focus group of ICSP staff who received ICSP staff capacity building training); • Local or national government institutions who may have been the focus of CSO advocacy (aimed at tracking the SO 9 indicators “Number of Policy Changes Influenced by CSOs”, and “Number of informed CSOs effectively contributing to more responsive government”), (structured interviews with institutions that were the subject of CSO advocacy; results likely to be qualitative); • Other USAID partners (LGP II, ICAP II, etc.) with whom ICSP collaborates; and • Management review (interviews from HQ level to Regional level of expatriate and local staff). Each of the above evaluation activities requires the development of an interview or survey instrument, although several activities and questions will be rolled into the same instrument. Structured interviews will be built around what is known about the program objectives as expressed in contract agreements, modifications, ICSP PMP and periodic ICSP reporting. Sample surveys will need the design of a questionnaire and then the development of a sample frame, field testing the questionnaire, sample survey design, a field implementation plan and a data analysis plan. It is assumed that the sample frame for the CSOs will be developed from the ICSP databases. One of these contains CSOs who have been assessed using an initial organizational assessment tool. According to ADF there are from 1,500 to 2,000 CSOs on this ICSP database. It is understood that a separate database is available for CSOs that have been the recipients of ICSP grants. A sample frame will be developed by linking these databases and a sample of CSOs selected following the survey design. The survey design and data analysis plan will tell us how we might need to stratify or group the sample frame to achieve the required analysis for the evaluation. The survey design aims to achieve a quasi-experimental trial with random assignment within the groups or strata. One of the groups will be the ‘counterfactual’ group. The counterfactual group should contain CSOs that have not received ICSP training or technical assistance. Other possible groups or strata of interest include: CSOs under different regional CSRC, CSOs that have received ICSP training or not, grant recipient CSOs or not, and category of CSO (civic education, human rights, anti￾corruption, and gender). Identifying the groups allows for comparisons to be made between the Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 10 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium groups with equal statistical powerF 2 assuming random assignments are being made to the groups The more groups or strata there are the larger the sample size requirement. ICSP activities are recorded in regional databases. These tend to be training events for members of CSOs. If IBTCI is able to use the database to identify individuals trained from specific ICSP training events we will interview a sample of those trained. Ideally IBTCI would want to stratify the sample according to the type of training received so that something can be said about the result of different training topics. CSO activities are limited to those carried out under grant funding. This is an extension of the CSO survey, but drills down to track and interview those who attended CSO grant funded activities. This will be done in a limited way and could focus specific types of events that have been held, for example anticorruption campaigns. There is an assumption that the CSOs retain information on who attended specific events as part of their record keeping. ICSP staff development through training is an important part of the ICSP program. It is proposed that focus groups of trained staff be held in each of the four regions using a structured focus group instrument so that each focus group looks at the same issues. USAID/Iraq’s three-year country strategy has four main objectives; one of these,” Effective Local Government Strengthened” incorporates the activities of the ICSP. The final part of the evaluation design strategy will be to look at the local government institutions where the CSOs have been advocating. This is assumed to primarily be the provincial councils or committees and subcommittees they have formed. The evaluation will attempt to interview key council members or committee members to hear their view and experience of working with the CSOs. A structured interview form is anticipated. Results are likely to be qualitative. B. Data Analysis Plan Structured interviews collect qualitative responses built around the interview structure. The information collected in this way will be presented anecdotally. Focus group data are also qualitative; however these types of data may be sufficient to conduct basic content analysis. For this evaluation, content analysis applies to the ICSP staff training with findings incorporated in the evaluation report. Analysis of the CSO data will explore key variablesF 3 cross-tabulated by region, certification status, grant status and category of CSO. To determine the result of CSO capacity building, we intend to compare the ICSP inputs (training and grants) with CSO outputs (events and advocacies that they have done) and CSO impacts (the success of their advocacies). This may change as we learn more about outputs and impacts. It is expected that data analysis will be done using SPSS software. Standard data analysis techniques will be applied to confirm the relationships that are presented in tabular or graphic form. Most of the data collected are expected to be categorical. Exploratory data analysis will initiate the study. Analysis of variance is possible with data from questions using Likert-like scales; when this is possible it will be used. Multiple comparisons and the construction of statistically homogeneous groups will be attempted when the data permit. Cluster analysis or categorical factor analysis may also be attempted should the data permit. The comparison of 2 Stratified samples may increase the statistical error in the sample. This is due to design effect (def). 3 Key variables are those that answer the proposed questions. Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 11 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium dichotomous variables to determine simple odds ratios will be a feature of the presentation. Data from the CSO survey will be prepared as a release version with the evaluation. As part of this evaluation a data quality assessment will be made on the methodology that ICSP intends to use to estimate the indicator “Number of People Reached Through national Anti￾Corruption Campaign.” C. Survey Method A representative stratified sample of approximately 40 CSOs for each of the groups or strata identified totaling as many as 400 CSOs nationally will be established. This number will yield a precision of the estimates and satisfactory confidence interval. The survey is intended to support a quasi-experimental design. The final sample size will follow from an analysis of the sample frame and the possibility of identifying a ‘counterfactual’ group and other groups of interest to the evaluation. The sample frame is expected to be the list of all CSOs where ICSP conducted an organizational assessment. The unit of analysis will be the CSO. Interviews will be with CSO management and technical staff members. The CSO members to be interviewed will be determined through a pretest of the CSO questionnaire. Questionnaire preparation will be an important part of the methodological development. VII. Team Composition • Expatriate Survey Specialist with fluency in Arabic to design CSO survey and coordinate with in-country expert and Iraqi sub-contractor to pre-test the questionnaire and provide oversight to the survey process prior to the evaluation team deploying to Iraq. • Team Leader (1) to lead the design of the key person interview forms; carry out key person interviews in Iraq, and to write up the results of those interviews. (Team Leader will also carry one thematic component, more than likely small grants). • Expatriate Civil Society Expert – with background in management – will conduct key-person interviews of CSOs and staff of CSRCs; review internal ADF management structure as well as management of CSRCs and report results. • Expatriate Statistician – The successful candidate will not travel to Iraq but will work virtually, analyzing survey data, prepare analytical report and work with the evaluation team as they conduct further interviews. • Sub-Contractor surveyors Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 12 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium VIII. Schedule and Logistics Expat Iraqi Preparation of CSO Design Study by in-country IBTCI personnel with field testing (Jan 2007) 1 10 2 10 10 20 National ICSO survey by IBTCI local sub-contractor, February 2007 0 0 16 20 0 320 Pre-travel research and planning: Review background documentation, design data analysis, design key person interviews, prepare report template, design work plan and time table for deliverables 3 10 30 0 Travel to Iraq 22 40 Team Preparation Meeting/planning (TPM) with Iraqi staff and USAID. Refine evaluation SOW as necessary 223246 Field Work with expatriate team conducting key interviews 2 18 36 Analysis of CSO survey and reporting 1 20 20 Data consolidation, report drafting, debriefing 2 10 20 Travel to USA 22 4 15 26 139 346 # days # Iraqi Monitors TOTAL LOE # days Total Person Days Final Report preparation 11 Activities # Expats: Note above: The Iraqi-based IBTCI expatriates while noted in the above table as having input to this evaluation, will not add any LOE to the budget. Sub-contractor surveyors will require budgeted LOE specific to this evaluation as the sub-contractor will be asked to ramp up staff specific to these tasks. IX. Reports In Iraq, the evaluation team will provide one or more interim briefings to USAID as requested. A final, full briefing on findings and recommendations will be provided at a time specified by USAID and a draft report will be submitted prior to departure. The final report will be provided to USAID no later than seven working days after receipt of comments from USAID on the draft. It is anticipated that USAID review of the draft will require up to two weeks, with comments to be returned to the team for final editing of the report. Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 13 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium X. Deliverables 1. A summary report of findings for the components of the ICSP under evaluation (40 -50 pages) • Executive Summary • Lessons Learned • Recommendations • Body of text 2. An analysis of findings from the ICSP survey. 3. A release version of the CSO survey data file. Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 14 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium ANNEX B: List of Contacts Name Title/Position Agency Location 1 Jayant S. Kalotra President IBTCI Washington, DC 2 Ajay B. Kalotra Director, Business Development IBTCI Washington, DC 3 Bob Van Heest Program Manager IBTCI Washington, DC 4 Carol L. Conragan, Esq. Democracy and Governance Advisor USAID Washington, DC 5 John M. Tincoff Program Officer USAID Washington, DC 6 Michael Miller President America’s Development Foundation Washington, DC 7 Jerrold Keilson Vice President, Operations America’s Development Foundation Washington, DC 8 Ahmed Ayad Project Officer America’s Development Foundation Washington, DC 9 Robert Beckman Interim COP IBTCI Washington, DC 10 Cynthia Scarlett COP IBTCI Baghdad, Iraq 11 Rabaab Saab PRT Coordinator IBTCI Baghdad, Iraq 12 Bambi Arellano Mission Director USAID Baghdad, Iraq 13 Catherine M.Trebes Supervisory Program\ Officer, Program Office USAID Baghdad, Iraq 14 John Riordan Acting Director, Deputy Director, Office of Governance and Provincial Reconstruction Teams USAID Baghdad, Iraq 15 Marunga Manda Program Specialist, Monitoring and Evaluation USAID Baghdad, Iraq 16 Helene Carlson PRT USAID Baghdad, Iraq 17 Geoffrey Minott PRT USAID Baghdad, Iraq 18 Stephen Ragama Program Officer USAID Baghdad, Iraq 19 Muna Dabbagh Program Administrator USAID Baghdad, Iraq 20 Issam Adwi Chief of Party ADF/ICSP Baghdad, Iraq 21 Aprill Powell￾Willingham Deputy COP ADF/ICSP Baghdad, Iraq 22 Hani Riad Capacity Building Director ADF/ICSP Baghdad, Iraq 23 Munif Abui-Rish Senior Civil Society Advisor ADF/ICSP Baghdad, Iraq Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 15 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium Name Title/Position Agency Location 24 Kristin Joplin Small Grants Manager ADF/ICSP Baghdad, Iraq 25 Ann Patterson RRT USAID Northern Iraq Erbil, Iraq 26 Mohammed Yasin Ahmad Regional Director ADF/ICSP Erbil, Iraq 27 Rita Al Bailaty HR Specialist ADF/ICSP Erbil, Iraq 28 Rakhosh Al-Salihi CSRC Acting Director ADF/ICSP Erbil, Iraq 29 Abdulla Mohamed Regional Program Director USAID Northern Region, Local Governance Program Erbil, Iraq 30 Nawzad Abdulkareem Grants Coordinator ADF/ICSP Erbil, Iraq 31 Fahmy Al￾Chalaby Grants Coordinator ADF/ICSP Erbil, Iraq 32 Ahmed S. Jaf Grants Coordinator ADF/ICSP Erbil, Iraq 33 Zina Nazar Civic Education Team ADF/ICSP Erbil, Iraq 34 Women’s Advocacy Coordinator ADF/ICSP Erbil, Iraq 35 Abdullah Barazangv Anti-Corruption Coordinator ADF/ICSP Erbil, Iraq 36 Diana Sarsam Monitoring and Evaluation Coordinator ADF/ICSP Erbil, Iraq 37 Rahhosh Al-Salihi Acting CSRC Director, Training Coordinator ADF/ICSP Erbil, Iraq 38 Hugh Brown COP, ACDI/VOCA ICAP II Program Erbil, Iraq 39 Joseph Le Clair Monitoring and Evaluation Director ICAP II Program Erbil, Iraq 40 Z. Melinda Witter Community/Economic Director ICAP II Program Erbil, Iraq 41 Kathy Hunt South Central Region Representative USAID Baghdad, Iraq 42 Ali Yasin Grants Coordinator, Central Region ADF/ICSP Baghdad, Iraq 43 Rahman Al￾Jabouri Anti-Corruption Coordinator, Central Region ADF/ICSP Baghdad, Iraq 44 Alumed Kasim Grants Compliance Specialist, Central Region ADF/ICSP Baghdad, Iraq 45 Israam Ali Civic Education Coordinator, Central Region ADF/ICSP Baghdad, Iraq 46 Mizzal Al-Halim CSRC Director ADF/ICSP Baghdad, Iraq 47 Daniel Killian Monitoring and ACF/ICSP Baghdad, Iraq Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 16 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium Name Title/Position Agency Location Evaluation Director 48 Ross W. Wherry Post Conflict and Reconstruction Specialist RTI Baghdad, Iraq 49 Mark A. Grubb Deputy COP, LGP RTI Baghdad, Iraq 50 Assil Hamid CSRC Director ADF/ICSP Hilla, Iraq 51 Tahseen Ali Grants Coordinator ADF/ICSP Hilla, Iraq 52 Mazin Mahmood Grants Coordinator ADF/ICSP Hilla, Iraq 53 Tahir Athab Grants Coordinator ADF/ICSP Hilla, Iraq 54 Abdullah Ali Training Coordinator ADF/ICSP Hilla, Iraq 55 Maitham Noori Civic Education Coordinator ADF/ICSP Hilla, Iraq 56 Tahir Athab Civic Education Coordinator ADF/ICSP Hilla, Iraq 57 Hani Kadmum CSRC Director ADF/ICSP Basra, Iraq 58 Lana Al-Mudaffer M&E Coordinator ADF/ICSP Basra, Iraq 59 Shatha Ibrahim Training Coordinator ADF/ICSP Basra, Iraq 60 Arthlass Hashim Civic Education Team ADF/ICSP Basra, Iraq 61 Haidar al Hussein Human Rights Coordinator ADF/ICSP Basra, Iraq 62 John Crihfield Regional Representative and PRT Coordinator, South Office of Governance and Provincial Reconstruction Team USAID Basra, Iraq 63 Linda Crawford Program Officer USAID Baghdad, Iraq 63- 143 CSOs Office Bearers (4-6 pax times 4 groups times 4 sites) CSOs supported by ICSP Erbil, Hilla, Baghdad, Basra 144F 4 Rick Mason Director Performance Management ADF/ICSP Baghdad, Iraq 145 Karen Diop Vice President ADF Washington, Iraq 4 Telephone conversation 7.04.07 with Rick Mason and Karen Diop Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 17 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium ANNEX C: Final Work plan Evaluation of Iraq Civil Society Program (ICSP) Purpose, Work plan and Methodology 16 March 2007 Purpose The purpose, approach and methodology for the evaluation of the Iraq Civil Society Program (ICSP) is based on the Statement of Work (SOW) and the USAID/Iraq’s Transition Statement 2006-2008, Strategic Objective 3 to “Develop effective local government and civil society.” In summary, The Mission wishes to evaluate aspects of the ICSP in detail. The purpose of this evaluation is to: • Provide guidance and, if needed, recommendations for course corrections for the current program. • Determine if objectives are being achieved in the components of the program under review. • Provide lessons learned in the event of a follow-on project. The evaluation will focus on and make recommendations with respect to the following: A. The overall management model used by ICSP in order to determine its effectiveness in ensuring that strategic and programmatic objectives are being met in the most efficient and cost-effective manner with particular attention paid to the regional structures that are currently in place. B. The efficacy and sustainability of the Civil Society Resource Centers (CSRCs) as tools to achieve program objectives. Specifically, the evaluation will include: 1) An assessment of the training and other activities being offered through each CSRC. (The survey instrument will provide information regarding the quality and relevance of the training programs that are offered to be supplemented by key person interviews.) 2) An assessment of the technical assistance offered at each CSRC including who is benefiting from this assistance and whether the assistance is translating into tangible results. Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 18 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium 3) An assessment of the grant program managed by each CSRC. (A list of grants specifying purpose and amount will be provided.) The assessment should include feedback from the grantees regarding grant process, administration of grants by America’s Development Foundation (ADF) etc. 4) A review of each CSRC’s financial and programmatic sustainability action plan and the implementation status of the plans. 5) The evaluation will include an assessment of three thematic priority areas: 1. Strengthening Women’s Advocacy Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) 2. Promoting Human Rights Advocacy 3. Provision of Small Grants to CSOs. 6) In addition, the evaluation will assess whether the CSOs that have received assistance under the Project have utilized and benefited from this assistance. This component of the evaluation will attempt to identify successes and failures that will provide the basis for a statement of lessons learned. (The bulk of information for this component of the evaluation will be drawn from the survey instrument.) 7) The evaluation will be forward looking and consider how the lessons learned might be applied to the future ICSP activities and how they might be better integrated into the PRT system. Given that the ICSP work complements other USAID programming (Iraq Community Action Program II and Local Provincial Governance II), the evaluation will consider whether or not there is effective collaboration among the USAID partners and provide recommendations if needed on how to improve collaboration. Approach and Methodology The program is a broad and complex one whereby CSOs are targeted for capacity building to enable them to deliver services to local communities alongside a more responsive government. ICSP has been implemented in four regions in Iraq by the ADF from September 2004 and is due for completion by June 2007. The evaluation methodology can be synthesized using global evaluation criteriaF 5 and in line with the SOW and areas emphasized in the two meetings as follows: • Assessment of Program Relevance: Ascertain the efficacy of the Strategy and project design to achieve the objectives and meet the needs of the beneficiaries; 5 Box 1. Definitions of the Evaluative Criteria – Global Evaluation Criteria Relevance/Appropriateness: assesses whether the intervention is in line with local needs and priorities as well as the policies of the agencies concerned. Effectiveness: assesses the extent to which an activity achieves its purpose, or whether this can be expected to happen on the basis of the outputs. Implicit within the criteria of effectiveness is timeliness. Impact: assesses the wider effects of the intervention – social, economic, technical, environmental – on individuals, gender and age-groups, communities, and institutions. Impacts can be intended and unintended, positive and negative, macro (sector) and micro (household). Efficiency: assesses the qualitative and quantitative outputs achieved in relation to the inputs and compares alternative approaches to see whether the most efficient approaches were used. Source: Modified from ALNAP Evaluation of Humanitarian Action Guide (draft dated March 2005) Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 19 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium • Assessment of degree of Effectiveness and Impact: Assess the efficacy and sustainability of the CRSC model, achievability of its objectives and the activities under evaluation. This will include an assessment of the training, curriculum and activities being offered through each CSRC. (The survey instrument described below will provide information regarding all of the training programs offered - - duration, location, subject- - the numbers of participants attending each and a look at the curriculum.) This will include a review of each CSRC’s financial and programmatic sustainability action plan and the implementation status of the plans. The team will also assess effectiveness of each of the five activities individually including women’s advocacy and human rights. • Assessment of Grant Effectiveness and Efficiency: Conduct a detailed analysis on the provision of grants (e.g. grant purpose and amounts, and feedback from the grantees regarding grant process and administration of grants); • Assessment of Efficiency: Identify ADF successes and failures/shortcomings in different activities, sectors, and functions (e.g. Management, Staffing and Management Systems such as M&E); and • Recommendations and Lessons learned: Provide lessons learned best practices, and recommendations for the ICSP program continuation and/or extension. As there are other agencies active in the same area, this evaluation will consider whether or not there is effective collaboration among the partners (Ministry of Civil Society, Provincial Reconstruction Teams) providing recommendations if needed on how to improve collaboration. The evaluation is not without security concerns, not only for the team’s safety but also for Iraqi nationals. The IBTCI team in Iraq has already foreseen this danger. Therefore, IBTCI’s local subcontractor is administering a survey of CSOs in the program areas to determine if the CRSCs are meeting their needs and how this is translated into tangible results. The evaluation team will benefit from the statistical analysis of findings from the survey which will be triangulatedF 6 with other findings. The survey is also an important contribution to the evaluation in the likely event that the team is not able to meet CSOs. As well as the survey instrument, the methods utilized by the evaluation team can be categorized as: literature reviews; both structured and unstructured interviews with both individuals and groups; a debriefing meeting, field visits using focus group discussions and participant observation; and discussion meetings with IBTCI and ICSP staff on findings from the statistical analysis of data from the survey. In terms of interviews and focus group discussions, some of those the team anticipates meeting in Iraq are: 6 Triangulation Seeking confirmation or better understanding of a subject or question by getting information from a variety of independent sources (e.g. soliciting the views and opinions of a diverse range of individuals, or using different methods to gain information on the same topic). DFID 2006. Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 20 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium • USAID staff • IBTCI staff • ADF staff • CBRC staff including coordinators, managers and trainers • Government staff from the Ministry of Civil Society, Ministry of Women’s Affairs • Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs) • Other International Non-Governmental Organizations (INGOs) working in civil society development • CSOs The IBTCI Evaluation Team that will be conducting the field portion of this assignment is composed of one team leader to lead the team who is also a specialist in small grants and one team member who is an expert in civil society. The team is supported by an expatriate statistician who will not travel to Iraq but will analyze data and produce reports and a survey specialist based in Iraq who will conduct the pre-test and survey before the evaluation team arrives in Iraq. To accomplish these objectives, the team will respond to the SOW using the sources of information and evaluation interviews as indicated in the following workplan. Work plan Tasks / Activities 5-16 March Preliminary Activities, Planning and Documentation Review: Iraq & Washington DC ¾ Collection and duplication of all documentation (contracts, strategy, reports, studies). These are put on CDs and/or sent by air to Iraq ¾ With IBTCI headquarters staff, various logistic and pre-planning matters are discussed and arranged ¾ Briefing meeting held with USAID/Iraq Democracy and Governance Advisor and Program Office in Washington ¾ Overview of ICSP and discussion of challenges and constraints meeting held with America’s Development Foundation (ADF) President and Vice President (Operations). ¾ Working by phone, fax, and e-mail, the team including the statistician discusses and contributes to the refining of the questionnaire to be applied to a random sample of CSOs in Iraq ¾ Testing and survey conducted in Iraq ¾ Team meetings to review evaluation requirements and define work tasks/activities, schedule, and roles ¾ On-going design of unstructured questionnaires for interviews in Iraq Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 21 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium 17 March – 15 April Interviews, Logistics, Re-design of workplan in Iraq ¾ Team travels to Iraq ¾ Structured interviews with each ICSP management staff and others ¾ Participatory re-design of field workplan ¾ Travel to site 1 of 4 (security prevailing) ¾ Travel to site 2 of 4 (security prevailing) ¾ Travel to site 3 of 4 (security prevailing) ¾ Travel to site 4 of 4 (security prevailing) ¾ Study of data analysis results of randomized surveys of CSOs in Iraq ¾ Triangulation of survey results with report writing ¾ Submission of draft report ¾ Debriefing in Iraq ¾ Travel to Evaluation Team members’ respective home bases 16 April – 22 April USAID Review of Draft Final Report April 23 – 30 April Final Work / Nairobi, Kenya & Washington DC ¾ Professional formatting, production and submission of final report to USAID/Iraq Deliverables 1. Findings from the Survey 2. Report Findings 3. Summary Evaluation Report Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 22 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium ANNEX D: Timetable Iraqi Civil Society Evaluation Team Members: Kathleen Webb, Team Leader, Small Grants Expert Stark Biddle, CSO Expert Bob Torene, Statistician – Washington based Updated March 27, 2007 Monday March 19 Team Arrives Baghdad In-brief with IBTCI Iraq-based team Tuesday March 20 0900 Security Briefing 1000 Review of documents, finalizing of work plan, review of tentative itinerary with COP 1400 In-brief with USAID (Kathleen Webb, Stark Biddle, Cyndi Scarlett) Wednesday March 21 0800 Depart Villa for ADF compound for key-person interviews with ADF staff. 0830 COP, Dr. Issam Adwi (Kathleen Webb, Stark Biddle) 1000 DCOP, April Willingham (Kathleen Webb, Stark Biddle) 1100 Senior Civil Society Advisor, Munif Abu-Rish (Stark Biddle) 1100 Director of Training, Hani Riad (Kathleen Webb) 1200 Small Grants Manager, Kristin Joplin (Kathleen Webb, Stark Biddle) 1300 Lunch at ADF compound 1430 Depart for IBTCI 1700 Team meeting with COP 1830 Dinner Thursday March 22 1115 Depart for BIAP (accompanied by M. Ra’oof, R. Saab, C. Scarlett,) 1400 Arrive Erbil 1830 Team Dinner at hotel Friday March 23 0930 Depart for ICSP Regional Office in Erbil 1000 - 1100 Regional Director Mohammed Yasin (Kathleen Webb, Stark Biddle) 1100 HR Specialist, Rita Al Bailaty (Kathleen Webb, Stark Biddle) 1200 Lunch 1400 CSRC Acting Director, Rakhosh Al-Salihi (Kathleen Webb, Stark Biddle) 1600 Team meeting with COP 1830 Dinner with team Saturday March 24 0800 Depart hotel for CSRC 0830 Grants Coordinators, (Kathleen Webb, Mohammed Ra’oof) 0830 Civic Education Team, Coordinator Zina Nazar (Stark Biddle, Rabab Saab) 0930 Training Coordinator, Rakhosh Al-Salihi with Trainers (Stark Biddle, Rabab Saab) 0930 Woman’s Advocacy Team (Kathleen Webb, Mohammed Ra’oof) Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 23 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium 1030 Anti-corruption Coordinator, Abdulah Barazangv (Stark Biddle, Mohammed Ra’oof) 1030 M and E Coordinator, Diana Sarsam (Kathleen Webb, Rabab Saab) 1115 Admin Specialist, Noor Maseeh Paton (Kathleen Webb, Stark Biddle) 1215 Depart for Hotel for lunch 1400 Depart for Site Visits (would request that ADF staff in Erbil set up several small grant recipient and CSO site visits) Note: The evaluation team will visit separate sites with their translators. 1700 Return to Hotel 1800 Dinner with Anne Patterson, USAID Regional Representative Sunday March 25 0900 Team meeting with COP 1015 Depart hotel for USAID 1100 Meeting with ACDI/VOCA 1200 Meeting with LGP II Regional Director 1330 Depart for hotel Monday March 26 TBD Depart hotel for Airport 1800 Conference call phone consultation with US-based statistician Bob Torene Tuesday March 27 0900 RTI, Acting COP 1400 Weekly USAID brief, Catherine Trebes, Marunga Manda 1800 Kathy Hunt, USAID South Region Representative Wednesday March 28 0830 Depart IZ for ADF/Baghdad compound and CSRC accompanied by Rabab Saab and Mohammed Ra’oof. 0900 Grants Coordinator, Ali Yasin (Kathleen Webb) 0900 Anti-Corruption Director, Rahman Al- Jabouri (Stark Biddle) 1000 Grants Compliance Specialist, Alumed Kasim (Kathleen Webb) 1000 Civic Education Coordinator, Israam Ali (Stark Biddle) 1000 CSRC Director, Mizzal Al-Hatim (Kathleen Webb and Mohammed Ra’oof) 1100 M and E Director, Dan Killian (Kathleen Webb and Stark Biddle) 1200 ADF COP and DCOP mid-term brief 1300 Depart for IZ Thursday March 29 0145 Report to IZ Washington. Accompanied by Harvey Herr 0400 Depart to Hillah 0500 Arrive Hillah (Regional Embassy Office) Settle into Rooms 0900 Meeting with Regional CSO’s to be facilitated by USAID Hillah Mrs. Kaeema Al-Shiply – Head of the Women and Children Center, Diwaniya Mr. Ahmed Abdul Razak Baker – Director of Integrity Supportive Association, Hillah Mr. Saady Al-Kelaby, Directors of the Martyrs and Prisoners Association Mrs. Thabat Jasim Mohammed, Local Government Association, Hillah Mr. Ali Abud Ameer Hussein, Local Government Association, Hillah 1130 Lunch 1230 Depart CSRC with PSD Team (low profile) 1300 CSRC Director, Assil Hamid (Stark Biddle) 1300 Grants Coordinators (Kathleen Webb with Mohammed Ra’oof) Tahseen Ali Mazin Mahmood Tahir Athab 1400 Training Coordinator, Abdullah Ali (Stark Biddle) Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 24 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium 1400 Civic Education Coordinator, Maitham Noori (Kathleen Webb) 1500 Return to the REO 2230 Depart Hillah to IZ Washington 0030 Arrive IZ Washington Friday March 30 Office Day TBD Phone call with Rich Mason, ADF Director of Performance Management and Reporting. (Rich is out of the country on leave for the duration of the team’s deployment in Iraq) 1000 Meeting with ADF COP and DCOP 1700 Phone consultation with US-based statistician, Bob Torene Saturday March 31 Office Day Sunday April 1 Office Day Monday April 2 1420 To IZ Washington. Accompanied by Harvey Herr, Rabab Saab and Mohammed Ra’oof TBD To BIAP via RAF Puma TBD To Basrah with RAF Hercules TBD Arrive Basrah Air Station picked up by USAID and transported to billeting. Tuesday April 3 Note: All meetings will take place at the BAS pending USAID approval. 0900 Regional Director, Mohammed Yasin (Kathleen Webb Mohammed Ra’oof) 0900 Resource Center Director, Hani Kadmum (Stark Biddle, Rabab Saab) 1000 Grants Coordinators (Kathleen Webb, Mohammed Ra’oof) Yousif Bassam Jerjis Rafat Ghazi Lamis 1000 Training Team led by Coordinator, Shatha Ibrahim (Stark Biddle, Rabab Saab) 1000 M and E Coordinator, Lana Al-Mudhaffar (Kathleen Webb, Mohammed Ra’oof) 1100 Women’s Advocacy Coordinator, Zahriac Al Sady (Kathleen Webb, Mohammed Ra’oof) 1200 Civic Education Team, led by Coordinator Arhlass Hashim (Stark Biddle, Rabab Saab) 1200 Human Rights Coordinator (Kathleen Webb, Mohammed Ra’oof) 1300 Meeting with CSO’s at the BAS Wednesday April 4 1900 Report to RAF at airfield 2130 Depart for Baghdad 0030 Arrived BIAP 0300 Report RAF Air Bridge BIAP 0330 Arrive IZ Washington Thursday April 5 Office Day TBD Meeting with COP, out-brief on Basrah Trip Friday April 6 Office Day 1800 Phone consultation with US-based statistician, Bob Torene Saturday April 7 Office Day Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 25 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium Sunday April 8 Office Day Monday April 9 1430 Meeting USAID PRO Tuesday April 10 Preparation of final draft report Wednesday April 11 Preparation of final draft report and USAID out brief Thursday April 12 Finalization of final draft report Friday April 13 1600 USAID Out brief with presentation of final draft report Saturday April 14 Depart post Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 26 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium ANNEX E: Evaluation Questionnaires UNITED STATES AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT (USAID) Iraq Civil Society Program (ICSP) Consultant Evaluation Questionnaires Part 1: Questionnaire for USAID Iraq Relevance 1. What was the humanitarian, security, political and cultural context in which the ICSP program was designed and undertaken over its first year? 2. To what extent has the ICSP project addressed the needs for assistance of the different groups (sectors, ethnicity, CSOs) within the affected population? 3. To what extent has the project taken account of the wider security, political and cultural context? 4. What has been the nature of the partnership between the different international and national agencies working with the ADF? 5. How appropriate were the strategies pursued for building the capacity of ICSP staff, centers and CSOs? 6. How might relevance and appropriateness be improved? Effectiveness: 1. To what extent has the ICSP achieved its PMI and the project achieved its overall objectives? 2. What factors (external and internal) have served to delay or impede delivery of the ICSP? Which have been the most significant? 3. How timely was the response? 4. What problems occur, if any, in the relationship between ADF/ICSP and USAID? 5. What are the major program achievements? What factors do you consider important to determine achievements; single most important achievement? 6. What are the lessons learned, including the most important, since the onset of the ICSP? 7. How is the working relationship between ICSP and other USAID partners? (LGP II, CAP II, IFES); 8. What steps have been taken to coordinate ICSP activities with other agencies that may be active in the same area (e.g., State Department, Military Civil Affairs); Do you find the PRT structure helpful in the implementation of the ICSP? If not, why not; what opportunities exist for the ADF/ICSP to interact with the PRTs; what concerns do you have in working with the PRTs in the future? 9. How might effectiveness be improved? Impact: 1. In your view, who has benefited most from the ICSP activities? What patterns emerge in the four different geographical areas and sectors? 2. What have been the principal impacts (intended and unintended, positive and negative) of ICSP in relation to: gender, age-groups, ethnic groups, displaced and non-displaced communities and institutions? 3. Has ICSP strengthened local government? 4. How might ICSP’s impact be enhanced? Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 27 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium 5. What have been the results from increased International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement (INL) funding on anti-corruption activities; Has a more robust program resulted from the increased funding? If so, how, where and impact. 6. Has the program collaborated with others USAID partners (LGP II, ICAP II, etc?) 7. Concluding remarks Anything else you would like to say or suggest? Part 2: Questionnaire for Government (Ministry of Civil Society, Ministry of Women Affairs, PRT) 1. What were the needs of CSOs at the start of the ICSP and how have they evolved since then? 2. To what extent has ICSP taken account of the wider security, political and cultural context? 3. What other activities have been funded or undertaken by key players and others separately from the project? What has been the nature of the relationship been between ICSP and these other activities? 4. How appropriate were the strategies pursued for in ICSP for building the capacity of national partners and staff? 5. How might relevance and appropriateness be improved? Effectiveness: 1. To what extent has ICSP achieved its overall objectives? 2. What factors (external and internal) have served to delay or impede delivery of the program outputs? Which have been the most significant? 3. How effective have the mechanisms for beneficiary selection (CSOs) operated? 4. How might effectiveness be improved? Impact: 1. Who has benefited most from the project’s activities? What patterns emerge in the four different geographical areas and sectors? 2. What have been the principal impacts (intended and unintended, positive and negative) of ICSP in relation to: gender, age-groups, ethnic groups, displaced and non-displaced communities and institutions? 3. What have been the results from increased International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement (INL) funding on anti-corruption activities; Has a more robust program resulted from the increased funding? If so, how, where and impact. 4. Concluding remarks Anything else you would like to say or suggest? Part 3: Questionnaire for ADF/ICSP Management Effectiveness: 1. Please confirm the progress/degree of completion of activities for the CSRC as shown in the SOW. Explain reasons for delays and if activities will be completed by June 2007. 2. Please confirm the progress/degree of completion of activities for the Training and Technical assistance as shown in the SOW. Explain reasons for delays and if activities will be completed by June 2007. 3. Please confirm the progress/degree of completion of activities for the Women’s Advocacy CSOs as shown in the SOW. Explain reasons for delays and if activities will be completed by June 2007. Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 28 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium 4. Please confirm the progress/degree of completion of activities for the Promoting Human Rights as shown in the SOW. Explain reasons for delays and if activities will be completed by June 2007. 5. Please confirm the progress/degree of completion of activities for the Provision of Small Grants to CSOs as shown in the SOW. Explain reasons for delays and if activities will be completed by June 2007. 6. What factors (external and internal) have served to delay or impede delivery of the programme? Which have been the most significant? 7. How might effectiveness be improved? Efficiency: 1. Comment on the contractual obligations between ADF and USAID and how these have affected the management of ICSP and the selection and use of resources? (Please refer us to specific sections of the ADF contract and contract modifications, program descriptions, work plans, the Grants Manual, the ICSP PMP, priorities of the ICSP USAID CTO, as well as the weekly and monthly reports submitted by ADF to USAID. 2. Did you (or do you) work together with the other USAID partners on any level; explain how you worked together; what recommendations do you have to improve the working relationships among the other USAID partners? (LGP II, CAP II, IFES); 3. Talking more on coordination, what steps have been taken to coordinate ICSP activities with other agencies that may be active in the same area (e.g., State Department, Military Civil Affairs); 4. Do you find the PRT structure helpful in the implementation of the ICSP? If not, why not; what opportunities exist for the ADF/ICSP to interact with the PRTs; what concerns do you have in working with the PRTs in the future? 5. What problems occur, if any, in the relationship between ADF/ICSP field office and the ADF/ICSP HQ; 6. How have unit costs and costs per activity varied? 7. Where has the program been most cost effective? Least cost effective? 8. Are there any income-generating activities from HQ and for each center? If yes, what kinds of activities and how much income have been generated to date? 9. What capacity building training has ICSP staff here received? How was it? (quality, quantity and how applied) 10. What challenges have been faced in the recruitment and retention of staff? 11. Do HR policies in ADF/ICSP for staff capacity building lead to more responsibility for indigenous staff? 12. Are there any problems in the relationship between ICSP and local staff? 13. What challenges does the Regional Director face when managing the CSRC staff and programming? Any success stories? 14. Can we discuss internal project audit reports; what changes were made after these reports? 15. What are the lessons learned, including the most important, since the onset of the ICSP? 16. Concluding remarks Anything else you would like to say or suggest? Part 4: Questionnaire for Civil Society Resource Center Management Staff 1. Explain purpose of the visit. 2. Get a quick tour and note: Physical location of each Center – size, number of rooms. Take photographs of each room; Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 29 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium 3. When was this CSRC established? 4. Let us review the technical assistance received by this center for each of the sectors (type, when and how used) 5. What capacity building training have ICSP staff here received? How was it? (quality, quantity and how applied) 6. Explain the management structure? Who is who (gender, ethnicity, alliances) 7. What about the Advisory Board-is it in place? (composition-number, gender, ethnicity) 8. How were the Board members selected? How often are they elected? 9. What is its role and how effective has it been to date? How often does the Board meet? 10. Tell me about the staffing levels of this center – number, skill set of staff members, and types of value added by the existing staff. 11. How were staff selected to meet the needs of the public/CSOs? 12. Were you able to hire staff locally? How acceptable are your staff by the CSOs? 13. How many municipalities does the CSRC serve? (Distance and means of transport). How accessible is the CSRC for the general public/CSOs? Is it secure? 14. Resource Library Do you have a resource library? 15. What resource materials are available to CSOs? Can they check them out? 16. How do you ensure materials are returned? 17. Satellite centers Are there satellite centers available for the rural communities? If so, where are they? How many people do they serve? What types of resources are available in the satellite centers? 18. Which training programs do you have? Review by sector (civic education, women’s issues, human rights) 19. (for each program) Which programs are most successful/useful? (Satisfaction of trainees and application). 20. In terms of trainers, how do the trainees find the ADF trainers? Other trainers? 21. Conferences Which national and regional conferences have been held? 22. Which CSOs attended (sector and location) and what did evaluation of conferences show in terms of satisfaction levels? What was the reaction of the trainees to the conferences-discussion points and action plans emerging? 23. Are there any concrete examples of how conference learning changed the way CSOs operate their CSO?, giving concrete examples; what pertinent issues were discussed; review of common action plans – are they being implemented; where are they in the implementation process etc. 24. Grants Review Let us now review the grants provided to the CSOs through the center? (Policy and how easy to apply, Implementation, selection criteria and types of grants, gaps) 25. OAT Tool Are you using the OAT tool? How? Since when? 26. How effective is the OAT Tool in identifying the strengths and weaknesses of the CSOs? 27. How is the OAT used for the Grants activity? 28. Business Plans Can we see your business plan for the current year? What are your operating costs? Where will the revenues come from? 29. Are the centers used for other community activities? If so, what activities? 30. Income Generating Activities Are there any income-generating activities at the center? 31. What kinds of activities and how much income has been generated to date? 32. How is this income used? Who decides this? Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 30 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium 33. What accounting procedures are in place (here and to HQ) for any income generated? For what is the income used and who decides? 34. If no plan, why not and what needs to be done to move the process forward? 35. Impact How many CSOs are linked to this centre? What is the number of new CSOs formed as a result of each center broken down by type of advocacy being done? 36. Sustainability Plan What is your plan to sustain this centre by June 2007? Describe. 37. If not why not and what needs to be done to move the process forward? 38. The Future In the past, what internal assessments have been done in this centre? What corrective actions if any were suggested? Have they been implemented? 39. Concluding remarks Anything else you would like to say or suggest? Part 5: Questionnaire for CRSC Board members 1. When was the Board formed? Who are the members and their titles? 2. How often does the Board meet? 3. What is the role of the Board? 4. In your view has the ICSP been carried out as expected? Explain. 5. What role is the Board taking to make the CSRCs more sustainable? 6. If not, why not? If yes, will the CSRCs be sustainable by June 2007? 7. What is the role of the Board in financial management and income generation? 8. How successful is the Board in its advocacy role? E.g. What have been the results from increased International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement (INL) funding on anti-corruption activities; Has a more robust program resulted from the funding of the ICSP? If so, how, where and impact. 9. Concluding remarks Anything else you would like to say or suggest? Part 6: Questionnaire for CSOs 1. How has your CSO benefited from the ICSP? Explain. 2. Did you receive training? Comment on this. (type, quality, how applied) 3. Did you receive the OAT assessment? What were the results? How have the findings changed over time? 4. Did you receive a grant? How were you selected? How much did you receive? 5. Did you attend conferences? Comment on this (lessons learned, action plans done) 6. Are there any concrete examples of how a conference learning changed the way you operate your CSO? 7. How do you use the CRSC now? 8. Do you use the satellite centers? 9. Concluding remarks Anything else you would like to say or suggest? Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 31 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium ANNEX F Iraq Civil Society Program (ICSP) Evaluation Draft Final Report – Analysis of Civil Society Organization Survey Data International Business & Technical Consultants, Inc. 8614 Westwood Center Drive Suite 400 Vienna, VA 22182 USA Contracted under: Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) DISCLAIMER The author’s views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for International Development or the United States Government. Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) ICSP Evaluation – Analysis of CSO Survey Data IBTCI Consortium LIST OF ACRONYMS................................................................................................... H35 Executive Summary ...................................................................................................... H37 PURPOSE OF THE REPORT.............................................................................................................................H37 CONTEXT ......................................................................................................................................................H38 THE PROGRAM ..............................................................................................................................................H38 THE CSO SURVEY METHODOLOGY................................................................................................................H39 CRITICAL ASSUMPTIONS ................................................................................................................................H40 ANALYZING THE DATA....................................................................................................................................H41 FINDINGS ......................................................................................................................................................H41 ANALYSIS OF THE CIVIL SOCIETY ORGANIZATION SURVEY ................................ H44 INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................................................................44 H Table 1: Reported Year of Establishment .................................................................. 46H EVALUATION APPROACH IN ICSP ...................................................................................................................46 H BACKGROUND ...............................................................................................................................................46 H SURVEY METHODOLOGY................................................................................................................................47 H Table 2: Sample Frame and Quasi-Experimental Design Groups ............................. 48H CRITICAL ASSUMPTIONS ................................................................................................................................49 H Survey Results .............................................................................................................. 50H BASIC TABLES...............................................................................................................................................50 H PART 1: DETAILS OF CSO SURVEY RESPONSE ..............................................................................................51 H Factors Limiting Survey Response .................................................................................... 51H Table 3: Survey Interview Results.............................................................................. 51H Adjustments for Non-Response ......................................................................................... 52H Categories of Respondents................................................................................................ 52H Table 4: Gender of Respondent................................................................................. 52H Table 5: Position of the Respondent in the CSO Organization .................................. 52H PART 2: INFORMATION ABOUT THE CSO ORGANIZATION .................................................................................53 H Learning about CSOs......................................................................................................... 53H Figure 1: How CSOs learned about the concept........................................................ 53H CSO formation ................................................................................................................... 54H Table 6: Reported Year of Establishment (from the ICSP Database)....................... 54H Figure 2: When was the CSO formed? ...................................................................... 54H Table 7: CSO reported membership by year of formation.......................................... 55H CSO Dynamics................................................................................................................... 55H Table 8: CSO year of formation by response rates.................................................... 56H CSO Primary Purpose........................................................................................................ 56H Table 9: Primary purpose of the organization ............................................................ 56H CSO Membership............................................................................................................... 57H Table 10: CSO membership and membership growth ............................................... 57H The Use of Membership Fees............................................................................................ 58H Table 11: Use of membership fees ............................................................................ 58H PART III: FUNDING THE ORGANIZATION...........................................................................................................59 H Table 12: Most important sources of funding for the CSO ......................................... 59H Table 13: Most important sources of future funding for the CSO............................... 59H PART IV: CSO MANAGEMENT ISSUES ............................................................................................................60 H The Most Important and Difficult Management Issues....................................................... 60H Table 14: Most important and difficult management issue the CSO has had to deal with during the past year ............................................................................................ 60H Table 15: Next most important and difficult management issue the CSO has had to deal with during the past year .................................................................................... 61H Where Do CSOs Look for Help in Solving Difficult Management Issues? ......................... 62H Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 33 ICSP Evaluation – Analysis of CSO Survey Data IBTCI Consortium Figure 3: What is the CSO’s most important source of help for solving difficult management issues ................................................................................................... 62H Table 16: The most important source of help on difficult management issues .......... 63H Table 17: The second most important source of help on difficult management issues ................................................................................................................................... 63H What Are the Important Skills and Abilities the CSOs Hope to Develop?.......................... 64H Figure 4: The most important skill or ability the CSO would like to acquire ............... 64H Table 18:The second most important skill or ability CSOs wish to acquire................ 65H PART V: CSO RELATIONSHIP WITH CIVIL SOCIETY RESOURCE CENTERS.........................................................65 H The CSO’s Relationship with the ICSP Program ............................................................... 65H Table 19:Kind of support received.............................................................................. 66H How Often Did the CSO Staff Visit the CSRC in the Last One Year?................................ 66H How Often Did the ICSP Staff Visit the CSO Offices in the Last One Year? ..................... 66H Table 20: The number of times an ICSP/CSRC staff visited the CSO in the last 12 months........................................................................................................................ 66H Table 21: The total number of times the CSO facilitated a community forum or campaign in the past 6 months .................................................................................. 67H CSO Training Courses Attended in the Past Year............................................................. 67H Table 22: The number of training courses attended in the last 12 months ............... 67H CSO Conference Attendance Last Year ............................................................................ 67H Table 23: The total number of times the CSO facilitated a community forum or campaign in the past 6 months .................................................................................. 68H What Organizations Provide the Most Training to You and Your Staff? ............................ 68H Workshop Participation During the Past Year.................................................................... 68H Table 24: The number of times CSOs participated in workshops during the past year ................................................................................................................................... 68H Table 25: CSO survey reported workshop attendance with advocacy events ........... 69H Table 26: All CSO participations ................................................................................ 69H Table 27: CSO participations in capacity building events with advocacy events ....... 70H Table 28: Results of a multivariate regression analysis predicting advocacy numbers ................................................................................................................................... 71H PART VI: CSO EMPOWERMENT AND POLITICAL ACTION..................................................................................72 H Influence Over Everyday Activities..................................................................................... 72H Table 29: Influence over everyday activities with quasi-experimental design groups 72H Table 30: Comparison of empowerment across three surveys.................................. 72H Sense of Power to Influence Important Decisions ............................................................. 73H Table 31: CSO perceived influence over important decisions.................................... 73H Petitioning Government Officials or Political Leaders ........................................................ 74H Table 32: Petitioning government officials and political leaders................................. 74H Table 33: The extent that local government and local leaders take into account concerns of the CSOs ................................................................................................ 74H PART VII: CSO ADVOCACY ...........................................................................................................................75 H The Number of CSO Facilitated Events............................................................................. 75H Table 34: CSO facilitated events during the past six months (weighted)................... 76H Evidence that CSOs Have Been Able to Influence or Change Policy................................ 76H Table 35: The ability of CSOs to influence or change policy...................................... 76H Table 36: List of policies or decisions affected........................................................... 77H CSO Mobilization for Advocacy Campaigns ...................................................................... 78H Table 37: CSOs that identified and mobilized resources for campaigns.................... 78H Table 38: Successful petitioners tended to be successful mobilizers ........................ 79H CSOs Working with Others ................................................................................................ 79H Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 34 ICSP Evaluation – Analysis of CSO Survey Data IBTCI Consortium APPENDIX A: BASIC TABLES .................................................................................... 80H TABLES BASED ON REGIONAL DIFFERENCES:..................................................................................................80 H TABLES BASED ON QUASI-EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN GROUPS......................................................................... 119 H APPENDIX B: CSO SURVEY DATA FILE DESCRIPTION........................................ 143 H Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 35 ICSP Evaluation – Analysis of CSO Survey Data IBTCI Consortium LIST OF ACRONYMS ADF America’s Development Foundation ANOVA Analysis of Variance CAG Community Action Group COP Chief of Party CPA Coalition Provisional Authority CSO Civil Society Organization CSRC Civil Society Resource Center CTO Cognizant Technical Officer DAC District Advisory Council DCOP Deputy Chief of Party DG Democracy and Governance DOD Department of Defense DOS Department of State FY Fiscal Year GOI Government of Iraq HQ Headquarters HR Human Resources IIACSS Independent Institute for Administration and Civil Society Studies IBTCI International Business & Technical Consultants, Inc. ICAP Iraq Community Action Program ICSP Iraq Civil Society Program IFES International Federation of Election Systems INL International Narcotics Law IP Implementing Partner IR Intermediate Result IRI International Republican Institute IT Information Technology LG Local Government LGP Local Governance Program LOE Level of Effort LOP Life of Project or Program M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MIS Management Information System MOE Ministry of Education MOU Memorandum of Understanding N/A Not Applicable n.d. No Data NDI National Democratic Institute NGO Non-Governmental Organization PMP Performance Management Plan PC Provincial Council PRT Provincial Reconstruction Team Q Quarter RF Results Framework RFA Request for Application SO Strategic Objective SOW Scope of Work TA Technical Assistance UN United Nations Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 36 ICSP Evaluation – Analysis of CSO Survey Data IBTCI Consortium US United States USAID United States Agency for International Development USG United States Government Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 37 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium Executive Summary This report is part of the final evaluation of ICSP 3 year, $60 million USAID funded program to build and strengthen civil society in the Republic of Iraq. The Program, entitled the Iraq Civil Society Program (ICSP) is being implemented through a contract with the America’s Development Foundation (ADF). The contractual period began in August, 2004 and is due to terminate on June 30, 2007. Purpose of the Report This analysis supplements the more broad-based report “Building on Transition: Iraq Civil Society Program (ICSP) Final Evaluation” that provides 1) guidance and recommendations for course corrections, 2) a determination of whether objectives were achieved, and 3) provided lessons learned for any follow-on project. The “Building on Transition” evaluation focuses on the management of the program, the model developed by ADF, the quality and impact of training provided and on the effectiveness and sustainability of the four Regional Civil Society Resource Centers (CSRCs) that have been established in Iraq. The “Building on Transition” evaluation does not cover the media program or the anti-corruption program that were parts of the overall ICSP program. These elements were explicitly excluded from the Scope of Work (SOW). This analysis includes reference to these programs with respect to the magnitude these program elements represent in comparison to the whole program. The impact these two elements may have had is not explored in this analysis. The purpose of this “Analysis of Civil Society Organization Survey Data” is to present the results from the quasi-experimental design that informed the sample survey. The purpose of the quasi￾experimental design is to evaluate whether the capacity building the ICSP program provides to the CSOs enables them to achieve USAID Mission strategic objectives and intermediate results. To do this the quasi-experimental design identifies three categories of CSO. Each category grouped CSOs that had received different levels of capacity building measured by the number of days training received through ICSP workshops. Evidence for CSO workshop attendance came from the ICSP CSO activities database. This report primarily compares the results of the three experimental groups, but also compares the results of groups formed post hoc from the survey data. The contract agreement specifies the objective of the awarded contract: “The objective of this activity is to promote an informed, sustainable, and active indigenous Iraqi civil society that effectively and responsibly participates within a democratic system of governance. This will be achieved through the strategic management of five (modified later to four) civil society resource centers that will provide training and technical assistance in leadership, management principles and the financial skills necessary to operate effective and sustainable Civil Society Organizations (CSOs).” Further the contract states “This award will form part of USAID/Iraq’s overall Democracy and Governance Program aimed at promoting effective transparent and increasingly representative governance in Iraq that constructively interacts with a vibrant and informed civil society.” A survey questionnaire that is the basis for this report was designed with these program objectives in mind. The questionnaire sought to validate the proposition that capacity building of CSOs yields results demonstrating that “effective transparent and increasingly representative governance in Iraq that constructively interacts with a vibrant and informed civil society” occurred. To do this, the questionnaire specifically asks respondent CSOs how and with whom Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 38 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium they have advocated, and whether they believed that such advocacies influenced local councils and government agencies in changing policy or decisions. Additional questions ask respondent CSOs about their sense of empowerment and ability to make their communities better places to live. These two measurements of advocacy and empowerment are used in this report as proxy measures for CSO impact. When CSOs state that they had influenced policy, they were asked to name the policy or issue they had influenced. Measures like these were used throughout the questionnaire to validate responses. Context Since the invasion in March 2003 Iraqi citizens started to adopt some of the attributes of what has been called “civil society” - - - the capacity of individuals to come together voluntarily for the good of their community and to articulate and advocate for change that will improve their quality of life. Community action independent of government or traditional tribal and religious groups blossomed during 2003 in the aftermath of liberation. The ICSP database of CSOs shows that approximately 12% of CSOs now registered on their database reported that they were established on or before 2002, another 28% were established in 2003, 27% in 2004, 26% in 2005, with the remaining 8% in 2006. Older CSOs, such as the Iraq Red Crescent Society and various professional groups, have been operating in Iraq since the 1950s and before. From 1991, CSOs emerged in the Kurdish North that was then in the no￾fly zone, under UN development assistance, and governing itself. By 2003 there was a rapid growth of CSOs in the remainder of Iraq. This growth apparently tapered off during 2006 (based on data from the ICSP database), plus there has been some consolidation in the sector according to evidence from the CSO survey. Overall, it is estimated that the number of CSOs grew from less than 200 before the invasion to as many as 2000 by the year 2007. This rapid growth shows that there is a need for an institutional infrastructure to enable civil society to flourish. CSOs have been widely used by both civil and military USG agencies as the vehicle for implementation of governance and economic programs so that the growth of a viable civil society sector has implications for ensuring effective development programs. The Program The USAID/ICSP initiative was intended to: promote an informed, sustainable and active indigenous Iraqi civil society that effectively and responsibly participates within a democratic system of governance”. This objective was to be achieved through the establishment of four CSRCs, the provision of training and technical assistance through these Centers and the management of a small grants program to “reinforce” training and technical assistance. Special emphasis was to be placed on civic education, human rights, women’s advocacy and anti￾corruption. The contract heavily emphasized the importance of sustainability and local “ownership” of the CSRCs. Advisory Boards were to be established for each Regional Center and to gradually assume a governance role. The Program has provided widespread training and/or technical assistance to approximately 1600 CSOs since 2004. The demand for training remains high. CSOs report high levels of satisfaction with the training that they have received according to pre and post training evaluations administered by ICSP. ADF has fully or partially complied with the following primary deliverables: Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 39 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium • Twenty two training modules have been established and are given good marks by both CSOs and local CSRC staff. • Training programs have been designed and delivered in the three emphasis areas: anti￾corruption, women’s advocacy and civic participation. Interview feed back indicates that these courses were of good quality. In total, it is reported from the ADF ICSP database that more than 10,000 individuals from CSOs have received training from the program. The CSO Survey Methodology The design of the CSO survey focuses on measuring the results of ICSP CSO capacity building. Evaluations measure the impact of a program as the difference between the outcomes actually experienced by program beneficiaries and the outcomes that would have been experienced in the absence of the program. A quasi-experimental design was followed here. This compares the experiences of program participants with those of non-participants. The quasi-experimental design first identifies the participant and non-participant groups. Information obtained from the ICSP databases was used to establish a sample frame and to identify the comparison groups. The ICSP program maintains four separate databases that provide the basis for our understanding of the CSO characteristics, and that were used to define the quasi-experimental groups. These are the “ICSP Activities Database”, “CSOs General Information Database”, “Grants Database” and the “Organizational Assessment Tool (OAT) Database.” In designing the sample of CSOs we made use of the activities information to help characterize the CSOs in the sample frame. To do this, CSOs were linked to the activities they had participated in. The strategy for designing the quasi-experimental groups identified how much capacity building each CSO received. This was accomplished by looking only at ‘workshop’ activities and rolling up the total number of training days each CSO has received across the number of workshop activities it attended. Data were extracted from the ICSP Activities Database so that just those activities identified as ‘workshop’ were included. A relationship table from the CSO Information database was used to link the workshop activities to specific CSOs. We then had a fairly accurate picture of the extent of training received by each CSO in the database. From the 1847 CSOs in the CSO General Information database, 1529 of them had attended at least one workshop. The difference between the 1847 and 1529 is the number of CSOs who had received no training (the non-participant group). The 1529 CSOs with training were then divided into two groups based on the median number of days training received (this defined the two participant groups). Together they defined the three experimental design groups. A random sample was drawn from each of the three groups. Based on a ‘sample power’ analysis, 86 CSOs were selected from each group making a total sample size of 258. The sample design is fully reported in Annex C of this report. Survey response was less than had been anticipated. This was in large part because up to 25% of the CSOs could not be found and apparently no longer existed. Interviewers were able to verify in most cases that the CSOs not found in fact no longer existed. Since this category of non-response was evenly distributed across the quasi-experimental design groups we did not need to adjust for it. However, the loss of so many valid responses reduced the power of the sample. We compensated for this by reducing the significance levels of our tests from .05 to .20. Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 40 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium The fact that so many CSOs may no longer exist is evidence that the sector is consolidating, but also that at least some of the capacity building undertaken had no result. The survey questionnaire is elaborated in seven sections. Each section was intended to provide data for the analysis of different aspects of the CSOs. These are the sections: • Part I – Details of the CSO Survey Response • Part II – Information about the Organization • Part III – Funding the Organization • Part IV – Management Issues • Part V – Relationship with Civil Society Resource Centers • Part VI – Empowerment and Political Action • Part VII – Civil Society Organization Advocacy The report structure mimics the questionnaire structure. Parts VI and VII contain questions used to measure the impact of ICSP training. The questionnaire is provided in full in Annex B. The survey instrument was field tested and revised on two occasions. Interviewers were from the areas where they conducted the interviews. The survey was conducted throughout Iraq during the final weeks of March 2007. Interviewers were guided to the selected CSOs for introduction and subsequent independent interview. The interviews were conducted in private with one or more persons from the CSO. The position within the CSO of the person interviewed was captured with the survey instrument. Data were collected, vetted and entered by IBTCI’s subcontractor, the Independent Institute for Administrative and Civil Society Studies (IIACSS). A data dictionary in SPSS format was provided to the subcontractor that provided validation rules for data entry. No major problems were detected in the data collection process, however there were numerous incidents where translations were incorrect and where data had been entered in an incorrect format. Correcting these errors proved time-consuming. The data used to produce the results in this report are from the release version of the survey results data file in SPSS. The file is documented in Annex D. Critical Assumptions The critical assumptions for this report are that 1) the level of capacity building provided to the CSOs is adequately measured by the number or trainings attended, workshop participations, conference attendances, and technical assistance received; and 2) that the impact the CSOs are having is measured by the following: • The number of times they have facilitated a community forum or campaign; • The number of times they appeared before local government elected or advisory councils; • The number of times they appeared before local government departments; • The influence they believe they have had to change or influence policy decisions; • Whether the organization has mobilized resources from its members or from the community to carry out an advocacy campaign; • The number of times they have worked closely with other CSOs to advocate for a common cause; Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 41 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium • How often in the past 12 months they have petitioned government officials or political leaders for improved services and the result of those petitions; and • The perception of empowerment that CSOs have in making the community a better place to live. Additional assumptions are that the survey design, the survey questionnaire and the ICSP database collect this information with suitable accuracy to provide confidence in the result. Analyzing the Data The data were vetted to ensure that responses were logical and in accordance with instructions to the interviewers and the data entry personnel. Each of the CSOs in the survey could be linked back to the ICSP database where additional information was available. This cross￾reference to an additional data source enabled verification of some of the survey data. All variables were analyzed for statistical outliers. When statistical outliers occurred these were sent back to the field for verification. Outliers that could not be confirmed by field checks or reference to the database were declared missing values. This occurred in three cases. Once vetted the data were used to create a ‘release version’ of the survey data. The release version of the data does not permit identification of specific CSOs and is intended to permit independent replication of the results found in this report. A complete set of cross tabulations has been prepared for each of the categorical and numeric variables derived from the questionnaire. Each of the variables is cross tabulated by region and quasi-experimental design group. These tables are presented in Annex A. Data analysis for the body of this report proceeded from simple frequencies of variables to cross tabulations using Chi Square statistics to confirm whether significant differences existed between column distributions. Tabulations in the body of the report include reference to the Chi Square statistic used to confirm statistical significance. When possible, simple bar charts are provided to illustrate differences, but these are always supplemented by statements of statistical significance. Analysis of variance was used when a comparison of mean values was appropriate. Analysis of variance post hoc tests including multiple comparisons and estimates of statistical homogeneous subsets were used to confirm whether a difference between the quasi￾experimental design groups was significant. The primary purpose of the data analysis has been to identify possible relationships between ICSP outputs with CSO impacts. Causality is not proven with statistical relationships, but it is given as evidence to support such an argument. Considerable effort was given to triangulating the findings of the data analysis particularly where it has clear implications for ICSP program implementation. Findings Overall the impact that ICSP capacity building has had on encouraging CSOs to advocate with the institutions of government to promote citizen interests has been limited. It has been argued that this general lack of demonstrable impact is due to the length of time it takes for CSO capacity building to come to fruition and that expecting measurable impact after just 3 years is premature. However, this is a large program designed with the anticipation of quick results. Iraq desperately needs an active civil society that can help demonstrate that citizen views are taken into consideration by elected officials. The speed with which this should occur is at the discretion of the donor. At this time demonstrations of impact are weak, but not entirely absent. Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 42 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium The impact of workshop training seems limited, but technical assistance delivered through ICSP staff visits to the CSOs often shows significant impact. The following findings are extracted from the body of this analytical report: • The number of CSOs grew from less than 200 before 2003 to a current estimated 2000, about one-third of CSOs were established before 2004; • From 20% to 25% of CSOs in the survey were not found and believed to have closed; this implies a relatively high drop out rate and perhaps consolidation of the CSO sector; • The extent of workshop training did not have an effect on curtailing the drop out rate, so some capacity building may have been lost; • Weighted estimates of CSO membership suggest that there may be as many as 600,000 CSO members; • Weighted estimates of new CSO members joining in the past year exceeded 200,000 (however from a data quality assessment point of view this number has low reliability); • A large percentage, but not a majority, of new members were women; • Women’s advocacy was identified by 23% of CSOs as the primary purpose of their organization. This was the largest single percentage among the six ICSP sectors; • 42% of CSOs said they charged membership fees, but this practice was not related to the extent of training they had received. • The most important current source of revenue was seen as personal contributions; • The most frequently cited source of future revenue seen as support from local government (this seems at cross purposes to an independent CSO sector); • Fund raising was seen, by a wide margin, as the single most difficult management problem facing the CSOs; • The next most difficult problem identified was ‘getting technical help to improve the quality of our program.’ The ICSP seems well suited to provide this type of assistance; • Most CSOs look internally to solve their difficult management decisions: they look first to their Board of Directors, which most CSOs have, and then to their staff; • The most important skill that CSOs sought to acquire was fund raising, followed by communication skills and advocacy. These are skills that can be taught by ICSP • 46% of CSO survey respondents said that they had received some type of support from the ICSP/CSRC. This was lower than anticipated, based on the formulation of the control groups we expected about 67%; • 74% of the CSOs said that they had visited the CSRC during the last year, but this was not statistically different across the control groups; more visits to the CSRC did not relate to an increase in the number of advocacy events undertaken; • When ICSP staff visited the CSOs (presumably to provide technical assistance such as the OAT) there was a positive impact on the number of advocacy events undertaken; • The questionnaire asked about attendances at training courses last year. This was used to validate the control groups, but it too had no impact of the number of advocacies undertaken by CSOs; Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 43 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium • 22% of the CSOs said that they received most of their training from other institutions; • 47% of CSOs said they attended one or more conferences last year; • The combination of training events, workshops and conference attendance meant that on average CSOs attended 20 to 21 events last year; this may be taxing their ability to do advocacy; • When all capacity building events are combined into total events as in the bullet point above, the more total events attended by a CSO does not relate to an increase in CSO advocacy events; • A regression analysis that used five independent variables to predict the number of advocacy events likely shows that the ‘number of times an ICSP/CSRC staff member visits a CSO’ is the strongest positive factor in predicting increased advocacy events; the ‘number of training courses attended’ appears to have a negative impact; while the ‘number of conference attendances’ has a modest positive effect. Workshop attendance and visits by the CSO to the ICSP have no effect on the number of advocacy events; • More workshop training did have a positive effect on CSO sense of empowerment and this is statistically significant across the control groups; linked is the positive relationship that more empowerment has to more advocacy events undertaken (however the link is tenuous); • 44% of CSOs said they petitioned government officials or local leaders more than five times regarding the improvement of local services; the number of petitions were not differentiated across the control groups; more training apparently did not lead to more petitioning; • Successful petitioning was not found to relate to any of the capacity building activities collected in the survey; • The extent to which local government and local leaders took into account the concerns of CSOs was not related to the control groups; however there is a modest positive association with visits that ICSP staff make to the CSOs; • It is estimated that thousands of advocacy events have occurred, and that is of course a positive finding; it is not clear that this has been entirely due to the ICSP program and whether advocacy would continue to be done in the absence of the ICSP program; • 55% of CSOs reported that they had no or limited influence to change policy or decision making with elected officials or advisory councils, and there was no significant difference across the control groups implying that workshop training did not improve this outcome; • CSOs saying that they did have influence provided good examples of policies that they have influenced; this is a very positive outcome; • Half of the CSOs said that they had been able to mobilize community resources to conduct campaigns; this was not related to the control groups; CSOs who were able to mobilize resources petition government more often and were more successful at it; and • CSOs have been good at partnering with other CSOs working jointly for a common cause; although there are not significant differences across the control groups, CSOs who visited the CSRC joined with other CSOs more often (perhaps as a result of networking). Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 44 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium ANALYSIS OF THE CIVIL SOCIETY ORGANIZATION SURVEY Introduction In August 2004 USAID/Iraq launched the three-year Iraq Civil Society Program (ICSP) in support of the United States Government (USG) efforts to foster participatory democratic governance in Iraq. The goal was to strengthen civil society’s role in the economic and political development of indigenous Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) in Iraq. A $ 43 million contract was awarded to the America’s Development Foundation (ADF) to accomplish this goal. This figure has now been modified to $60,880,157.00F 7 . An understanding of the context in which ICSP was implemented provides insights into constraints, challenges of the program and has implications for its future and the future of other civic society programs. The Republic of Iraq is bordered from the north by Turkey, from the West by Syria and Jordan, from the south by Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the Arab Gulf and from the East by Iran. Iraq has an area of 435,025 sq km in which 18 (eighteen) Governorates (five northern, nine central and four southern) comprise the key regionsF 8 . Iraq has an ancient history but several more recent events have contributed to high vulnerability of the general population with respect to minimum living standards and life expectancy. This situation exists despite Iraq once being described by the UN as a high-middle-income country with a modern social infrastructure. For example, ten percent of the world’s oil reserve is found in Iraq that represents the second largest oil reserve in the world after Saudi Arabia. The former Ba’athist regime ruthlessly discouraged the formation of community groups that might challenge the established order or give voice to alternative viewpoints. They repressed the formation and development of community based grass roots organizations that could advocate for change and reform. Centralization of power, the eradication of voices of opposition and the establishment of a State created and managed institutional structure neutralized attempts at voluntary association.F 9 Ongoing repressive rule by the Ba’athists under President Saddam Hussein was characterized by serious human rights abuses. This and the subsequent Gulf War of 1991 and overthrow of Saddam Hussein by the US and allies in 2003, worsened the situation. Continued unrest and fighting mean that social conditions and quality of life for the Iraqi people have deteriorated dramatically in the last 5 years. The result of this up to 2003, when Saddam Hussein was overthrown, was a deadening of the habits and practices of what in the west is called “philanthropy” and which the Iraqis refer to as Ál Jamiáat Al Khayria’ where local self help groups (often with religious or socio-cultural ties), 7 Amendment/Modification ADF Contract No. GEW-C-00-04-0001-00, page 3. 8 Four of these governorates, namely Northern Region with its central city of Erbil; Southern Region with its central city of Basra; South Central with its central city of Hilla, and Central region with its central city of Baghdad, are the subject of this evaluation as the ICSP was implemented there. 9 A comprehensive analysis of the role, structure, strength and funding of civil society in Iraq is beyond the scope of this evaluation. Indeed, this is an immensely complex subject that would require a sensitive understanding of regional, tribal and religious distinctions. The following comments are based on interviews with civil society leaders and with the staff of the CSRCs. Some of these are based on anecdotal reporting and on the opinion of individuals whose views may be biased or based on incomplete information. Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 45 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium come together to support their communities and liaise with local government leaders to make change. The fall of Saddam Hussein's regime opened a new chapter in Iraqi history and the opportunity emerged in the country to build a durable and open society with the attributes of community representation, local participation and a capacity to confront social, cultural and economic issues unfettered by rigid centralized control. Indigenous civil society groups began to emerge/re-emerge and demand a say in the future of Iraq. The decline and slow emergence of these local groups or civil society organization can be attributed to the almost complete disappearance of any vestige of free and voluntary association for purposes of social change. The new Government of Iraq (GOI) inherits a challenging governance apparatus characterized by weak and disorganized institutions lacking in transparency and accountability. There is poor inter-ministerial coordination and ineffective public outreach and communications infrastructure. The civil service is unmotivated and poorly managed. Service delivery and policymaking capabilities remain weak. Inadequate public information and discourse on proposed national governmental reforms result in a public perception that the GOI has no strategy and operates from crisis to crisis.F 10 Iraqi independent elections have been held in September-December 2005. This process was supported by the USG and other governments through RTI, IRI, IFES and NDI who participated in nationwide civic dialogue programs. Many Iraqis and emerging CSOs worked with these organizations and benefited from knowledge and training courses provided. Since the invasion in March 2003, Iraqi citizens started to adopt some of the attributes of what has been called “civil society” - - - the capacity of individuals to come together voluntarily for the good of their community and to articulate and advocate for change that will improve their quality of life. Community action independent of government or traditional tribal and religious groups blossomed during 2003 in the aftermath of liberation. CSOs that existed before and during the former regime began to liberate themselves from state control The ICSP database of CSOs shows that approximately 12% of CSOs now registered on their database reported that they were established on or before 2002, another 28% were established in 2003, 27% in 2004, 26% in 2005, with the remaining 8% in 2006. Table 1 below illustrates these findings. Older CSOs, such as the Iraq Red Crescent Society and various professional groups, have been operating in Iraq since the 1950s and before. From 1991, CSOs emerged in the Kurdish North that was then in the no-fly zone, under UN development assistance, and governing itself. By 2003 there was a rapid growth of CSOs in the remainder of Iraq. This growth apparently tapered off during 2006 (based on data from the ICSP database), plus there has been some consolidation in the sector according to evidence from the CSO survey. Overall, it is estimated that the number of CSOs grew from less than 200 before the invasion to as many as 2000 by the year 2007. 10 The Iraq national government is organized into 18 provinces (also known as governorates). Traditionally, each province has had a governor and a provincial advisory council. Under the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA), enabled by the Transitional Administrative Law (TAL) and by relevant Administrative Orders, members to the Provincial Councils (PCs) were elected by popular vote. Interim provincial elections were held in January 2005 concurrently with the elections to the Transitional National Assembly (TNA). The Iraqi Constitution was validated in a referendum held on 15 October 2005 and the Council of Representatives was elected two months later on 15 December. The Government of Iraq (GOI) is expected to hold a new round of provincial elections, but it is unclear whether or not provincial elections will be held in 2007. Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 46 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium Table 1: Reported Year of Establishment Year Frequency Percent before 2003 162 11.5 2003 387 27.5 2004 380 27.0 2005 365 26.0 2006 112 8.0 Total 1406 100.0 Missing (no date provided) 436 Total 1842 This growth and now consolidation of CSOs shows that there is a need for an institutional infrastructure to enable civil society to flourish. CSOs have been widely used by both civil and military USG agencies as the vehicle for implementation of governance and economic programs so that the growth of a viable civil society sector has implications for ensuring effective development programs. Evaluation Approach in ICSP As illustrated in the SOWF 11, this evaluation adopted a mixed-method approach. The evaluation is a combination of qualitative and quantitative examinations of the ICSP program. Included in the evaluation were document review, ICSP key person interviews, CSRC key person interviews, face to face interviews with CSOs and the CSO survey that is reported here. All but the CSO survey are fully reported in the “Building on Transition: Iraq Civil Society Program (ICSP) Final Evaluation” report. Background The CSO survey was commissioned as part of the MEPP II ICSP evaluation. The ICSP evaluation task under the MEPP II contract agreement began in Vienna, Virginia 1 March 2007 with preliminary activities and document collection. The ICSP evaluation team arrived in Iraq on 19 March departing 14 April 2007. The CSO survey was not completed in the field until a few days before the team’s departure. Nevertheless, some preliminary results were provided to them for inclusion in their draft final report. A second deliverable identified in the evaluation SOW calls for a report on the CSO Survey data. This report is submitted in satisfaction of that requirement. The CSO survey was planned well in advance of the team’s arrival in Iraq. A complete description of the CSO survey design is provided here as Annex C. Research underlying the sample design began in January with the collection of ICSP databases that could be used as the basis for the sample. The questionnaire for this survey is grounded in the review of ICSP contract documents, interviews with the ICSP monitoring personnel, review of the USAID/IRAQ 11 Stark Biddle, Robert Torene and Kathleen Webb (2007), ‘Iraq Civil Society Program (ICSP) Final Evaluation, Draft Final Report – Annexes’, April 13, 2007, Annex A Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 47 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium PMP, and the USAID/Iraq Transition Strategic Plan 2006-2008. Field testing of the questionnaire (Annex B) for the CSO survey began in early March 2007. An IBTCI sub￾contractor in Iraq supplied the interviewers for the survey. Readers familiar with Iraq will appreciate that conducting field surveys in Iraq is a risky business. In order to ease access by the interviewers to the CSO sites and to minimize security risk letters of authorization were sought and obtained from the Ministry of Planning and Development Cooperation. These letters facilitated access to the CSOs. The response rates to the survey are explained below, but interviewers were not able to reach CSOs in Al Anbar or in Diyala. Otherwise most of the field work was completed by the first week of April. Vetting and cleaning of the data continued through the middle of April. Data analysis commenced concurrently with the data vetting process. Survey Methodology The survey design supports a quasi-experimental evaluation design. This is an attempt to follow as closely as possible experimental design used in clinical trials. Pure experimental design requires a level of control over the test or ‘treatment’ groups that is rarely afforded to the evaluation of social programs such as this. In the absence of pure experimental design, quasi￾experimental designs are thought the next best approach. These are commonly used approaches where researchers identify subjects that are not participants in the program being studied but who are similar to program participants across a range of relevant characteristics. Data are then collected on the experiences of the non-participants to provide an approximate estimate of the outcomes that would have been observed for the participants had they not entered the program. The experiences of participants and non-participants are then compared after statistical adjustment for measurable differences in characteristics that may have existed before the program intervention. Any differences in outcomes are attributed to the program. The quasi-experimental design is followed here in the evaluation of the impact that the ICSP program has had on the CSOs in their ability to fulfill the intermediate results and hence achieve the USAID Mission’s Strategic Objectives 9 and 10. The ICSP maintains a comprehensive list of CSOs that have come to the attention of the ICSP through the CSRCs.F 12 Before CSOs are accepted into the ICSP to receive benefits from the CSRC they are required to be registered with the government. The process of registering filters out some aspiring CSOs who may not meet the criteria for government registration. This registration process is described in Annex C. The registration process means that the CSOs receiving assistance from the ICSP (and appearing in the databases) do so from an established legal framework that defines an existing organizational management structure that includes a board of directors and on-going financial operations. The registration process suggests that CSOs brought into the ICSP already have some operational history. This informs us that the CSOs entering the ICSP database are probably not newly formed. Nevertheless, the ICSP CSO information database provides us with an accurate representation of CSOs that have received or intend to receive inputs from the ICSP. The database provides us with the sample frame or universe of all 1847 CSOsF 13 available for ICSP interventions and from which we drew the sample. 12 The Government of Iraq may have a more complete list, but we were unable to confirm this. In a recent communication with the General Secretariat of the Cabinet, NGO Assistance Office they confirmed that they were the only official registration point for Iraqi NGOs. 13 This is the number of CSOs on the database in January 2007. Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 48 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium To meet the requirements of the evaluation, the CSO database is segmented into quasi￾experimental control groups. The ICSP program maintains not one, but four separate databasesF 14 that provide the basis for our understanding of the CSO characteristics, and that were used to define the quasi-experimental design groups. These databases are described in Annex C along with the procedure used for segmenting the CSOs into groups. The result of the process defined three groups based on the number of workshop trainings that had been received by the CSOs. From the 1847 CSOs in the CSO General Information database, 1529 of them had attended a workshop at least once. The difference between the 1847 and 1529 is the number of CSOs who had received no training (the non-participant group). The 1529 CSOs with training were divided in to two groups based on the median number of days training received (this defined the two participant groups). Together they defined the three experimental design groups in the sample frame. The three groups were tested to ensure that they all came from relatively uniform populations. Once this was confirmed random samples were drawn from each of the three groups. Table 2 defines the groups. Table 2: Sample Frame and Quasi-Experimental Design Groups CSO Training Days (strata) CSOs Grouped by Training Days Mean Number of Training Days Total Number of Training Days Number of CSOs in the database No Workshop Training Days 0 0 323 1 to 6 Workshop Training Days 3 2671 813 More that 6 Workshop Training Days 16 11041 711 Total 9 13712 1847 Sample size requirements were estimated based on assumptions of response and variance (described in Annex C). These assumptions were informed by data on the database, and from the CAG survey conducted as part of the ICAP evaluation conducted in 2006. Sample power analysisF 15 using an Analysis of Variance model with the criterion for significance (alpha) set at 0.05 showed that a ‘sample power’ of 0.80 would be obtained were 80 CSOs selected at random from each group. An additional six CSOs were added to each sample to adjust for probable non-response. Thus for each group 86 CSOs were selected at random making for a total sample size of 258. Because the CSOs were selected from the database we were able to link the survey findings to the information on the database using a unique identifier. Through this feature we added additional variables to the data file. When data are analyzed from the database rather than the survey they will be identified as such. 14 These four separate databases have recently been combined under a single database structure. 15 A power analysis was used to anticipate the likelihood that the study will yield a significant effect. It is based on the same factors that determine a significance test. Specifically, the larger the effect size used in the power analysis, the larger the sample size, and/or the more liberal the criterion required for significance (alpha here is .05), the higher the expectation that the study will yield a statistically significant effect. The goal of the power analysis was to find an appropriate balance among the factors taking into account the aims of the study, and to minimize the resources used. A typical power target is 80% for social science studies such as this one. Here the aim is to be able to say with confidence whether or not there are differences between the CSO quasi-experimental design groups for the variables that are measured. The power analysis was carried out using Sample Power 2.0 software from SPSS to verify the sample design. Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 49 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium The survey design is built around the quasi-experimental groups as the basis for primary comparison in the analysis. The membership of a CSO in one of the three groups is used as a basis of comparison because we expect to achieve a certain number of responses in each category. It is possible to create other categorical variables to use for additional comparisons after the fact. These other categorical variables should be used with caution especially when cell sizes in the resulting analysis are small. One of the critical areas in the design of quasi-experimental tests is to ensure that there is no ‘leakage’ between the groups that are identified. Leakage here might mean that the group allegedly having no ICSP training may actually have received it. This might occur if training was received, but not reported in the CSO Activity database. This is a possibility. A second possibility is that CSOs would have received training from other sources. We planned to detect this with the questionnaire and now know that this did happen. This evaluation is only concerned with the impact of ICSP training; if other training had been received it is assumed that ICSP training will overlay it and should stand apart in demonstrated impact. Critical Assumptions The critical assumptions for this report are that 1) the level of capacity building provided to the CSOs is adequately measured by the number or trainings attended, workshop participations, conference attendances, and technical assistance received; and 2) that the impact the CSOs are having is measured by the following: • The number of times they have facilitated a community forum or campaign; • The number of times they appeared before local government elected or advisory councils; • The number of times they appeared before local government departments; • The influence they believe they have had to change or influence policy decisions; • Whether the organization has mobilized resources from its members or from the community to carry out an advocacy campaign; • The number of times they have worked closely with other CSOs to advocate for a common cause; • How often in the past 12 months they have petitioned government officials or political leaders for improved services and the result of those petitions; and • The perception of empowerment that CSOs have in making the community a better place to live. Additional assumptions are that the survey design, the survey questionnaire and the ICSP database collect this information with suitable accuracy to provide confidence in the result. Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 50 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium Survey Results Basic Tables Two sets of complete cross tabulations are provided for reference in Annex A. ‘Complete’ here means that all the categorical and numeric survey questions are cross tabulated by region and again by quasi-experimental group. These basic tables tabulate all the survey questions by region and again by quasi-experimental group. The following bullet points highlight findings that can be explored in full in the Annex. From the survey data and the ICSP databases the evaluation was able to determine that: • A total of 1,529 CSOs attended workshops where they received training.F 16 • Approximately 24% of CSOs in the survey said they received most of their training from other institutions. • Some 75% of these currently remain active, many of them since before the ICSP started. • An estimated 14,000 Iraqis (37% of them female) served in an official capacity with CSOs. • An estimated 600,000 Iraqis apparently joined CSOs as general members.F 17 • An estimated 200,000 new Iraqi members (approximately half of them were female) were recruited to join CSOs in the past year.F 18 • Some 31% of CSOs said that personal contributions were their most important source of revenue; 7% said they relied on other International NGOs for funding. • Looking ahead some 31% identified their primary future funding source as the local government, followed closely by 23% who thought future funding would come from their own projects and activities. • Lack of funding was seen as the major management issue facing 80% of the CSOs; the second-most management issue was getting technical training to improve the quality of their performance. • Some 44% of CSOs looked to their Board for assistance on resolving difficult management issues. • Fund raising, communication and advocacy skills were seen as the CSOs would most like to develop. • Some 46% of CSOs surveyed said they had received assistance from the CSRC. • CSO staff members said they visited the ICSP/CSRC centers a total of 19,000 times in the past one year.F 19 • ICSP/CSRC staff paid some 6,000 visits to CSOs in the past one year.F 20 • Some 29% of CSOs said they received training in Advocacy.F 21 16 Based on an analysis of the ICSP Activities database from January 2007 linked to the ICSP CSO Information database 17 Weighted results from the survey data. There will be some double counting possible when persons are members of more than one CSO. The individual numbers reported by CSOs were not verified with documentation. Data quality analysis rating is low. 18 Weighted results from the survey data. There will be some double counting possible when persons join as new members in more than one CSO. The individual numbers reported by CSOs were not verified with documentation. Data quality analysis rating is low. 19 Based on weighted CSO survey results. This number is not verified through documentation. Data quality analysis is low. 20 As above. Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 51 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium • Some 73% of CSOs said they would be willing to make a contribution towards future training programs. • Some 65% of CSOs said they would be willing to make a financial contribution in order to sustain the work of the CSRC. • Some 43% of CSOs said they had petitioned for improved services to the community (44% said these petitions were successful or mostly successful). • Some 37% of CSOs say that government and local leaders rarely or never take into account concerns voiced by the CSO. • Some 41% of CSOs said they had limited or no influence on changing policy decisions of elected or advisory local councils. • For those CSOs who did have influence over local council’s policy they identified 43 specific policies or issues that they were advocating for. • At least two-thirds of the CSOs said they had joined with other CSOs to advocate for a common cause. • Some 40% of CSOs joined with other public institutions to advocate for a common cause during the past 6-months. Part 1: Details of CSO Survey Response Factors Limiting Survey Response Survey design coverage anticipated receiving 80 completed CSO interviews in each of the quasi-experimental groups. In reality this number was not achieved. The largest single factor in not achieving the target number of CSOs was that up to 25% of the CSOs could not be located. Interviewer comments detailed that many of these were closed; some for more than one year. This finding tells us that there is a significant drop out rate for CSOs (Table 3 below refers). Fortunately, the drop outs occurred relatively evenly across the groups indicating that differential adjustment across the groups was not necessary. It also suggests that workshop training did not have an affect on curtailing the drop out rate. Security was an issue in Al Anbar and Diyala preventing access to about 7% of the CSOs in the sample. 2.7% were not at home meaning that the CSO was found, but that no one was there to be interviewed. Up to three attempts were made to contact the respondents before indicating not at home. Four CSOs refused to be interviewed; reasons were not clear. One CSO was mis￾specified and was omitted. Table 3: Survey Interview Results Strata: CSOs Grouped by Workshop Training Days (strata) No Workshop Training Days 1 to 6 Workshop Training Days More that 6 Workshop Training Days Total Completed Count 56 56 55 167 Column N % 64.4% 65.1% 64.0% 64.5% Refused Count 1 0 3 4 Column N % 1.1% .0% 3.5% 1.5% Count 4 0 3 7 1.9 Result of interview Not at home Column N % 4.6% .0% 3.5% 2.7% 21 From questions 5.9.1, 5.9.7 and 5.9.8 of the survey questionnaire. Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 52 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium CSO not found Count 22 21 20 63 Column N % 25.3% 24.4% 23.3% 24.3% Security situation Count 3 9 5 17 prevented access Column N % 3.4% 10.5% 5.8% 6.6% Other Count 1 0 0 1 Column N % 1.1% .0% .0% .4% Count 87 86 86 259 Total Column N % 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Adjustments for Non-Response Overall we achieved just 167 completed interviews out of 258 (however, the CSO not found can be considered a completed interview when it is confirmed closed). The completed interviews are spread evenly across the quasi-experimental design groups. The loss of this many completed interviews means that the power of the sample is diminished. To compensate for this the α significance criterion in the analyses was reduced from .05 (95% certainty) to .20 (80% certainty). Categories of Respondents Table 4: Gender of Respondent CSOs Grouped by Workshop Training Days (strata) No Workshop Training Days 1 to 6 Workshop Training Days More that 6 Workshop Training Days Total Male Count 43 40 41 124 Column N % 76.8% 71.4% 73.2% 73.8% Female Count 13 16 15 44 Column N % 23.2% 28.6% 26.8% 26.2% Count 56 56 56 168 1.10.5 Gender of respondent? Total Column N % 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Respondents were predominantly male across all the quasi-experimental design groups. There should not be bias introduced due to differential gender response across the groups. Table 5: Position of the Respondent in the CSO Organization CSOs Grouped by Workshop Training Days (strata) No Workshop Training Days 1 to 6 Workshop Training Days More that 6 Workshop Training Days Total CSO Executive Count 46 52 50 148 Column N % 78.0% 89.7% 84.7% 84.1% CSO Board Count 10 4 5 19 Member Column N % 16.9% 6.9% 8.5% 10.8% 1.10 If "Completed", was the respondent: Other Committee Mb Count 1 0 1 2 Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 53 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium Member Column N % 1.7% .0% 1.7% 1.1% CSO Member Count 2 2 3 7 Column N % 3.4% 3.4% 5.1% 4.0% Count 59 58 59 176 Total Column N % 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Respondents were key figures in the CSO management being either executives or board members. Responses should therefore be from those who are best informed about the CSO. Part 2: Information about the CSO Organization Learning about CSOs 31% of CSOs learned about the concept from a workshop or meeting in the community. These workshops are not necessarily attributable to the ICSP. Many referred to other ways in which they became informed. These included from citizens, studying abroad, women’s rights conferences, and through work in journalism. A relatively few mentioned the ICSP as the source. Figure 1 explores these results. Figure 1: How CSOs learned about the concept At a workshop/meeting in my community Other Informed by another CSO member A community organizer contacted us After visiting the with ICSP A local community leader told us How did you learn about the concept of a CSO? From the local council 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% Percent 28.9% 6.0% 1.2 % 3.0% 19.3% 10.8% 30.7% Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 54 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium CSO formation The ICSP database of CSOs (Table 6) shows that approximately 12% of CSOs now registered on their database reported that they were established on or before 2002, another 28% were established in 2003, 27% in 2004, 26% in 2005, with the remaining 8% in 2006. Older CSOs such as the Iraq Red Crescent Society and various professional groups have been operating in Iraq since the 1950s and before. From 1991 CSOs emerged in the Kurdish North that was then in the no-fly zone, under UN development assistance, and governing itself. By 2003 there was a rapid growth of CSOs in the remainder of Iraq. This growth apparently tapered off by 2006 (based on data from the ACSP database), plus there has been some consolidation in the sector according to evidence from the CSO survey. Overall, it is estimated that the number of CSOs grew from less than 200 before the invasion to as many as 2000 by the year 2007. Table 6: Reported Year of Establishment (from the ICSP Database) Year Frequency Percent before 2003 162 11.5 2003 387 27.5 2004 380 27.0 2005 365 26.0 2006 112 8.0 Total 1406 100.0 Missing 436 Total 1842 Figure 2 shows the formation/establishment date for the CSOs in the survey. This closely follows the distribution seen in the database. We know therefore that the sample is a fair reflection of the database where experience of the CSOs is the concern. Presumably the older CSOs would have had the opportunity to accumulate more training and capacity building, but that picture is confounded suggesting that other factors are determining the accumulation of capacity building. Figure 2: When was the CSO formed? Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 55 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium 2003 or before 2004 2005 2006 2.2 When was your CSO formed? 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% Percent 10.2% 23.9% 26.4% 39.6% Logically, we expect that older CSOs will have had time to accumulate more members, and Table 7 confirms this showing that more than 50% of the older CSOs have 100 or more members. Table 7: CSO reported membership by year of formation CSO Size Groups 1-24 members 25-99 members 100 or more members Total 2003 or Count 10 17 28 55 before Row N % 18.2% 30.9% 50.9% 100.0% 2004 Count 11 10 5 26 Row N % 42.3% 38.5% 19.2% 100.0% 2005 Count 11 8 9 28 Row N % 39.3% 28.6% 32.1% 100.0% 2006 Count 7 3 4 14 Row N % 50.0% 21.4% 28.6% 100.0% Count 39 38 46 123 2.2 When was your CSO formed? Total Row N % 31.7% 30.9% 37.4% 100.0% Chi Square 12.49 significant at the .05 level CSO Dynamics. To obtain an idea of the dynamics of CSOs, the year of CSO formation was compared with the survey response rates. In the survey those not found were largely identified as having closed. Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 56 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium Using this assumption it suggests that between 20% to 25% have dropped out regardless of year of formation. The data suggest that a consolidation of CSOs is taking place. Table 8: CSO year of formation by response rates 2.2 When was your CSO formed? 2003 or before 2004 2005 2006 Total 1.9 Result of interview Completed Count 56 27 31 14 128 Column N % 71.8% 52.9% 66.0% 70.0% 65.3% Refused Count 2 1 1 0 4 Column N % 2.6% 2.0% 2.1% .0% 2.0% Not at home Count 0 4 1 1 6 Column N % .0% 7.8% 2.1% 5.0% 3.1% CSO not found Count 16 13 11 5 45 Column N % 20.5% 25.5% 23.4% 25.0% 23.0% Security situation prevented access Count 4 6 3 0 13 Column N % 5.1% 11.8% 6.4% .0% 6.6% Other Count 0 0 0 0 0 Column N % .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% Total Count 78 51 47 20 196 Column N % 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% The analysis tested to determine whether the age of the CSO had an impact on the number of advocacy events undertaken. This relationship proved not to be statistically significant. Registration of the CSOs naturally followed their formation. It was not until 2004 that registration of CSOs was implemented under the CPA and later the GOI. CSO Primary Purpose CSOs were asked to define their primary purpose by selecting among six ICSP sector groups: Training and Capacity Building for other CSOs, Civic Education, Woman’s Advocacy, Anticorruption, Media and Human Rights (plus an Other category). The CSO respondents could select more than one category. Table 9 below shows the percentage of CSOs that selected each of the categories (a CSO could select more than one category indicating they had more than one purpose). The most common purpose was woman’s advocacy followed by human rights. A large number of CSOs indicated purposes outside the six sectors designated by the ICSP. Table 9: Primary purpose of the organization CSOs Grouped by Workshop Training Days (strata) Primary Purpose No Workshop Training Days 1 to 6 Workshop Training Days More that 6 Workshop Training Days Total Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 57 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium Training and Capacity Building 6.8% 9.3% 12.8% 9.6% Civic Education 8.0% 15.1% 20.9% 14.6% Woman's Advocacy 17.0% 25.6% 29.1% 23.8% Anticorruption 13.6% 9.3% 12.8% 11.9% Media 14.8% 18.6% 14.0% 15.8% Human Rights 19.3% 20.9% 26.7% 22.3% CSOs Indicating Other Purposes 25.0% 18.6% 20.9% 21.5% CSO Membership Annex C fully explores CSO membership. Below are extracted highlights. These tables are weighted to estimate the CSO-wide totals. The estimated number of individuals that have joined CSOs (1.10.6 below) is impressive. Potentially these individuals are engaging with their government to make their communities better places. The difference in average number of members across the strata is not statistically significant. New members who joined in the last year were recorded under question 2.6.1, 2.6.2 and 2.6.3. The total number of new members is higher for the CSO strata that has received the most ICSP workshop training. The differences in average numbers of new members were statistically significant and indicated that strata 1 and strata 3 were in the same homogenous group so that it remains unclear whether training had an impact on new membership. The total number of new members in the weighted estimate suggests that it does. Differentially more men than women joined in the past year, but the number of new women members is encouraging. Table 10: CSO membership and membership growth CSOs Grouped by Workshop Training Days (strata) Membership Information No Workshop Training Days 1 to 6 Workshop Training Days More than 6 Workshop Training Days Total Average number of members 347 280 399 339 Total current members 116,148 210,447 274,202 600,796 1.10.6 Current members Row % for Total current members 19% 35% 46% 100% Average number of members 135 85 154 120 Total new members 44,267 67,293 107,523 219,084 2.6.1 Total new members in the last year Row % for Total new members 20% 31% 49% 100% Average number of members 80 40 85 65 Total new male members 26,298 31,735 60,931 118,964 2.6.2 New male members in the last year Col. % of 2.6.1 Total new members 22% 27% 51% 100% Average number of members 55 45 65 55 Total new female members 17,969 35,558 46,593 100,120 2.6.3 New female members in the last year Col. % of 2.6.1 Total new members 18% 36% 47% 100% Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 58 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium The Use of Membership Fees 42% of the CSOs reported that they charged membership fees. It was not clear that workshop training was important in this determination. The next section looks more closely at what the CSO considers to be the most important source of revenue. Table 11: Use of membership fees CSOs Grouped by Workshop Training Days Membership Fees No Workshop Training Days 1 to 6 Workshop Training Days More than 6 Workshop Training Days Total Yes Count 140 312 324 776 Column % "Yes" 41.1 39.3 45.5 42.0 No Count 201 481 389 1071 2.5 Do you charge membership fees? Column % "No" 58.9 60.7 54.5 58.0 Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 59 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium Part III: Funding the Organization Many CSOs see personal contributions as the most important source of current funding. This is more pronounced for those who have received more training, but otherwise trends are not clear. Table 12: Most important sources of funding for the CSO CSOs Grouped by Workshop Training Days (strata) Revenue Categories Data Items No Workshop Training Days 1 to 6 Workshop Training Days More than 6 Workshop Training Days Total Count 55 53 54 162 Total, all sources Row % for Regions 34.0 32.7 33.3 100.0 Count 9 12 7 28 Membership fees Column N % 16.4 22.6 13.0 17.3 Count 14 15 20 49 Personal contributions Column N % 25.5 28.3 37.0 30.2 Contributions from local Count 0 1 1 2 business Column N % 0.0 1.9 1.9 1.2 Contributions from your Count 10 3 7 20 members Column N % 18.2 5.7 13.0 12.3 Support from local Count 5 10 2 17 government Column N % 9.1 18.9 3.7 10.5 Support from other Iraq Count 1 1 3 5 NGOs Column N % 1.8 1.9 5.6 3.1 Support from other Count 4 2 6 12 international NGOs Column N % 7.3 3.8 11.1 7.4 From overseas friends of Count 2 1 1 4 your organization Column N % 3.6 1.9 1.9 2.5 From your own fee-based Count 9 5 7 21 activities/projects Column N % 16.4 9.4 13.0 13.0 Count 1 3 0 4 3.1.1 Most important source of funding for the CSO Other Column N % 1.8 5.7 0.0 2.5 Looking ahead, Table 13 demonstrates that many CSOs believe that the local government will provide funding. This seems adverse for the encouragement of independent CSOs; more encouraging is the increase in expectations ‘From your own fee-based activities or projects.’ Table 13: Most important sources of future funding for the CSO CSOs Grouped by Workshop Training Days (strata) Sources of Future Fund Raising Data Items No Workshop Training Days 1 to 6 Workshop Training Days More than 6 Workshop Training Days Total 3.3.1 Count 56 56 55 167 Most likely Total, all sources of future funding Row % for Regions 33.5 33.5 32.9 100.0 Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 60 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium Count 5 2 2 9 Membership fees Column N % 8.9 3.6 3.6 5.4 Count 4 4 3 11 Personal contributions Column N % 7.1 7.1 5.5 6.6 Contributions from local Count 1 2 3 6 business Column N % 1.8 3.6 5.5 3.6 Contributions from your Count 0 1 2 3 members Column N % 0.0 1.8 3.6 1.8 Support from local Count 15 18 18 51 government Column N % 26.8 32.1 32.7 30.5 Support from other Iraq Count 4 5 1 10 NGOs Column N % 7.1 8.9 1.8 6.0 Support from other Count 7 6 10 23 international NGOs Column N % 12.5 10.7 18.2 13.8 From overseas friends of Count 0 0 0 0 your organization Column N % 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 From your own fee-based Count 18 11 12 41 activities or projects Column N % 32.1 19.6 21.8 24.6 Count 2 7 4 13 likely source of future funding for the CSO Other Column N % 3.6 12.5 7.3 7.8 Part IV: CSO Management Issues The Most Important and Difficult Management Issues The most important and difficult problem faced by CSOs was fund raising. This issue predominated across all strata. All other issues paled in comparison to this one issue. The differences between the strata were not statistically significant. Table 14: Most important and difficult management issue the CSO has had to deal with during the past year CSOs Grouped by Workshop Training Days (strata) No Workshop Training Days 1 to 6 Workshop Training Days More that 6 Workshop Training Days Total Lack of funding (fund Count 46 46 42 134 raising) Column N % 82.1% 82.1% 76.4% 80.2% Financial management Count 1 1 2 4 and accounting Column N % 1.8% 1.8% 3.6% 2.4% Long range planning Count 0 2 1 3 Column N % .0% 3.6% 1.8% 1.8% A personnel conflict issue Count 0 0 0 0 Column N % .0% .0% .0% .0% Registration or Count 1 2 1 4 compliance with laws and regulations Column N % 1.8% 3.6% 1.8% 2.4% 4.1.1 The most important and difficult management issues the CSO faced over the last year Setting up or dealing with B d f Di t Count 0 1 0 1 Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 61 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium your Board of Directors Column N % .0% 1.8% .0% .6% Getting technical help to Count 2 2 5 9 improve the quality of our program Column N % 3.6% 3.6% 9.1% 5.4% Other Count 6 2 4 12 Column N % 10.7% 3.6% 7.3% 7.2% Count 56 56 55 167 Total Column N % 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Table 15 shows the second most important and other difficult problems facing the CSOs. Getting the technical assistance needed to improve the quality of the program was an issue for 35% of the CSOs, this was followed by a range of other issues specified by individual CSOs such as ‘the difficulty that tribes have in dealing with civil society.’ The need for technical assistance suggests an unfilled demand for ICSP interventions. Table 15: Next most important and difficult management issue the CSO has had to deal with during the past year CSOs Grouped by Workshop Training Days (strata) No Workshop Training Days 1 to 6 Workshop Training Days More that 6 Workshop Training Days Total Lack of funding (fund Count 8 5 6 19 raising) Column N % 15.7% 9.6% 11.3% 12.2% Financial management Count 3 3 5 11 and accounting Column N % 5.9% 5.8% 9.4% 7.1% Long range planning Count 5 6 6 17 Column N % 9.8% 11.5% 11.3% 10.9% A personnel conflict issue Count 0 0 0 0 Column N % .0% .0% .0% .0% Registration or Count 7 7 3 17 compliance with laws and regulations Column N % 13.7% 13.5% 5.7% 10.9% Setting up or dealing with Count 1 1 1 3 your Board of Directors Column N % 2.0% 1.9% 1.9% 1.9% Getting technical help to Count 10 20 25 55 improve the quality of our program Column N % 19.6% 38.5% 47.2% 35.3% Other Count 17 10 7 34 Column N % 33.3% 19.2% 13.2% 21.8% Count 51 52 53 156 4.1.2 The second most important and difficult management issues the CSO faced over the last year Total Column N % 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 62 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium Where Do CSOs Look for Help in Solving Difficult Management Issues? CSOs were asked to identify where they look for management support to solve the management issues identified above. Overwhelmingly the CSOs looked to their Board of Directors for help (Figure 3). This is an important finding and indicative that CSOs have an understanding of the functions of their management organization. There is a sense that the CSOs have a sense of independence when they look internally for a solution to their problems. When ‘consultations with your staff’ is included with looking for help from the Board of Directors 75% of CSOs express this management independence. Figure 3: What is the CSO’s most important source of help for solving difficult management issues Your Board of Directors Consultations with your staff The Local ICSP/ADF Center Representative from local government Other Professional consultants Other Local CSOs The most important source of help on difficult management decisions 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% Percent 5.4% 2. 4% 1. 2 % 9.6% 6.6% 31.1% 43.7% It is apparent that the training received by the CSOs has helped to shape these views. Table 16 shows that CSOs with the most ICSP training tended to look to their Boards for assistance more than did the less well trained CSOs. The Chi square statistic in Table 16 is significant. Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 63 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium Table 16: The most important source of help on difficult management issues CSOs Grouped by Workshop Training Days (strata) No Workshop Training Days 1 to 6 Workshop Training Days More that 6 Workshop Training Days Total Your Board of Count 21 23 29 73 Directors Column N % 37.5% 41.1% 52.7% 43.7% Consultations with Count 23 16 13 52 your staff Column N % 41.1% 28.6% 23.6% 31.1% Representative from Count 1 7 3 11 local government Column N % 1.8% 12.5% 5.5% 6.6% The Local ICSP/ADF Count 4 5 7 16 Center Column N % 7.1% 8.9% 12.7% 9.6% Other Local CSOs Count 1 0 1 2 Column N % 1.8% .0% 1.8% 1.2% Professional Count 3 1 0 4 consultants Column N % 5.4% 1.8% .0% 2.4% Local universities Count 0 0 0 0 Column N % .0% .0% .0% .0% Other Count 3 4 2 9 Column N % 5.4% 7.1% 3.6% 5.4% Count 56 56 55 167 4.2.1 The most important source of help on difficult management decisions Total Column N % 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% The second most important source of help is identified with respect to the primary source of management help in Table 17. The columns in Table 17 represent the first two most important sources of management help identified by the CSO. 68% of those who selected their Board of Directors as the first source of management help said they would turn next to ‘consultations with their staff’ to try and solve management problems. This reinforces the strongly self-confident management style evidenced above. Those who said they would look first to consultations with their staff did not then look next to their Board of Directors (the right hand column of Table 17). This suggests that they may not have a strong Board as they turn instead to institutions outside their organization for assistance. ICSP is one of their choices, local government officials another and professional consultants a third. Table 17: The second most important source of help on difficult management issues The most important source of help The next most important source of on difficult management decisions help on difficult management decisions Your Board of Directors Consultations with your staff Your Board of Count 3 5 Directors Column N % 4.3% 10.9% Consultations with Count 47 1 your staff Column N % 68.1% 2.2% Representative from Count 2 11 Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 64 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium local government Column N % 2.9% 23.9% The Local ICSP/ADF Count 6 12 Center Column N % 8.7% 26.1% Count 3 4 Other Local CSOs Column N % 4.3% 8.7% Professional Count 4 10 consultants Column N % 5.8% 21.7% Count 2 2 Local universities Column N % 2.9% 4.3% Count 2 1 Other Column N % 2.9% 2.2% Count 69 46 Total Column N % 100.0% 100.0% What Are the Important Skills and Abilities the CSOs Hope to Develop? Corresponding with the most difficult management issues the CSOs face, they have predominantly identified the need to acquire fund raising skills. This is followed closely by their perceived need to improve communication and advocacy skills. These findings crosscut the three strata identifying the different levels of workshop training received. The choices were not influenced by the training received. Figure 4: The most important skill or ability the CSO would like to acquire Fund raising Communication skills Advocacy skills Other Proposal writing The most important skill or ability that the CSO would like to develop 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% Percent 13.9% 5.5% 29.7% 20.0% 30.9% Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 65 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium The second most important skill or ability is contingent on the first choice selection. Table 18 provides this information. The columns represent the most important skill or ability selected. When fund raising was the first choice, then communication skills or advocacy skills were the second choice. When Advocacy was the first choice communication skills was the second choice. When communication skills were first choice, then advocacy or fund raising was second. Put more simply, Fund Raising, Communication skills and Advocacy skills are those most sought after by the CSOs. However, these should be balanced with the CSO’s selection of the most important training they received (see Part V below). Table 18:The second most important skill or ability CSOs wish to acquire The most important skill or ability that the CSO would like to develop The next most important skill or ability that the CSO would like to develop Fund raising Advocacy skills Communication skills Count 0 5 13 Fund raising Column N % 0.0% 16.7% 28.3% Count 16 0 22 Advocacy skills Column N % 32.7% 0.0% 47.8% Count 21 16 1 Communication skills Column N % 42.9% 53.3% 2.2% Count 9 4 7 Proposal writing Column N % 18.4% 13.3% 15.2% Count 3 5 3 Other Column N % 6.1% 16.7% 6.5% Count 49 30 46 Total Column N % 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Part V: CSO Relationship with Civil Society Resource Centers The CSO’s Relationship with the ICSP Program This section deals with the CSO’s knowledge about and relationship with the local ICSP activities. A first screening question asks whether the CSO had received any support from the ICSP. 46% of the CSOs said that they had received some type of support from the ICSP. This is somewhat less than we would have expected based on the strata developed. We anticipated that at least two-thirds of the CSOs would have answered positively. It is possible that CSOs did not associate training they had received with the ICSP facility near them. Those 46% that affirmed they had received support (77 CSOs) were asked to identify what that support was. Most said that they had received training, and especially those in strata 3. Those with the highest amount of workshop training received tended to receive more support generally. Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 66 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium Table 19:Kind of support received CSOs Grouped by Workshop Training Days (strata) Kind of Support Received No Workshop Training Days 1 to 6 Workshop Training Days More that 6 Workshop Training Days Total Count 6 1 7 14 5.2 Kind of support - Logistics Column N % 24.0% 4.5% 21.9% 17.7% Count 11 5 16 32 5.2 Kind of support - Finance Column N % 44.0% 22.7% 50.0% 40.5% Count 5 0 9 14 5.2 Kind of support - Organization Column N % 20.0% 0.0% 28.1% 17.7% Count 14 17 25 56 5.2 Kind of support - Training Column N % 56.0% 77.3% 78.1% 70.9% How Often Did the CSO Staff Visit the CSRC in the Last One Year? 74% of the CSOs reported that they had visited the CSRC during the past 12 months. This was not statistically related to the number of trainings they had received. On average CSOs visited the CSRC 11 times during the past year. The number of visits by the CSO to the CSRC is not related to the number of advocacy events undertaken by the CSO. How Often Did the ICSP Staff Visit the CSO Offices in the Last One Year? 56% of the CSOs were visited by members of the ICSP staff during the past year. Presumably these included technical assistance visits for such events as conducting an organizational assessment, or assisting with the writing of a proposal. On average, CSOs were visited three times during the past year by a staff member from the ICSP. Those who had received more ICSP training were visited more often as shown in Table 20. It was also determined that the number of advocacy events increased when the CSOs were visited more often by ICSP staff (see Table 21). Table 20: The number of times an ICSP/CSRC staff visited the CSO in the last 12 months CSOs Grouped by Workshop Training Days Mean N Std. Deviation No Workshop Training Days 2.25 56 3.169 1 to 6 Workshop Training Days 1.91 56 3.956 More that 6 Workshop Training Days 5.05 55 6.445 Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 67 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium Total 3.06 167 4.900 Table 21: The total number of times the CSO facilitated a community forum or campaign in the past 6 months ICSP visits to the CSOs Mean N Std. Deviation ICSP did not visit 4.63 70 5.111 1 to 3 visits 5.46 50 5.482 more than 3 visits 10.21 39 13.775 Total 6.26 159 8.461 Statistically valid differences at the .05 level CSO Training Courses Attended in the Past Year. 38% of the CSOs reported that they had attended training courses in the last 12 months. This is below the number anticipated based on the strata construction. However the strata construction was based on workshop trainings received at any time since registering with the ICSP. On average, the CSOs attended between three and four courses during the past year. Table 22 shows the average number of course attendances by the quasi-experimental group strata. These are statistically significant differences and validate the group definitions. However, the attendance at courses was not positively related to the number of advocacy events undertaken by the CSO (there was a statistically valid relationship that showed marginally more advocacy events undertaken by those who reported they didn’t attend courses last year). Table 22: The number of training courses attended in the last 12 months CSOs Grouped by Workshop Training Days Mean N Std. Deviation No Workshop Training Days 1.71 56 3.561 1 to 6 Workshop Training Days 2.89 56 6.143 More that 6 Workshop Training Days 6.13 55 10.922 Total 3.56 167 7.681 Statistically significant at the .05 level CSO Conference Attendance Last Year 47% of CSOs have attended one or more conferences during the past year. When conference attendances are grouped into categories it can be shown that CSOs that attend more conferences are also providing more advocacy events. The mean number of events for those CSOs who have attended more than five conferences is significantly higher than for those who attended fewer. There is no statistically valid difference between CSOs who attended no conferences or who attended between one and five conferences. The average CSO attended between six and seven conferences in the past year. Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 68 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium Table 23: The total number of times the CSO facilitated a community forum or campaign in the past 6 months CSO Conference Attendance Last Year Mean N Std. Deviation No conference attendance 5.61 82 5.775 1 - 5 4.49 39 4.925 more than 5 9.47 38 13.889 Total 6.26 159 8.461 Significant at the .2 level What Organizations Provide the Most Training to You and Your Staff? This open-ended question was asked to detect any training that CSOs might be receiving from other agencies or institutions. The open-ended responses were grouped according to whether they were the ICSP, ADF or the CSRC into one group, the others into a second group, and those who said none into a third group. We attempted this in two ways. First, we listed all the responses, and then we listed the responses just for those who said they had attended coursed in the last 12 months. The results were approximately the same. 42% said that ICSP provided most of the training, 22% referred to other organizations, and 30% did not indicate an organization. Other organizations included RTI, NDI, IRI, IFES, additional organizations from Italy, Denmark and Germany plus a number of apparently local organizations. This suggests that there are a good number of optional sources for CSO training needs. Workshop Participation During the Past Year 92% of the CSOs said they participated in workshops during the past year. The average CSO said they participated in 10 to 11 workshops in the past year (Table 24). The average number of workshop participations across the strata control groups was statistically significant. The control groups are based on workshop attendance as recorded in the ICSP databases so this is to be expected. The fact that our quasi-experimental control group one allegedly has no workshop training events whereas Table 24 shows an average of 7.48 events may be explained by alternative organizations providing workshops. In Table 24 below, there is no statistical difference between control group one and control group two. Workshop participation when grouped did not appear to have any impact on the number of advocacy events the CSOs provided. Table 25 shows this relationship there is no statistical difference between the categories in terms of advocacy events accomplished. The mean number of events accomplished differs little from one workshop attendance category to the next. Table 24: The number of times CSOs participated in workshops during the past year CSOs Grouped by Workshop Training Days (strata) Mean N Std. Deviation No Workshop Training Days 7.48 56 16.782 1 to 6 Workshop Training Days 7.54 56 10.530 Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 69 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium More that 6 Workshop Training Days 17.28 54 30.200 Total 10.69 166 21.092 Table 25: CSO survey reported workshop attendance with advocacy events CSO Workshop Attendance Recorded in the Survey 7.1 The total number of times the CSO facilitated a community forum or campaign in the past 6 months. 7.2 Total number of appearances before local government elected of advisory councils in the past 6 months to advocate for a cause. 7.3 Total number of appearances before local government departments/dir ectorates in the past 6 months to advocate for a cause. 1 or fewer workshops Mean 6.79 1.67 1.40 2 - 9 Mean 5.94 2.47 2.12 10 or more workshops Mean 6.12 2.19 1.76 Total Mean 6.27 2.12 1.77 It is worth exploring the number of training courses attended, the number of conferences attended and the number of workshops the CSOs participated in. There is an appearance that CSOs may have very little time to do advocacy. To test this we added the number of each of these together to gain a rough assessment of how often the CSOs have participated in these activities in the past year (all events added had the same yearly recall). Table 26 illustrates that the average CSO attends an event (possibly construed as a capacity building event) 20 to 21 times a year; possibly as much as twice a month. Does this have an impact of the number of advocacy events conducted by the CSOs? Table 26: All CSO participations CSOs Grouped by Workshop Training Days (strata) Mean N Std. Deviation No Workshop Training Days 15.93 56 27.778 1 to 6 Workshop Training Days 14.79 56 20.973 More that 6 Workshop Training Days 30.15 54 39.488 Total 20.17 166 30.875 To test whether these participations yield results, the events were divided into three approximately equal groups. As before this categorical variable became the independent variable in an ANOVA to compare the mean number of advocacy events conducted. The results are below in Table 27. Astonishingly there is no statistical difference between the groups. Apparently it makes no difference whether a CSO attends less than three events or more than 20 capacity building events. This needs independent confirmation, but it suggests that a review is necessary. Not all the events were necessarily ICSP sponsored events. As we Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 70 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium have seen there are other players who focus on CSOs. However, it is apparent that CSOs are being pulled to many events when their time may be better spent doing actual advocacy (if they are to pull the Iraq towards an “active indigenous Iraqi civil society that effectively and responsibly participates within a democratic system of governance” they may need to spend less time in training, at conferences or in workshops). To achieve USAID objectives, the CSOs should link with the LGP to become the vehicle for articulating wide-scale community concerns ( i.e., as expressed in IR 9.3 indicator 2 “# of participating community groups). Since there are indications that ICSP Technical Assistance does have an affect on advocacies (see Table 20), these advocacies might be better directed toward local government issues through technical assistance that unites the CSOs with the PCs with the PRTs playing a supporting role. The ICAP program does similar things but at a lower level. Table 27: CSO participations in capacity building events with advocacy events All CSO Participations in Capacity Building Events 7.1 The total number of times the CSO facilitated a community forum or campaign in the past 6 months. 7.2 Total number of appearances before local government elected of advisory councils in the past 6 months to advocate for a cause. 7.3 Total number of appearances before local government departments/dir ectorates in the past 6 months to advocate for a cause. Mean 6.45 1.57 1.55 N 49 49 49 less than 3 events Std. Deviation 5.553 2.550 2.814 Mean 5.70 2.46 2.26 N 54 54 54 3 - 19 events Std. Deviation 7.662 3.008 3.321 Mean 6.65 2.27 1.47 N 55 55 55 20 or more events Std. Deviation 11.131 2.738 2.201 Mean 6.27 2.12 1.77 N 158 158 158 Total Std. Deviation 8.487 2.786 2.818 Another method of combining the capacity building events is through multivariate regression analysis where the dependent variable is the number of advocacies (Question 7.1, 7.2 and 7.3). The table below summarizes the results of a multivariate linear regression using the five variables indicative of capacity building. Of the five, three are significant: 1) visits by the ICSP to the CSO, 2) the number of training courses attended, and 3) the number of conferences attended. The number of training courses attended has a negative coefficient meaning that more training courses seemed to reduce the tendency to conduct a campaign of forum in the community. The overall R-square value of this regression is however slight and is not a good fit to the linear model. The reason for the poor fit is that the individual variables included in the regression are not normally distributed. To get around this problem the natural log of each Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 71 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium variable was taken and the regression run again using the log values with the linear model. This produces a much better fit to the model (R-Square = .374), and it provides the same indicative findings shown in Table 28. Additional regression analyses were run changing the dependent variable to Question 7.2 and 7.3 (using the natural log transformation). These variables are respectively the number of appearances before councils and the number of appearances before government departments. The results from these additional regression analyses reinforce the finding: for predicting council appearances the important factor was conference attendances, for predicting government department appearances the important factor was visits by the ICSP to the CSO. Table 28: Results of a multivariate regression analysis predicting advocacy numbers Coefficients Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients t Sig. 95% Confidence Interval for B B Std. Error Beta Lower Bound Upper Bound (Constant) 5.164 0.864 5.978 0 3.458 6.871 5.3 The number of times a CSO staff member visited an ICSP/CSRC Center in the last 12 months. 0.007 0.035 0.019 0.212 0.832 -0.062 0.076 5.4 The number of times an ICSP/CSRC staff visited the CSO in the last 12 months. 0.43 0.156 0.252 2.755 0.007 0.122 0.739 5.5 The number of training courses attended in the last 12 months. -0.194 0.094 -0.179 -2.066 0.041 -0.379 -0.008 5.6 The number of conferences attended by the CSO in the last 12 months? 0.086 0.048 0.145 1.816 0.071 -0.008 0.181 5.8 The number of times CSOs participated in workshops during the past year. -0.011 0.033 -0.027 -0.319 0.75 -0.076 0.055 Dependent Variable: 7.1 The total number of times the CSO facilitated a community forum or campaign in the past 6 months. The regression analysis confirms the individual findings shown in Tables 21, 23 and 25. Conclusions are that training, visits by CSO members to the CSRC, and participation in workshops has had limited affect on CSO tendency to advocate. Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 72 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium Part VI: CSO Empowerment and Political Action This section of the questionnaire lets us assess whether the CSOs are empowered by the training and capacity building they have received. The section uses questions that found earlier use in the ICAP evaluation. The results from that survey are used here as points of comparison. It is important to note that a high sense of empowerment in making the community a better place to live may not relate to increased advocacy – this is tested below. Influence Over Everyday Activities CSO respondents were asked about the degree of influence they felt they had in influencing decisions that affect the communities’ everyday activities. The question provided a 5 – position scaled response from ‘no influence’ to ‘influence over all decisions,’ The column differences shown in Table 29 are statistically significant confirming that CSOs with more workshop training days have a marginally greater sense of empowerment. This pattern re-occurs when comparing with number of visits to the CSO by the ICSP and for attendances at conferences. Table 29: Influence over everyday activities with quasi-experimental design groups CSOs Grouped by Workshop Training Days (strata) No Workshop Training Days 1 to 6 Workshop Training Days More that 6 Workshop Training Days Total No influence Count 8 2 2 12 Column N % 14.3% 3.7% 3.6% 7.3% Influence over very Count 9 8 5 22 few decisions Column N % 16.1% 14.8% 9.1% 13.3% Influence over some Count 15 12 21 48 decisions Column N % 26.8% 22.2% 38.2% 29.1% Influence over most Count 19 25 25 69 decisions Column N % 33.9% 46.3% 45.5% 41.8% Influence over all Count 5 7 2 14 decisions Column N % 8.9% 13.0% 3.6% 8.5% Count 56 54 55 165 6.1 How much control CSO members felt they had in influencing decisions that affect their communities' everyday activities. Total Column N % 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Similar questions were used in a 2005 household survey (Quality of Life Survey 4), a 2006 survey of community action groups (CAGs) done as part of the ICAP evaluation, and again here. The comparative results are shown in Table 30. Members of CAG and CSO organizations felt more empowered than did individual household members with the CSOs perceiving slightly less empowerment than did the CAGs. Table 30: Comparison of empowerment across three surveys QOL 4 (2005) CAG (2006) CSO (2007) Influence over decisions that affect their communities' everyday activities. % % % No influence 35.2 0.5 7.3 Influence over very few 25.9 3.5 13.4 Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 73 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium decisions Influence over some decisions 20.2 9.8 28.7 Influence over most decisions 12.4 53.6 42.1 Influence over all decisions 6.3 32.6 8.5 It appears that the sense of empowerment correlates with the number of advocacy events undertaken. However, there were too few respondents in the lowest and highest category to be conclusive. When the number of category groups are collapsed this becomes statistically significant. Sense of Power to Influence Important Decisions Question 6.2 in the survey is intended to move away from everyday activities to influences respondents felt they have over decisions that affect life in the community. Table 31 shows that those CSOs with at least some training tended to feel marginally more empowered than did those without workshop training. This finding is statistically significant. There is a positive correlation of the sense of empowerment with the number of appearances before local government departments. This does not confirm that training leads to empowerment and empowerment to advocacy. That cannot be concluded based on this analysis. Table 31: CSO perceived influence over important decisions CSOs Grouped by Workshop Training Days 6.2 How much power CSOs felt they had to influence important decisions that change the course of life in the community. No Workshop Training Days 1 to 6 Workshop Training Days More that 6 Workshop Training Days Total Totally unable to Count 6 7 3 16 influence community life Column N % 10.9% 13.0% 5.5% 9.8% Mostly unable to Count 11 3 7 21 influence community life Column N % 20.0% 5.6% 12.7% 12.8% Count 9 11 16 36 Neither able nor unable Column N % 16.4% 20.4% 29.1% 22.0% Mostly able to Count 24 30 28 82 influence community life Column N % 43.6% 55.6% 50.9% 50.0% Definitely able to Count 5 3 1 9 influence community life Column N % 9.1% 5.6% 1.8% 5.5% Count 55 54 55 164 Total Column N % 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% The sense that CSOs had impact on the community (Question 6.3) tracked well with the findings in Table 31. Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 74 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium Petitioning Government Officials or Political Leaders 44% of CSOs said they had petitioned government officials or local leaders more than 5 times regarding the improvement of local services. 75% said they had petitioned more than once. The willingness of CSOs to petition for local services was not related to the amount of workshop training they had received (there is no statistical significance in the different column distributions seen in Table 32). Table 32: Petitioning government officials and political leaders CSOs Grouped by Workshop Training Days 6.4 The number of times in the past 12 months that CSOs petitioned government officials or political leaders for improved services to the community. No Workshop Training Days 1 to 6 Workshop Training Days More that 6 Workshop Training Days Total Count 9 7 8 24 Never Column N % 17.6% 14.3% 15.7% 15.9% Count 3 6 5 14 Once Column N % 5.9% 12.2% 9.8% 9.3% A few times ( 2 to 5 Count 15 17 15 47 times) Column N % 29.4% 34.7% 29.4% 31.1% Many times (more Count 24 19 23 66 than 5) Column N % 47.1% 38.8% 45.1% 43.7% Count 51 49 51 151 Total Column N % 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% The number of petitions does correlate with Questions 7.2 and 7.3 as it should. Visits by the ICSP to the CSO (proxy technical assistance) have a limited influence on levels of petitioning. Visits by the CSO to the ICSP, however, are related to higher levels of petitioning and this is a positive finding. Success of the petitions (revealed in Question 6.5) was not related to membership in one of the control groups. No statistical relationships were uncovered that helped reveal why petitioning was more successful for some CSOs. It remains a mystery why some CSOs succeed and others do not. The extent that local government and local leaders took into account the concerns of the CSOs was asked in Question 6.6. 23% of the CSOs said that they never did; some 30% said they did so often. This profile did not vary statistically across the control groups. There was a limited positive association with number of visits that the ICSP made to the CSOs (proxy technical assistance). Table 33: The extent that local government and local leaders take into account concerns of the CSOs 6.6 What CSOs thought about the CSOs Grouped by Workshop Training Days Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 75 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium extent that local government and local leaders took into account their concerns when they took decisions affecting their constituents. No Workshop Training Days 1 to 6 Workshop Training Days More that 6 Workshop Training Days Total Count 12 10 12 34 Never Column N % 25.5% 20.4% 24.5% 23.4% Count 8 6 8 22 Rarely Column N % 17.0% 12.2% 16.3% 15.2% Count 12 17 17 46 Occasionally Column N % 25.5% 34.7% 34.7% 31.7% Count 11 14 10 35 Often Column N % 23.4% 28.6% 20.4% 24.1% Count 4 2 2 8 Always Column N % 8.5% 4.1% 4.1% 5.5% Count 47 49 49 145 Total Column N % 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Part VII: CSO Advocacy The Number of CSO Facilitated Events The questions for part seven were designed to provide impact measurement, and are the basis for measuring ‘advocacy events.’ The design and use of terms like Fora and Campaign comes from the ICSP training literature and the ICSP database classifications. Questions 7.1 to 7.3 collect information about activities done by the CSOs. Question 7.1 is meant to be a catch-all for advocacy or awareness raising activities that CSOs may have undertaken. Question 7.2 and 7.3 are directed towards obtaining information regarding the advocacy that CSOs may have had with local councils or with local government departments. The ICSP uses six sector classifications and these were used to deconstruct the events into sector categories (the sector classification of events appears in Annex C). These three variables have been used throughout the report to estimate impact. Table 34 presents the weighted estimates for the number of events facilitated by the CSOs. The estimated sum of events reached some 11,000 presumably for the 1847 CSOs that are in the database. This number exceeds the number of CSO activities recorded on the ICSP database by a wide margin (there are 12,569 activities on the database used in support of this analysis; approximately 10% of these were identified positively as CSO initiated activities), however not all CSO activities would have been recorded on the ICSP database – only those directly supported by the program. When we select the CSOs who stated that they did receive support of some kind from the ICSP then the number of events reduces to 4,500; still large in comparison to the number found on the ICSP database. The ICSP database possibly undercounts the number of CSO events. Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 76 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium Table 34: CSO facilitated events during the past six months (weighted) CSOs Grouped by Workshop Training Days No Workshop Training Days 1 to 6 Workshop Training Days More that 6 Workshop Training Days Total Mean 5 6 8 6 7.1 The total number of times the CSO facilitated a community forum or campaign in the past 6 months. Sum 1610 4327 5175 11112 7.2 Total number of Mean 2 2 2 2 appearances before local government elected of advisory councils in the past 6 months to advocate for a cause. Sum 625 1669 1451 3745 7.3 Total number of Mean 2 2 2 2 appearances before local government departments/directorates in the past 6 months to advocate for a cause. Sum 606 1210 1143 2960 Evidence that CSOs Have Been Able to Influence or Change Policy More than half of reporting CSOs (there was higher item non-response on this question) said they thought they had limited or no influence with elected or advisory councils. The differences due to ICSP workshop training were not significant. ICSP visits to the CSOs did show that there was a positive influence on the level of influence CSOs thought they had. CSO workshop participation based on survey results rather than from the database records did show a positive association (this could mean that workshops attended outside the ICSP purview were important). Table 35: The ability of CSOs to influence or change policy CSOs Grouped by Workshop Training Days 7.4a: Level of influence the CSOs thought they had with the elected or advisory councils. No Workshop Training Days 1 to 6 Workshop Training Days More that 6 Workshop Training Days Total Count 16 14 9 39 No influence, the council would not hear our arguments Column N % 38.1% 35.9% 21.4% 31.7% A very limited influence, the council heard our Count 7 7 15 29 Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 77 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium council heard our arguments but would not change policy Column N % 16.7% 17.9% 35.7% 23.6% Count 10 11 10 31 A limited influence, the council heard our arguments and agreed to change of adopt policy in limited fulfillment of our objectives Column N % 23.8% 28.2% 23.8% 25.2% Count 5 3 5 13 A strong influence, the council heard our arguments and agreed to change or adopt policy in substantial fulfillment of our objectives Column N % 11.9% 7.7% 11.9% 10.6% Count 4 4 3 11 A very strong influence, the council heard our arguments and adopted policy in complete fulfillment of out objectives Column N % 9.5% 10.3% 7.1% 8.9% Count 42 39 42 123 Total Column N % 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% For those CSOs saying they did have an influence on policy, they were asked to identify what the issues or policies were. A sample of these is shown below in Table 36. Table 36: List of policies or decisions affected modifying the law of distributing lands for martyrs‘ families women rights elections rights administrative corruption security block for marshes citizens job opportunities in all institutions assisting orphans and widows improving services in the governorate increasing electricity power freedom of journalism and protecting media staff law project of provincial councils distributing fuel improving prisoners` status inside jails granting lands for illegally occupants of houses granting lands for organizations changing water supply mechanism changing amount of chemical materials given to farmers Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 78 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium about the decision of choosing basic committees in reconstruction local official of al no`maneyah resigned the issue of the security of female employees` salaries taxes giving immigrants their rights leveling the towers of communications office work style of trade ministry offices activating the law number 688 which states condemning murdering civilians crimes using military rules modifying the law of 1970 modifying the article of civil society law in the constitution changing the law of distributing lands regardless of birth place forming a consultant engineering council making use of public money improving sewer system in the sub district improving salaries of teachers about reconstruction projects starting a campaign against expired milk To deletion of paragraph 41 of the Constitution Reduce fuel prices Resolution 137 of the Personal Status The implementation of the demands for the region To deletion of paragraph 41 of the Constitution CSO Mobilization for Advocacy Campaigns Approximately half of the CSOs said they had identified the resources needed to conduct advocacy campaigns, about the same percentage said they had mobilized the resources from the community to do this. This is a positive finding. Those who did identify or mobilize resources did in fact have significantly more advocacy events. Table 37: CSOs that identified and mobilized resources for campaigns CSO Workshop Attendance 1 or fewer workshops 2 - 9 10 or more workshops Total Yes Count 26 24 27 77 Column N % 54.2% 48.0% 45.8% 49.0% No Count 18 21 25 64 Column N % 37.5% 42.0% 42.4% 40.8% DK/NA Count 4 5 7 16 Column N % 8.3% 10.0% 11.9% 10.2% Count 48 50 59 157 7.5a: CSOs saying they have identified the resources needed to conduct an advocacy campaigns. Total Column N % 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Yes Count 27 27 26 80 Column N % 56.3% 55.1% 44.1% 51.3% Count 16 17 26 59 7.6a: CSOs saying they were able to mobilize resources from the community in order to carry out an advocacy i No Column N % 33.3% 34.7% 44.1% 37.8% Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 79 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium DK/NA Count 5 5 7 17 Column N % 10.4% 10.2% 11.9% 10.9% Count 48 49 59 156 campaign. Total Column N % 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% CSOs saying they were able to mobilize resources tended (in a statistically valid way) to believe they had more influence in changing policy, petitioned the government more often, and were more successful petitioners. Table 38 illustrates. Thus it is likely that ensuring that CSOs are successful mobilizers should enhance their chances of successful petitioning. Table 38: Successful petitioners tended to be successful mobilizers 7.6a: CSOs saying they were able to mobilize resources from the community in order to carry out an advocacy campaign. Yes No Total Yes, all were successful Count 7 4 11 Column N % 10.3% 9.3% 9.9% Most were successful Count 29 9 38 Column N % 42.6% 20.9% 34.2% Most were unsuccessful Count 17 14 31 Column N % 25.0% 32.6% 27.9% None were successful Count 15 16 31 Column N % 22.1% 37.2% 27.9% Count 68 43 111 6.5 The success that CSOs thought they had in petitioning government officials and political leaders. Total Column N % 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% CSOs Working with Others Nearly two-thirds of the CSOs interviewed said that they had worked with other CSOs during the past 6-months to promote a common cause. This was not influenced by control group membership. CSOs that had been visited more frequently by the ICSP staff tended to participate with other CSOs more often. Those who had joined in a common cause were asked to record the nature of the common cause. Slightly more than 40% of the CSOs reported partnering with a public institution (that was not a CSO) to jointly conduct an advocacy campaign. This was not influenced by control group membership. Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 80 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium APPENDIX A: BASIC TABLES Tables Based on Regional Differences: Error! Not a valid link. Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 81 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium Error! Not a valid link. Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 82 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium Error! Not a valid link. Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 83 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium Error! Not a valid link. Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 84 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium Error! Not a valid link. Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 85 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium Error! Not a valid link.Error! Not a valid link.Error! Not a valid link. Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 86 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium Error! Not a valid link. Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 87 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium Error! Not a valid link. Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 88 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium Error! Not a valid link. Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 89 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium Error! Not a valid link. Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 90 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium Error! Not a valid link. Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 91 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium Error! Not a valid link. Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 92 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium Error! Not a valid link. Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 93 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium Error! Not a valid link. Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 94 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium Error! Not a valid link. Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 95 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium Error! Not a valid link. Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 96 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium Error! Not a valid link. Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 97 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium Error! Not a valid link. Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 98 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium Error! Not a valid link. Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 99 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium Error! Not a valid link. Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 100 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium Error! Not a valid link. Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 101 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium Error! Not a valid link. Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 102 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium Error! Not a valid link. Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 103 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium Error! Not a valid link. Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 104 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium Error! Not a valid link. Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 105 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium Error! Not a valid link.Error! Not a valid link.Error! Not a valid link. Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 106 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium Error! Not a valid link. Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 107 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium Error! Not a valid link. Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 108 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium Error! Not a valid link.Error! Not a valid link. Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 109 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium Error! Not a valid link. Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 110 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium Error! Not a valid link. Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 111 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium Error! Not a valid link. Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 112 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium Error! Not a valid link. Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 113 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium Error! Not a valid link. Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 114 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium Error! Not a valid link. Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 115 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium Error! Not a valid link.Error! Not a valid link. Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 116 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium Error! Not a valid link. Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 117 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium Error! Not a valid link. Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 118 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium Error! Not a valid link. Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 119 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium Tables Based on Quasi-Experimental Design Groups Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 120 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium No Workshop Training Days 1 to 6 Workshop Training Days More than 6 Workshop Training Days Total No. of CSOs reporting 49 42 46 137 Column % of Total CSOs reporting 87.5 75.0 83.6 82.0 No. of CSOs reporting 7 14 9 30 Column % of Total CSOs reporting 12.5 25.0 16.4 18.0 No. of CSOs reporting 56 56 55 167 Total board members 437 443 419 1299 Avg. no of board members 8.1 7.9 7.8 7.9 Row % for Regions 33.6 34.1 32.3 100.0 No. of CSOs reporting 56 56 55 167 Total male board members 323 267 247 837 Avg. no of male board members 5.9 4.8 4.7 5.1 Col. % of 2.8.1 Total Board Members 73.9 60.3 58.9 64.4 No. of CSOs reporting 56 56 55 167 Total female board members 118 176 161 455 Avg. no. of female board members 2.1 3.1 3.0 2.8 Col. % of 2.8.1 Total Board Members 27.0 39.7 38.4 35.0 No. of CSOs reporting 56 56 55 167 Total staff members on Board 274 285 221 780 Avg. no. of staff members on Board 7.4 7.1 6.9 7.2 Col. % of 2.8.1 Total Board Members 62.7 64.3 52.7 60.0 No Workshop Training Days 1 to 6 Workshop Training Days More than 6 Workshop Training Days Total No. of CSOs reporting 298 595 596 1,489 Column % of Total CSOs reporting 87.5 75.0 83.6 80.6 No. of CSOs reporting 43 198 117 358 Column % of Total CSOs reporting 12.5 25.0 16.4 19.4 No. of CSOs reporting 341 793 713 1,847 Total board members 2,661 6,273 5,432 14,366 Avg. no of board members 8.1 7.9 7.8 7.9 Row % for Regions 18.5 43.7 37.8 100.0 No. of CSOs reporting 341 793 713 1,847 Total male board members 1,967 3,781 3,202 8,950 Avg. no of male board members 5.9 4.8 4.7 4.9 Col. % of 2.8.1 Total Board Members 73.9 60.3 58.9 62.3 No. of CSOs reporting 341 793 713 1,847 Total female board members 719 2,492 2,087 5,298 Avg. no. of female board members 2.1 3.1 3.0 2.9 Col. % of 2.8.1 Total Board Members 27.0 39.7 38.4 36.9 No. of CSOs reporting 341 793 713 1,847 Total staff members on Board 1,668 4,036 2,865 8,569 Avg. no. of staff members on Board 7.4 7.1 6.9 7.1 Col. % of 2.8.1 Total Board Members 62.7 64.3 52.7 59.6 CSOs Grouped by Workshop Training Days Categories Data Items Item 2 Information on Boards of Directors (Unweighted) 2.8.2 Current number of male board members. 2.8.1 Current number of board members. 2.7 CSOs without Boards 2.7 CSOs with Boards 2.9 Staff members currently serving on boards 2.7 CSOs without Boards 2.9 Staff members currently serving on boards 2.8.3 Current number of female board members. 2.7 CSOs with Boards Item 2 Information on Boards of Directors (Weighted) CSOs Grouped by Workshop Training Days 2.8.1 Current number of board members. 2.8.2 Current number of male board members. 2.8.3 Current number of female board members. Categories Data Items Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 121 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium Error! Not a valid link. Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 122 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium Error! Not a valid link. Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 123 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium Error! Not a valid link. Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 124 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium Error! Not a valid link. Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 125 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium Error! Not a valid link.Error! Not a valid link.Error! Not a valid link.Error! Not a valid link. Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 126 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium Error! Not a valid link.Error! Not a valid link.Error! Not a valid link.Error! Not a valid link. Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 127 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium Error! Not a valid link. Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 128 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium Error! Not a valid link. Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 129 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium Error! Not a valid link. Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 130 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium Error! Not a valid link. Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 131 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium Error! Not a valid link. Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 132 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium Error! Not a valid link. Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 133 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium Error! Not a valid link.Error! Not a valid link. Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 134 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium Error! Not a valid link. Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 135 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium Error! Not a valid link. Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 136 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium Error! Not a valid link. Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 137 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium Error! Not a valid link. Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 138 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium Error! Not a valid link. Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 139 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium Error! Not a valid link. Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 140 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium Error! Not a valid link.Error! Not a valid link.Error! Not a valid link. Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 141 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium Error! Not a valid link. Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 142 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium Error! Not a valid link. Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 143 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium Error! Not a valid link.Error! Not a valid link. APPENDIX B: CSO SURVEY DATA FILE DESCRIPTION CSO Survey Release File Version 4 Variable Label Measurement Level Column Width Missing Values Strata CSOs Grouped by Workshop Training Days Ordinal 23 REG_NO Region Nominal 11 strata_weight Strata Weight Scale 15 region_weight Region Weight Scale 15 icspcso 1.8.2 ICSP CSO No.: Scale 8 result 1.9 Result of interview Nominal 8 complete 1.10 If "Completed", was the respondent: Nominal 14 gender 1.10.5 Gender of respondent? Nominal 8 member 1.10.6 How many current members in this CSO? Scale 8 9, 99, 501 q21_recoded How did you learn about the concept of a CSO? Nominal 13 q23a_recoded Which of the categories best describes the primary purpose of your organization? Nominal 14 q23b_recoded Which of the categories best describes the primary purpose of your organization? Nominal 14 q23c_recoded Which of the categories best describes the primary purpose of your organization Nominal 14 q241 2.4.1: How many total founding members were in the CSO Scale 8 q242 2.4.2: How many founding male members were in the CSO Scale 8 q243 2.4.3: How many founding female members were in the CSO Scale 8 q25 2.5 Do you charge membership fees? Nominal 9 q261 2.6.1 Members that have joined the CSO in the last year? Scale 8 501 through 506, and 99 q262 2.6.2 Male members have joined the CSO in the last year? Scale 8 q263 2.6.3 Female members have joined the CSO in the last year? Scale 8 q27 2.7 Does the CSO have a Board of Directors? Nominal 8 q281 2.8.1 Current number of board members in the CSO. Scale 8 99 q282 2.8.2 Current number of male board members in the CSO. Scale 8 Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 144 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium q283 2.8.3 Current number of female board members in the CSO. Scale 8 q29 2.9 Staff members that are currently serving on the board of the CSO. Scale 8 q321 3.2.1 Do you ask individual members of the community for financial support? Nominal 8 q311_recoded Most important source of funding for the CSO Nominal 14 q312_recoded Next most important source of funding for the CSO Nominal 14 q322 3.2.2 Do you ask local businesses for financial support? Nominal 8 q323 3.2.3 Do you ask local government for financial support? Nominal 8 q324 3.2.4 Do you ask other international organizations for financial support? Nominal 8 q325 3.2.5 Apart from the above are there any other sources for your financial support? Nominal 8 q331_recoded Most likely source of future funding for the CSO Nominal 14 q332_recoded Next most likely source of future funding for the CSO Nominal 14 q411_recoded The most important and difficult management issues the CSO faced over the last year Nominal 14 q412_recoded The second most important and difficult management issues the CSO faced over the last year Nominal 14 q421_recoded The most important source of help on difficult management decisions Nominal 14 q422_recoded The next most important source of help on difficult management decisions Nominal 14 q431_recoded The most important skill or ability that the CSO would like to develop Nominal 14 q432_recoded The next most important skill or ability that the CSO would like to develop Nominal 14 q51 5.1 Did the CSO receive support from ICSP/CSRC of any sort? Nominal 8 q52a 5.2 Kind of support - Logistics Nominal 8 q52b 5.2 Kind of support - Finance Nominal 8 q52c 5.2 Kind of support - Organization Nominal 8 q52d 5.2 Kind of support - Trainning Nominal 8 q52e 5.2 Kind of support - Others Nominal 8 q53 5.3 The number of times a CSO staff member visited an ICSP/CSRC Center in the last 12 months. Scale 8 Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 145 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium q54 5.4 The number of times an ICSP/CSRC staff visited the CSO in the last 12 months. Scale 8 q55 5.5 The number of training courses attended in the last 12 months. Scale 8 q56 5.6 The number of conferences attended by the CSO in the last 12 months? Scale 8 q57 5.7 Organizations that provided the most training to CSO staff. Nominal 24 q581 5.8 The number of times CSOs participated in workshops during the past year. Scale 8 q59b1 5.9.1 CSOs trained in planning an advocacy campaign. Nominal 8 q59b2 5.9.2 CSOs trained in financial management Nominal 8 q59b3 5.9.3 CSOs trained in monitoring contract implementation Nominal 8 q59b4 5.9.4 CSOs trained in procurement of local market materials Nominal 8 q59b5 5.9.5 CSOs trained in transparency and accountability in informing the public about project budgets. Nominal 8 q59b6 5.9.6 CSOs trained in transparency and accountability in informing the public about progress and results of activities. Nominal 8 q59b7 5.9.7 CSOs trained in advocating influencing social, political and economic policy. Nominal 8 q59b8 5.9.8 CSOs trained in advocating to how to lobby government representatives Nominal 8 q59b9 5.9.9 CSOs trained in conflict resolution Nominal 8 q59b10 5.9.10 CSOs trained in networking with other CSOs Nominal 8 q59b11 5.9.11 CSOs trained in developing relationships to donors Nominal 8 q59b12 5.9.12 CSOs trained in training of trainers Nominal 8 q59b13_recoded CSOs trained in other topics Nominal 16 q5101_recoded The most important training courses identified by the CSO Nominal 15 q5102_recoded The next most important training courses identified by the CSO Nominal 15 q511 5.11 CSOs saying that they were able to apply the training they received at the workshops Nominal 8 Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 146 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium q512 5.12 CSOs saying they felt the workshop training and conferences were based on a good understanding of the needs and challenges they faced in the community. Nominal 8 q513 5.13 CSOs saying they are willing to contribute to the cost of future training programs. Nominal 8 q514a 5.14a CSO identified 3 most helpful services that might be offerd by the CSRCs. (order is not significant) Nominal 50 q514b 5.14b CSO identified 3 most helpful services that might be offered by the CSRCs. (order is not significant) Nominal 50 q514c 5.14c CSO identified 3 most helpful services that might be offered by the CSRCs. (order is not significant) Nominal 50 q515 5.15 CSOs saying they think they would be willing to make a financial contribution in order to sustain the work of the Civil Society Resource Centers. Nominal 8 q516 5.16 CSOs saying they received a grant from the CSRC. Nominal 8 9 q517 5.17 CSOs saying that the grant selection process was fair and objective. Nominal 8 q518 5.18 CSOs who felt that administrative requirements for grant reporting and disbursements were appropriate and reasonable? Nominal 8 q519a_recoded Major areas of weakness in Grant Administration (1) Nominal 15 q519b_recoded Major areas of weakness in Grant Administration (2) Nominal 15 q519c_recoded Major areas of weakness in Grant Administration (3) Nominal 15 q61 6.1 How much control CSO members felt they had in influencing decisions that affect their communities' everyday activities. Ordinal 8 q62 6.2 How much power CSOs felt they had to influence important decisions that change the course of life in the community. Ordinal 8 q63 6.3 The extent of impact CSOs felt they had in making the community a better place to live. Ordinal 8 q64 6.4 The number of times in the past 12 months that CSOs petitioned government officials or political leaders for improved services to the community. Ordinal 8 9, 99 Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 147 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium q65 6.5 The success that CSOs thought they had in petitioning government officials and political leaders. Nominal 8 7, 9 q66 6.6 What CSOs thought about the extent that local government and local leaders took into account their concerns when they took decisions affecting their constituents. Nominal 8 6, 99 q71 7.1 The total number of times the CSO facilitated a community forum or campaign in the past 6 months. Scale 8 100 q71a 7.1.a Number of Civil Society Capacity Building Fora/Campaigns Scale 8 50 q71b 7.1.b Number of Fora/Campaigns by type Civil Society Capacity Building :Civic Education Scale 8 q71c 7.1.c Number of Fora/Campaigns by type Civil Society Capacity Building: Woman's Advocacy Scale 8 q71d 7.1.d Number of Fora/Campaigns by type Civil Society Capacity Building: Anticorruption Scale 8 50 q71e 7.1.e Number of Fora/Campaigns by type Civil Society Capacity BuildingIndependent Media Scale 8 q71f 7.1.f Number of Fora/Campaigns by type Civil Society Capacity BuildingHuman Rights Scale 8 q72 7.2 Total number of appearances before local government elected of advisory councils in the past 6 months to advocate for a cause. Scale 8 55 q72a 7.2.a Number of appearances to advocate for Civic Education Scale 8 q72b 7.2.b Number of appearances to advocate for Woman's Advocacy Scale 8 q72c 7.2.c Number of appearances to advocate for Anticorruption Nominal 8 q72d 7.2.d Number of appearances to advocate for an Independent Media Scale 8 55 q72e 7.2.e Number of appearances to advocate for Human Rights Scale 8 q73 7.3 Total number of appearances before local government departments/directorates in the past 6 months to advocate for a cause. Scale 8 q73a 7.3.a:Number of appearances by topic of advocacy:Civic Education Scale 8 Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 148 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium q73b 7.3.b :Number of appearances by topic of advocacy Woman's Advocacy Scale 8 q73c 7.3.c:Number of appearances by topic of advocacyAnticorruption Nominal 8 q73d 7.3.d :Number of appearances by topic of advocacy Independent Media Scale 8 q73e 7.3.e :Number of appearances by topic of advocacy Human Rights Scale 8 q74a 7.4a: Level of influence the CSOs thought they had with the elected or advisory councils. Ordinal 8 0, 99 q74b 7.4b: (If yes, record here the policy or decision affected and the local council that responded to your organization's advice Nominal 36 q75a 7.5a: CSOs saying they have identified the resources needed to conduct an advocacy campaigns. Nominal 8 99 q75b 7.5b: (if yes, record here when this was done and the estimated resources needed Nominal 50 q76a 7.6a: CSOs saying they were able to mobilize resources from the community in order to carry out an advocacy campaign. Nominal 8 99 q76b 7.6b:If yes, record here when this was done and the purpose of the campaign Nominal 22 q77a 7.7a: The primary obstacle CSOs face that prevent them from conducting more fora or campaigns. Nominal 50 q77b 7.7b: The second main obstacle CSOs face that prevent them from conduction fora or campaigns. Nominal 50 q78 7.8:The number of times CSOs have been prevented from carrying out fora or campaigns in the past 6 months. Scale 8 q79a 7.9a Total number of times CSOs have advocated with other CSOs on a common cause in the past 6 months. Scale 8 99 q79b 7.9b (if not none, record here the nature of the common cause that was advocated for) Nominal 40 q710a 7.10a Total number of times CSOs hav advocated jointly with a public institution other than a CSO on a common cause Scale 8 99 Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 149 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium q710b 7.10b (if not none, record here the nature of the common cause that was advocated for) Nominal 50 GOV_NO Governorate Nominal 8 REGISTER_DATE Registration Date Scale 13 EDU_NO Education Level of Director Nominal 8 ESTABLISH_DATE Date established Scale 12 COMPUTERS_NO Number of computers Scale 8 INTERNET_ACCESS_YN Access to the Internet? Nominal 8 ICSP_portion_of_grant ICSP funding Scale 8 Total_grant_amount Total grant funding Scale 8 number_grants Number of ICSP grants Scale 9 Cummulative_OAT_Score OAT Total Accumulative Score Scale 8 -1 Training_days CSO Training Days (Calculated from Start and End Date) Scale 20 Workshop_activities CSO Workshop Activities Scale 21 Grouped_Activities CSOs Grouped by Workshop Activities Ordinal 20 total_workshop_events Total Workshop Events Attended Scale 23 TandC_Building CSOs Indicating Purpose was Training and Capacity Building Nominal 16 CivicEd CSOs Indicating Purpose was Civic Education Nominal 10 WomanAdvoc CSOs Indicating Purpose was Woman's Advocacy Nominal 12 Anticorrupt CSOs Indicating Purpose was Anticorruption Nominal 13 Media CSOs Indicating Purpose was Media Nominal 10 HumanRights CSOs Indicating Purpose was Human Rights Nominal 13 OtherFocus CSOs Indicating Other Purposes Nominal 12 CSO_Size_Group_by_3 CSO Size Groups Ordinal 21 q55_recoded Training received in the past 12 months Nominal 13 q53_recoded Has the CSO visited the CSRS in the past 12 months? Nominal 13 q54_recoded Has the ICSP visited the CSO in the past 12 months. Nominal 13 CSO_capacity CSO Capacity Groups Nominal 14 0 Year_established Year established Ordinal 18 Year_established_recode Year CSO Established Ordinal 25 Year_registered Year registered Ordinal 17 Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 150 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium Tear_registered_recode Year CSO Registered Ordinal 24 Year_formed_recode 2.2 When was your CSO formed? Ordinal 20 q71_recoded Grouped Advocacy Events Ordinal 13 q261_recoded New Members Last Year Ordinal 14 q53_recoded_2 CSO visits to the CSRC Ordinal 15 q54_recoded_2 ICSP visits to the CSOs Ordinal 15 q56_recoded CSO Conference Attendance Last Year Ordinal 13 q581_recoded CSO Workshop Attendance Ordinal 14 All_participations All CSO Participations Scale 20 All_participations_recoded All CSO Participations Ordinal 28 log_ICSP_visit Natural log of visits to ICSP (q5.3) Scale 16 log_CSO_visit Natural log of visits by ICSP (q5.4) Scale 15 log_courses Natural log of courses attended (q5.5) Scale 13 log_conferences Natural log of conferences attended (q5.6) Scale 17 log_workshops Natural log of workshops attended (q5.8) Scale 15 log_advocacies Natural log of advocacies (q7.1) Scale 16 q61_recoded Regrouped Empowerment Q6.1 Ordinal 13 q62_recoded Recoded Groups for Q6.2 Ordinal 13 q63_recoded Impact on Community Ordinal 13 q66_recode Extent that CSO Concers are taken into account Ordinal 12 q79a_recoded CSO Advocating for a Common Cause with Other CSOs Ordinal 14 log_q72 Natural log of council appearances (q7.2) Scale 10 log_q73 Natural log of government dept appearances (q7.3) Scale 10 Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 151 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium ANNEX G: Additional Survey Data - Cross Tabulations with Grants Civil Society Organization (CSO) Survey The following tables and figures constitute a distillation of the of the principle correlations emerging from the Survey that are of relevance to the evaluation, including additional analysis of data for CSOs receiving training and/or grants from the ICSP. This data is discussed and interpreted in the body of the Report. Where tables and figures are based on the strata, this will be indicated as ‘Strata’ and where they are based on capacity building by the ICSP; this will be indicated by ‘Capacity’. Part 1: Overview of Survey Respondents Table 1: Survey Participation by Training and Grants Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative Percent CSOs without training or grants 75 28.8 46.0 46.0 CSOs with training, but no grants 40 15.4 24.5 70.6 CSOs with grants, but no training 27 10.4 16.6 87.1 CSOs with both grants and training 21 8.1 12.9 100.0 Valid Total 163 62.7 100.0 Missing 0 97 37.3 Total 260 100.0 Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 152 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium Part 2: Information about the CSO Organization Table 2: How CSOs learned about the CSO concept (Capacity) CSO capacity 0 Group 1, Training = NO, Grants = NO Group 2, Training = YES, Grants = NO Group 3, Training = NO, Grants = YES Group 4, Training = YES, Grants = YES Total Count 0 194 202 100 97 593 Row N % .0% 32.6% 34.1% 16.9% 16.4% 100.0% At a workshop/meeting in my community Column N % .0% 24.9% 42.1% 32.3% 41.5% 32.2% Count 0 79 6 20 70 175 Row N % .0% 44.9% 3.5% 11.6% 40.1% 100.0% A community organizer contacted us Column N % .0% 10.1% 1.3% 6.5% 29.9% 9.5% Count 19 134 95 88 27 363 Row N % 5.3% 36.9% 26.1% 24.2% 7.5% 100.0% Informed by another CSO member Column N % 50.0% 17.2% 19.7% 28.3% 11.6% 19.7% Count 0 6 52 0 0 58 Row N % .0% 10.5% 89.5% .0% .0% 100.0% A local community leader told us Column N % .0% .8% 10.8% .0% .0% 3.1% Count 0 6 0 14 0 20 Row N % .0% 30.1% .0% 69.9% .0% 100.0% From the local council Column N % .0% .8% .0% 4.6% .0% 1.1% Count 0 95 6 6 0 107 Row N % .0% 88.6% 5.7% 5.7% .0% 100.0% After visiting the with ICSP Column N % .0% 12.2% 1.3% 2.0% .0% 5.8% Count 19 264 119 82 40 525 Row N % 3.6% 50.4% 22.8% 15.6% 7.6% 100.0% Other Column N % 50.0% 34.0% 24.9% 26.3% 17.1% 28.5% Count 38 777 480 311 235 1841 Row N % 2.1% 42.2% 26.1% 16.9% 12.7% 100.0% How did you learn about the concept of a CSO? Total Column N % 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 153 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium Table 3: Presence of a Board of Directors (Capacity) CSO_capacity 0 Group 1, Training = NO, Grants = NO Group 2, Training = YES, Grants = NO Group 3, Training = NO, Grants = YES Group 4, Training = YES, Grants = YES Total yes Count 38 657 324 276 193 1489 Column N % 100.0% 83.9% 67.5% 88.9% 82.4% 80.6% Count 0 126 156 34 41 358 Does the CSO have a Board of Directors? no Column N % .0% 16.1% 32.5% 11.1% 17.6% 19.4% Count 38 783 480 311 235 1847 Sum 290 5642 4414 2308 1712 14366 Mean 8 7 9 7 7 8 Current number of board members in the CSO. Column N % 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Count 38 783 480 311 235 1847 Sum 232 3893 2615 1175 1035 8950 Mean 6 5 5 4 4 5 Current number of male board members in the CSO. Column N % 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Count 38 783 480 311 235 1847 Sum 57 1631 1799 1133 678 5298 Mean 2 2 4 4 3 3 Current number of female board members in the CSO. Column N % 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Count 38 783 480 311 235 1847 Sum 219 3460 2348 1642 901 8569 Mean 9 6 8 7 8 7 Staff members that are currently serving on the board of the CSO. Column N % 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 154 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium Table 4: Primary Purpose of the CSO (Capacity) CSO_capacity 0 Group 1, Training = NO, Grants = NO Group 2, Training = YES, Grants = NO Group 3, Training = NO, Grants = YES Group 4, Training = YES, Grants = YES Total Total Count 38 783 480 298 235 1834 Column N % 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Training and Count 0 135 93 31 33 292 capacity building for other CSOs Column N % .0% 17.2% 19.4% 10.5% 14.2% 15.9% Civic Education Count 0 73 119 71 84 347 Column N % .0% 9.3% 24.9% 23.8% 35.8% 18.9% Woman's Count 13 139 157 110 52 471 Advocacy Column N % 34.0% 17.7% 32.7% 36.9% 22.3% 25.7% Anticorruption Count 0 75 0 33 6 114 Column N % .0% 9.6% .0% 11.2% 2.6% 6.2% Media Count 6 126 25 20 14 192 Column N % 16.0% 16.1% 5.2% 6.8% 6.0% 10.4% Human Rights Count 0 52 60 12 26 151 Column N % .0% 6.7% 12.6% 4.1% 11.1% 8.2% Which of the categories best describes the primary purpose of your organization? Other Count 19 184 25 20 19 267 Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 155 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium Part III: Funding the CSO Table 5: Most important sources of current funding for the CSO (Capacity) CSO_capacity 0 Group 1, Training = NO, Grants = NO Group 2, Training = YES, Grants = NO Group 3, Training = NO, Grants = YES Group 4, Training = YES, Grants = YES Total Total Count 38 735 480 311 222 1785 Column N % 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Membership fees Count 0 160 102 6 47 315 Column N % .0% 21.8% 21.2% 2.0% 21.4% 17.7% Personal Count 13 245 185 34 79 557 contributions Column N % 34.0% 33.4% 38.6% 11.1% 35.6% 31.2% Contributions from Count 0 0 27 0 0 27 local business Column N % .0% .0% 5.6% .0% .0% 1.5% Contributions from Count 6 51 78 33 25 194 your members Column N % 16.0% 7.0% 16.3% 10.7% 11.3% 10.9% Support from local Count 0 102 0 90 6 198 government Column N % .0% 13.9% .0% 28.9% 2.7% 11.1% Support from Count 0 0 14 32 13 59 other Iraq NGOs Column N % .0% .0% 2.9% 10.3% 5.8% 3.3% Support from Count 13 13 20 39 45 130 other international NGOs Column N % 34.0% 1.8% 4.2% 12.7% 20.3% 7.3% From overseas Count 6 13 14 0 6 39 friends of your organization Column N % 16.0% 1.8% 2.9% .0% 2.7% 2.2% From your own Count 0 130 39 47 0 216 activities or projects for which Column N % .0% 17.6% 8.2% 15.3% .0% 12.1% Count 0 20 0 28 0 49 Most likely source of funding for the CSO Other Column N % .0% 2.8% .0% 9.1% .0% 2.7% Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 156 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium Table 6: Most important sources of future funding for the CSO (Capacity) CSO_capacity 0 Group 1, Training = NO, Grants = NO Group 2, Training = YES, Grants = NO Group 3, Training = NO, Grants = YES Group 4, Training = YES, Grants = YES Total Membership fees Count 0 79 6 0 0 85 Column N % .0% 10.0% 1.3% .0% .0% 4.6% Personal Count 0 94 13 0 13 120 contributions Column N % .0% 12.0% 2.7% .0% 5.5% 6.5% Contributions Count 0 0 27 33 13 73 from local business Column N % .0% .0% 5.6% 10.7% 5.5% 4.0% Contributions Count 0 0 13 14 13 40 from your members Column N % .0% .0% 2.7% 4.6% 5.5% 2.2% Support from Count 0 215 211 66 87 580 local government Column N % .0% 27.5% 44.0% 21.4% 36.9% 31.4% Support from Count 0 47 28 20 13 108 other Iraq NGOs Column N % .0% 5.9% 5.9% 6.5% 5.5% 5.9% Support from Count 25 128 19 66 19 257 other international NGOs Column N % 66.0% 16.3% 4.0% 21.4% 8.1% 13.9% From overseas Count 0 0 0 0 0 0 friends of your organization Column N % .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% From your own Count 13 155 120 82 51 421 activities or projects for which Column N % 34.0% 19.8% 25.0% 26.3% 21.8% 22.8% Count 0 66 42 28 26 163 Most likely source of future funding for the CSO Other Column N % .0% 8.5% 8.8% 9.1% 11.1% 8.8% Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 157 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium Part IV: CSO Management Issues Table 7: Most important management issues (Capacity) CSO_capacity 0 Group 1, Training = NO, Grants = NO Group 2, Training = YES, Grants = NO Group 3, Training = NO, Grants = YES Group 4, Training = YES, Grants = YES Total Total Count 38 783 480 311 235 1847 Column N % 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Lack of funding Count 32 638 406 217 183 1476 (fund raising) Column N % 84.0% 81.5% 84.5% 69.9% 77.9% 79.9% Financial Count 0 20 13 13 0 46 management and accounting Column N % .0% 2.6% 2.7% 4.2% .0% 2.5% Long range Count 0 13 0 28 0 41 planning Column N % .0% 1.7% .0% 9.1% .0% 2.2% A personnel Count 0 0 0 0 0 0 conflict issue Column N % .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% Registration or Count 6 14 27 0 0 47 compliance with laws Column N % 16.0% 1.8% 5.6% .0% .0% 2.6% Setting up or Count 0 0 14 0 0 14 dealing with your Board of Column N % .0% .0% 2.9% .0% .0% .8% Getting technical Count 0 46 14 32 13 105 help to improve the quality of Column N % .0% 5.9% 2.9% 10.3% 5.5% 5.7% Count 0 51 6 20 39 117 The most important and difficult management issues the CSO faced over the last year Other Column N % .0% 6.6% 1.3% 6.5% 16.6% 6.3% Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 158 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium Table 8: The most important source of help on management issues (Capacity) CSO_capacity 0 Group 1, Training = NO, Grants = NO Group 2, Training = YES, Grants = NO Group 3, Training = NO, Grants = YES Group 4, Training = YES, Grants = YES Total Total Count 38 783 480 311 235 1847 Column N % 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Your Board of Count 19 386 187 120 117 830 Directors Column N % 50.0% 49.3% 38.9% 38.7% 49.9% 44.9% Consultations Count 0 250 173 53 58 535 with your staff Column N % .0% 32.0% 36.0% 17.2% 24.9% 29.0% Representative Count 0 42 54 27 20 144 from local government Column N % .0% 5.4% 11.3% 8.7% 8.6% 7.8% The Local Count 13 39 39 68 26 186 ICSP/ADF Center Column N % 34.0% 5.0% 8.2% 22.0% 11.1% 10.1% Other Local Count 0 6 0 13 0 19 CSOs Column N % .0% .8% .0% 4.2% .0% 1.0% Professional Count 6 12 0 14 0 32 consultants Column N % 16.0% 1.6% .0% 4.6% .0% 1.8% Local Count 0 0 0 0 0 0 universities Column N % .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% Count 0 47 27 14 13 101 The most important source of help on difficult management decisions Other Column N % .0% 5.9% 5.6% 4.6% 5.5% 5.5% Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 159 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium Table 9: The most important skills that CSOs wish to acquire (Capacity) CSO_capacity 0 Group 1, Training = NO, Grants = NO Group 2, Training = YES, Grants = NO Group 3, Training = NO, Grants = YES Group 4, Training = YES, Grants = YES Total Total Count 4 75 39 26 21 165 Column N % 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Fund raising Count 2 15 13 11 10 51 Column N % 50.0% 20.0% 33.3% 42.3% 47.6% 30.9% Advocacy skills Count 0 18 8 4 3 33 Column N % .0% 24.0% 20.5% 15.4% 14.3% 20.0% Communication Count 2 24 12 5 6 49 skills Column N % 50.0% 32.0% 30.8% 19.2% 28.6% 29.7% Proposal Count 0 5 2 1 1 9 writing Column N % .0% 6.7% 5.1% 3.8% 4.8% 5.5% Count 0 13 4 5 1 23 The most important skill or ability that the CSO would like to develop Other Column N % .0% 17.3% 10.3% 19.2% 4.8% 13.9% Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 160 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium Part V: CSO Relationship with Civil Society Resource Centers Table 10: Type of Support (Capacity) CSO_capacity 0 Group 1, Training = NO, Grants = NO Group 2, Training = YES, Grants = NO Group 3, Training = NO, Grants = YES Group 4, Training = YES, Grants = YES Total yes Count 25 291 147 215 182 860 Column N % 66.0% 37.4% 30.5% 69.1% 77.7% 46.7% Count 13 486 334 96 52 981 Did the CSO receive support from ICSP/CSRC of any sort? no Column N % 34.0% 62.6% 69.5% 30.9% 22.3% 53.3% Kind of Sum 0 31 26 52 32 141 support - Logistics Column N % 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Kind of Sum 0 45 13 117 169 345 support - Finance Column N % 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Kind of Sum 0 6 38 58 45 147 support - OD Column N % 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Kind of Sum 19 227 121 148 135 650 support - Training Column N % 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 161 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium Table 11: The number of contacts between ICSP/CSRC staff and CSOs in the last 12 months (Capacity) CSO_capacity 0 Group 1, Training = NO, Grants = NO Group 2, Training = YES, Grants = NO Group 3, Training = NO, Grants = YES Group 4, Training = YES, Grants = YES Total Count 38 783 480 311 235 1847 Sum 358 5356 3784 2577 7000 19075 Mean 9 7 8 8 30 10 The number of times a CSO staff member visited an ICSP/CSRC Center in the last 12 months. Row N % 2.1% 42.4% 26.0% 16.8% 12.7% 100.0% Count 38 783 480 311 235 1847 Sum 155 1200 1331 855 2346 5886 Mean 4 2 3 3 10 3 The number of times an ICSP/CSRC staff visited the CSO in the last 12 months. Row N % 2.1% 42.4% 26.0% 16.8% 12.7% 100.0% Count 38 783 480 311 235 1847 Sum 285 0 4674 0 2288 7247 Mean 7 0 10 0 10 4 The number of times the CSO has received training in the last 12 months. Row N % 2.1% 42.4% 26.0% 16.8% 12.7% 100.0% Count 38 783 480 311 235 1847 Sum 104 3477 3429 952 2430 10392 Mean 3 4 7 3 10 6 The number of conferences attended by the CSO in the last 12 months? Row N % 2.1% 42.4% 26.0% 16.8% 12.7% 100.0% Count 38 783 480 311 235 1847 Sum 239 4413 9463 1848 4659 20623 Mean 6 6 20 6 20 11 The number of times CSOs participated in workshops during the past year. Row N % 2.1% 42.4% 26.0% 16.8% 12.7% 100.0% Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 162 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium Table 12: Training content 1 (Capacity) CSO_capacity 0 Group 1, Training = NO, Grants = NO Group 2, Training = YES, Grants = NO Group 3, Training = NO, Grants = YES Group 4, Training = YES, Grants = YES Total Sum 13 186 137 96 158 589 CSOs trained in planning an advocacy campaign. Row Sum % 2.2% 31.5% 23.3% 16.3% 26.7% 100.0% CSOs trained in Sum 19 302 258 134 162 875 financial management Row Sum % 2.2% 34.5% 29.4% 15.4% 18.5% 100.0% CSOs trained in Sum 13 27 32 34 40 147 monitoring contract implementation Row Sum % 8.8% 18.5% 21.8% 23.5% 27.3% 100.0% CSOs trained in Sum 0 27 40 60 27 155 procurement of local market materials Row Sum % .0% 17.5% 25.9% 39.0% 17.5% 100.0% CSOs trained in Sum 13 175 185 142 131 647 transparency and accountability in informing the public about project budgets. Informing the public about project budgets Row Sum % 2.0% 27.1% 28.7% 22.0% 20.3% 100.0% CSOs trained in Sum 13 89 53 34 14 204 transparency and accountability in informing the public about progress and results of activities. the public on the progress and results of activities and expenditures of money that may have been raise Row Sum % 6.4% 43.5% 26.3% 16.9% 7.0% 100.0% CSOs trained in Sum 6 79 102 121 131 439 advocating influencing social, political and economic policy. economic policy representing community interests Row Sum % 1.4% 17.9% 23.2% 27.6% 29.9% 100.0% Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 163 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium Table 13: Training content 2 (Capacity) CSO_capacity 0 Group 1, Training = NO, Grants = NO Group 2, Training = YES, Grants = NO Group 3, Training = NO, Grants = YES Group 4, Training = YES, Grants = YES Total CSO_capacity CSO_capacity CSO_capacity CSO_capacity CSO_capacity CSO_capacity 0 0 0 0 0 0 CSOs trained Sum 26 235 177 120 182 740 in advocating to how to lobby government representatives representatives and building linkages to district and provincial authorities Row Sum % 3.5% 31.7% 24.0% 16.2% 24.6% 100.0% CSOs trained Sum 26 239 208 122 184 779 in conflict resolution Row Sum % 3.3% 30.7% 26.7% 15.6% 23.7% 100.0% CSOs trained Sum 13 216 182 114 149 674 in networking with other CSOs Row Sum % 1.9% 32.0% 27.0% 16.9% 22.1% 100.0% CSOs trained Sum 0 18 55 49 78 200 in developing relationships to donors Row Sum % .0% 9.1% 27.7% 24.2% 39.0% 100.0% CSOs trained Sum 19 192 155 123 149 638 in training of trainers Row Sum % 3.0% 30.1% 24.2% 19.3% 23.4% 100.0% CSOs trained Sum 13 60 67 45 39 224 in other topics Row Sum % 5.8% 26.6% 30.0% 20.3% 17.4% 100.0% Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 164 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium Part VI: CSO Empowerment and Political Action Table 14: CSO perceived influence on important community issues (Strata) CSOs Grouped by Workshop Training Days How much power CSOs felt they had to influence important decisions that change the course of life in the community. No Workshop Training Days 1 to 6 Workshop Training Days More that 6 Workshop Training Days Total Totally unable to Count 6 7 3 16 influence community life Column N % 10.9% 13.0% 5.5% 9.8% Mostly unable to Count 11 3 7 21 influence community life Column N % 20.0% 5.6% 12.7% 12.8% Neither able nor Count 9 11 16 36 unable Column N % 16.4% 20.4% 29.1% 22.0% Mostly able to Count 24 30 28 82 influence community life Column N % 43.6% 55.6% 50.9% 50.0% Definitely able to Count 5 3 1 9 influence community life Column N % 9.1% 5.6% 1.8% 5.5% Count 55 54 55 164 Total Column N % 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 165 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium Table 15: CSO perceived influence on important community issues (Capacity) CSO_capacity 0 Group 1, Training = NO, Grants = NO Group 2, Training = YES, Grants = NO Group 3, Training = NO, Grants = YES Group 4, Training = YES, Grants = YES Total Total Count 4 74 40 25 21 164 Column N % 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Totally unable Count 0 5 5 6 0 16 to influence community life Column N % .0% 6.8% 12.5% 24.0% .0% 9.8% Mostly unable to Count 2 8 3 5 3 21 influence community life Column N % 50.0% 10.8% 7.5% 20.0% 14.3% 12.8% Neither able nor Count 0 16 8 5 7 36 unable Column N % .0% 21.6% 20.0% 20.0% 33.3% 22.0% Mostly able to Count 2 41 21 8 10 82 influence community life Column N % 50.0% 55.4% 52.5% 32.0% 47.6% 50.0% Count 0 4 3 1 1 9 How much power CSOs felt they had to influence important decisions that change the course of life in the community. Definitely able to influence community life Column N % .0% 5.4% 7.5% 4.0% 4.8% 5.5% Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 166 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium Part VII: CSO Advocacy Table 16: Petitioning government officials and political leaders (Capacity) CSO_capacity 0 Group 1, Training = NO, Grants = NO Group 2, Training = YES, Grants = NO Group 3, Training = NO, Grants = YES Group 4, Training = YES, Grants = YES Total Total Count 38 751 467 200 209 1666 Column N % 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Never Count 12 134 65 27 19 258 Column N % 32.0% 17.9% 14.0% 13.5% 9.1% 15.5% Once Count 0 47 81 39 0 168 Column N % .0% 6.3% 17.4% 19.6% .0% 10.1% A few times ( 2 Count 0 212 149 107 58 527 to 5 times) Column N % .0% 28.3% 31.9% 53.3% 28.0% 31.6% Count 26 357 172 27 131 713 The number of times in the past 12 months that CSOs petitioned government officials or political leaders for improved services to the community. Many times (more than 5) Column N % 68.0% 47.6% 36.7% 13.5% 62.9% 42.8% Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 167 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium Table 17: Perceived influence on government (Capacity) CSO_capacity 0 Group 1, Training = NO, Grants = NO Group 2, Training = YES, Grants = NO Group 3, Training = NO, Grants = YES Group 4, Training = YES, Grants = YES Total Total Count 19 643 440 311 203 1615 Column N % 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Never Count 0 169 147 34 20 370 Column N % .0% 26.3% 33.3% 11.1% 10.0% 22.9% Rarely Count 0 84 66 54 33 237 Column N % .0% 13.0% 15.0% 17.5% 16.4% 14.7% Occasionally Count 0 199 134 144 57 534 Column N % .0% 31.0% 30.4% 46.4% 28.2% 33.1% Often Count 13 165 81 58 79 395 Column N % 68.0% 25.6% 18.3% 18.5% 39.0% 24.4% Count 6 26 13 20 13 79 What CSOs thought about the extent that local government and local leaders took into account their concerns when they took decisions affecting their constituents? Always Column N % 32.0% 4.1% 2.9% 6.5% 6.4% 4.9% Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 168 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium Table 18: Level of Influence of CSOs on councils (Capacity) CSO_capacity 0 Group 1, Training = NO, Grants = NO Group 2, Training = YES, Grants = NO Group 3, Training = NO, Grants = YES Group 4, Training = YES, Grants = YES Total Total Count 32 758 480 270 235 1775 Column N % 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% No influence, the Count 13 199 73 101 14 399 council would not hear our arguments Column N % 40.5% 26.2% 15.1% 37.3% 6.0% 22.5% A very limited Count 13 113 80 52 78 336 influence, the council heard our arguments Column N % 40.5% 14.9% 16.7% 19.4% 33.3% 18.9% A limited Count 0 153 60 76 57 346 influence, the council heard our arguments and agreed to change of adopt policy in limited fulfillment of our objectives Column N % .0% 20.2% 12.6% 28.0% 24.4% 19.5% A strong Count 0 58 27 14 39 138 influence, the council heard our arguments and agreed to change or adopt policy in substantial fulfillment of our objectives Column N % .0% 7.6% 5.6% 5.2% 16.6% 7.8% A very strong Count 0 61 45 0 14 120 influence, the council heard our arguments and adopted policy in complete fulfillment of out objectives Column N % .0% 8.0% 9.4% .0% 6.0% 6.8% Count 6 175 195 27 32 436 Level of influence the CSOs thought they had with the elected or advisory councils. N/A (did not appear before a council) Column N % 19.0% 23.1% 40.6% 10.0% 13.6% 24.5% Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 169 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium Table 19: CSOs that identified and mobilized resources for advocacy campaigns (Capacity) CSO_capacity 0 Group 1, Training = NO, Grants = NO Group 2, Training = YES, Grants = NO Group 3, Training = NO, Grants = YES Group 4, Training = YES, Grants = YES Total Total Count 32 758 467 270 235 1762 Column N % 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Yes Count 19 380 241 129 84 854 Column N % 59.5% 50.2% 51.6% 47.8% 35.9% 48.5% No Count 0 304 186 113 111 714 Column N % .0% 40.1% 39.8% 41.7% 47.5% 40.5% DK/NA Count 13 74 40 28 39 194 CSOs saying they have identified the resources needed to conduct an advocacy campaigns. Column N % 40.5% 9.7% 8.6% 10.5% 16.6% 11.0% Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 170 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium Table 20: Primary obstacle faced by CSOs to conduct campaigns (Capacity) CSO_capacity 0 Group 1, Training = NO, Grants = NO Group 2, Training = YES, Grants = NO Group 3, Training = NO, Grants = YES Group 4, Training = YES, Grants = YES Total Total Count 32 730 474 242 201 1679 Column N % 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Local councils Count 13 40 59 14 20 147 discourage citizen input at public meetings. Column N % 40.5% 5.5% 12.5% 5.9% 10.1% 8.7% Local government Count 0 74 46 20 32 172 departments discourage citizen input Column N % .0% 10.1% 9.7% 8.4% 15.9% 10.3% Lack financial Count 13 422 323 113 117 988 resources to attend public meetings or conduct fora/campaigns Column N % 40.5% 57.8% 68.1% 46.6% 58.1% 58.8% Lack human Count 0 6 0 19 0 25 resources to attend public meetings or conduct fora/campaigns Column N % .0% .8% .0% 7.9% .0% 1.5% Security situation Count 6 149 46 55 32 289 prevents public meetings Column N % 19.0% 20.5% 9.7% 22.9% 15.9% 17.2% No obstacle Count 0 12 0 14 0 26 Column N % .0% 1.7% .0% 5.9% .0% 1.6% Count 0 26 0 6 0 32 The primary obstacle CSOs face that prevent them from conducting more fora or campaigns. Other Column N % .0% 3.6% .0% 2.5% .0% 1.9% Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 171 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium Table 21: Advocacy Campaigns conducted (Strata) CSOs Grouped by Workshop Training Days No Workshop Training Days 1 to 6 Workshop Training Days More that 6 Workshop Training Days Total Mea n 5 6 8 6 The total number of times the CSO facilitated a community forum or campaign in the past 6 months. Sum 1610 4327 5175 11112 Mea n 2 2 2 2 Total number of appearances before local government elected of advisory councils in the past 6 months to advocate for a cause. Sum 625 1669 1451 3745 Mea n 2 2 2 2 Total number of appearances before local government departments/directorat es in the past 6 months to advocate for a cause. Sum 606 1210 1143 2960 Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 172 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium Table 22: Advocacy Campaigns conducted (Capacity) CSO_capacity 0 Group 1, Training = NO, Grants = NO Group 2, Training = YES, Grants = NO Group 3, Training = NO, Grants = YES Group 4, Training = YES, Grants = YES Total Total number of times CSOs have advocated with other CSOs on a common cause in the past 6 months. Valid N 32 732 480 257 235 1736 Mean 3 3 2 3 2 3 Sum 110 2492 1071 791 477 4941 Row N % 2.1% 42.4% 26.0% 16.8% 12.7% 100.0% Total number of times CSOs hav advocated jointly with a public institution other than a CSO on a common cause Valid N 32 732 467 270 235 1736 Mean 0 1 2 0 1 1 Sum 13 746 845 122 203 1929 Row N % 2.1% 42.4% 26.0% 16.8% 12.7% 100.0% Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 173 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium Table 23: Type of campaigns held in the last 6 months (Capacity) CSO_capacity 0 Group 1, Training = NO, Grants = NO Group 2, Training = YES, Grants = NO Group 3, Training = NO, Grants = YES Group 4, Training = YES, Grants = YES Total Count 38 783 480 311 235 1847 Mean 2 7 6 10 6 7 Sum 70 5431 2664 2636 1310 12112 The total number of times the CSO facilitated a community forum or campaign in the past 6 months. Row N % 2.1% 42.4% 26.0% 16.8% 12.7% 100.0% Count 38 783 480 311 235 1847 Mean 0 1 1 3 1 1 Sum 0 693 306 767 335 2101 Number of Civil Society Capacity Building Fora/Campaigns Column N % 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Count 38 783 480 311 235 1847 Mean 1 2 1 1 1 1 Sum 44 1427 538 312 297 2618 Number of Fora/Campaigns by type Civil Society Capacity Building :Civic Education Column N % 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Count 38 783 480 311 235 1847 Mean 0 1 1 2 1 1 Sum 0 449 586 564 154 1754 Number of Fora/Campaigns by type Civil Society Capacity Building Woman's Advocacy Column N % 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Count 38 783 480 311 235 1847 Mean 0 1 1 3 1 1 Sum 13 801 354 739 275 2182 Number of Fora/Campaigns by type Civil Society Capacity Building Anticorruption Column N % 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Count 38 783 480 311 235 1847 Mean 0 1 1 0 1 1 Sum 0 716 247 20 118 1101 Number of Fora/Campaigns by type Civil Society Capacity Building Independent Media Column N % 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Count 38 783 480 311 235 1847 Mean 0 2 1 1 1 1 Sum 13 1345 711 234 157 2459 f Number of Fora/Campaigns by type Civil Society Capacity Building Human Rights Column N % 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 174 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium Table 24: Appearances before local government (Capacity) CSO_capacity 0 Group 1, Training = NO, Grants = NO Group 2, Training = YES, Grants = NO Group 3, Training = NO, Grants = YES Group 4, Training = YES, Grants = YES Total Valid N 32 758 480 270 235 1775 Mean 0 2 1 1 3 2 Sum 0 1410 707 232 691 3040 Total number of appearances before local government departments/directorates in the past 6 months to advocate for a cause. Row N % 2.1% 42.4% 26.0% 16.8% 12.7% 100.0% Valid N 32 758 480 270 235 1775 Mean 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sum 0 159 72 14 94 340 :Number of appearances by topic of advocacy: Civic Education Column N % 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Valid N 32 758 480 270 235 1775 Mean 0 0 0 0 1 0 Sum 0 115 212 20 128 475 Number of appearances by topic of advocacy Woman's Advocacy Column N % 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Valid N 32 758 480 270 235 1775 Mean 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sum 0 284 184 51 99 619 Number of appearances by topic of advocacy Anticorruption Row N % 2.1% 42.4% 26.0% 16.8% 12.7% 100.0% Valid N 32 758 480 270 235 1775 Mean 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sum 0 267 73 13 54 408 Number of appearances by topic of advocacy Independent Media Column N % 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Valid N 32 758 480 270 235 1775 Mean 0 1 0 0 1 1 Sum 0 584 165 134 316 1199 Number of appearances by topic of advocacy Human Rights Column N % 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 175 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium ANNEX H: FINALIZED SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE Civil Society Organization Questionnaire We are from IIACSS. We are working on a project concerned with civil society organizations. I would like to talk to you about the good work of your organization. We believe the information you provide will help us support civil society in Iraq in a more effective way. This interview takes about 40 minutes. I want to stress that everything we talk about will be absolutely confidential and off the record. The data that we are collecting will be combined with data from over 200 other interviews so that you do not have to worry that you or your organization will be identified. I will not write your name down or the names of any persons associated with your organization. Your organization will not be identified in the report or in any written documents that emerge from this study. The information we obtain will remain strictly confidential and your answers will only be used to prepare aggregated statistical tables. PART I 1.1 Governorate: 1.2. Region 1.3 District (Qada): 1.4 Sub-District (Nahiya): 1.5 Mahalla/Street: 1.6 Interview date DD/MM/Year : ____ /_____ / _____ 1.7 Researcher number: 1.8 CSO’s Name: 1.8.1 CSO Number:_________ 1.8.2 ICSP CSO No.:___________ 1.9 Result of interview (Circle the appropriate number below) : Completed ……………………………….. 1 Refused...................................................2 Not at home.............................................3 CSO not found ........................................4 Other (specify).........................................5 __________________________________ 1.10 If “Completed”, was the respondent: (Please check one) 1.10.1 CSO Executive? 1.10.2 CSO Board Member? 1.10.3 Other Committee Member? 1.10.4 General Assembly Member?[ 1.10.5 CSO Member? 1.10.6 Gender of respondent? Male/ Female 1.10.7 How many current members in this CSO? _________________ 1.11 Name of Surveyor: 1.12 Data Entry verified by: 1.13 Date MM/DD/YYYY :____/____/____ Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 176 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium Interviewer’s log/observations about the interviews progress, problems, in case of incompleteness, identify issues or problems encountered in the course of the interview: Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 177 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium PART II: ORGANIZATIONAL INFORMATION First, I would like to know a little bit about your organization. I am asking these questions because I honestly want to know about the issues you face and how we can help design a better program to help you face and deal with these issues. As I said earlier, this is absolutely confidential. 2.1 How did you learn about the concept of a Civil Society Organization (CSO)? Circle one. At a workshop/meeting in my community ... …..1 A community organizer contacted us ...................2 Informed by another CSO member.......................3 A local community leader told us..........................4 From the local council ..........................................5 After visiting the with ICSP....................................6 Other(specify below) ............................................7 ____________________________________ DK/NS............................................................99 2.2 When was your CSO formed? Date of Formation: MM/YYYY:------/-------- 2.3 Which of the categories best describes the primary purpose of your organization? (You can make more than one choice.) Training and capacity building for other CSOs 1 Civic Education .............................................. 2 Woman’s Advocacy ........................................ 3 Anticorruption .................................................. 4 Media ............................................................. 5 Human Rights ................................................. 6 Other ……….................................................... 7 (Please specify) ____________________________ 2.4 How many founding members were in your CSO? 2.4.1 Number of founding members: [ ] 2.4.2 Male [ ] 2.4.3 Female [ ] 2.5 Do you charge membership fees? Yes__________ No___________ 2.6 How many new members have joined your organization in the last year? 2.6.1 Total new members [ ] 2.6.2 Male [ ] 2.6.3 Female [ ] 2.7 Do you have a Board of Directors? Yes___________ No___________ 2.8 What is the current number of board members for your organization? 2.8.1 Number of current board members: [ ] 2.8.2 Male [ ] 2.8.3 Female [ ] Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 178 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium 2.9 Could you please tell me how many staff members are currently also on your Board? Number of staff members on Board [ ] Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 179 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium PART III. FUNDING OF THE ORGANIZATION I would like to ask you about your sources of revenue. We are trying to better understand where CSOs in Iraq get their funding. Please let me stress that your answer will have absolutely no bearing (either up or down) on funding you might receive. Your answers can be general and you do not have to specify a number. Membership fees....................................................... 1 Personal contributions……………………………… . 2 Contributions from local business………………….… 3 Contributions from your members............................. 4 Support from local government...………………......... 5 Support from other Iraq NGOs.................................. 6 Support from other international NGOs..................... 7 From overseas friends of your organization ………… 8 From your own activities or projects for which you charge a fee. (Income generating activities.).... 9 Other…………...........................................................10 (Please specify) ____________________________ 3.1.1 The most important source 3.1.2 The next most important source 3.1 From the list of revenue sources on the right, what is the most important source of revenue from this list? What is the second most important source from this list? Enter these revenue source numbers in the boxes shown. 3.2 Could you tell me how you raise your funds? For example: Do you ask -------------------- Circle the appropriate answer. 3.2.1 individual members of the community for financial support? Yes No 3.2.2 local businesses for financial support? Yes No 3.2.3 local government for financial support? Yes No 3.2.4 other international organizations for support? Yes No 3.2.5 Other fund raising sources? Yes No Please specify ________________________ Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 180 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium Membership fees....................................................... 1 Personal contributions…………………………………. 2 Contributions from local business………………….… 3 Contributions from your members............................. 4 Support from local government...………………......... 5 Support from other Iraq NGOs.................................. 6 Support from other international NGOs..................... 7 From overseas friends of your organization ………… 8 From your own activities or projects for which you charge a fee. (Income generating activities.).... 9 Staff selection and retention…………………………..10 Other…………...........................................................11 (Please specify) ____________________________ 3.3.1 The most important source 3.3.2 The next most important source 3.3 As you think into the future, what are the most likely sources of funding for your organization? Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 181 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium PART IV: MANAGEMENT ISSUES Now, I would like to ask you how you deal with problems as your organization grows. Every organization has “growth pains” and it would be helpful to me if I could understand how you deal with challenges when they arise. Lack of funding (fund raising) ………………………… 1 Financial management and accounting……………… 2 Long range planning ………………………………….. 3 A personnel conflict issue……………………………. 4 Registration or compliance with laws and regulations……………………………………… 5 Setting up or dealing with your Board of Directors……………………………………………… 6 Getting technical help to improve the quality of your program…………………………………… ….. 7 Other…………………………………………………….. 8 Please specify ____________________________ 4.1.1 The most important issue 4.1.2 The next most important issue 4.1 From the list on the right, what were the most important and difficult management issues you have had to deal with over the last year? Which is the most important? What is the second most important? Enter these management issue numbers in the boxes shown. Your Board of Directors............................................ 1 Consultations with your staff…………………………. 2 Representative from local government …………….. 3 The Local ICSP/ADF Center ……………..…………. 4 Other Local CSOs................................................... 5 Professional consultants.......................................... 6 Local universities..................................................... .7 Other …………......................................................... 8 Please specify ____________________________ 4.2.1 The most important source of help 4.2.2 The next most important source of help 4.2 If you run into one or more of the management issues noted above, where would you look for help? Which is the most important source of help? Which is the second most important source of help? Enter these help source numbers in the boxes shown. Fund raising……………............................................ .1 Advocacy skills………………….……………………… 2 Budgeting and financial management…………………3 Building a strong Board of Directors…………………..4 Project Management…………………………………….5 Proposal writing………………………………..………. .6 Regulatory and legal issues………………………….…7 Outreach and developing a community action plan….8 Other………….......................................................... ..9 Please specify ________________________ 4.3.1 The most important skill/ability 4.3.2 The next most important skill/ability 4.3 As you think into the future and your organizations’ priorities, what are the most important skills or abilities you would like to develop in your CSO? Which is the most important? What is the second most important? Enter these skill/ability numbers in the boxes shown. Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 182 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium PART V: RELATIONSHIP WITH CIVIL SOCIETY RESOURCE CENTERS Now, I would like to ask you about your relationship with and knowledge of the local ICSP/ADF Resource Centers. 5.1 Have you ever received support from ICSP/ADF of any sort? Yes …………. Go to 5.2 No …………. Go to 5.3 5.2 What type of support or assistance have you received? How were you assisted? Please circle all that apply. Logistically? (EG equipment, materials and supplies) …………………………………………….. ….1 [Y/N] =Î [ ] Financially? ……………………………………2 [Y/N] =Î [ ] Organizational development EG org. assessment………..…………………………….3 Training ? ……………………………………….4 Registration and compliance with gov’t regulations………………………………………5 [Y/N] =Î [ ] Other ? ………………………………………….6 [Y/N] =Î [ ] Please specify: _______________________________________ __ 5.3 How many times have you or a member of your staff visited an ICSP/ADF Center in the last 12 months? Number of times [ ] 5.4 How many times has a member of the ICSP/ADF staff visited your office in the last 12 months? Number of times [ ] 5.5 Have you received any training in the last 12 months from ICSP/ADF? Number of training courses attended [ ] 5.6 Have you participated in any ICSP/ADF conferences in the last 12 months? Number of conferences attended [ ] 5.7 Which organization has provided the most training to you and your staff? 5.8 Have you participated in any ICSP/ADF work shops during the last year? Number of workshops attended [ ] Now I would like to ask you whether or not you felt this training and/or support was really helpful? Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 183 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium 5.9 I am going to read a list of 12 different programs offered by ICSP/ADF and their partners. Please tell me in which programs you have participated . Did your CSO receive training in …………..? (Circle all that apply.) 5.8.1 planning an advocacy campaign? ………….….1 5.8.2 financial management? …………………….…...2 5.8.3 monitoring contract implementation? …………3 5.8.4 procurement of local market materials? ..…….4 5.8.5 transparency and accountability in Informing the public about project budgets?........….5 5.8.6 transparency and accountability in informing the public on the progress and results of activities and expenditures of money that may have been raised? ……………………………….…………..6 5.8.7 advocacy on influencing social, political and economic policy representing community interests? 7 5.8.8 advocacy on lobbying government representatives and building linkages to district and provincial authorities? …………………………………8 5.8.9 conflict resolution? ………………………………9 5.8.10 networking with other CSOs? …...…………..10 5.8.11 relationships to donors? ..……………………11 5.8.12 training of trainers? .…………………………12 5.10.1 The most important skill/abilitytraining course 5.10.2 The next most important training course 5.10 With respect to the training courses listed in 5.9 above, what are the two most important for your CSO? Enter these course numbers in the boxes shown. 5.11 With regard to the training workshops you attended have you been able to apply the information learned in those workshops to your day to day work? Yes No 5.12 In your view, do you feel the training workshops and conferences were based on a good understanding of the needs and challenges facing CSOs in your community? Yes No 5.13 Do you think your organization will be willing to contribute to the cost of future training programs? Yes No 5.14 Could you help us understand other services that the Civil Society Resource Centers should offer to be most useful to your organization? Here are some services that might be offered. Please tell us which 2 you think are most important. Circle the 2 most important. Board Development ……………………. 1 Networking and constituency building…………………………………… 2 Long Range Strategic Planning ………..3 Proposal writing ………………………….4 Fund raising and donor data base……..5 Computer training and/or access……….6 Other …………………………………….. 7 Please specify ___________________ Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 184 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium 5.15 Do you think that in the future your organization will be willing to make a financial contribution in order to sustain the work of the Civil Society Resource Centers? Yes No Finally, in the next four questions, I would like to ask you about grant assistance that you may have received from the CSO Support Center ICSP/ADF. I am interested primarily in the process or procedure that was used in applying for, obtaining, and administering this grant. 5.16 Have you ever received a grant from the local CSO support Center? Yes No 5.17 Do you feel the grant selection process was fair and objective? Yes No 5.18 Do you feel that the administrative procedures requirements dealing with such things as reporting and disbursements appropriate and reasonable? Yes NO 5.19 If you do not feel they were appropriate and reasonable, please identify the major area of weakness from the following list. Circle the number. Excessive reporting ……………………….1 Unclear grant guidelines ………………….2 Poor communications with the support center …………………………………….. .3 Delays in disbursement of funds …….…..4 Lack of understanding of CSOs real needs ………………………………. .5 Too much red-tape ………………………. 6 Too much centralization of authority …... 7 Too much decentralization ……………… 8 Finding the right person in charge ………9 Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 185 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium PART VI: EMPOWERMENT AND POLITICAL ACTION 6.1 How much control do you, as a CSO member, feel you have in influencing decisions that affect the communities’ everyday activities? Do you have ……………………..? No influence................................... ...................1 Influence over very few decisions….. ...............2 Influence over some decisions..........................3 Influence over most decisions ..........................4 Influence over all decisions…………………......5 6.2 Do you feel that you, as a CSO member, have the power to influence important decisions that change the course of life in the community? Rate the organization’s influence on a 1 to 5 scale, where 1 means being totally unable to influence and five meaning the CSO has the capability to influence most outcomes in the community. Totally unable to influence community life ........1 Mostly unable to influence community life ........2 Neither able nor unable.....................................3 Mostly able to influence community life ………..4 Definitely able to influence community life .......5 6.3 Overall, how much impact do you think your CSO has had in making the community a better place to live? Rate the organization’s impact on a scale of 1 to 5 where 5 is a very significant impact and 1 is no impact. No impact ..........................................................1 A small impact...................................................2 A modest impact...............................................3 A large impact...................................................4 A very significant impact…….............................5 6.4 In the past 12 months, how often has your CSO petitioned government officials or political leaders for improved services to the community? Never.................................................................1 Once..................................................................2 A few times ( 2 to 5 times).................................3 Many times (more than 5).................................4 Not Applicable...................................................9 6.5 Were any of these CSO petitions successful? Yes, all were successful....................................1 Most were successful........................................2 Most were unsuccessful....................................3 None were successful ......................................4 6.6 To what extent do local government and local leaders take into account concerns voiced by your CSO when they make decisions that affect you? Never.................................................................1 Rarely................................................................2 Occasionally......................................................3 Often..................................................................4 Always................................................................5 Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 186 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium PART VII: CIVIL SOCIETY ORGANIZATION ADVOCACY 7.1 how many times has your organization facilitated a community forum or campaign in the past six months? (Ask where the fora or campaigns were held and record here the name of the communities________________________) Record the total number of fora or campaigns held and then the number by type. If none were held record 0. Total Number of fora/campaigns held: ____ Number of Fora/Campaigns by type: 7.1.a Civil Society Capacity Building __ 7.1.b Civic Education __ 7.1.c Woman’s Advocacy __ 7.1.d Anticorruption __ 7.1.e Independent Media __ 7.1.f Human Rights __ 7.2 how many times has your organization appeared before local government elected or advisory councils to advocate for a cause in the past six months? (Ask for the name and location of the councils they appeared before and record it here: ________________________) Number of appearances: ____ Number of appearances by topic of advocacy: 7.2.a Civic Education __ 7.2.b Woman’s Advocacy __ 7.2.c Anticorruption __ 7.2.d Independent Media __ 7.2.e Human Rights __ 7.3 how many times has your organization appeared before local government departments to advocate for a cause in the past six months? (Ask for the name and location of the departments they appeared before and record them here: _____________ ________________________________________ _____) Total appearances: ____ Number of appearances by topic of advocacy: 7.3.a Civic Education __ 7.3.b Woman’s Advocacy __ 7.3.c Anticorruption __ 7.3.d Independent Media __ 7.3.e Human Rights __ Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 187 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium 7.4 Has your organization been able to influence or change the policy decision of an elected or advisory local council in the past one year? (If yes, record here the policy or decision affected and the local council that responded to your organization’s advice:___________________________________ ______ ________________________________________ _______ ________________________________________ _______) No influence, the council would not hear our arguments..................................................1 A very limited influence, the council heard our arguments but would not change or adopt policy that would fulfill our objective.....................................................2 A limited influence, the council heard our arguments and agreed to change or adopt policy in limited fulfillment of our objectives..................................................3 A strong influence, the council heard our arguments and agreed to change or adopt policy in substantial fulfillment of our objectives..................................................4 A very strong influence, the council heard our arguments and adopted policy in complete fulfillment of our objectives..................................................5 7.5 has your organization identified the resources it needs to conduct an advocacy campaign? (if yes, record here when this was done and the estimated resources needed:__________________________________ ________________________________________________) Yes............................................1 No..............................................2 DK/NS ....................................99 7.6 Has your organization mobilized resources from its members or from the community in order to carry out an advocacy campaign? (If yes, record here when this was done and the purpose of the campaign: ___________________________________ _______________________________________________) Yes............................................1 No..............................................2 DK/NS ....................................99 Local councils discourage citizen input at public meetings ............................………………........1 Local government departments discourage citizen input......................................................2 Our organization lacks the financial resources to attend public meetings or to conduct public fora or campaigns............................................3 Our organization lacks the human resources to attend public meetings or to conduct public fora or campaigns...................................................4 The local security situation prevents public meetings .........................................................5 Other (specify).................................................9 7.7.a The most important obstacle 7.7.b The next most important obstacle 7.7 what is the main obstacle your organization faces that prevents your organization from increasing the number of fora held, or appearances before government elected officials and government departments? (Circle all responses that apply; ask the respondents to choose the most important obstacle and the next most important obstacle). Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 188 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium 7.8 In the past six months how many times has your organization been prevented from carrying out fora, campaigns or appearances due to the reasons specified above? Number of times:_______________ 7.9 how many times in the last six months has your organization worked closely with other CSOs to advocate for a common cause? (if any, record here the nature of the common cause that was advocated for:____________________________________ ________________________________________________) Total number of times advocated with other CSOs on a common cause ______________ 7.10 How many times in the last six months has your organization conducted an advocacy initiative jointly with a public institution (not another CSO). (if any, record here the nature of the common cause that was advocated or:_____________________________________ _______________________________________________) Total number of times advocated jointly with a public institution on a common cause ______________ Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 189 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium ANNEX I: SAMPLING FRAME Sample Design for Civil Society Organizations in Iraq Developing the Civil Society Organization Sample Frame. Introduction The process of any survey starts with the development of the statistical universe from which a sample will be drawn. The development of the sample frame is informed by the objective of the survey. What is the purpose of the survey? What kinds of questions need to be asked to achieve that purpose? Who will be asked these questions? In this instance the purpose of the survey is to evaluate the impact that the ICSP program has had on the CSOs that in turn enhance their ability meet USAID Mission strategic objectives and intermediate results. What evidence might we be able to collect from the CSOs that will verify or reject the proposition that the ICSP may have had no impact? USAID Mission anticipated impacts for the ICSP are described through project and Mission documents. In USAID/Iraq the ICSP program operates in three contexts: 1) the contract agreement and its modifications, 2) the USAID/Iraq Transition Strategic Plan of 2006 - 2008 expressed through the Performance Management Plan (PMP), and 3) the overall USG Mission objectives in Iraq. The ICSP contract agreement defines the activities that contractor will undertake, the PMP defines the anticipated results of those activities, while the USG Mission objectives identify in the broadest possible way the framework for USAID programs in Iraq. The contract agreement specifies the objective of the awarded contract: “The objective of this activity is to promote an informed, sustainable, and active indigenous Iraqi civil society that effectively and responsibly participates within a democratic system of governance. This will be achieved through the strategic management of five (modified later to four) civil society resource centers that will provide training and technical assistance in leadership, management principles and the financial skills necessary to operate effective and sustainable Civil Society Organizations (CSOs).” Further the contract states “This award will form part of USAID/Iraq’s overall Democracy and Governance Program aimed at promoting effective transparent and increasingly representative governance in Iraq that constructively interacts with a vibrant and informed civil society.” The ICSP program falls under Strategic Objectives 9 and 10 (SO 9 and SO 10) articulated in the PMP. Figures 1 and 2 describe SO 9 and SO 10. Each SO in the PMP is achieved through the attempted fulfillment of the Intermediate Results (IR) defined for it. The degree of fulfillment for each of the IRs is measured by a set of indicators. For the ICSP program these IRs are defined in the figures cited and the brief description below. Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 190 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium • SO 9: Responsive and effective local government strengthened ƒ Intermediate Result 9.3: Outreach mechanisms for citizen participation in local decision making development are institutionalized. • IR Indicators: o # of local governments that establish formal mechanisms for citizen input to local government decision making o # of Community Organizations participating in local programs o # of new local activities carried out by community groups (CAGs and others). • SO 10: Capacity of National Government Institutions Improved o SO 10 Indicator: Number of informed CSOs effectively contributing to more responsive government ƒ Intermediate Result 10.3: Capacity of Civil Society to Advocate for Citizen Interests Improved. • IR Indicators: o Number of people reached through National Anti￾Corruption Campaign o Number of Policy Changes Influenced by CSOs o Number of CSOs reached ICSP Certification Standards o Increase in Iraq Media Sustainability Index A detailed description of each IR indicator and how they are to be measured is a part of the Mission PMP. These descriptions are presented in the ‘Performance Indicator Reference Sheets’ and are provided here for ease of reference in Annex ??? The survey design has been informed by this precise definition of the indicators, the proposed method of data collection, and who is responsible for the data collection found in these reference sheets. For IR 10.3, ADF “collects information in the field on CSOs with respect to the first three indicators. Information for the fourth indicator is collected and developed into an index by the USAID media subcontractor. Together, these four indicators reflect the improvement of Iraqi civil society to advocate for citizens’ interests.”F 22 The US Mission in Iraq wants to ensure that Iraqis are taking the lead in all aspects of governance including service delivery, economic development, democracy development and the mobilization of its citizens. The survey is to explore whether the CSOs are engaging with the Iraqi population enabling them to demand services from their government, and whether there has been a response to this by elected councils and the civil service in the areas they serve. 22 USAID/IRAQ PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT PLAN 2006-2008, revised August 23, 2006, page 110 Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 191 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium Broadly, the ICSP vision is to promote participatory governance by developing and training CSOs with the primary ability to “effectively contribute to more responsive government” within the framework of the PMP. To meet this goal, the ICSP has developed a broad and complex program targeting CSOs for training to build capacities, provide resources (both material and financial) and provide assistance in developing a strong independent media. The result, or impact, of this CSO capacity building is measured in the ability of ICSP CSO partners to conduct advocacy campaigns, forums, as well as to engage with local government councils and departments to inform or advocate for policy changes. The design of the CSO survey focuses on measuring the results of ICSP CSO capacity building. Evaluations measure the impact of a program as the difference between the outcomes actually experienced by program beneficiaries and the outcomes that would have been experienced in the absence of the program. This seemingly simple difference is difficult to measure because we cannot directly observe what would have happened to the project’s CSOs in the absence of the project (referred to as the “counterfactual”). The challenge of all evaluation designs is devising ways to isolate program effects from other influences by identifying a counterfactual. The optimum way of doing this is through random assignment of the CSOs into two groups. One of the groups would receive the benefits of the ICSP program (the treatment group) and the other would not (the control group). This would have to be done before the project commenced and controls would need to be taken to ensure that there was no ‘leakage’ of project benefits from the control group to the treatment group. The CSOs would need to be randomly chosen from a uniform population of CSOs that were shown to exhibit the same characteristics. In Iraq this could be all CSOs that have registered with the government. This kind of design is called an ‘experimental design’ typically used in clinical trials. There have been limited instances when experimental design has been applied to social programs. To do so requires that the evaluation design is in place before the project begins. In the absence of pure experimental design, quasi-experimental designs are thought the next best approach. These are commonly used approaches where researchers identify individuals who are not participants in the program being studied but who are similar to program participants across a range of relevant characteristics. Data are then collected on the experiences of the nonparticipants to provide an approximate estimate of the outcomes that would have been observed for the participants had they not entered the program. The experiences of participants and nonparticipants are then compared, after statistical adjustment for measurable differences in characteristics that may have existed before the program intervention. Any differences in outcomes are attributed to the program. The quasi-experimental design is to be followed here in the evaluation of the impact that the ICSP program has had on the CSOs in their ability to fulfill the intermediate results and hence the achieve the USAID Mission’s strategic objectives 9 and 10. Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 192 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium The segmentation of the CSOs into quasi-control groups is based on our ability to define meaningful groups from the information we have about the CSOs. This is the subject of the next section. Strategic Objective 9 Responsive and effective local government strengthened • Percentage of national budgets managed by local governments • Increased % of citizens responding that local government services have improved Intermediate Result 9.2 Capacity of sub-national government to perform its core functions is improved Intermediate Result 9.3 Outreach mechanisms for citizen participation in local decision making development are institutionalized Intermediate Result 9.1 Establishment of legal, regulatory, and policy framework for decentralized local government is facilitated IR Indicator: # of local governments that establish formal mechanisms for citizen input to local gvt decision making IR Indicator: # of Community Organizations participating in local programs IR Indicator: # of new local activities carried out by community groups (CAGs and others). IR Indicator: # of short-term and long term jobs created through community programs Figure 1. PMP Strategic Objective 9 (SO 9), SO Indicator, Intermediate Results (IR) and IR Indicators that relate to the ICSP program are highlighted. Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 193 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium Strategic Objective 10 Capacity of National Government Institutions Improved • Number of national government institutions effectively implementing core functions • Number of informed CSOs effectively contributing to more responsive government Intermediate Result 10.2: Policy, Legal, and Regulatory Environment Improved Intermediate Result 10.3: Capacity of Civil Society to Advocate for Citizen Interests Improved Intermediate Result 10.1: Core Functions of National Level Institutions Improved IR Indicator: Number of people reached through National Anti-Corruption Campaign IR Indicator: Number of Policy Changes Influenced by CSOs IR Indicator: Increase in Iraq Media Sustainability Index IR Indicator: Number of CSOs reached ICSP Certification Standards Figure 2. PMP Strategic Objective 10 (SO 10), SO Indicator, Intermediate Results (IR) and IR Indicators that relate to the ICSP program are highlighted. Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 194 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium Sources of information for compiling the sample frame and defining the quasi-experimental groups. The ICSP program maintains four separate databasesF 23 that provide the basis for our understanding of the CSO characteristics, and that can be used to help us define the groups. These databases are described below. Before describing them it is important to understand how CSOs come to be considered as clients for the ICSP through the Civil Society Resource Centers. The prime prerequisite is that a CSO must be registered with the governmentF 24 before the ICSP can offer services to them. For a CSO to be registered they need to provide certain evidence that they are a viable organization. To satisfy the government requirement the following steps must be fulfilled: 1. Foundation statement of the organization (Purpose, general principle, goals). 2. The bylaws of the organization (Similar to Articles of Incorporation, they describe how the organization is formed and operated. The administration, rules for membership, rules for the General Assembly, rules for the Board of Directors (number of members). Financial operations, mergers, partnerships and winding up) 3. Residence certificate of the organization (showing the legal address of the organization) 4. Complete statement of revenue and expenses and assets and liabilities for the current year and the previous three years (if the NGO has existed for less than four years, then financial data for the current year and projected budget for the next two years are required). 5. List of Board members. 6. Registration forms from the NGO Assistance Office. 7. The Information list for each board member ( which include their personal information, like, full name, addresses & official pledge) 8. Letter of commitment by CSO to the General Secretariat of the Cabinet, NGO Assistance Office (requires certain reporting when foreign institutions are involved). 9. Power of attorney. This means that the CSOs receiving assistance from the ICSP do so from an established legal framework that probably defines an existing organizational management structure that includes a board of directors and on-going financial operations. It is believed that the CSOs have their government registrations entered onto a database operated by the General Secretariat of the Cabinet, NGO Assistance Office, or the Ministry of Civil Society (trying to confirm). At this time it is not known the content or extent of coverage that the government CSO database has, but it is thought that the number of CSOs registered with the government exceeds the number registered with the ICSP. 23 These four separate databases have recently been combined under a single database structure. 24 Government registration was formerly with the Ministry of Planning, then moved to the General Secretariat of the Cabinet, NGO Assistance Office, and is expected to move again to the Ministry of Civil Society Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 195 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium Once the candidate CSO has proven that it is registered by the government, the CSRC will also register the CSO on the ICSP ‘General Information’ database at the regional CSRC. This information is passed to the ICSP HQ. ICSP Registration of CSOs When a government registered CSO wishes to obtain assistance from ICSP it must register at the regional CSRC. Limited information is collected from the CSO and they are assigned a CSO number. Information collected includes contact information. The information is entered and maintained by the regional CSRC who then forward it to ICSP headquarters as an Access database. This is called the ‘CSOs General Information’ database, and it establishes the core of the CSO sample frame. There are 1847 CSOs in this database. As is seen from the database form above basic information about the name, location, start date, certain attributes, and importantly the telephone number of the director. The telephone number should permit us to locate the institution for our interviews. The type of CSO in the form refers to membership in an alliance of CSOs. Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 196 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium CSO Activities The ICSP database on civil society activities. Called simply “ICSP Activities Database.’ Activities are carried out by the ICSP or by CSOs. There are two broad categories of activity: those where the CSOs act as recipients or participatants in ICSP initiated activities, and those activities the CSOs initiate themselves (or with some assistance from the ICSP). All activities fall under the five sectors of the ICSP Program: Civil Society Capacity Building, Civil Education, Woman’s Advocacy, Anticorruption, Independent Media and Human Rights. One CSO might perform activities in most or all of these sectors. CSOs are not classified by type, but may be so characterized by the predominance of activities carried out in any one sector. Types of activity are identified by six categories: workshop, technical assistance, staff development, forum, regional conference, national conference, and CSO activity. The first and last of these categories are the ones of interest in the design of the survey. Workshop activities tend to be CSO capacity building activities provided by the CSRC to the CSOs – this is where the technical assistance to and training of the CSOs takes place. The activity ‘CSO Activity’ refers to awareness raising and advocacy activities that the CSOs themselves undertake (broadly seen as the positive result of the capacity building). Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 197 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium Complicating matters is the fact that a single recorded activity may apply to one or many different CSOs. For example a ‘workshop’ activity is likely to be attended by several CSOs; however a ‘CSO Activity’ generally refers to just one CSO. A ‘CSO Activity’ signals a new menu of activity types some unique to CSO initiated activities. Target Group, Objective, and ICSP assistance can further characterize activities. The relationships within the ICSP Activities Database are complex. In general most activities can be linked to a specific CSO as a participant or as an implementer. There are many activities in the database however that are not linked to a CSO. It is also true that not all activities conducted by a CSO will be reported in this database. Thus it is not a comprehensive source of information on the activities of CSOs. Activities that are initiated by the CSO outside of the partnership with the CSRC may not be reported. Reporting these types of activities would be up to the CSO. CSO initiated activities sponsored in some way by the ICSP are more likely to be recorded by the regional CSRC offices. This suggests that there could be an undercount of CSO activities recorded by the database. This is an important consideration when using these data to evaluate the result of capacity building on the CSOs. In designing the sample of CSOs we want to use the activities information to help characterize the CSOs in the sample frame. To do this we need to relate activities to CSOs. One strategy for designing the quasi-experimental groups is to identify how much capacity building each CSO has received. This identifies ‘treatment’ with amount of capacity building administered. This has accomplished by looking only at ‘workshop’ activities and rolling up the total number of training days each CSO has received across the number of workshop activities attended. This was done by extracting from the ICSP Activities Database just those activities identified as ‘workshop’, and then using other database relationship tables to link the workshop activities to specific CSOs. We then had a fairly accurate picture of the training that had been received.F 25 From the 1847 CSOs in the CSO General Information database, 1529 of them had attended a workshop. The extent of training was indicated by the both the number of training events that a CSO attended, and by the number of training days completed. The evaluators analyzed these data with a view to partitioning the CSOs into two or three groups based on the extent of training received. A significant number of CSOs had received no training (no workshop events could be linked to them) and it was decided to use this group as the ‘counterfactual.’ Two other groups were formed by splitting those CSOs that had received training into two groups using the median value or training events or training days to do this. The use of training days seemed to provide more discrimination between the groups when tests for homogeneity of the groups was conducted. Table X below indicates the final quasi-experimental groupings that were constructed for this evaluation. From each of these groups a random sample was selected. The size of the sample is discussed below. 25 We were able to identify the type of training and roughly relate it to the ICSP training modules Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 198 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium CSO Training Days CSOs Grouped by Training Days Mean Sum Count No Workshop Training Days 0 0 323 1 to 6 Workshop Training Days 3 2671 813 More that 6 Workshop Training Days 16 11041 711 Total 9 13712 1847 Table X. Treatment Groups Identified The Grants Database Grants are provided to qualified CSOs so that they may carry out activities in line with the objectives of the ICSP. The grants database provides information on the purpose and amount of the grant. Grants are linked one to one with the CSO and these data were added to the CSO sample frame. Organizational Assessment Tool The organizational assessment tool (OAT) is conducted with the CSO to both appraise it and to help the CSO identify weaknesses that may exist in its organization. The ICSP intends to use the tool as a monitoring device. The OAT is conducted before ICSP interventions commence. It is intended that the OAT will be conducted a second time following a significant completion of capacity building by the CSRC. The OAT has four major sections: Internal Governance, Advocacy, General Management and Finance. In each section there are up to 36 true/false questions that characterize the current status. Each question has a true (=1), or false (=0) response category. Within each section and subsection of the assessment answers are summed. None of the questions are differentially weighted; each response has the same weight. Summary scores for each section , and an overall score of all sections taken together are provided. The section summary scores and overall summary scores were merged with the CSO sample frame. Testing the Quasi-Experimental Groups One of the premises for experimental design is that the treatment groups is that members of all the groups come from a relatively homogeneous population (of CSOs). In this evaluation all the CSOs are registered with the government, and that means they all are intended to meet the same certain requirements. We know however that the registration of CSOs has moved between ministries and organizations within ministries. It is not certain that the same requisites were needed in each instance. Due to the fact that we were able to inform the CSO sample frame with information from other sources the evaluation was able to test for homogeneity between the groups using several variables. The test was done using analysis of variance and post hoc tests for Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 199 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium multiple comparisons. No statistically significant difference was found between the groups for the following factors: 1. Number of Board Members 2. Number of Assembly Members 3. Number of computers 4. Connection to the Internet (some difference, but not between the highest and lowest group) 5. Whether they have a bank account 6. Total cost share 7. OAT scores Possibly the most important is the finding that there were no significant differences between groups on the OAT scores. Since the OAT was taken prior to ICSP interventions this means that there is a common starting point for all the groups. Based on these findings the evaluation proceeded to define the sample size needed to compare the groups using findings from the administered questionnaire. Determining Sample Size with a Sample Power Assessment Based on information found in the CSO sample frame and taken from the results of a Community Action Group survey conducted last year the sample power for various group sample sizes was calculated.F 26 Power is the proportion of studies that will yield a statistically significant effect. The sample power calculation assumes that we will want to explore group differences between the CSO questionnaire responses using a one￾way analysis of variance testing for differences in mean responses. Results of these sample power calculations, shown graphically in the figures and tables below, show that a sample size of about 80 CSOs for each of the three groups are sufficient to provide for comparisons between the groups, and hence to assess the impact of capacity building of the actions of the CSOs. Three trial Sample Power assessments were calculated below. The trials suggest that a sample of at least 80 CSOs from each group will be sufficient to achieve statistically significant results for between group comparisons. Based on our prior knowledge of non-response from the Community Action Group survey (7.5%) we may wish to hedge and add an addition 6 CSOs to each group’s sample size. The recommendation was therefore that 86 CSOs be randomly sampled from each of the three quasi-experimental groups. 26 The power is for a test of the null hypothesis. The power analysis focuses on the potential for rejecting the null hypothesis. The null hypothesis here is that there is no difference between the CSOs from different groups in how they will respond to specific questions. This power analysis is for a one-way fixed effects analysis of variance with 3 levels corresponding to the 3 groups that represent the different levels of capacity building received. The criterion for significance (alpha) has been set at 0.05. The analysis of variance is non-directional (i.e. two-tailed) which means that an effect in either direction will be interpreted. Main effects tested are taken from data found in the CSO sample frame and in the CAG survey from the ICAP evaluation. In social experiments such as this we generally aim for a minimum power of .80. Power is the proportion of studies that will yield a statistically significant effect between the groups. Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 200 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium Trial One. – Number of Funders from the ICSP Database Power as a Function of Sample size (based on percent of Activity types that are Advocacy activities) Alpha = 0.050, Tails = 2 This power analysis is for a oneway fixed effects analysis of variance with 3 levels. The study will include 80 cases per cell for a total of 240 cases. The criterion for significance (alpha) has been set at 0.05. The analysis of variance is non-directional (i.e. two-tailed) which means that an effect in either direction will be interpreted. Main effects Factor A will include 3 levels, with 80 cases per level. The effect size (f) is 0.21, which yields power of 0.81. Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 201 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium Trial Two: Based on Responses to CAG Survey Question 12-4 for Low, Middle and Highest ICAP Partner Power as a Function of Sample size (based on CAG survey responses) Alpha = 0.050, Tails = 2 This power analysis is for a oneway fixed effects analysis of variance with 3 levels. The study will include 60 cases per cell for a total of 180 cases. The criterion for significance (alpha) has been set at 0.05. The analysis of variance is non-directional (i.e. two-tailed) which means that an effect in either direction will be interpreted. Main effects Factor A will include 3 levels, with 60 cases per level. The effect size (f) is 0.38, which yields power of 1.00. Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 202 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium Trial three: Based on the number of funders for a CSO Power as a Function of Sample size (based on the number of funders for a CSO) Alpha = 0.050, Tails = 2 This power analysis is for a oneway fixed effects analysis of variance with 3 levels. The study will include 80 cases per cell for a total of 240 cases. The criterion for significance (alpha) has been set at 0.05. The analysis of variance is non-directional (i.e. two-tailed) which means that an effect in either direction will be interpreted. Main effects Factor A will include 3 levels, with 80 cases per level. The effect size (f) is 0.22, which yields power of 0.87. Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 203 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium Performance Indicator Reference Sheet IR 9.3 Indicator 1 Name of Strategic Objective: SO 9: Responsive and effective local government strengthened Name of Intermediate Result: IR 9.3: Mechanisms and capacity for citizen participation in decision-making and local development enhanced Name of IR Indicator: # of local governments that establish formal mechanisms for citizen input to local gvt decision making Is this an Annual Report indicator? No Yes _X__, for Reporting Year(s) 2006-2008 DESCRIPTION Precise Definition(s): Mechanisms include dissemination of local gvt. budgets, open budget hearings, open hearings for specific projects, suggestion boxes, and so forth. Unit of Measure: Number of local government units (provincial councils, municipalities, district councils) Disaggregated by: Province Justification & Management Utility: This indicator shows the increasingly formal efforts of local government entities to access citizen opinion and expertise in its decision-making process. PLAN FOR DATA ACQUISITION BY USAID Data Collection Method: Records from LGP and ADF projects. Data Source: LGP, CAP and ADF tracking records Method of Data Acquisition by USAID: LGP and ADF will track these activities annually Frequency and Timing of Data Acquisition by USAID: Annual Estimated Cost of Data Acquisition: In contractor and grantees’ budgets Individual Responsible at USAID: CTOs for LGP, CAP and ADF projects Individual Responsible for Providing Data to USAID: COPs of LGP ADF projects Location of Data Storage: CTOs for LGP, CAP and ADF projects DATA QUALITY ISSUES Date of Initial Data Quality Assessment: N/A Known Data Limitations and Significance (if any): Although openness and transparency is the hallmark of such mechanisms, the security situation in some locales will discourage attendance at open hearings, and so forth. Mechanisms such as the “suggestion box” are less than transparent and difficult to track. Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: The situation will be monitored on a province by province basis. Date of Future Data Quality Assessment: 2007 Procedures for Future Data Quality Assessments: Review of completeness of reporting, given the changing security context. PLAN FOR DATA ANALYSIS, REVIEW, & REPORTING Data Analysis: USAID SO 9 Team. Presentation of Data: Annual presentation and analysis from performance database Review of Data: In preparation for the portfolio review in 2006, 2007, and 2008 OTHER NOTES Notes on Baselines/Targets: Baseline review by LGP to establish how many provincial and district councils have demonstrated such mechanisms to date. PERFORMANCE INDICATOR VALUES Year Target Actual Notes 2006 Baseline TBD 2007 Baseline plus 6 PCs 2008 Baseline plus 12 PCs THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON: 6/19/06 Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 204 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium Performance Indicator Reference Sheet IR 9.3 Indicator 2 Name of Strategic Objective: SO 9: Responsive and effective local government strengthened Name of Intermediate Result: IR 9.3: Mechanisms and capacity for citizen participation in decision-making and local development enhanced Name of IR Indicator: # of Community Organizations participating in local programs Is this an Annual Report indicator? No X Yes ___, for Reporting Year(s) 2006-2008 DESCRIPTION Precise Definition(s): “Community organizations” includes formal community-based organizations community action groups (CAGs), and national civil society organizations (CSOs) operating in relation to sub-national government bodies. Unit of Measure: Number of community organizations Disaggregated by: Province and issue/subsector (according to USAID database codes) Justification & Management Utility: This indicator tracks the growing participation of citizens in local governance and advocacy. PLAN FOR DATA ACQUISITION BY USAID Data Collection Method: Records from CAP and ADF grants and records of local bodies’ deliberations. Data Source: CAP & ADF Method of Data Acquisition by USAID: CAP grantees, ADF track these participation events quarterly, data reported to USAID M&E database Frequency and Timing of Data Acquisition by USAID: Quarterly Estimated Cost of Data Acquisition: In contractor’s and grantees’ budgets Individual Responsible at USAID: CTOs for CAPs, and ADF Individual Responsible for Providing Data to USAID: COPs ADF, and CAP projects Location of Data Storage: CTOs of CAP and ADF projects DATA QUALITY ISSUES Date of Initial Data Quality Assessment: 2007 Known Data Limitations and Significance (if any): The limitation is that the contractors and grantees may miss some qualifying lobbying participatory community events. Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: The CAP and ADF grantees will work with local governments to help them establish simple tracking mechanisms as part of their outreach activities. Date of Future Data Quality Assessment: N/A Procedures for Future Data Quality Assessments: N/A PLAN FOR DATA ANALYSIS, REVIEW, & REPORTING Data Analysis: USAID SO 9 Team. COPs will need to report this data to mission performance database to be aggregated and reported for analysis. This must be done in line with database sector and subsector codes, etc.) Presentation of Data: Annual presentation and analysis from performance database Review of Data: In preparation for the portfolio review in 2006, 2007, and 2008 OTHER NOTES Notes on Baselines/Targets: Initial assessment by CAPs and ADF in 2006 will establish the baseline. Depending on the baseline, targets may need to be revised. PERFORMANCE INDICATOR VALUES Year Target Actual Notes 2006 1400 Baseline 1400 2007 Baseline plus 5% increase 2008 Baseline line plus 15% increase THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON: 6/19/06 Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 205 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium Performance Indicator Reference Sheet IR 9.3 Indicator 3 Name of Strategic Objective: SO 9: Responsive and effective local government strengthened Name of Intermediate Result: IR 9.3: Mechanisms and capacity for citizen participation in decision￾making and local development enhanced Name of IR Indicator: # of new local activities carried out by community groups (CAGs and others). Is this an Annual Report indicator? No Yes _X__, for Reporting Year(s) 2006-2008 DESCRIPTION Precise Definition(s): Activities include a range of small projects identified and initiated by community, including such things as clean ups, small infrastructure projects, and cultural activities. Unit of Measure: Number of new community activities Disaggregated by: Province and subsector of activity (according to USAID database codes) Justification & Management Utility: This indicator continues to track the level of community-initiated sub-projects, reflecting the continuing community level capacity for local decision-making and action. PLAN FOR DATA ACQUISITION BY USAID Data Collection Method: Records from CAP and ADF projects. Data Source: CAP grantees Method of Data Acquisition by USAID: CAP and ADF grantees track these activities quarterly Frequency and Timing of Data Acquisition by USAID: Quarterly Estimated Cost of Data Acquisition: In grantees’ budgets Individual Responsible at USAID: CTOs for CAP and ADF grants Individual Responsible for Providing Data to USAID: COPs CAP and ADF grants Location of Data Storage: CTOs for CAP and ADF grants DATA QUALITY ISSUES Date of Initial Data Quality Assessment: N/A Known Data Limitations and Significance (if any): The limitation is that the contractors and grantees may miss some qualifying community projects, especially in areas of diminished permissiveness. Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: Date of Future Data Quality Assessment: 2007 Procedures for Future Data Quality Assessments: Need to review with CAPs and ADF their systems of tracking, and the degree of completeness due to permissiveness and other issues. PLAN FOR DATA ANALYSIS, REVIEW, & REPORTING Data Analysis: USAID SO 9 Team. Grantee COPs will need to report this data to mission performance database to be aggregated and reported for analysis. Presentation of Data: Annual presentation and analysis from performance database Review of Data: In preparation for the portfolio review in 2006, 2007, and 2008 OTHER NOTES Notes on Baselines/Targets: PERFORMANCE INDICATOR VALUES Year Target Actual Notes 2006 Baseline 1000 1000 2007 1400, cumulative* 2008 1800 cumulative THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON: 6/19/06 * Annual grants budgets for new program half the amount of previous program. Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 206 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium Performance Indicator Reference Sheet SO 10 Indicator 2 Name of Strategic Objective: SO 10: Capacity of National Government Institutions Improved Name of Intermediate Result: N/A Name of IR Indicator: Number of informed CSOs effectively contributing to more responsive government Is this an Annual Report indicator? No Yes X , for Reporting Year(s) 2006, 2007, 2008 DESCRIPTION Precise Definition(s): Number of CSOs that have launched campaigns Unit of Measure: Number of CSOs that have launched campaigns for national government policy and legislative reforms including NGO legislation Disaggregated by: Location Justification & Management Utility: This measure shows the change in the CSO community with the emphasis on engagement in national government issues PLAN FOR DATA ACQUISITION BY USAID Data Collection Method: Contractor maintains information on activities of CSOs receiving technical assistance and training Data Source: Mission contractor Method of Data Acquisition by USAID: The Mission contractor will present a report to USAID/Iraq Frequency and Timing of Data Acquisition by USAID: Prior to Annual Report preparation Estimated Cost of Data Acquisition: In contractor’s budget and responsibility of M&E specialist Individual Responsible at USAID: SO 10 Team and responsible CTO Individual Responsible for Providing Data to USAID: COP of Mission contractor Location of Data Storage: USAID CTO DATA QUALITY ISSUES Date of Initial Data Quality Assessment: December 2006 Known Data Limitations and Significance (if any): Activities are reported by contractor personnel in the field on CSOs receiving assistance and training. Those major campaigns for national government development will be tabulated. Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: Criteria for selecting activities for inclusion as advocating national government policy and legislative reforms will be documented Date of Future Data Quality Assessment: Annually as required and at least once in the 2006 – 2008 period Procedures for Future Data Quality Assessments: Assessment of methodology and selection criteria for including CSO activities in the indicator PLAN FOR DATA ANALYSIS, REVIEW, & REPORTING Data Analysis: Mission contractor; SO 10 Team, and Program Office Presentation of Data: Data will be presented in a contractor periodic reports Review of Data: In preparation for the portfolio review each year OTHER NOTES Notes on Baselines/Targets: Baseline below is a preliminary estimate to be reviewed by Mission contractor PERFORMANCE INDICATOR VALUES Year Target Actual Notes 2006 Baseline To be estimated Estimated number of national CSOs enaged in national government reforms in 2006 will be derived from a review of CSO activities 2007 10% increase 2008 10% increase THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON: 6/18/06 Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 207 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium Performance Indicator Reference Sheet SO 10 Indicator 8 Name of Strategic Objective: SO 10: Capacity of National Government Institutions Improved Name of Intermediate Result: IR 10.3: Capacity of Civil Society to Advocate for Citizen Interests Improved Name of IR Indicator: Number of People Reached Through national Anti-Corruption Campaign Is this an Annual Report indicator? No Yes X 2006 DESCRIPTION Precise Definition(s): Estimates of citizens reached based on concentration of media messaging (posters and art exhibits and population figures where there is active anti-corruption messaging) and media used (print and broadcast) Unit of Measure: Number of citizens reached Disaggregated by: Location where possible Justification & Management Utility: People reached by the campaign will better realize the consequences of corruption and their rights and voice for advocating reform PLAN FOR DATA ACQUISITION BY USAID Data Collection Method: Through a baseline and follow up survey, estimate number of Iraqis reached by anticorruption messaging. Estimates of the number of Iraqis reached through ICSP grant projects and partner CSO actions. Estimates come from self reporting by CSOs to ICSP and outreach by ICSP local technical staff among partner CSOs as follow up to ICSP training and technical assistance. Data Source: Partner data described above Method of Data Acquisition by USAID: The Mission contractor will present a memorandum report to USAID Frequency and Timing of Data Acquisition by USAID: Prior to Annual Report preparation and as provided by the Mission contractor Estimated Cost of Data Acquisition: In contractor’s budget Individual Responsible at USAID: SO 10 Team and responsible CTO Individual Responsible for Providing Data to USAID: COP of Mission contractor and contractor M&E Director Location of Data Storage: USAID CTO DATA QUALITY ISSUES Date of Initial Data Quality Assessment: December 2006 Known Data Limitations and Significance (if any): Survey data may not include a large enough sample size to arrive at an acceptably robust conclusion. In terms of estimates from CSO and ICSP reporting, the CSO may misreport through a desire to satisfy ICSP queries or some other motive. ICSP local staff may misreport CSO activities in response to queries from ICSP management. Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: These risks are inherent to most any data gathering/reporting effort, and can be minimized by identifying and keeping staff who can be trusted, building relationships with CSOs that are trusted, and sufficient oversight from ICSP management. Correlating reported events with media coverage will also help validate claims. Date of Future Data Quality Assessment: December 2006 Procedures for Future Data Quality Assessments: To be developed as necessary PLAN FOR DATA ANALYSIS, REVIEW, & REPORTING Data Analysis: Mission contractor; SO 10 Team, and Program Office Presentation of Data: Data will be presented in contractor periodic reports Review of Data: In preparation for the portfolio review each year OTHER NOTES Notes on Baselines/Targets: PERFORMANCE INDICATOR VALUES Year Target Actual Notes 2005 Baseline 1 million Iraqis Considered conservative by Mission contractor 2006 4 million Iraqis THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON: 6/18/06 Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 208 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium Performance Indicator Reference Sheet SO 10 Indicator 9 Name of Strategic Objective: SO 10: Capacity of National Government Institutions Improved Name of Intermediate Result: IR 10.3: Capacity of Civil Society to Advocate for Citizen Interests Improved Name of IR Indicator: Number of Policy Changes Influenced by CSOs Is this an Annual Report indicator? No Yes X 2006 DESCRIPTION Precise Definition(s): # of policy changes, corrective actions, and behavioral changes achieved by civil society awareness raising and advocacy: “Policy changes” are official shifts in written legislation or administrative regulation, or introduction of new policy or administrative regulation as a result of CSO awareness raising and advocacy. “Corrective action” refers to the implementation of policies or administrative decisions considered to be adequate, where those policies had been abused or not enforced. “Behavioral changes” refers to shifts in action and/or intention on the part of citizens as a result of CSO awareness raising and advocacy. Unit of Measure: Number of policy changes, corrective actions and behavioral changes Disaggregated by: By type of change and priority issue area: women’s advocacy, anti-corruption, civic education, and human rights Justification & Management Utility: Documented results in this area reflect the ability of civil society to affect national government institutions PLAN FOR DATA ACQUISITION BY USAID Data Collection Method: Self reporting by CSOs to ICSP, and outreach by ICSP local technical staff among partner CSOs, usually in follow up to ICSP training and technical assistance. Data Source: Partner data described above Method of Data Acquisition by USAID: The Mission contractor will present a memorandum report to USAID Frequency and Timing of Data Acquisition by USAID: Prior to Annual Report preparation and as provided by the Mission contractor Estimated Cost of Data Acquisition: In contractor’s budget Individual Responsible at USAID: SO 10 Team and responsible CTO Individual Responsible for Providing Data to USAID: COP of Mission contractor and contractor M&E Director Location of Data Storage: USAID CTO DATA QUALITY ISSUES Date of Initial Data Quality Assessment: December 2006 Known Data Limitations and Significance (if any): CSOs may misreport through a desire to satisfy ICSP queries or some other motive. ICSP local staff may misreport CSO activities to ICSP management. Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: These risks are inherent to most any data gathering/reporting effort, and can be minimized by identifying and keeping staff who can be trusted, building relationships with CSOs that are trusted, and sufficient oversight from ICSP management. Date of Future Data Quality Assessment: December 2006 Procedures for Future Data Quality Assessments: To be developed as necessary PLAN FOR DATA ANALYSIS, REVIEW, & REPORTING Data Analysis: Mission contractor; SO 10 Team, and Program Office Presentation of Data: Data will be presented in contractor periodic reports Review of Data: In preparation for the portfolio review each year OTHER NOTES Notes on Baselines/Targets: PERFORMANCE INDICATOR VALUES Year Target Actual Notes 2005 Baseline 40 CSO Policy Changes 2006 10% 44 Policy Changes 12 month period ending 9/30/06 THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON: 6/18/06 Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 209 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium Performance Indicator Reference Sheet SO 10 Indicator 11 Name of Strategic Objective: SO 10: Capacity of National Government Institutions Improved Name of Intermediate Result: IR 10.3: Capacity of Civil Society to Advocate for Citizen Interests Improved Name of IR Indicator: Increase in Iraq Media Sustainability Index Is this an Annual Report indicator? No X Yes DESCRIPTION Precise Definition(s): The Iraq Media Sustainability Index (MSI) assesses the development of Iraq’s independent media systems over time and five objectives shape a successful media system: 1. Legal and social norms protect and promote free speech and access to public information 2. Journalism meets professional standards of quality 3. Multiple news sources provide citizens with reliable and objective news 4. Independent media are well-managed businesses, allowing editorial independence 5. Supporting institutions function in the professional interests of independent media Unit of Measure: 0-4 score for each of the five objectives, measured to the hundredth (.001) Disaggregated by: North Iraq, Baghdad, South Iraq Justification & Management Utility: The MSI offers a gauge of a nation’s progress toward the goal of a professional and sustainable independent media as determined by a panel of international and in-country experts convened by the International Research and Exchange Board (IREX). Iraq’s progress in developing a national independent media can be measured, and the MSI allows for Iraq to be measured against the progress of other nations. PLAN FOR DATA ACQUISITION BY USAID Data Collection Method: The Iraq MSI is published annually Data Source: Mission contractor and subcontractor: IREX Method of Data Acquisition by USAID: The Mission contractor will present a memorandum report to USAID Frequency and Timing of Data Acquisition by USAID: Prior to Annual Report preparation and as provided by the Mission contractor Estimated Cost of Data Acquisition: In contractor’s budget Individual Responsible at USAID: SO 10 Team and responsible CTO Individual Responsible for Providing Data to USAID: COP of Mission contractor and contractor M&E Director Location of Data Storage: USAID CTO DATA QUALITY ISSUES Date of Initial Data Quality Assessment: December 2006 Known Data Limitations and Significance (if any): The national and major regional index does not measure provincial or local level media environment Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: Anecdotal data at the provincial or local level such as workshops can be gathered and assessed if a precise location analysis is required Date of Future Data Quality Assessment: December 2006 Procedures for Future Data Quality Assessments: To be developed as necessary PLAN FOR DATA ANALYSIS, REVIEW, & REPORTING Data Analysis: Mission contractor; SO 10 Team, and Program Office Presentation of Data: Data will be presented in contractor periodic reports Review of Data: In preparation for the portfolio review each year OTHER NOTES Notes on Baselines/Targets: PERFORMANCE INDICATOR VALUES Year Target Actual Notes 2006 Baseline 1.17 MSI reported in Calendar 2006 2006 Overall progress in index score, improvement in average across 5 objectives, 5% to 1.22 12 month period ending 9/30/06 THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON: 6/18/06 Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 210 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium ANNEX J: INVENTORY OF DOCUMENTS STUDIED I. ADF Contract Deliverables (1) ADF Contract Deliverables and Status July 05 (2) ADF Contract Deliverables and Status March 08 (3) ADF Contract Deliverables and Status 10 April 06 (4) ADF Contract Deliverables and Status 18 April 06 ADF Contract Deliverables and Status ADF Contract Modification May 07, 2005 II. ADF Contract Modifications ADF GEW-C-00-04-00001 Mod #09 ADF GEW-C-00-04-00001-00 ADF GEW-C-00-04-00001-01 ADF GEW-C-00-04-00001-02 ADF GEW-C-00-04-00001-03 ADF GEW-C-00-04-00001-04 ADF GEW-C-00-04-00001-05 ADF GEW-C-00-04-00001-MOD 06 ADF GEW-C-00-04-00001-MOD 07 III. ADF Fact Sheets AID ADF Civil Society and Media Development Success Stories Briefing Memo Iraq Civil Society and Independent Media Program Fact Sheet – Anticorruption Fact Sheet – Civil Society and Independent Media Summary Fact Sheet – Human Rights Fact Sheet – Women’s Advocacy Fact Sheet2 – Civil Society Resources Centers Fact Sheet – Civic Education Fact Sheet – Independent Media IV. ADF Implementation Plans (1) IP March – June 05 (2) IP July – September 05 (3) IP October – December 05 (4) IP Jan – March 06 (5) IP April – June 06 Annual IPs Drafts V. ADF – ICSP Accomplishments Briefing Memo Iraq Civil Society and Independent Media Program ICSP Achievements 05 April 06 ICSP Deliverables Narrative Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 211 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium Media Deliverables and Achievements Sep 06 VI. CSOs Information and Background CSO Data CSO Registration CSO Sample Design CSO Registration VII. ICSP SOW and Evaluation ICSP Evaluation ADF Contract Modification Appendix 5 ICSI Marketing Assessing Social Dev’t Community Involvement and Empowerment Grant Manual – revised Oct 2006 ICSP PM Report April 23 06 ICSP PMP Jan 6 06 ICSP Sustainability Report Measuring Power and Democratic Legitimacy USAID versus DRL Media ICSP SOW Harvey input to evaluation methods ICSP SOW (1) LOE Tables VIII. Training and Miscellaneous Files ADF ICSP Performance Monitoring ADF ICSP PMP Jan 6 06 Grants Manual revised Oct 06 English Version of Training Materials developed to OCSSP Advocacy English version Financial Management English Human Rights Human rights for all Human rights for all – exercises Trainer manual Un Human rights- English & Arabic Web links to international HR instruments in English & Arabic Proposal Writing Proposal writing- English Proposal writing-manual Training CE Training materials Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 212 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium Result driven management IX. ICSP Reports December 2004 Reports January – December 2005 Reports January – December 2006 Reports January 2007 Reports Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 213 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium ANNEX K: ICSP ORGANIGRAM Chief of Part Issam Adawi Director of Performance Management and R ti g Senior Civil Society Ad is Anti￾Corruption Mg Civic Education C di t Training Coordinator M tafa Al Deputy Chief of party April Civic Education Assist t Training Assistant TBH Civic Education S i list AC Coordinator M hammad AC Specialist Miami Talib A Abd l AC Assistant TBH M&E Data Base C di t M & E Specialist A har Najah M & E Coordinator Ghada Oraha M & E Assistant R lan Saad Grants Manager Kri tin Grants Compliance S i list Grants Coordinator Ali Ya in Grants Specialist Wa an Media Grants Specialist Finance & Admin. Administrative Assistant Administration Coordinator Senior IT Specialist Finance Specialist Property & Maintenance HR Coordinator Procurement Specialist Operations & Procurement Drivers Wael Khalil Nabil Abdullhay Cleaners’ Supervisor Cleaners Ali Kareem Hikmat Kareem O Inventory Controller HR Specialist Awatif Maintenance Technician Executive Ai Regional Directors 1- Munif Abu-Rish CI SC ُExecutive Assistant Media Advisor Media Program Di t Media Coor TB H Media Assistant Fatin Media Specialist TBH Women’s Advocacy Mg WA Coordinator Ma ada Human Rights C di t WA assistant In'nam Jaba Human Rights Senior Finance IT Specialist Z id O M & E Director Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 214 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium ANNEX K: Results Monitoring Plan RESULTS HIERARCHY FOR THE CIVIL SOCIETY COMPONENT 6.01.06 USAID USAID Strategic Objective: Efficiency and Accountability of Government Intermediate Result: Promote an informed, sustainable, and active indigenous Iraqi civil society that effectively and responsibly participates within a democratic system of governance Activity 1 Establish CSRCs !!!!! Activity 2 Targeted TA & Training !!!!! Activity 3 Grants Component Contract Level Results No less than four Civil Society Resource Centers are fully operational, providing a range of technical assistance, training, organizational development support, and grants support to CSOs. Each center is actively soliciting clients with a goal of increasing the number of CSOs utilizing the four Civil Society Resource Centers for services and trainings. Each Center has an organizational development plan in place to guide management and financial decision-making and initiate action for the Centers’ long￾term sustainability. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Within the sphere of influence of the four Civil Society Resource Centers, citizens understand their rights and responsibilities in a pluralistic democratic Iraq Increased participation of women in civic and public life within the sphere of influence of the five Civil Society Resource Centers. A widely disseminated and effective Anti-Corruption Public Awareness campaign reaches approximately 2.5 million Iraqi households. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Grants awarded to indigenous civil society organizations in a transparent, equitable, and timely manner. Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 215 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium Sub-Result/Deliverables SubResult/Deliverable 1.1: No less than four Civil Society Resource Centers are fully operational with essential staff and materials. SubResult 1.1.ext: The ICSP Civil Society Resource Center staff is capable of delivering value-added, needs-based services to CSO clients while continually upgrading ICSP staff capacity, materials and resources. Indicator 1.1a CSRCs are staffed, equipped and operational. Indicator 1.1b Centers provide full service delivery and outreach to CSOs in all governorates. Indicator 1.1.c CSRC staff development plans (SDPs) are developed and implemented to continually expand and upgrade staff capacity. Indicator 1.1d CSRC staff demonstrate effective delivery of training and technical assistance in core curriculum areas. Indicator 1.1e CSRC training materials and resources are developed, adapted, validated and constantly upgraded. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! SubResult/Deliverable 2.1: Increasing numbers of Iraqi citizens understand and participate in a pluralistic and democratic Iraq through civic education and public dialogue. Indicator 2.1a: Identification and support for a core group of Iraqi CSOs capable of working in alliance with other Partner CSOs and coalition groups to support political and economic reform. Indicator 2.1b: # new actions to promote democratic values in Iraq conducted by CSOs Indicator 2.1c: # new actions to encourage Iraqis to engage in responsible and informed political participation conducted by CSOs Indicator 2.1d: Increased citizen awareness of rights and responsibilities in a pluralistic, democratic Iraq, with special attention to youth. Indicator 2.1e: Coordination with other USG-supported civic education, use of tech resources !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! SubResult/Deliverable 3.1: Within 60 days of the contract award date, develop a Grants Manual, subject to CTO approval, that lays out clear and transparent policies and procedures governing the implementation, management, monitoring, and evaluation of the small grants program Indicator 3.1a: Existence of a Grants Manual SubResult/Deliverable 3.2: Awarding of an array of grants on a rolling basis that build the advocacy skills of selected CSOs and contribute to the development of democracy in Iraq Indicator 3.2a: Small Grants awarded for capacity building. Indicator 3.2b: Small Grants awarded for civic education. Indicator 3.2c: Small Grants awarded for women’s advocacy activities. Indicator 3.2d: Small Grants awarded for anti-corruption Indicator 3.2e: Small Grants awarded for human rights Source: PMP Plan 56.01.06 Iraq Monitoring and Evaluation Performance Program, Phase II (MEPP II) 216 ICSP Evaluation – Consolidated Annexes IBTCI Consortium RESULTS HIERARCHY FOR THE CIVIL SOCIETY COMPONENT (continued) Activity 1 Establish CSRCs !!!!!-- Activity 2 Targeted TA & Training !!!!!-- Activity 3 Grants Component Sub-Result/Deliverables SubResult/Deliverable 1.3: Each Center provides training and technical assistance that effectively strengthen core CSO competencies Indicator 1.3a: Each Center is providing valued training and technical assistance services on core operational competencies to CSOs Indicator 1.3b: Number of CSOs with improved scores on the Organizational Assessment Tool (OAT) elements measuring internal governance, advocacy, general management & basic financial management, sustainability. Indicator 1.3c: Number of membership-based CSOs that take actions to strengthen and develop community and constituent relationships and support for the organization Indicator 1.3d: Number of CSOs with improved scores on measurement of knowledge in core subjects (AC/HR, civic education and women’s advocacy SubResult/Deliverable 1.4: Within nine months of the contract award date a sustainability plan applied to each of the centers is submitted for CTO approval. Indicator 1.4a: CSRC Advisory boards are in place to guide development of sustainability plans and actions. Indicator 1.4b: Sustainability plan submitted !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!-!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Result/Deliverable 2.2: Increased capacity of CSOs to educate women and men on women’s legal, economic, social & political rights and advocate more effectively on behalf of those rights. Indicator 2.2a: Public awareness campaigns designed and implemented to inform men and women on women’s legal, economic and political rights that are conducted by CSOs Indicator 2.2b: Enhanced capacity of CSOs to advocate on behalf of women’s legal rights and actively promote women’s participation and recruit potential women leaders. SubResult/Deliverable 2.3: Increased capacity of a network of CSOs to provide effective oversight on fighting corruption. Indicator 2.3a: A significant number of CSOs possess sufficient technical knowledge in public budgeting and finance, public policy-making, and project design and implementation to responsibly monitor the use and allocation of public resources and actively participate in economic and political decision-making. Indicator 2.3b: CSOs participating in the program (including Professional and trade associations and Chambers of Commerce) undertake monitoring of public/private sector institutions, communicate findings, and advocate for change. Result/Deliverable 2.4: Ensure greater awareness of both the costs and impacts of corruption throughout all sectors of Iraqi society. Indicator 2.4a: Anti-corruption Awareness Campaign developed and implemented. Indicator 2.4b: A strategy is in place that integrates the campaign with a detailed follow-up that builds on the increased awareness and understanding of corruption with concrete actions that CSOs and individual citizens can undertake. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Source: PMP Plan 56.01.06