AN EVALUATION OF THE NATIONAL DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTE (NDI) LEGISLATIVE STRENGTHENING PROGRAM IN LIBERIA LIBERIA MONITORING & EVALUATION PROGRAMS (L-MEP) Contract No. 669-C-00-10-00181-00 Final Report March 2013 This publication is made possible by the generous support of the American people through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID/Liberia) under the Liberia Monitoring and Evaluation Program (L-MEP), Contract Number 669- C-00-10-00181-00. 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. An Evaluation of the National Democratic Institute (NDI) Legislative Strengthening Program in Liberia Prepared for United States Agency for International Development (USAID/Liberia) Prepared By: John Bosley Edward McMahon Frances Naiga Muwonge Liberia Monitoring and Evaluation Program (L-MEP) American Embassy 502 Benson Street, Mamba Point Monrovia, Liberia Telephone: +231-77-677-7000 Fax: +231-77-677-7171 The Mitchell Group, Inc. (TMG) 1816 11th Street N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001 Telephone: (202) 745-1919 Fax: (202) 234-1697 TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF ACRONYMS ................................................................................................................. i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................... 1 I. INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY ......................................................................... 5 II. BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT ........................................................................................ 8 III. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION .............................................................................................. 12 IV. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS..................................................................................... 14 A) Analysis of Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats .............................................. 15 B) Who and What are Key Actors and Factors? ........................................................................... 16 C) How Much Does and Will the Legislature Benefit from Program Activities? ........................ 20 D) Is There Political Will? ............................................................................................................ 23 E) Gender and the Legislature – Underutilized Resource? ........................................................... 26 F) Primary Beneficiary Perspectives: Staff Survey and Content Analysis ................................... 29 i. Staff Questionnaire Analysis ............................................................................................. 30 ii. Interview Content Analysis .............................................................................................. 30 V. NDI PERFORMANCE: TO WHAT EXTENT DID THE NDI PROGRAM ACHIEVE ITS OBJECTIVES? .................................................................................................................... 33 VI. RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................................................... 42 LIST OF ANNEXES ..................................................................................................................... 1 Annex i. NDI Program Evaluation SOW ................................................................................ 1 Annex ii. Contacts for the NDI Evaluation ........................................................................... 12 Annex iii. Project Work Plan ................................................................................................ 24 Annex iv. Data Collection and Analysis Methods ................................................................ 38 Annex v. Team Biographies ................................................................................................. 40 Annex vi. Documents Reviewed ........................................................................................... 42 Annex vii. Survey Questionnaire and Responses (Quantitative Data) ................................. 44 Annex viii. Survey Qualitative Responses ............................................................................ 69 Annex ix. NDI Activities ...................................................................................................... 78 Annex x. USAID Liberia, The Legislative Budget Process and NDI's Legislative Strengthening Program ....................................................................................................... 104 Annex xi. List of NDI Sub-grants ....................................................................................... 107 Annex xii. Disclosure of Conflict of Interest Forms ........................................................... 108 i LIST OF ACRONYMS AFL Armed Forces of Liberia CDC Congress for Democratic Change CDF County Development Fund CEPPS Consortium for Elections and Political Process Strengthening CLA County Legislative Assembly CPA Comprehensive Peace Agreement CoS Chief of Staff CRC Constitution Review Commission CSA Civil Service Agency CSO Civil Society Organization DFID Department for International Development ECC Elections Coordinating Committee ECOWAS Economic Community of West African States GAC Government Accounting Commission GC Governance Commission GOL Government of Liberia GRC Governance Reform Commission (reconstituted as GC by Executive Order # 2, 2006) HOR House of Representatives INPFL Independent National Patriotic Front of Liberia JLMC Joint Legislative Modernization Committee LBO Legislative Budget Office LIS Legislative Information Service LMP Legislative Modernization Plan LNP Liberia National Police LURD Liberians United for Reconstruction and Development MODEL Movement for Democracy in Liberia MOF Ministry of Finance MoFA Ministry of Foreign Affairs ii NDC National Democratic Coalition NDI National Democratic Institute for International Affairs NDPL National Democratic Party of Liberia NEC National Elections Commission NPFL National Patriotic Front of Liberia NPP National Patriotic Party NTLA National Transitional Legislative Assembly PAC Public Accounts Committee PPA Press and Public Affairs PPT President Pro Tempore (Senate) SDF Social Development Fund SIDA Swedish International Development Agency SOW Scope of Work SWOT Strength, Weakness, Opportunity, Threat Analysis UNMIL United Nations Mission in Liberia UP Unity Party WLC Women’s Legislative Caucus 1 | Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Introduction and Methodology. From January to March, 2013, a three-member team contracted by The Mitchell Group, Inc. undertook a final evaluation of the USAID-funded National Democratic Institute (NDI) program in Liberia, “Supporting the Modernization and Development of the Legislature as a Co-Equal Branch of Government”. The program’s four Program Objectives were to a) enhance legislative capacity to fulfill lawmaking and oversight responsibilities; b) improve the capacity of the legislature to operate in a more accountable, transparent, and efficient manner; c) increase the capacity of civic groups to collect, analyze, and disseminate information about the electoral process; and d) enhance the capacity of civic groups to collect, analyze, and disseminate information about the electoral process. This evaluation report assesses the effectiveness of this program and informs USAID/Liberia of the extent to which its stated overall goals have been achieved. It also considers more broadly the legislative process and the political will to engage in legislative modernization. The evaluation: considers the context in which the program functioned, posits results achieved, identifies implementation problems and challenges that affected program results; and provides actionable and strategic recommendations for possible follow on actions. The Evaluation Team adopted a mixed-method approach to generating data and information upon which it bases its conclusions. This included qualitative and quantitative data collection from a carefully selected sample of key individuals and stakeholders, with selection criteria clearly articulated. Methods included a literature review, over 40 key informant interviews, 2 site visits, 7 focus groups, a legislative staff survey questionnaire distributed to 88 staff members, and content analysis of key informant and focus group proceedings. Program Description. The chronology of NDI’s program can be divided into three segments. The first, from 2009 through mid-2011, constituted the initiation of program training activities and efforts to create or reinvigorate legislative institutions such as the Legislative Information Service (LIS), Legislative Budget Office (LBO) and a bill-tracker which would serve as the core of a sustained capacity to improve legislative performance. The second period, from mid-2011 until early 2012, involved increased emphasis on added program components designed to enhance the legitimacy of national elections which took place in October and November of 2011. The third period, from early 2012 until the end of the project in mid-2013, focused on both continuing the strengthening of the initiatives previously begun, and providing services and information to the new Legislature, which was notably characterized by a large number of new incoming legislators and staff. Findings and Conclusions 1) Analysis of Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats. Some key strengths include the fact that the Legislature is able to say no to the Executive; it is no longer simply considered a rubberstamp. Legislative feedback is increasingly being taken into consideration by the Executive. However, weakness is demonstrated by the reality that leadership and direction 2 | Page on legislative modernization is intermittent and passive. There is little discipline in legislative functions. There are widespread perceptions of corruption. There is limited constituency outreach. Opportunities arise from the fact that some legislative leaders have a clear commitment to reform; the new legislature includes individuals who recognize the lesson of the 2011 elections that performance influences re-election prospects; domestic and international resources are available for modernization; and a window of opportunity exists before the next elections to make significant progress. Threats are comprised by the possibility of political instability resulting from renewed civil strife, especially as the United Nations Mission in Liberia (UNMIL) reduces its footprint and presence. The regional context remains very unstable. The 2014 election and referendum present potential flash points. 2) Who and What are Key Actors and Factors? Key actors and factors include the Legislature itself, which holds the key to determining whether it will grow to play its full role in a democratic system. Other actors are the Executive Branch, with which stresses exist but which also acknowledges the role of the legislature in Liberia’s nascent democracy; donors, who have displayed limited focus, coordination and support regarding the legislature; civil society, which while weak, has an important role to play in terms of promoting advocacy and accountability; and political parties, which are also weak and do not play much of a part in ensuring party discipline and articulation of interests. 3) How Much Does and Will the Legislature Benefit from Program Activities? All of the persons interviewed at the Legislature indicated that it has clearly benefitted from NDI program input. Members and staff are better trained and equipped to handle their functions. The Legislature has modestly asserted itself, due in part to NDI’s technical assistance. However, the benefits are considerably less than they could have been. Legislators were uniformly candid in admitting that the Legislature’s commitment to modernization – and thus to the NDI program – has been limited and that they have not fully benefitted from the program. Of the services developed, the Legislative Information Service (LIS) was well-used as a source of information, but was not used very often as a research service. The Legislative Budget Office (LBO) has not been consulted frequently and has not been as proactive about building a constituency at the Legislature. 4) Is There Political Will? The Evaluation Team concludes that the Legislature possesses limited political will to modernize. At the same time, however, the Team does not conclude that political will is completely absent. The need for change is widely accepted, and there are champions for change within the Legislature. Taken in conjunction with the context of Liberia’s nascent experiment in democracy and the widespread turn-over as a result of the 2011 elections, and considering the importance of a fully-functioning Legislature to the future of Liberia, the Team believes that carefully constructed opportunities for engagement exist. 5) Gender and the Legislature – Underutilized Resource? The percentage of legislators who are women is very low by modern standards. At the same time, the women MPs hold an amount of positions within the leadership and other committees that reflects their relative numbers. The Legislature has yet to reflect an organized and effective focus on gender considerations, both in terms of legislative modernization and in terms of broader policy issues. A useful program of assistance to the women would focus on improving their strategic communications skills, e.g., 3 | Page how to lobby the male legislators, how to interact effectively in plenary sessions, and how to defend gender responsive proposals. 6) Primary Beneficiary Perspectives: Staff Survey and Content Analysis. The findings contained in both of these methodological instruments buttress the conclusions of the report that the NDI program was very successful at the output level and, to a lesser extent, at the outcome level. NDI Performance. To What Extent did the NDI Legislative Program Achieve its Objectives? The NDI program has been helpful; the program has been important and the activities have created a good support base for reform. One risk that was not identified, and was difficult to foresee and prepare for, was the results of the 2011 elections and resultant delay in reappointing the Joint Legislative Modernization Committee (JLMC). Legislators lauded the quality and breadth of the program. A general recognition exists that without the NDI program institutions such as the LBO and LIS would be much less effective, if they would be functioning at all. The civil society and electoral support component of the program was widely viewed to have achieved its specific aims of promoting the legitimacy of the 2011 elections. Limitations on the program’s ability to achieve its objectives include 1) the perceived lack of “ownership” of the project by the legislature; and 2) the future sustainability of the benefits of the program. Recommendations. The NDI program was clearly a success at the output level, and also had some positive results at the outcome level. There is a definite need for further training and support. However, the poor implementation by the Legislature of its Legislative Modernization Plan (LMP) and the limited political will to make significant change to date must be taken into account when evaluating the prospects for meaningful assistance. The Evaluation Team believes strongly that any follow-on support must be on a more disciplined and reciprocal basis. Based on this, the following programmatic follow-on scenarios seem reasonable for consideration:  No further support for the Legislature.  No further support until the Legislature has reviewed and evaluated the LMP and created a follow-on Plan (LMP2).  Undertake “Outside-In” strategy supporting citizens and civil society in their efforts to advocate and create citizen-legislature linkages, rather than attempting to strengthen the Legislature from within.  Fully engage with the Legislature in a follow-on program. This approach would in effect represent follow-on of the NDI project. It would take, as a point of departure, the need for long-term and sustained assistance, given the deficiencies and needs in the Liberian Legislature. While valid arguments exist for either one of the above approaches, they all contain serious potential flaws. They either ignore the Legislature’s need for sustained assistance, do not address the core problems, or are not based on a reciprocal basis requiring a credible demonstration of will on the part of the Legislature. The Team therefore proposes a carefully modulated follow￾on approach, based on the view that the Legislature needs continued assistance and support. 4 | Page Announce now that further support will be available once LMP2 is ready – provided that there has been a clearer manifestation of political will in the meantime. Specific examples could include:  Provision in the 2013-2014 Budget of funds for capacity building, for example, for the LBO and/or LIS.  Adoption of a Code of Conduct that applies to the legislature.  Explicit recognition of the importance of gender representation in legislative leadership positions.  Change Rules to require that every bill has a hearing, a formal sponsor; and be adopted by a recorded vote.  Require that the Legislature be subject to audit by the GAC.  A formal action to start the process of rationalizing the permanent/personal staff – such as a request to the Civil Service Agency to start the review. A follow-on program be gradated and keyed to meaningful steps undertaken by the Legislature, and be implemented by way of a formal agreement with the interlocutor named by both Houses, presumably the JLMC. The program could begin with an initial tangible activity, such as refurbishing the fire-damaged library. An LMP II which both appears realistic and feasible, and includes the commitment by the Legislature to a substantive level of resources for implementation, could serve as a trigger for an implementing partner to enter into a second phase of program activities. These could include focus on subjects including committee functioning, support for the Women’s Caucus, continued support for the LBO and LIS, and possibly subjects that originate from external stakeholders. USAID could thus continue to demonstrate its willingness to engage with the Legislature under the appropriate circumstances. 5 | Page I. INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY From January to March, 2013, a three-member team contracted by The Mitchell Group, Inc. undertook a final evaluation of the USAID-funded National Democratic Institute (NDI) program in Liberia, “Supporting the Modernization and Development of the Legislature as a Co-Equal Branch of Government”. This evaluation report assesses the effectiveness of this program and informs USAID/Liberia of the extent to which its stated overall goals have been achieved. It also considers more broadly the legislative process and the political will to engage in legislative modernization. The evaluation a) considers the context in which the program functioned, b) posits results achieved, c) identifies implementation problems and challenges that affected program results, and d) and provides actionable and strategic recommendations for possible follow on actions. The NDI program to support the modernization and development of the Liberian Legislature and enhance the credibility of the 2011 elections process began in 2009, and was due to end in March, 2013, but was recently extended through June 2013. The program has focused on a number of different areas of legislative strengthening. Its four Program Objectives were to: 1) Enhance legislative capacity to fulfill lawmaking and oversight responsibilities by strengthening budget analysis, improving library and research services, increasing legislative drafting services capacity, and improving committee operations. 2) Improve the capacity of the legislature to operate in a more accountable, transparent, and efficient manner. Activities to support this include an in-depth orientation program for both lawmakers and staff, increasing the use of technology into legislative business, and institutionalizing accountability and transparency mechanisms. 3) Increase the capacity of civic groups to collect, analyze, and disseminate information about the electoral process through coalition building, working with country coordinators to report on events such as voter registration, election violence, campaign conduct, NEC preparations, and voter education campaigns as well as facilitating issue based legislative debates. 4) Enhance the capacity of civic groups to collect, analyze, and disseminate information about the electoral process.1,2 Based on these Objectives, NDI, through its program activities, has primarily sought to strengthen the legislature’s internal capacities and to empower legislators to effectively play their roles. The program has been designed to strengthen the support infrastructure and to provide technical advice to legislative institutions. 1 Objectives 3 and 4 were added as subsidiary objectives during the 2011 election period. 2 Objective 4 is a typo in the modification four documents that was transferred to the Scope of Work for this evaluation. It has been included in this report to maintain consistency with the Scope of Work. 6 | Page This evaluation contains the following key elements:  Background and contextual information on Liberia’s political development, especially regarding the legislature.  Description of the function and structure of the NDI project.  Findings and conclusions regarding the impact of the program activities. This is based on a series of Key Questions identified in the Scope of Work, including identification of key actors and factors influencing legislative strengthening, the measure to which the legislature benefited from the NDI program, the extent of political will for modernization in the legislature, how much gender considerations have impacted the legislative track record, and the extent to which the NDI program achieved its objectives.  An assessment of the relevance of USAID legislative strengthening, scenarios for future direct or indirect engagement with the legislature, and actionable recommendations concerning possible follow-on programming, given the current political environment. METHODOLOGY The evaluation team adopted a mixed-method approach to generating data and information from a carefully selected sample of key individuals and stakeholders, upon which it bases its conclusions. This triangulated approach was designed to provide a more robust data base than traditional evaluative methods which have often relied solely on qualitative information drawn from key respondent interviews. The intent of this plural methods approach is to provide triangulation of data for analysis and recommendations, therefore grounding it more fully in the NDI project experience. Within time and resource constraints the team chose to utilize six different methodological tools to generate qualitative and quantitative data collection from a carefully selected sample of key individuals and stakeholders.3 These included:  A literature review;  key informant interviews4 ;  observation of program activities;  7 focus groups (civil society representatives and district constituents);  a survey questionnaire sent to 88 legislative staff members; and  a respondent content analysis. Selection Criteria. The team used a range of criteria to insure respondent representativity and inclusiveness. In addition to gender, key criteria included age, occupation, provenance, exposure to the legislature, and educational background. Overall, the team interviewed a total of 93 individuals or focus groups participants. They were closely matched by gender, with 60% male 3 More detailed information on methods used can be found at Annex iv. 4 Semi-structured interviews were conducted according to protocols which are included at Appendix vii. A full list of interviewees is included in Annex ii. 7 | Page and 40% female. A complete list of respondents directly interviewed by the team, with additional disaggregated data is contained at Annex ii. Key informant criteria - Criteria for the key informants included familiarity with the legislature; involvement in/knowledge of NDI activities; viewpoints from both the 52nd and the 53rd legislatures; positions of leadership and backbenchers; diversity in geographic representation, political affiliation; and gender. Site visit criteria – The team visited two sites outside of Montserrado County; Tubmanburg in Bomi County and Buchanan in Grand Bassa Counties. These sites were chosen as they represented different counties with different ethnic constituencies and socio-economic contexts. In these sites the team met with local officials, legislature constituency office workers, civil society members and voters. Focus Group criteria – Focus groups were utilized to ensure the receipt of input from a wide range of civil society groups and constituents in a limited time period. Focus groups were also useful in assessing cross-participant dynamics and collective viewpoints and judgment. The team conducted a total of seven focus groups. Four were with various civil society groups in Monrovia (including student groups, human rights organizations, women’s groups, and faith￾based organizations), one was with journalists, and two were organized in constituencies by civil society groups with civil society representatives and voters. Program Activity Observation – The team observed two NDI activities (legislative drafting training and electoral reform) which took place during their visit. No criteria were utilized in this selection as the key rationale was that they took place during the team’s visit. Staff Survey criteria – A total of 90 staff questionnaires were distributed to personal and central staff members (the Questionnaire is at Annex viii). Criteria centered on representativity (e.g. member and committee staff, gender, various levels of familiarity with NDI programming, and legislative experience). Interview Content Analysis – Content analysis of interviews and focus groups was conducted in order to identify the most frequently cited issues by Liberian respondents. This in turn permitted identification of themes perceived of as important by key program stakeholders. 8 | Page II. BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT Historical Background In 1847, the Republic of Liberia was established by an oligarchy of approximately 3,000 returned ex-slaves. Its 1847 Constitution was modeled on the American version, including a bicameral legislature.5 Relations with the indigenous Liberians were problematic from the start; they were excluded from the state apparatus and denied citizenship until 1904. The Americo￾Liberian dominance continued for well over a century, until 1980 when Master Sergeant Samuel Doe’s coup resulted in the assassination of President William Tolbert and other leading associates of the True Whig Party. In 1986 a new constitution came into effect. In 1989 Charles Taylor and his National Patriotic Front of Liberia (NPFL) attacked Doe’s government and a splinter faction, the Independent National Patriotic Front of Liberia (INPFL) headed by current Nimba Senior Senator Prince Johnson, succeeded in capturing, torturing, and ultimately executing President Doe. This initiated a fourteen year period of civil strife and breakdown of governance institutions, including the legislature. The NPFL and INPFL clashed brutally in the capital of Monrovia until Taylor consolidated the rebel forces, forcing Johnson into exile. In 1997, Liberians went to the polls for Liberia’s second multi-party elections, which Taylor (NPP) won, polling 75% of the vote. The NPP also dominated legislative elections securing 21 of 26 seats in the newly constituted Senate and 49 of 64 seats in the House. While Taylor had control of Monrovia and environs, another rebel group, Liberians United for Reconciliation and Democracy (LURD), attacked northern Liberia in Lofa County. In 1999, the LURD incursion signified the beginning of Liberia’s Second Civil War. In 2003, LURD were joined by yet another Ivorian-backed rebel group, the Movement for Democracy in Liberia (MODEL), and initiated a siege on Monrovia, a previous Taylor stronghold. Taylor resigned August 11, 2003 after President Obasanjo of Nigeria offered him exile. The ensuing August, 2003 Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) accords brokered in Accra, Ghana formed the blueprint for Liberia’s two-year transition from conflict to presidential and legislative elections slated for October 2005. Included in the accords were provisions to re￾instate the disbanded Senate. The 2005 presidential election was won by an economist, Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, representing the Unity Party (UP). She who garnered 59% of the vote in a run-off against George Weah, a former international soccer star. The legislative elections resulted in several parties winning seats, but with no party attaining a majority. In the House of Representatives the opposition Congress for Democratic Change (CDC) gained a plurality with 23% of the vote. The UP came in fourth with 13%. On the Senate side, the UP fared better, coming in second with 13%, followed by the CDC and the National Patriotic Party (NPP) tied at 10%. 5 The last and 15th county, Gbarpolu County was carved out of Lofa 2000, the fifteenth and final county, bringing the Senate to its current 30 membership. 9 | Page The CPA temporarily suspended provisions in the constitution including the demarcation of electoral constituencies on the basis of a national census. Nevertheless, the controversial threshold issue resurfaced in the legislature in 2010. Article 80(d) of the 1986 Constitution requires population parity in each electoral district and provides that the total number of constituencies in the Republic shall not exceed 100. In 2010 the Legislature delayed passing the Threshold Bill because it would change seat allocation. Instead, the two Houses issued a joint resolution, in violation of the constitution, revising the apportionment from the 2005 elections on the basis of the 2008 Census. The new House of Representatives grew by nine seats, bringing the total to current 73. Bowing to a myriad of political pressures from the executive and the NEC, a referendum to amend the 1986 constitution was held in August 2011. Article (91) requires that after 2/3 of both houses ratify a proposal, it must be approved by 2/3 of registered voters not sooner than one year after the action by the legislature. The August 2011 referendum was politically charged from the start with campaigning for yes/no votes on four propositions: 1) Reducing the residency requirement for the President from ten to five years; 2) raising the maximum age of Chief Justice from 70 to 75; 3) changing the date of elections from the second Tuesday in October to November; and 4) adopting a First-Past-The-Post system. The referendum proved problematic for the largely illiterate voting population, especially as it took place in the rainy season; turnout was registered at approximately 1/3rd of the eligible voters. All provisions initially failed but in September 2011, after a Supreme Court challenge ruled the NEC improperly calculated results, the provision incorporating First-Past-The-Post was adopted. The 2011 presidential and legislative elections were marred by instances of violence and a boycott in the second round by the CDC, which claimed the vote counting in the first round had been rigged. President Sirleaf won the first round with 43.9% of the vote; Winston Tubman, candidate for the CDC (with George Weah as his running mate) obtained 32.7% of the vote. In the second round, after one of the Co-Chairmen of the National Elections Commission, accused of political interference resigned, the CDC still boycotted the vote and President Sirleaf was returned for another six years with 91% of the vote. The day before the run-off elections, one person was killed and seven injured when CDC demonstrations were violently and preemptively prohibited by the Liberia National Police (LNP). Unexpectedly, the voters defeated many incumbents in both Houses. Of the 15 junior Senators who stood, 13 were defeated. 64 incumbents from the House ran for re-election; 40 were defeated. The UP took 24 seats while the CDC won 11 and the Liberty Party captured 7. The remaining seats were won by a host of smaller parties. Contextual factors impacting the ability of the legislature to modernize Executive Dominance. Power in Liberia has always tilted heavily towards the Executive, which has historically dominated the other two branches. At its inception and for over a century thereafter, Liberia was a highly centralized state governed by the True Whig Party. Under both the Doe and Taylor regimes, the president’s party continued to dominate the Legislature.6 6 A bicameral legislature was elected in 1997; it was replaced by a National Transitional Legislative Assembly (NTLA) as part of the CPA. 10 | Page All previous Speakers and Presidents Pro Tempore were named by the Executive. The constitution grants lawmakers broad and often unchecked powers, but because of historical factors and cultural norms emphasizing executive leadership, the Legislature has traditionally been a marginal branch of government. Historically, the party that controlled the presidency has also controlled the Legislature, using it essentially as a ‘rubber stamp’. The Executive has often sought to exploit the weakness of the Legislature, thereby further enhancing its dominant role in Liberian politics. This dominance is reflected, for example, in the prominence given by state television and radio to actions taken by the Executive. Finally, Liberia’s political history is a recurrent cycle of key actors slotted in various positions, often appointed by the Executive with overlapping and contradictory mandates. For example, the Governance Commission is mandated to review existing programs to promote good governance, foster transparency and accountability, and ensure subsidiary governance through decentralization and participation. These are functions that also fall into the purview of the Legislature. Informal Rule. Liberian society overwhelmingly operates on an informal basis of understanding, not strictly governed by existing laws and regulations. This phenomenon is evident in all branches of government. For example, the County Development Fund mechanism is clearly elaborated in the annually updated Budget Law, yet application varies greatly from county to county. In Bomi County, the Legislative Caucus has assumed a final signatory authorizing role thereby usurping decisions made by the community. This is not the letter of the law. Conversely in Grand Bassa County, the same County Development Fund is managed by popular vote under the leadership of an elected Presiding Officer, as per the Budget Law. Another example of the preference for informal rule exists in hiring practices for both houses. Internal procedures envision a competitive process spearheaded by the clerk’s office, yet in practice members “recommend” individuals for positions. In the House, the Rules and Order Chair is reported to functionally handle all staff appointments. Weak political parties. Political parties have been historically weak and have exercised marginal influence over elected lawmakers. Most parties are not viable outside of elections, and their platforms articulate few specific and comprehensive policies. Parties also lack internal democracy and accountability. Political parties have failed consistently and effectively to include women as candidates; many who do run for office complain of a lack of support by their party. Furthermore, parties are significantly weaker outside of Monrovia, with often understaffed offices, where they exist. Parties lack coalition-building skills. In the 2011 elections, the National Democratic Coalition (NDC) planned to field a single presidential candidate and list of legislative candidates, but was rendered ineffective when influential members of the NPP and the National Democratic Party of Liberia (NDPL), quit the coalition and endorsed the UP. Moreover, CDC partisans, aggrieved by first-round numbers and allegations of fraud, boycotted the second round. 11 | Page Dependency mentality. Liberia’s colonial legacy and unique relationship with the United States results in a complicated relationship, often deferential and yet resentful. More generally this is reflected in a prevailing and deep rooted international dependency mentality evident both on the individual and government levels. This culture of dependency is present domestically as well. Culturally protected hierarchies have tended to reinforce executive dominance in addition to impacting the functioning and decision making of the Legislature. Dependency of the Legislature on NDI for leadership in pursuing the Legislature’s own modernization activities is also discernible. Many voters still lack access to mass means of communication and remain dependent on traditional leaders, local information, or re-cycled, often inaccurate information to engage politically. This empowerment void is evident even in the Legislature, where a significant percentage of the lawmakers are poorly educated, with many not having progressed beyond high school. This inability to access information first hand leads to a dependency in decision making whereby the learned few influence the remainder. This is especially true of complex legislation. The same phenomenon is replicated with staff. Corruption. The entirety of Liberian society is profoundly affected by corruption. The legacy of civil strife and subsequent rebuilding efforts have exacerbated the problem of endemic corruption. All segments of government are affected, with the preponderance of alleged or proven corruption occurring in the Executive Branch. However, members of both the Executive Branch and Legislature have historically used their positions in office to personally enrich themselves. Recent concessions ratification fees at the Legislature have spotlighted corruption in that body. Moreover, the involvement of current lawmakers in scandals adds to the complexity of the inter￾dynamics in the Legislature. To cite some illustrative cases, the Chair of the Montserrado Legislative Caucus and co-Chair of the Joint Legislative Modernization Committee (JLMC), was suspended as caucus chair when a leaked, confirmed, voice recording detailed his plans to ‘eat’ $50,000 from county development surplus funds alongside the Montserrado County Superintendent. The Chairman of the National Transitional Government was indicted for embezzlement in 2007; he was later acquitted of the charges. Both the Speaker and Deputy Speaker of the NTLA were suspended indefinitely for spending money without authorization and did not finish their terms. In the 52nd Legislature the Speaker served a year before a vote of no￾confidence, later reversed, and an investigation into his dealings as boss of Liberia Petroleum Refining Corporation forced his resignation. Lack of Experienced Civil Society Organizations (CSOs). While civil society played a significant role in ending hostilities and forcing the peace process resulting in the CPA, the CSO sector’s capacity to influence public policy remains highly limited. CSOs have tended to be marginalized in the political process and generally have not been effective or unified. Some CSOs have been readily co-opted by government, or created by partisan political interests. The financial needs of most CSOs make them vulnerable to potential manipulation. In addition, Liberian CSOs have primarily focused on the Executive to the exclusion of the Legislature. 12 | Page III. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION The purpose of NDI’s “Supporting the Modernization and Development of the Legislature as a Co-Equal Branch of Government” program was to support the implementation of the Joint Legislative Modernization Committee’s (JLMC) strategic plan for modernization and development of Liberia’s legislature. The 2009-2013 NDI program built on previous programming in Liberia. The Institute had previously received funding through the Consortium for Election and Political Processes Strengthening (CEPPS) for legislative strengthening activities with the 52nd Legislature in its earlier years. The on-going NDI program consists of a number of constituent elements (a comprehensive listing of activities can be found at Appendix x). These include efforts designed to strengthen the infrastructure of the Legislature by empowering the various offices providing substantive assistance to legislators. Initiatives during 2009-2013 included:  Reconstituting and revitalizing the Legislative Budget Office;  Creating the Legislative Information Service;  Strengthening the Legislative Press Bureaus;  Empowering the Legislative Drafting Service; and  Providing information and communication technology. More specifically, NDI helped to renew the legislature’s Legislative Budget Office (LBO), which has begun to provide some fiscal impact analysis and draft budget reports. NDI also provided training and mentoring for the Legislative Information Service (LIS) and its library, and to the research and archive staff to enable the staff to provide for the Legislature’s research needs. In cooperation with the House Democracy Partnership, NDI oversaw the refurbishment of the physical facilities of the Legislature’s library and archives, and acquired a collection of regional publications and legal texts for the library. NDI also supported the creation of a website for the Legislature and assisted the Press Bureaus of the House and Senate to update and manage the content of the site. In addition, program activities were intended to deliver technical advice to the Legislature through the following means:  Advice and collaboration with the Joint Legislative Modernization Committee;  Organization of legislative policy seminars for members;  Sponsoring and organizing of investigative study missions for members;  Empowering the Women’s Legislative Caucus;  Support for legislative committees;  Provision of information on legislative procedures and documentation;  Training of staff, e.g., Chiefs of Office Staff and Resource Officers; and orientation programs for Representatives and Senators. 13 | Page NDI worked with the JLMC as it sought to implement its strategic development plan. NDI assistance included support for the development of sustainable systems and institutional practices to improve the effectiveness of the Legislature; training and support for legislative staff to improve their ability to respond to members’ requests and manage day-to-day legislative operations; and initiatives designed to enhance the ability of legislators to fulfill their representative, lawmaking, and oversight roles. The chronology of NDI’s program can be divided into three segments. The first, from 2009 through mid-2011, constituted the initiation of program training activities and efforts to create or reinvigorate legislative institutions such as the Legislative Information Service (LIS), Legislative Budget Office (LBO) and a bill-tracker which would serve as the core of a sustained capacity to improve legislative performance. The second period, from mid-2011 until early 2012, involved increased emphasis on the two added program components related to supporting civil society initiatives to observe the national elections which took place in October and November of 2011. The third period, from early 2012 until the end of the project in June, 2013, focused on both a) continuing the strengthening of the initiatives previously begun, and b) providing services and information to the new Legislature, which was notably characterized by a large number of new incoming legislators and staff. The following specific activities illustrate the breadth and depth of NDI’s approach to this program7 :  Opening of the Legislature’s research service, library and archives (LIS) (18 activities)  Establishment of a Legislative Budget Office (LBO) (11 activities)  Assistance in the launching of the Legislature’s first website (1 activity)  House and Senate Press Bureaus assist members and staff (7 activities )  Assistance to the Joint Legislative Modernization Committee (13 activities )  Provided technical assistance to legislative committees (25 activities )  Delivered assistance on legislative drafting (25 activities )  Prepared key committees for an active role in the decentralization policy debate  Oriented new senior staff from each member’s office/provided staff training (4 activities )  Oriented new legislators for the 53rd Legislature (2 activities )  Prepared key committees and Women’s Legislative Caucus with skills in Gender Responsive Budgeting to examine pending national budget and on other topics (10 activities)  Introduced and supported expansion of information and communication technology (12)  Budget Summit for the House of Representatives (1 activity)  Policy Seminars linking lawmakers with subject matter experts (4 activities, plus decentralization and gender seminars mentioned above)  Domestic study mission investigations (2 activities )  “Legislative Spotlight” radio programming linking constituents to the 52nd and 53rd Legislatures. 7 The number of activities listed is drawn from Annex x. 14 | Page IV. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS In addition to an introductory Strengths-Weakness-Opportunity-Threat (SWOT) analysis (see sub-section A below), the data findings and conclusions section of this report is organized around five central questions. These questions flow from those posed in the Scope of Work, which were clustered thematically by the Evaluation Team, and which have served to guide the evaluation process. They inform the Team’s understanding of the relative success of the program and more generally provide information on the functioning of the legislative process. They also consider the extent of political will to engage in legislative modernization, particularly in relation to the legislature’s receptiveness to the NDI program’s design, objectives, and outcomes. They provide a basis for informed decision making regarding potential follow-on programming. They include particular attention to how results have accrued to various target beneficiaries. The findings and conclusions also address the points included in Section VII of the Scope of Work (Evaluation Deliverables). Key Questions 1) What are Key Actors and Factors? These contextual considerations illuminate underlying interests, incentives, and institutions in Liberia which enable or frustrate legislative reform. Key stakeholders for reform are identified. 2) How Much Does the Legislature Benefit from Program Activities? Consideration of the extent to which the legislators and staff have taken advantage of NDI programming to increase their capacities. How receptive has the Legislature been to the program design, objectives, and outcomes? To what extent are institutions created through the program (e.g. LIS, LBO) used, funded, or supported? 3) Is There Political Will? To what extent does the Legislature possess the collective desire and will to make itself a stronger institution? Has the Legislature concretely demonstrated its ability to address its weaknesses to justify continued support to the legislature through USG assistance? If the answer is yes, what are the key avenues for reform for which there is broad￾based/significant support? 4) Gender and the Legislature – Underutilized Resource? Liberian society is rife with gender disparities and imbalances, and this is clearly the case in governance, including the functioning of the Legislature. To cite just one example, there are only 12 women legislators in the current 53rd legislature, and they are minimally represented in the Legislature’s leadership. This evaluation considers the extent to which gender considerations remain unaddressed in building the capacity of the legislature, and examines the effectiveness of the Women’s Caucuses. 5) To What Extent did the NDI Program Achieve its Objectives? This poses the central question of how well NDI performed in achieving its key goals i.e. improving lawmaking and oversight functions; strengthening legislative capacity to operate in and accountable, transparent and efficient manner; and augmenting the ability of civic groups to work together and collect, analyze and disseminate information about the electoral process. 15 | Page Included in this question is consideration of the factors contributing to or mitigating against achieving these objectives. Important elements of this are the level of effectiveness of the NDI program design and its implementation in responding to legislative challenges in the Liberian context, including expected or unexpected obstacles, and the Liberian Legislature’s response to the program. In addition to posing these key questions, Section VII of the Scope of Work requests information on a number of other, related topics. These include the degree to which expectations of the primary program beneficiaries (legislative members and staff) were met, and the extent to which such expectations were consistent with USAID’s goals and objectives. The team was also asked to consider program outcomes and impacts on participants and others disaggregated by gender. Another query, the level of continued relevance of USAID assistance, is addressed in the Recommendations section of this report. A) Analysis of Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats As per the Scope of Work, the team has produced a SWOT (Strengths-Weaknesses￾Opportunities-Threats) analysis of the Legislature. Interviewees were asked to assess the Legislature based on the SWOT methodology; the findings below represent the aggregate input as determined by the Evaluation Team to have met a threshold of frequency and credibility. Strengths – The Legislature is able to say no to the Executive; it is no longer simply considered a rubberstamp. Legislative feedback is increasingly being taken into consideration by the Executive; channels of communication exist between the Legislature and the Executive. Freedom of speech is widely exercised. There is no lack of staff. There is some gender and youth representation; the glass ceiling is not concrete. The Legislature has started to solicit public input such as through public hearings. There is some institutional support capacity. The international community has demonstrated some interest in legislative support. Weaknesses – Leadership and direction on legislative modernization is intermittent and passive. There is little discipline in legislative functions. There are widespread perceptions of corruption. There is limited constituency outreach; many legislators fail to spend significant amounts of time in their constituencies during the Agricultural Break.8 The Legislature is slow-working with a limited legislative track record. The physical infrastructure is overcrowded. The staff is bloated and of varying levels of capacity, with little evidence of a central leadership commitment to staff rationalization. Legislators have too much individual authority, for example they also chair County Level Development committees. Legislators have widely varying levels of education, knowledge of the issues, and commitment to public service. Sustainability of institutional support services (i.e. LIS, LBO) is questionable. There is insufficient gender representation, and a lack of strong party structures. Opportunities – Some legislative leaders have a clear commitment to reform. The new legislature includes individuals who recognize the lesson of the 2011 elections that performance influences re-election prospects; domestic and international resources are available for 8 This refers to the annual legislative recess and is also called the “Constituency Break”. 16 | Page modernization; a window of opportunity exists before the next elections to make significant progress; and the scale of problems is manageable, given political will. Threats – The possibility of political instability resulting from renewed civil strife remains, especially as the United Nations Mission in Liberia (UNMIL) reduces its footprint and presence. The regional context remains very unstable. The 2014 election and referendum present potential flash points. Concerns exist about the commitment of the government to ensuring political space and competition. The legislature appears to be held generally in low public esteem and a failure to execute its legislative agenda, in addition to perceptions of corruption which may further discredit it. B) Who and What are Key Actors and Factors? What underlying interests, incentives and institutions enable or frustrate legislative reform? Who are the key stakeholders for legislative reform? The Legislature. The principal factor in Liberia that can enable or frustrate legislative strengthening is the Legislature itself. It is only the second Legislature since the advent of democratic rule, and it remains very much a work in progress. It functions against the backdrop of a long history of Executive Branch dominance. The Legislature lacks capacity because of a paucity of real experience about how legislatures function, both among legislators and staff. This is demonstrated by legislators who at times confuse their function with that of the executive branch by, for example, promising services to constituents over which they do not have direct control. Similarly, the incidence of legislators reaching out to meaningfully dialogue with other actors, including the executive branch, is limited. The ability of the Legislature to further develop was in many ways adversely affected by the extensive legislative turnover in the 2011 election. Out of 64 House members, only 24 were returned, and just two out of 15 Senators won re-election. This has had a double effect; legislators with expertise were not re-elected, and most new members have not had law-making expertise. No one party has a majority in the Legislature. This can be considered a positive in that it necessitates dialogue and compromises between legislators from different parties. At the same time, the weakness of party structures and disciplines complicates the ability of the legislative leadership to organize the body’s work in a productive fashion. Many staff are inexperienced and of highly variable quality. More than 75% of the legislative staff consists of the ‘personal’ staff of the members. Of the 13 to 15 staff entitlement per member, only 2 per member are ‘professional’ as opposed to ‘general’ staff. There is widespread acknowledgement that the legislative staff is bloated. Resources are directed more to individual legislators than to core institutions of the Legislature, which impedes the ability of the Legislature to gain benefits of economies of scale and coordinated support. Some legislators do not give staff enough leeway; this may be partly a cultural/societal issue with those in charge not providing sufficient authority to their staffers. 17 | Page In addition, the hiring of central administration staff is highly politicized. The lawmakers know that many of the central staff hired through the current process are not fully qualified for their tasks and, therefore, are more likely to rely on their personal staff and to not use/trust the central staff. Many also know, however, that the medium and longer term interest is to radically change the system. The members are well aware that the Legislature lost the knowledge gained in the 52nd Legislature by the personal staff of the members who did not return. That has increased the understanding that the system must change and be more permanent; central staff capacity must be improved. Training of personal staff, however, is still seen as a higher priority in the immediate term. Breaking out of this cycle is essential if the institution is going to be able to function efficiently over time. The institutional memory of a parliament – especially one that is likely to have a significant turnover because of elections – is best built in the permanent staff. There are some positive elements of the broader Liberian political context which impact positively on the Legislature. These include widespread public debate and discussion about issues, a generally free press, and the presence of civil society groups which focus on particular issues. A number of the legislators in the 53rd Legislature are younger and appear to be more ready to embrace reform and modernization. Executive Branch. The dominant role typically played by the Executive Branch in Liberia’s governance is obviously a factor which impacts on the ability of the Legislature to become stronger. The Liberian political reality (also inherent in many other democracies with systems of checks and balances) is that the Executive is not inclined to willingly cede authority to empower a strong Legislature. Moreover, the Executive does not represent a clear cut demonstration model of good governance itself, for example, it does not conduct performance reports on ministries. Change is happening, however. The number of bills tabled by members in the current Legislature has increased compared to its predecessor. Executive Branch observers/commentators are emphatic that the Executive can no longer send a bill to the Legislature and assume it will be passed quickly and without amendment. In at least one case (the Education Bill), it is acknowledged that the 52nd Legislature improved the bill. The Legislature has enormous powers that it is only just learning to apply, for example, the power over the budget, the power to change (or to not change) the law, and the power to withhold consent. At the same time access to power confers the potential for abuse of power; for example, some have suggested that confirmations are being withheld to gain personal benefits. Should the Legislature make progress in legitimately asserting its prerogatives, the legislative strengthening issue in Liberia could move to the next level, i.e., it would no longer simply be a question of how the Legislature can be empowered to say no to or otherwise resist the Executive, but instead emphasis could be placed on methods of effective interaction between the two branches of government. The issue would then become one of how to get the Legislature and Executive to points of common agreement. Donors. Overall coordination among donors on legislative issues has been largely absent in recent years. A continued lack of support for the Legislature appears to be low on the donor priority list, in part because of the limited political will for reform demonstrated by the 18 | Page Legislature. There is some recognition that continued support to the Legislature is needed as it is still at the beginning of the learning curve. Currently there is limited donor support for implementation of the Legislative Modernization Plan (LMP). A September 2012 UNDP “Stocktaking” document noted there have been no meetings of the donor/JLMC group. The UNDP has considered re-engaging with the Legislature. Recommendations from the stocktaking exercise indicate the importance of infrastructure and, secondly, capacity building for members and their personal staff. The UNDP is considering support for the development of the central administration rather than to legislators and their staff, in part because that is all that the donor partners are willing to fund. If the new program is to be implemented, the UNDP is considering embedding a technical assistance staff in the legislature, and funding for that staff has been promised by the EU. 9 The U.S. Congressional House Democracy Assistance Commission (HDAC) approved a legislative strengthening partnership with the Liberian legislature in July 2006. The Commission has supported visits of Congressional Members and staff to Liberia, in addition to numerous training seminars for Liberian legislators and legislative staff. Additionally, in 2009 the Commission pledged $250,000 to develop a modern legislative library to better serve Liberian legislators and their staff. Included in the library is a workplace for the 26-person Legislative Information Service, whose leadership has been trained at HDP seminars. Unfortunately, an electrical overload caused a fire in the Library in January of 2013 and some of the equipment has been destroyed. HDP is willing and able to play an important role vis-a-vis USAID support for legislatures. Specifically, the visits by US Congressional members can raise effectively issues that are of current concern related to transparency, will and/or institutional performance, as was done by the CODEL in Liberia in 2012 regarding the budget process and the Code of Conduct. In 2013 the Swedish International Development Agency (SIDA) initiated support to NDI to strengthen the ‘demand’/’in-reach’ side of the legislative process. The program’s specific objectives are to: a) increase citizen’s political organizing and legislative advocacy; and b) enable the legislature to create opportunities for citizen access. The 3-year program will provide technical assistance to Liberian CSOs as they develop and carry out legislative advocacy campaigns. In addition, NDI will partner with CSOs and the legislature to: 1) support the legislature as it conducts public hearings on legislation and policy issues and participates in investigative missions to various districts; and 2) assist CSOs to identify strategic entry points in the legislative and budget processes to engage with lawmakers and conduct broader advocacy campaigns. Among other donors, the World Bank has provided limited assistance to the Legislature, primarily in the form of an electronic voting system. It has also recently initiated, as part of a four-year public finance management project, a $630,000 component to enhance the capacity of the Legislature to apply appropriate standards of public finance accountability to the Executive Branch. The sub-component will focus on the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) and complement other activities being implemented to support strengthening the capacity of the 9 Most recent information indicates that UNDP has decided to not undertake legislative support programming in 2013. 19 | Page Legislature’s LBO. The African Capacity Building Foundation is a non-resident partner that gave $50,000 directly to the Legislature in support of the Legislative Modernization Plan. USAID, UNDP, UNMIL, the World Bank and the UK’s Department for International Development (DFID) supported training for legislative drafters in the UK. Civil Society. Not surprisingly, civil society organizations have had a tendency to focus most of their limited advocacy efforts on the Executive Branch rather than the Legislature. CSOs have tended to engage in the political process mainly during elections. The relationship between civil society and the legislative committees is not formal, but is friendly. For example, one CSO took attendance of legislators during sittings, which was effective in persuading law makers to attend sessions. Now they are keeping score of who contributes to debates/discussions. Keeping score-cards was welcomed by one affected law￾maker as helping build accountability. Civil society could do well to increase its capacity to undertake more sustained, strategic advocacy. Progress to promote a legislative-civil society dialogue is impeded by the reality that civil society as a whole is fractured and not very cohesive. There is a Civil Society Advisory Council which could be a useful medium and interlocutor. For its part, there does not appear to have been any core commitment on the part of the Legislature to reach out in formal or informal ways to break down barriers and build trust/awareness.10 When the committees are addressing particular policy questions, for example, they do not tend to invite relevant CSOs to help them understand those issues. Political Parties. Parties are largely nascent in general and have limited status/role in the Legislature. There are no formal party caucuses, and the members of the leadership committees are not the leaders of their parties (or even the legislative leaders of their parties). Voting has only been ‘whipped’, i.e., followed strict party lines, once in the current legislature, according to a representative of one of the parties. Liberian lawmakers currently function as essentially 103 independent members. Eventually, it will become necessary to move towards legislative parties/blocs, with leaders who can negotiate and commit their members. As has happened organically in most evolving legislatures, legislators tend to develop greater confidence in the exercise of their powers, and members learn that they need to be able to act collectively and in a disciplined fashion if they are to ‘control’ the Executive and to manage the legislative agenda. Otherwise legislators are likely to find that the executive branch can use “divide and conquer” tactics to in effect circumvent them, and they become irrelevant as an institution. To make the Legislature stronger, individual legislators will have to give up some of their existing individual resources and authority to the center. That may be easier to accomplish in a Legislature not (yet) dominated by political parties. In other words, in at least this respect, the lack of powerful political parties may be an opportunity in the 53rd Legislature, rather than a weakness. 10 Other legislatures encourage their Committees to hold periodic round-tables with the CSOs with an interest in the mandate of that Committee. 20 | Page County Caucuses. One mechanism exists that could develop as an alternative way of organizing the Legislature – the County Caucuses. These 15 Caucuses wield a great deal of authority both regionally and in the Legislature. Their importance is reflected in a proposal that is currently under discussion internally that would see them ‘nominate’ the members of the Ways and Means Committees. Champions for Change. New members appear to be keener on institutional change and on developing constituency relations than their predecessors. The Women’s Caucus is a potential force for change. The leadership of both houses is key, and they have all publically declared their commitment to reform, albeit some more than others. Representatives and Senators elected in 2011 hold their seats for six and nine years respectively. The other half of the Senate will face re￾election for new nine-year terms in 2014. This provides a unique opportunity for continued institutional change. C) How Much Does and Will the Legislature Benefit from Program Activities? How receptive has the Legislature been to the intervention design, objectives, and outcomes? For example, does anyone in the Legislature use, fund, or support the Legislative Budget Office established by NDI? Program Objectives: 1. To enhance legislative capacity to fulfill lawmaking and oversight responsibilities by strengthening budget analysis, improving library and research services, increasing legislative drafting services capacity, and improving committee operations. 2. To improve the capacity of the legislature to operate in a more accountable, transparent, and efficient manner. Activities to support this include an in-depth orientation program for both lawmakers and staff, increasing the use of technology into legislative business, and institutionalizing accountability and transparency mechanisms. Findings All of the persons interviewed at the Legislature indicated that the Legislature benefitted from the NDI activities. However, some of the interviewees expressed a concern that the NDI program and activities were not adequately ‘owned’ by the Legislature. Those individuals expressed the view that this lack of ‘ownership’ was the reason the Legislature did not see the outcomes, such as the LIS and the LBO, as fully ‘belonging’ to the Legislature. That was part of the reason that the Legislature had not adequately planned to continue the LIS and LBO after NDI’s support ended. This point will be further developed in Section VI. This finding should also be seen, however, in light of the discernible dependency of the Legislature on NDI for leadership in pursuing the Legislature’s own modernization activities, which is mentioned above in the section on contextual factors. 21 | Page Most of the lawmakers volunteered variations to the following statements by one of their leaders regarding the LMP: “We have not done enough on our side”, “NDI has been more interested in modernization than we have been”, and “The Modernization Committee and the Legislature should have worked with NDI more and in a more effective way.” No provision was made in the 2011-2012 Budget for funding the LIS and the LBO to enable them to carry on at the same level as they were doing while supported by NDI. When asked about the LIS and the LBO, a senior legislative modernization leader indicated that the funding that the Legislature has is not sufficient to maintain these offices as they were supported by NDI. Nor do they have enough funds to carry on holding as many public hearings. That leader added that it will not be possible to create an office of staff to support the Modernization Committee. He thinks these are all valuable and useful services, but that the Legislature will not be able to get the additional funding required and that some cut-back in services will be necessary. Member and staff orientation sessions were conducted in the format requested by the two Houses. They were not the in-depth orientations proposed by NDI. There has been an improvement in the amount and use of technology – the bill-tracker and the web site have been installed/handed over, and a contractor has been identified and an agreement reached with the Legislature for sharing the cost of wiring to allow intranet and internet access. The LIS and the LBO were created (see below for more details). The use of public hearings when considering a bill has become routine for “key legislation of public interest”, but has not yet been codified in the Rules. The budget review process in 2012 is generally regarded as having been significantly more transparent and empirical than in 2011. The information provided to the members by the LBO was used during the public hearing that was held on the budget. The fact that there was a public hearing was often mentioned as a progressive step. The Evaluation Team was told that the allowances of the law-makers are not public information. However, the day the team was told that, the allowances were published in one of the newspapers. No other accountability and/or transparency/mechanisms have been institutionalized. The bill-tracker displayed on the House of Representatives display board is current as of the end of the last session (December 2012). No updates have been made during this session because, according to the staff, the computers and the photocopier do not work. The Evaluation Team inspected the computers used by the House bill-tracking staff and ran a quick diagnostic on them. They worked fine at that time. During a subsequent visit, the computers were not functioning and the Team was informed, and it was confirmed, that there is no IT person on staff at the House they can call to get help. No bill tracking report is posted on the Senate board; according to the House staff, the Senate too have an “equipment” problem. In addition, the information on bills being considered by the Legislature is only available at the Capitol, which limits its accessibility, especially for CSOs. The bill-tracking staff are also responsible for the Journal (the daily report on the previous day’s proceedings). They cannot publish it on-time because the transcription system being used is too rudimentary and because they do not have enough staff. 22 | Page NDI indicated that a procedural manual was provided some time ago. The bill-tracking staff have many documents describing the bill tracking mechanism, but say they never received and do not have a focused procedural manual setting out the step-by-step procedures for them to follow. Analysis The Legislative Information Service (LIS). The LIS is generally cited as the most important outcome of the NDI program. Even those who have tried to use it and were not happy with the result are supportive and accept that ‘they are learning to be a research service’. Senators appear to have limited levels of understanding about what the LIS can do, even though the LIS head has visited every Senator personally to brief them on the office and its functions. The LIS is not a department of the House or of the Senate, but of the Legislature. This is problematic because there is no central administration and the staff are on the payroll of either the House or of the Senate. In order to get supplies the LIS must submit procurement requests and, not surprisingly, each House expects the other House to pay 50% of the cost. Consequently, getting supplies and other support is an arduous procedure. Those who most value the existence of the LIS do so precisely because it is NOT a department of either of the two Houses. Therefore, the LIS can potentially recruit and train professional permanent staff, as opposed to politicized personal staff. This is seen, along with the LBO, as setting the trend for the future. The next step should be the creation of a department with centralized support staff for committees. During the period May 2011 to April 2012, 4,851 ‘user entries’ were recorded by the Library/LIS, and 329 archival requests were made. But there were only a total of 31 requests for assistance made to the researchers in the LIS. The Legislative Budget Office (LBO). The LBO has supporters and critics. Some say that the LBO has essentially been side-stepped, that it should be doing more analysis and policy papers, that it must be given the space to do its functions free of political interference and that it needs to have its own budget so that it can function independently (both payroll and logistics). That view was eloquently expressed by the Deputy Speaker of the House, who is preparing a policy paper to that effect. Conversely, the House Chair of the Ways, Means and Finance Committee – to whom the LBO reports – has essentially delinked the Committee from the LBO. He questions the capacity of the LBO and suggests they are not sufficiently critical in their analysis and take very little initiative. He cites as an example the budget paper presented in July, and asks why the GDP growth figure proposed by the GOL was simply accepted by the LBO without that Office exercising its independent judgment on GDP growth question. Relations between the Senate and the LBO are more positive. Example: The budget published in the handbills (the ‘official’ record of Legislation that has been signed by the President) differs from the budget adopted by the Legislature. To understand this, the Senate leadership asked for a report on the “violations of the Budget Law” which the LBO has prepared and submitted. 23 | Page The LBO Act was passed in July of 2010. It specifies that the staff shall be hired by the Director and shall be given 5-year contracts. In practice, the staff of 29 (23 from outside the Legislature) were simply assigned to the Director. As to the contracts and the implied independence of the staff, no contracts had been signed as of March 1, 2013. The situation may be improving. The Evaluation Team has seen a copy of the Deputy Speaker’s proposal. It is at present an internal draft, but its adoption would reinforce and strengthen the LBO. The draft proposal recognizes the need to provide funding for the LBO, and explicitly mandates the LBO to provide budgetary analysis. A Senate leader indicated to the Evaluation Team that Senators are beginning to use the new services and that they are appreciated. However, the services (particularly the LBO) are caught in a catch-22, i.e., they must still fight to develop their capacity without having the resources to fulfill their mandate. For example, they cannot do analysis of the General Auditing Commission (GAC) reports because, while the GAC has many auditors, the Legislature does not have even one auditor on staff. The LBO could build internal support by doing more performance analysis and by sending its reports directly to the legislators instead of only to the leadership. Conclusion 1: There has been an improvement in the amount and use of technology – the bill￾tracker and the web site have been installed/handed over, and a contractor has been identified and an agreement reached with the Legislature for sharing the cost of wiring to allow intranet and internet access. Conclusion 2: The Legislature has not seen the NDI program as a program of the Legislature. That has caused some implementation delays and conflicts. Tied to conclusion 3 below, legislators were also candid about the Legislature’s lack of commitment to its own modernization. These two conclusions are, therefore, interrelated. Conclusion 3: The legislature has clearly benefitted from NDI program input. However, the benefits are considerably less than they could have been. Legislators were uniformly candid in admitting that the Legislature’s commitment to modernization – and thus to the NDI program – has been limited and that they have not fully benefitted from the program. Of the services developed, the LIS was well-used as a source of information, but was not used very often as a research service; the LIS has adopted a pro-active strategy. The LBO has not been consulted frequently and has not been as proactive about building a constituency at the Legislature. Neither have the resources to function independently. There are real concerns about their sustainability. D) Is There Political Will? Has the Legislature concretely demonstrated its will and ability to address its weaknesses to justify continued direct and indirect support to the Legislature through USG assistance? What are key avenues for reform for which there is broad-based/significant political will? Findings The team identified positive and negative elements in the political will equation, although the negatives outweigh the positives. On the positive side there is some evidence that reforms have taken place. For example, according to the bill-tracking staff, the members of the 53rd 24 | Page Legislature, and not the Executive, have tabled most of the Bills. This marks a significant change with precedent. During the first session of this Legislature, the Executive introduced 7 bills into the House. The members of the House introduced 76 bills. Unfortunately, the tracking data does not distinguish between bills sponsored by members that are from the Executive, e.g., the Decent Wage Bill was prepared by the Ministry of Labor and introduced by the Chair of the Labor Committee, and bills authored by or originating from the members themselves. The general comments, however, were that the number of bills coming ‘truly’ from members has increased significantly in the 53rd Legislature. In a similar vein, the payment of the personal staff of the Senators has been regularized and their salaries are now deposited directly into their bank accounts. And the weakness of the Public Accounts Committees and their inability to properly handle reports from the GAC has been identified and will be addressed shortly through a program funded by the World Bank and other donors. Most of the lawmakers openly recognized the lack of progress that has been made in modernization. A number of them echoed the sentiments regarding the LMP expressed by one of their leaders; “we have not done enough on our side; NDI has been more interested in modernization than we have. The Modernization Committee and the Legislature should have worked with NDI more, and in a more effective way.” In order to increase their sense of ownership and to accelerate the LMP, the leadership plans to provide funds in the 2013-2014 Budget to implement activities undertaken in support of the Plan so that future activities will include a contribution by the Legislature. In particular, all of the leadership and several of the lawmakers agreed that the lack of action by the Legislature in the area of staff restructuring (LMP Pillar 4) has been a significant failure on their part that needs to be corrected. Regarding the LBO, the need to strengthen and use the LBO better is gaining traction. The Deputy Speaker told the team that, “We want the LBO to train the MPs on budgeting and they need to be able to get data from the Executive on behalf of and in the name of the Legislature”. He is preparing a policy paper to effect the implementation of the independence of the LBO. The need to do more is widely understood. Several of the lawmakers and staff used language such as: “we lost so many trained lawmakers, they and their staff are gone, and we are back at the beginning. In addition, the Library was a great asset – now it has been lost because of the fire”.11 Negative aspects of the political will question predominate, however. The LMP has not been well implemented. Few of the targets in the 2009-2013 Legislative Modernization Plan have been met. Of the 36 activities contained in the LMP, only four are completed. These comprise the establishment by NDI of the LIS, the LBO, the bill tracking system and the publication of standing rules. Seventeen others are “in progress” and 15 have yet to start. The periodic reviews contemplated in the Plan have not taken place, and many of the new lawmakers have a very poor understanding of what is in the Plan. In lieu of an assessment the JLMC is considering adopting the UNDP Stocktaker report as the final evaluation report included in Pillar 5 of the LMP. 11 The fire caused by faulty electrical wiring in early 2013 resulted in significant damage to part of the LIS office. 25 | Page The 53rd Legislature JLMC was not constituted until late June 2012, and the Chair has had some personal and health issues. Partly as a result of those issues, the Committee has only met three times. Two of those meetings were to meet external parties, i.e., a US congressional delegation and the UNDP. The LMP calls for an annual evaluation, a mid-term evaluation and a final evaluation. It is not clear that there will be a final evaluation other than the “stock take” exercise performed by the UNDP in September 2012. Committees constituted by both houses were supposed to come up with a list of priorities to update the LMP, but this has not yet occurred. Some of the non-JLMC legislators interviewed knew very little about the LMP. The comment that the Committee needs to be more active – and more pro-active – was made by almost everyone interviewed in the Legislature. Decisions taken by the Legislature regarding the 2012-2013 Budget show that reform as defined in the Plan was not a priority. At that time they did increase the budget for the Legislature from US $20.5 to US $34 million. However, the LBO proposed that there be a line item for the LIS and for the LBO so they could function as ‘independent’ services; the proposal was not accepted. No provision was made for funding of the LIS and the LBO to carry on at the level of activity undertaken while they were supported by NDI. On another matter, the Ministry of Finance (MoF) had proposed that the budget for the Legislature should include US $3 million earmarked for capacity building. The members decided that the way to improve capacity was to distribute the $3 million to the members to spend individually as a ‘capacity allowance’ in the monthly allowances provided to the members. No funding was retained for a central pooled fund in either chamber. On the legislative side, Bills that would have brought the Legislature closer to internationally accepted ‘best practices’ did not fare well. The Code of Conduct Bill, is still in Committee. 12 Some members have expressed the view that the separation of powers model meant that the Legislature should not accept a code ‘imposed’ on them by the President. That view is understandable but begs the question – the Legislature has not taken any steps to impose a Code of Conduct on themselves. Similarly, the Legislature does not accept an external audit of its finances by the GAC. Analysis The Legislature is well-resourced compared to most of their counterparts in Africa. Most of these resources are, however, simply allocated to the offices and staff of the lawmakers, who operate essentially as individuals rather than as members of party blocs. There is little conception of the legislature as a cohesive unit in which a strong central administration can provide economies of scale and benefits to the institution as a whole, and thereby enhance its functioning and effectiveness. This is reflected in the limited support provided to, for example, the LBO and the LIS. The management and implementation of any plan to create a central administration by reducing the allocation to the lawmakers (for staff) will require committed and coordinated leadership. 12 This bill was originally submitted in 2007. It was rejected and was resubmitted on March 6, 2012 26 | Page The lack of funding in the hands of the JLMC to implement activities of the Plan may have contributed to the delay in implementation. The Legislature could have allocated funds to the Plan sooner, but the choice made was to first provide more support to the lawmakers individually. There were, nonetheless, activities that could have been started without funding, e.g., planning of the reorganization of the staff, and the inaction cannot be rationalized solely because of the lack of funding. A test of how strong the will for reform is will be whether funds are allocated in the next budget to support the reforms, e.g., resources for the LBO, the LIS, and the Public Accounts Committee’s (PAC) Secretariat. The Legislature does not use the new tools that they have very well. Some reasons probably include the lack of a sense of “ownership”; a lack of awareness of what the support services can do; or the fact that each lawmaker has a researcher, and they do not instinctively reach out for help from support offices when they think of research needs. There is a strong recognition, especially among the newly elected members, that much more needs to be done – more training for the staff; solidification of the new practices and support for central institutions such as LIS and LBO; and continuing education by the members themselves about ‘best practices’ they should learn to emulate. Repeated comments made by the lawmakers suggest that they are a long way from fully understanding what they can do and what they should do. They do not fully understand that they can create policy and develop legislation, do not see the Legislature as truly co-equal to the Executive Branch and they have a very limited understanding of ‘oversight’. The larger question is whether the Legislature really understands the need to shift from a Legislature where the individual members are the mechanism through which everything is done to one where services are provided centrally, professionally, and permanently. Conclusions: Conclusion 1: Based on the information above, the Evaluation Team concludes that the Legislature possesses limited political will to modernize. It is lacking in passion on this subject, and has tended to be responsive, rather than proactive. Conclusion 2: At the same time, however, the Team does not conclude that political will is completely absent. The need for change is widely accepted, and there are champions for change within the Legislature. Taken in conjunction with the context of Liberia’s nascent experiment in democracy and the widespread turn-over as a result of the 2011 elections, and considering the importance of a fully-functioning Legislature to the future of Liberia, the Team believes that carefully constructed opportunities for engagement may exist, as articulated in Section VI. E) Gender and the Legislature – Underutilized Resource? What are the risks of leaving gender disparities and imbalances unaddressed as missed opportunities in building the capacity the Legislature? What is the effectiveness of the Women’s Caucuses? 27 | Page Findings There are only 12 women out of 103 members in the current legislature, and comprise 11% of the Legislature. By contrast there were 14 women in the two Houses in the 52nd Legislature (out of a total of 94 MPs). Two of the eight women in the House are members of the House Leadership (out of 15); one of the four women in the Senate is a member of the Senate Leadership (out of nine). The JLMC has 15 members; five are women. Women hold 12.5 % of the seats on the Leadership Committees in total. In the Senate, the 4 women comprise 13.3% of the Senate. Of the 53 Committee Chair or Co￾Chair positions, the 4 women hold 6 of these positions (11.3%). The Committees chaired or co￾chaired by the 4 women are: Executive, Transport; Commerce Trade and Industry; Planning and Economic Affairs; Maritime; Autonomous Commissions; Of the other 123 ‘seats’ on the Committees, the 4 women hold 20 of these seats (16.2%) but this figure is skewed by the fact that one woman Senator (Sen. Clarice Alpha Jah) sits on 9 committees. In the House, the 8 women comprise 10.9% of the members. Of the 58 Committee Chair or Co￾Chair positions, the 8 women hold 6 of these positions (10.3%). The Committees chaired or co￾chaired by the 8 women are: Health and Social Welfare; Gender Equity (2); Agriculture; Education; Peace, Religious and national Reconciliation. Of the other 181‘seats’ on the Committees, the 8 women hold 27 of these seats (14.9%). The Women’s Caucus in the 52nd Legislature had a limited track record of achievement. Several issues key to women’s empowerment, such as an equity bill mandating 30% of women candidates by party have to date not been acted upon by the Legislature. The low level of women’s education and relative lack of leadership experience impedes their ability to meaningfully engage in legislative business. NDI held a gender sensitive budgeting seminar, which was frequently cited by respondents as a positive example of legislative support. In 2010 USAID requested, for unknown reasons, that NDI not focus on working with the Women’s Caucus in the Legislature. Analysis The lack of focus on gender issues in the traditionally male-dominated Liberian political culture has been reflected in the Legislature’s lackluster track record on the subject. In addition, a paucity of experience and exposure to both legislative processes and gender-related issues has impeded the ability of the Legislature to effectively integrate them into the law-making process. Furthermore, the turnover between the 52nd and 53rd Legislatures has negatively impacted women’s issues, as a largely new crop of legislators must familiarize themselves with the issues. The Evaluation Team heard concerns from women legislators that there may be even fewer women legislators after the 2014 polls.13 13 Women legislators were frank in articulating the perceived weaknesses of some of their cohort in terms of poor education and preparation for service in the legislature, and link these deficiencies to the likelihood of further losses in the 2014 elections. 28 | Page A few international NGOs such as Women’s Campaign International seek to promote women’s political participation in Liberia, but such efforts are modest in size. Despite Ellen Johnson Sirleaf’s presidency, the women’s movement -- while important during Liberia’s period of civil strife as a peace movement -- is now viewed as having lost some of its influence and organizational attributes. The Evaluation Team heard the opinion expressed that a number of female legislators tended to be quiet and passive. The Women’s Caucus was established in the 52nd Legislature, but the Team was repeatedly told that its effectiveness was constrained by political considerations. The Caucus was multi￾partisan, but often split on policy issues and did not succeed in coalescing support around themes or initiatives of common interest. Mentoring was limited. The Caucus developed a strategic plan, but did not make much progress on its implementation. A major weakness of the Women’s Caucus has been that members have not co-operated together well. They would likely benefit from training on team building and have the potential to be much more effective, if they could work in a coordinated fashion. Apparently there are internal battles that can be seen as turf issues, e.g., as in the fight over who should be the Chair in 2012 after the election. (One newly elected Senator expressed the belief that she should be chosen because she is a Senator). A clear challenge is the need to be able to take common positions and to act collectively and at times independently of their parties. The experience from the 52nd Legislature is instructive: some of the CDC women legislators were ‘objective’ on national issues and did not blindly toe the CDC line. As a result, several were not re-nominated and could not run in the 2011 elections. This term, perhaps as a result, many of those interviewed stated that members of the Caucus in the 53rd Legislature are less likely to act independently of their parties. There are no ‘independent’ woman legislators. The budget process is now more open, and the Ministry of Gender interacted one-on-one with the Gender Committee and the Ways and Means Committee, although the funding allotted to gender support has not been sufficient. There have been public hearings on the Budget and on some legislation, e.g., hearings on the Gender Equity Act, the Children’s Act, and the Rape Law. The Women’s Caucus promoted legislation, i.e., the Gender Equity Act of 2010, mandating that women comprise 30% of candidates per party. The House, however, did not pass the Act, instead sending it to Committee where it languished and expired with the end of 52nd Legislature. Reflecting divisions within its constituency, some influential women argued that the Act should include a 50% requirement. The issue is unlikely to be quietly shelved as considerable sentiment remains for reforms in this regard. The Women’s Caucus is planning a nationwide tour to sensitize the public on this issue and is seeking to have the bill passed in July 2013, noting that the President repeated in her January, 2013 state of the nation address the same commitment made in her June 27, 2012 speech to legislators during the NDI Policy Seminar on Gender Responsive Budgeting. 14 Current 14 The team was told that the Legislature’s leadership displayed indifference when the President referred to this in her speech. 29 | Page Caucus members state that unlike their colleagues in the previous Legislature, they are undertaking an aggressive marketing campaign to convince male colleagues to support passage of the bill. They also claim that the Speaker, Deputy Speaker and Vice President back the bill.15 Several other key legislative items championed by women have so far failed to become law. The Code of Conduct Act was not voted out of Committee, and attempts to make female genital mutilation illegal were also blocked. NDI’s activities with legislators and staff sought, with some success, to include women participants within the limitations resulting from the composition of both target groups. Thus, for example, NDI Performance Monitoring Plan indicator 1.2.1, “The number of legislators attending USG-sponsored workshops or educational events”, for 2012 listed a total of 18 out 53 participants (34%) as female, even though they account for only 11% of the current Legislature. Conclusions: Conclusion 1: The percentage of the MPs who are women is very low by modern standards. As such, the women MPs hold the proportion of positions within the Leadership Committees that reflects their relative numbers. The percentage of Committee leadership positions held by women is less however, than their numbers warrant and, in the House at least, Committees chaired or co-chaired by women MPs are primarily the social affairs Committees. Conclusion 2: The Legislature has yet to reflect an organized and effective focus on gender considerations, both in terms of legislative modernization and in terms of broader policy issues. Conclusion 3: More assistance is needed on issues such as candidate training, leadership training and mentoring. In addition, a useful program of assistance to the women would focus on improving their strategic communications skills, e.g., how to lobby the male legislators, how to interact effectively in plenary sessions, and how to defend gender responsive proposals. F) Primary Beneficiary Perspectives: Staff Survey and Content Analysis The Evaluation Team undertook both a staff survey and content analysis of interviews and focus groups in order to identify the most frequently cited issues by Liberian respondents. This in turn permits identification of themes that are perceived as important by key program stakeholders, and their perspectives of the NDI program. These methods provide information in response to the requirement in the SOW “regarding the degree to which the expectations of the primary beneficiaries (i.e. the members, staff, and administration of the Liberian Legislature) were met by the performance of the current project”. 15At the June 2012 NDI Policy Seminar on Gender Responsive Budgeting, the Speaker reportedly said that he would serve as an ‘associate’ member of the WLC. 30 | Page i. Staff Questionnaire Analysis A survey of staff attitudes toward legislative functioning and the NDI program was administered as part of this evaluation. (The survey questionnaire and responses can be found in Annex vii and Annex viii). A total of 88 questionnaires to both central and personal staff were distributed; 40 were returned of which 35 were completed, for an effective response rate of 40%. The questionnaire included both qualitative and qualitative responses. Quantitative Analysis - Sixty percent (60%) of the respondents said that they were now well￾trained to do their job, while a lower percentage, 48%, said that the legislative staff as a whole was well-trained to do its job. Eighty three percent (83%) stated that they needed further training. Seventy seven percent (77%) felt that the LIS does its job well, but only 43% believe that it has adequate support and staff. Similarly, 80% agreed that the LBO does its job well, but only 51% stated that it was adequately resourced. Similar percentages agreed that the House (40%) and Senate (37%) were performing well, while 72% concurred that the members of the Senate and of the House are better able to perform their functions currently than when they were first elected. Sixty percent (60%) agreed that the Legislature supported the Modernization Plan. Sixty nine percent (69%) view the bill-tracking system favorably, agreeing that it is fully operational. Eighty six percent (86%) consider the rules and procedures in need of further modifications. Seventy four percent (74%) view the LMP in need of modification and updating. Regarding NDI’s training, respondents consistently reported across a range of questions that it was targeted, effective, and relevant. For example, 83% agreed that it was well-organized. Ninety four percent (94%) stated that it was relevant to their work. Eighty five percent (85%) concurred that it provided valuable lessons, and 76% said they use these lessons in their work. Qualitative Analysis – Staff self-assessments uniformly indicated that they had received important skills training through the NDI programming. Frequent references were made to specific skills learned, especially upgraded computer and budget analysis skills. Reflecting potential sustainability issues, suggestions included refresher courses on skills learned, longer￾term training opportunities, and additional training on NDI initiatives such as the Freedom Phone. ii. Interview Content Analysis The team undertook content analysis of the 40 interviews and the 7 focus groups (which included representatives from women’s groups, youth, media, and religious organizations) in order to identify themes that are perceived of as important by key program stakeholders, and their perspectives of the NDI program. Thirteen themes were identified as being mentioned frequently. Data is presented in terms of percentage of times raised/total frequency of all issues raised. The team coded for frequency of themes which reflected expectations of the primary beneficiaries regarding the project and related activities; this is designed to provide a perspective 31 | Page of Liberian stakeholders’ views on subjects related to the project. Relevant quotes are included to provide a contextual and qualitative input to this method. There are several limitations to this methodological approach. First, in coding the notes of the respondent interventions, there is invariably at times some conflation of respondent choice of issues with those introduced by the interviewer. Care was taken by the coder to minimize this problem to the extent possible. Second, with one important exception – that of attitudes towards NDI – given time limitations the coder did not explicitly disaggregate issues in terms of respondent attitudes, although some perspectives are articulated in the accompanying narrative. Third, and similarly, identification of themes expressed does not by itself reflect the magnitude of importance of the theme. Positive reference to NDI Program – 17% These comments reflected widespread appreciation for the quality and the content of NDI’s programming, and a strong desire that such assistance continue. “You can’t turn me off in the middle of turning me on”, former legislative modernization leader. Joint Legislative Modernization Committee – 14% Most of these comments reflected concerns about the lack of realization of the LMP goals and the challenges faced by the JLMC. “The JLMC cannot do it alone “, member, House of Representatives. Civil society role/advocacy – 9% Most, although certainly not all, of these comments were by civil society members. Both critiques of the lack of legislative engagement with civil society, and contrary positive comments, were included. “It’s hard for us to know where our foothold is. Where do we enter and where do we have leverage?”, civil society leader. Constituency relations – 9% Most comments urged greater emphasis on legislative-constituency relations. A number referred positively to the NDI-sponsored Legislative Spotlight radio series. “Members of the Legislature are supposed to visit their constituencies during the Agricultural Break but many of them don’t….we don’t see what they are doing”, civil society leader. Legislative Information Service (LIS) – 8% References to the LIS were both positive and negative. Positive statements emphasized the LIS’ actual or potential utility while negative statements mostly related to a lack of resources provided by the Legislature; a few mentioned poor quality of LIS products. “The deep learning curve means that it will take a time for the impacts of this assistance to be felt”, senior legislative staff member. 32 | Page Legislative Budget Office – 8% As with the LIS, references to the LBO were both positive and negative. Positive statements emphasized the LBO’s budget analysis function while negative statements mostly related to either lack of resources provided by the Legislature; a few mentioned poor quality of LBO products. “Instead of doing ‘training’ the project must do ‘training plus coaching”, NDI consultant. Political Will – 6% Most references were self-critical comments by legislators that their institution had failed to adequately demonstrate political will to enforce modernization. “We have missed the boat on the LMP”, senior legislative leader. Women – 5% Most references had to do with need for further empowerment of women and further progress on their agenda, which is in fact an agenda for the development of the nation as a whole. “The women’s caucus needs to understand they are a platform to advance women’s issues. They also need to learn and impact the entire budget process as a unit, not piecemeal”, member of Women’s Legislative Caucus. Negative reference to NDI – 5% Negative references pertained mostly to the ownership issue, in which a number of interlocutors felt that NDI’s program activity decision-making process was arbitrary and did not sufficiently respect the legislative decision-making leadership and institutions. “We are not going to allow NDI to come and present a program schedule and take over the legislature; we appreciate their help but do not bring us faits accompli”, senior legislative modernization leader. Bill-tracking – 4% Comment was split between positive and negative views. The latter emphasized the existence of the mechanism, and the fact that it is operational and used, at least to an extent, on the House side. Negative comments noted its absence on the Senate side and limited use, and questioned its long-term sustainability. “The bill-tracking system is a good initiative”, senior legislative staff member. Legislative staff – 4% Most comments related to the large number of staff, the objective need for rationalization of the workforce, and improvement of their quality, while noting the political realities behind the current situation. 33 | Page “They have to be innovative; they have to impress us with their work products. What are they doing, in terms of their mandate, to trigger reactions? They are slipping into the habits of other staff here – meaning they come to work and sit at their desks and do very little, just things to look busy”, legislator. V. NDI PERFORMANCE: TO WHAT EXTENT DID THE NDI PROGRAM ACHIEVE ITS OBJECTIVES? A). Legislative Strengthening To what extent has the NDI program been successful in achieving its four objectives? What factors contributed to or against these objectives? How effective were both the NDI program design and its implementation in responding to legislative challenges in the Liberian context and any unexpected obstacles and the Liberian legislature’s response to the program? The two objectives related to this discussion were:  To enhance legislative capacity to fulfill lawmaking and oversight responsibilities by strengthening budget analysis, improving library and research services, increasing legislative drafting services capacity, and improving committee operations.  To improve the capacity of the legislature to operate in a more accountable, transparent, and efficient manner. Activities to support this include an in-depth orientation program for both lawmakers and staff, increasing the use of technology into legislative business, and institutionalizing accountability and transparency mechanisms. Findings: NDI undertook a wide range of programming.16 To cite some illustrative examples, the Legislative Budget Office was created and staffed; it provided an analysis of the most recent budget. Some members used the materials provided by the LBO during the budget debate. More recently, the LBO has done a variance analysis of the budget published in the Hand Bills as opposed to the budget passed by the Legislature. Similarly, the Legislative Information Service was created and staffed. It has responded to several thousand information requests but has received fewer than 100 research requests during the last 18 months. Staff have been selected to form a unit to provide support services to the committees, and have been trained in committee procedures. Staff have been trained (twice) in legislative drafting techniques. An orientation seminar was held for each of the Houses – the contents of those sessions were decided by the leadership and were less comprehensive than had been originally proposed and planned by NDI. 16 For more detail of program activities please refer to Section III and Annex ix. 34 | Page Training in basic computer skills was given to staff and members; the bill-tracker was created; wiring to allow intranet is being installed; a web site was created. The Press Offices were equipped with hardware and software, and the staff were trained to produce materials. The two senior-most personal staffers of members received orientations as well as trainings in policy analysis, policy briefs, and preparing legislative summaries. Investigative missions and policy seminars were organized for members of relevant committees. Another key finding is that the point of contact for NDI was the JLMC. For internal reasons, that Committee was not appointed until June 2012 – meaning that NDI did not have the internal point of contact that was assumed in their implementation plans. Analysis Bill-tracker. The bill-tracker was functional when it was handed over. The Senate does not maintain its version; reasons provided ranged from the key to the display case had been lost to a failure to assign and ensure follow-through of staff to manage and update the tracker. The House of Representatives is maintaining a paper version of the Bill-tracker, but not a computer￾generated version.17 The House staff claim that is because their computers have stopped working and they cannot get the help needed to repair them. The manual bill-tracker posted on the House wall is current as of the end of December. Asked if a manual for operations and maintenance had been developed, NDI indicated that they had repeatedly communicated with the staff on how to maintain the tracker. The staff do not have an actual manual, however. There are still many steps in the legislative process that need to be improved or corrected – such as version control of bills and the capacity to track changes better. Legislative mark-ups are done on hard copy with no line numbers; legislation is sent from the Executive Branch without page or line numbers. The legislature does not type it up. NDI tried to get the legislature to get the draft legislation on a computer so edits could be tracked, but to no avail. LIS. Under the modernization plan, three departments have been brought together by LIS. Unfortunately a recent fire that gutted part of the LIS research area office has complicated their work. The LIS’ performance has been impacted by varying staff levels of work ethics and education standards. An NDI consultant indicated that it was hard for staff to grasp key fundamental information management concepts, such as the importance of identifying the subject content for information searches. Logistical and infrastructure problems have compounded the challenges; she cited for example the intermittent access to the Internet which made it hard for staff to follow up in real time on techniques and procedures learned in training. The same consultant emphasized her belief that “NDI did an amazing job with what they had to work with”, and that there is a clear need to create continuity through ongoing training for staff. 17 CSOs mentioned the utility of having a third board situated in a central location in Monrovia to facilitate citizen understanding of the status of bills. 35 | Page LBO. In collaboration with NDI, the LBO organized a two-day budget summit for House members in July 2012, representing the first time the LBO arranged such an event to prepare members for the budget review process. The summit presented the first opportunity for new and returning members to participate in a collective discussion of the legislature’s critical role in scrutinizing the executive’s draft national budget, rather than merely rubber-stamping it. The LBO also independently produced comprehensive analytical briefing documents that it presented to the chairs of the House and Senate Ways, Means and Finance Committees. The chairs utilized the LBO analysis during the public expenditure hearings on the draft national budget in August. The LBO’s ability to independently produce such analysis points to the likelihood of its long￾term sustainability. The Legislature’s active oversight of the national budget has been steadily increasing in recent years. This year’s budget review process, which included significant deliberations, joint hearings, mark-up of the draft budget, and press scrutiny, evinced clear improvements in legislative oversight and analysis. Budget committees, particularly the House committee, took the lead in holding consultations and conducting hearings. A number of legislators expressed their appreciation for NDI’s training in gender sensitive budgeting. One result from NDI’s gender training was, when the government subsequently submitted its budget, legislators had expertise and knowledge to critique it from a gender sensitive budgeting perspective. The groundwork has been laid for increased contact between ministries and the Legislature in terms of national budget preparation for future budgets. Repeated statements by various interlocutors emphasized the belief that the Legislature does not yet fully understand or appreciate the benefits of the LBO. Members do not use the LBO very much yet, but this is changing. Overall there has been limited impact in support services and how they function. The less-than-optimal results are due largely to lack of buy-in from the Legislature in the design phase. Press and Public Affairs (PPA) Office. The staff claims to have internalized training provided by NDI in 2009 in Washington. They learned about committee operations and about holding public hearings; they were given a manual on holding hearings and participated in a mock hearing; they learned about the role of the media in legislative affairs; learned about lawmakers and constituency relations, including town hall meetings and other varieties of outreach. They also participated in several NDI training sessions in Monrovia on issues such as how to write press releases and how to build a web-site. The staff claims that they now update the website bi-weekly and maintain the content. NDI’s assessment of the website is that it contains a considerable amount of useful information, but that it is not kept current. For example, the Legislation tab of the site does not contain any enacted bills. It mirrors much of the results of other elements of the NDI in that it has resulted in an upgrading of the Legislature’s capacities, but the results are far from what could have been achieved. In addition, it requires continued focus. So, sustainability is an issue. 36 | Page The staff indicates they frequently use what they learned in NDI training, but only part of it. For example, they were trained to upload photos to the website after a public hearing, but that is not yet possible. The staff says the training was very helpful since many of the staff who work in the member offices were originally ‘political’ and are not trained as journalists. Overall, they feel that the professional quality of the staff has been improved. While emphasizing that the training was helpful, staff in the Press Offices also criticized the program. They said they were given one “Freedom Fone” – but needed one for each House.18 They were given the software ‘Audacity’, which works on the Ubuntu open-source software, while the audience for the outputs are the media in Liberia, and they work on Microsoft software. Constituency Outreach. According to civil society representatives, the Town Hall meetings sponsored by NDI were effective. Some felt that they are now accepted as normal practice by the legislators, and that they have made the members more accountable. The importance of connecting to the constituency is seen by many as much better understood now by the legislators – in part because so many were defeated in 2011. The need for tools to help build relations with the legislators’ constituencies was mentioned. One perspective was that legislators who applied the lessons from the NDI training -- who learned to cultivate their constituencies, to make good laws, and be open about the budget -- tended to be those who were re-elected. Some CSO representatives stated that legislators only pay attention to them during election periods. After they have been elected, they only return once to say “thank you”, but not during the session to discuss issues. The Evaluation Team heard numerous statements from CSO representatives and journalists that NDI-supported radio broadcasts such as “Legislative Spotlight” do help people in the counties stay informed. Legislation. NDI built capacity for legislators to introduce legislation, including through its legislative drafting training sessions. In the first session of the 53rd Legislature, 54 bills were passed of which 24 were sponsored by members of the House, and three by the Executive Branch. Fifty two (52) bills were introduced by members of the House, 12 from Senate, and four from the Executive Branch, for a total of 68 bills during the session. The former Minister of Education stated that an education bill resulted in considerable communication between the legislature and his ministry, which resulted in amendments to the bill prior to its final passage. As a result of the NDI affordable housing investigative mission and seminar, the legislature is considering establishing a committee on housing to promote legislation in this area. One leader’s view was that the 52nd Legislature can be characterized as a “learning time” and that the current Legislature must now act to modernize, particularly its internal structures. Legislation that could be characterised as ‘reform’ in nature has not fared very well. For example, the Code of Conduct Bill and the Gender Equity Act did not make it out of Committee. 18 The “Freedom Fone” was part of an NDI initiative to facilitate contact between constituents and their elected representatives. NDI’s grant budget included only one Freedom Fone server. 37 | Page Conclusions: Positives. A commonly heard sentiment, often expressed after mostly minor critiques of elements of the NDI program, is that legislators and staff strongly would like an NDI-style program to continue. The NDI program has been helpful; the program has been important and the activities have created a good support base for reform. At times these views were expressed in deeply heartfelt terms; as one legislator implored the team, “To give up now is to give in to the backward elements.” The NDI program must be viewed in the context of the 2011 elections, which took place mid￾way through the program’s life, and significantly impacted the NDI program in several ways. First, in the run-up to the elections, attention and energy was diverted from the work of the Legislature to the polls. Second, the elections resulted in considerable personnel turnover; both among legislators and legislative staff, and this in turn, had multiple effects. A large number of incoming legislators and staff were largely unfamiliar with the workings of the Legislature, and required orientation and training. In addition, some key players in the Legislature related to the implementation of the LMP (and hence of the NDI program) were defeated, most notably Senator Blamo Nelson, the chair of the Joint Legislative Modernization Committee. The vice chair of the JLMC from the House did not run for re-election. In designing the program, NDI did an excellent job of identifying possible risks, and avoiding enmeshing itself in Liberian politics. Two related problems that were not proactively identified (and which were difficult to foresee and prepare for), were the results of the 2011 elections, and resultant half-year delay in reappointing the JLMC. NDI was thus required to build new relationships with incoming key individuals, although important staff interlocutors such as the Secretary of the Senate and the Chief Clerk of the House remained in place, and to find ways to implement activities during the absence of the JLMC. The quality of NDI inputs and outputs was extremely high. Interviewees and focus group participants repeatedly emphasized the substantive quality of NDI’s programming. NDI’s consultants and in-house staff were specialists in their fields, and displayed professional commitment and appropriate choice of program activities and training. NDI’s program leadership displayed consistently sure-footed instincts on how to navigate personalities and partisan differences amongst their interlocutors. Legislators lauded the quality and breadth of the program. The bill-tracking system, website, LBO and LIS are widely viewed as positive steps forward, although none of these are fully living up to their potential. The LIS is generally viewed as the most successful outcome of the program. Some interlocutors expressed the expectation that the next budget debate in June-July, 2013 will continue a trend of being better organized, in part because of NDI’s input. Much more time is probably needed to achieve lasting reform in the legislature. It is clear, however, that modest improvements in the Legislature’s functioning were made in a number of areas plausibly connected to NDI’s program. Although the Legislature does not fully exercise the power of the purse, it is undertaking greater oversight and engagement. The Budget hearings and process are seen as an improvement over the past. There have also been improvements in staff 38 | Page and a general desire to perform at a higher level. Legislative analysis is taking place, and the Legislature is credited with having improved the legislation it has reviewed, e.g., the Education Bill. The project has thus achieved many results. In Monitoring and Evaluation terms, NDI’s performance metrics were of a very high standard. For example, of the 11 key program indicators for program year 2012 identified by the USAID￾funded Liberia Monitoring and Evaluation Program (L-MEP), eight targets were met or surpassed. Where targets were not met there was generally a clear and plausible reason. It should be noted here, however, that most indicators were output oriented and closely tied to program activities, rather than representing higher-level outcomes. Negatives. While the Evaluation Team stresses that they are relatively minor in the overall context, there were a few shortcomings in program implementation, the most important of which are identified below. It should be emphasized that these have occurred in the context of a Legislature that has proven, to put it succinctly, to be a challenging partner. Ownership of the Program. This was the single most articulated criticism by legislators. All legislative interviewees agreed that NDI’s program was beneficial. Many, however, suggested that at times it seemed as if NDI was dictating the agenda of its activities, rather than developing it in partnership with the JLMC and the Legislature. This criticism seems to have arisen in part because of the delay in the appointment of the JLMC and in part because there was no formal mechanism, such as an MOU or a Joint Steering Committee, linking the Legislature and NDI. A senior legislative modernization leader claims there was a misunderstanding from the beginning regarding the NDI program. His understanding was that the program “would build structures” (by which he meant not physical buildings but internal procedures) rather than hold training seminars and workshops. The lack of a feeling of “ownership” had, according to some interviewees, the result that the NDI program was not taken as seriously as it should have been. Most of the lawmakers and staff feel that NDI developed programs and seminars in the spirit of the LMP, but the important point is that the Legislature passed up an opportunity by not doing more, and this stemmed in part from a sense that the LMP was not “owned” by the Legislature. Perhaps reflecting broader, ambivalent feelings about donor dependency, another dynamic was that legislators and staff became dependent on NDI programming, and did not prepare to fully assume responsibility for upkeep and further development of the tools that NDI provided. This is related to the issue of lack of literal or figurative buy-in by the Legislature, which did not have its own budget to contribute to the cost of implementing the LMP. One example of this was new legislator orientation training. NDI originally proposed 3 days of training using largely expatriate trainers. A senior legislative leader argued that the training would be more effective and less costly if it was not done by expatriates, but by Liberians with experience and knowledge of the Legislature.19 He emphasized that, “We want to be part-owners of any future support program; the JLMC needs to have its own budget”. As a result the 19 In response to this call for less use of expatriate trainers, in 2012 and 2013 NDI adapted its events to utilize Liberian and other African trainers, sometimes paired with non-Africans. 39 | Page legislature insisted on reducing the training to 11/2 days. The end product was much less substantive and targeted, and did not address key issues facing the incoming legislature.20 Another senior leader stated that, “We have achieved some of the activities and results set out in the Plan, but not enough. The NDI program was not designed or owned by the Legislature. NDI came up with programs and seminars that have been of considerable assistance and that have helped the LMP achieve the results that it has, but at the same time we have missed the boat on the LMP.” The Legislature would have even less capacity if the NDI program had not happened. But as a senior leader stated, “We were not the owners. At the same time, the program has caused a problem in that we have become too dependent on it.” A former senior legislator said that he did not feel that NDI had acted in an arbitrary fashion. The problem was that other legislators did not understand the project very well, so they did not take ownership. And the desire for reform was not necessarily shared by all legislators, for example, the Code of Conduct has not made a lot of headway. Unrealized Potential. This point has been made in one way or another repeatedly in this report. As one NDI consultant stated, despite its positive results the project “hasn’t been able to close the deal on a bunch of things”. The LIS, LBO, website, and bill-tracker are all clear examples of this. Responsibility for this lies largely, but not solely, on the part of the Legislature. In some instances a more consistent and strategic NDI approach, and perhaps one utilizing more fully other external actors such as local CSOs, could have resulted in greater transfer of information and sustainability. Written Tools. A related point is that the provision of tools to make learned outcomes sustainable was variable. While NDI provided considerable written material related to its various initiatives, these documents were not necessarily always “written to their audience”, and some were not user-friendly in terms of providing information germane to the sustainability of the particular institution. In part this was probably due to NDI’s understandable effort to encourage legislators to learn to act for themselves and budget to sustain training/equipment. Summary The conclusions reflect the difficulties of democratic institution-building in a challenging environment. The Team concludes that the NDI program was an unambiguous success at the output level. The scope and breadth of its programming is extremely impressive. In addition, the Team received almost no critiques of NDI programming on a substantive basis; the quality of its programming appears to have been uniformly high. As a result of its programming, staff members and legislators alike are more familiar with many different aspects of legislative functioning than they were previously. The physical infrastructure of the Legislature is better, and the Legislature’s work is better known than would have been the case otherwise. 20 The Evaluation Team also heard that the legislators’ commitment to fully participating in this orientation was lacking. 40 | Page And yet the level of success is limited. The sustainability of the program’s results is in question. NDI has performed admirably, but whether the Legislature can prove itself over the long run remains very much in question. B) Civil Society and Electoral Support To what extent did the NDI program succeed in strengthening the ability of civic groups to effectively monitor and observe the 2011 national elections? Findings NDI provided technical and financial assistance to the Elections Coordinating Committee (ECC), a coalition of civic groups dedicated to enhancing the credibility of the 2011 electoral process. The ECC fielded 400 observers for the August referendum, 1,871 for October’s general elections and 1,558 for the November presidential runoff. NDI also provided technical assistance to four civic groups conducting voter education campaigns and staging senatorial debates in six counties. Analysis The ECC received funding from NDI to create an elections monitoring toolkit; voter registration monitoring; training of the election monitors who were present in approximately 2,000 of the 4,000 polling places; early warning monitoring training; supervision and deployment of referendum monitors; and the monitoring of the elections themselves. Bringing multiple CSOs with their varying resources and skill-sets together into one umbrella group – the ECC – allowed them to report in a more timely and credible fashion. The ECC effort represented a large election monitoring initiative and was used for quality control purposes by international observers such as the Carter Center and ECOWAS. One challenge faced by the ECC was that it was also tasked to do elections violence monitoring; doing so diverted resources away from the ECC’s intent to blanket polling places throughout the entire country with observers. The team heard from several informed individuals that the EEC’s work is viewed as having helped to reduce the number of instances of reported violence. In the ECC’s opinion, however, it would have been better if another organization could have undertaken that responsibility. In addition, due to delays in the project approval process, the initiative started later than would have been preferred. The effectiveness of the NDI/ECC monitoring effort was echoed by the Acting Chair of the National Elections Commission. She was very positive about NDI’s elections monitoring support activities. She said they played a very useful role in helping to empower the CSO umbrella group. This group represented a representative breadth of civil society, which she noted is often not the case in various efforts around the world. Its leader enjoyed considerable credibility as a human rights and good governance advocate. In many cases they were actually deployed in advance of NEC staff. 41 | Page The NEC Acting Chair advised that future efforts should cover the entire country. She would like to see USAID support a more continuous civil society effort related to elections, especially in terms of civic education and election violence mitigation organizing efforts. She urged that USAID support programs designed to strengthen the capacity of political parties to function in the electoral context. Conclusion NDI played a central role in helping to empower the CSO umbrella group. This group was representative and had effective leadership. This program activity aided the overall legitimacy of the election by engaging the citizens more closely with assessing the process. 42 | Page VI. RECOMMENDATIONS The NDI program was clearly a success at the output level, and also had positive results at the outcome level. There is a clear need for further training and support – at the same time, the poor implementation by the Legislature of the LMP and the limited political will to make significant change to date must be taken into account. The Evaluation Team believes strongly that any follow-on support must be on a more disciplined and reciprocal basis. Based on this, the Team proposes the following programmatic follow-on scenarios as options for USAID consideration: 1) No Further Support for the Legislature. Based on the actions and inactions of the legislature and on the level of political will shown to date, a decision to provide no follow-on support would be justified. USAID would be able to say that they are supporting the legislature through the World Bank program. 2) No Further Support until the Legislature has Reviewed and Evaluated the LMP and Created a Follow-on Plan (LMP2). This approach would be consistent with the Plan and the ongoing support being developed by the UNDP, the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA)/NDI, and the World Bank. It would not exclude a re-engagement during LMP2, but would be justified on the basis that the NDI program developed capacity in several of the Pillars. The rest of the Plan needs to catch up to what USAID/NDI have already supported before more USAID support is justified. This would have the advantage of not necessitating a direct revelation of programmatic concerns and concern about the will to reform – while allowing for a nuanced discussion about exactly those factors over time. 3) Pursue Outside-In Strategy. An alternative approach would be to focus away from attempting to strengthen the Legislature from within, and support citizens and civil society in their efforts to advocate and create citizen-legislature linkages. Taken in isolation, however, the extent to which external influences would be sufficient to improve the Legislature’s functioning is questionable. In addition, this seems to be precisely the approach that the SIDA/NDI program is based on. 4) Fully Engage with the Legislature in a Follow-On Program. This approach would in effect represent a follow-on of the NDI project. It would take, as a point of departure, the need for long-term and sustained assistance, given the deficiencies and needs in the Liberian Legislature. These needs and deficiencies are evident, but this approach poses the problem of how to ensure Liberian ownership and full involvement, and to avoid a situation in which higher level results are limited vis-a-vis resources expended. While valid arguments exist for either one of the above approaches, they all contain serious potential flaws. They either ignore the Legislature’s need for sustained assistance, do not address the core problems, or are not based on a reciprocal basis requiring a credible demonstration of will on the part of the Legislature. The Team believes that, notwithstanding the performance and will demonstrated to date, that the period from now until the election in 2017 is key to reform in Liberia – both legislative and institutional – and that engagement with the legislature is necessary during this window of opportunity/necessity: 43 | Page 1. The President’s term ends in 2017. Who will succeed her and whether that person will be as committed to reform is an open question. 2. The MPs are just starting to realize what they can do – and as in all early and developing legislatures, they will go through some growing pains. Whether they develop the legislature as a professional and modern institution, whether they learn to make/help the Executive govern well or try to govern themselves, whether they develop permanent good habits or bad ones, these will all be largely determined in the next four years. 3. The MPs are now more open to listening than they were – largely because they have taken the lessons of the 2011 election to heart – and are aware that getting re-elected requires performance that is acceptable to their electors. In this context, and considering the importance of a fully-functioning Legislature to the future of Liberia, the team proposes the following carefully modulated follow-on approach, based on the view that the Legislature needs continued assistance and support. The failure of the Legislature to build on its developmental progress could well imperil the future of Liberia’s fledgling democracy. 5) Announce now that further support will be available once LMP2 is ready – provided that there has been a clearer manifestation of political will in the meantime. What constitutes a manifest demonstration of will could be left for future discussion, or it could be signaled as taking one or more of the following actions: o Provision in the 2013-2014 Budget of funds for capacity building, for example, for the LBO and/or LIS. o Adoption of a Code of Conduct that applies to the legislature. o Explicit recognition of the importance of gender representation in legislative leadership positions. o Changes to the Rules to:  require that every bill has a hearing;  require that every bill had a formal sponsor; and  require that bills be adopted by a recorded vote. o Require that the Legislature be subject to audit by the GAC. o Publishing the attendance and voting records of the legislators. o A formal action to start the process of rationalizing the permanent/personal staff – such as a request to the Civil Service Agency to start the review. The team recommends that such a follow-on program be gradated and keyed to meaningful steps undertaken by the Legislature. The program could be implemented by way of a formal agreement with the interlocutor named by both Houses, presumably the JLMC. All work plans and activities would be approved by the interlocutor as well as by USAID. These core elements should address issues of program “ownership” and encourage the Legislature to commit to the program. There could be an explicit commitment, based on the Legislature’s continued engagement in the program, to provide support through to the next election (2014 or 2017). It should explicitly include a reconsideration of the terms and content of the agreement at the beginning of that session. Finally, it may be advisable for the program mechanism to be a contract, rather than a cooperative agreement, in order to obviate claims of lack of ownership and to allow discussions about activities that prove will. NDI has stated its view that the same collaboration can be achieved through an appropriately drawn cooperative agreement. The 44 | Page team acknowledges that this may be feasible; the team’s concern is not with the contracting mechanism per se, but with the needed degree of engagement of USAID in the program that the mechanism makes possible. The program could begin with an initial tangible activity, such as refurbishing the library which was partially destroyed by a fire in January 2013. Assuming that such an activity could take place in the second half of 2013, it would occur concomitantly with the ending of the 2009-2013 LMP. The program IP could, therefore, consult with the JLMC and Legislature’s leadership on the drafting of a follow-up LMP II. Should the Legislature craft an LMP II which a) appears realistic and feasible, and b) include the commitment by the Legislature to a substantive level of resources for implementation, this could serve as a trigger to the IP to enter into a second phase of program activities. The second phase could include focus on subjects including committee functioning, support for the Women’s Caucus, continued support for the LBO and LIS, and possibly, depending upon other donor activities, subjects that originate from external stakeholders. The program should emphasize formal and informal mechanisms by which reformers in the Legislature could be assisted in their efforts. Although this can complicate program management and long-term program planning, the conditional nature of the project should be maintained in order to avoid a situation in which program activities continue in the absence of political will on the part of the Liberian Legislature’s actors. In this fashion, USAID could continue to demonstrate its willingness to engage with the Legislature under the appropriate circumstances. The following are more detailed suggestions for activities the implementing partner could undertake in the form of ascending levels of engagement based upon tangible actions by the Legislature. Increasing levels of support: 1. Renovate the LIS 2. Renovate the LIS and continue to support the needs of the LIS and the LBO for two more years (to the period just after the next election). Support could include training and mentoring. 3. Level 3 plus -- More training for and support for the needs of the Committees’ Support Unit. Outputs would include a procedures manual and a formal legislative drafting guide to apply system-wide, i.e., to the Senate, the House and the Executive. 4. Level 4 plus -- Technical Support for the JLMC to assess LMP and develop LMP2 5. Level 5 plus -- Technical assistance to the Civil Service Agency to rationalize and reconfigure all staff positions including, if possible, the personal staff of the legislators. It is probably unrealistic to imagine a reduction in the personal staff. But it may be possible to shift some of the allotment on a formal basis to the constituencies as services now delivered by the personal staff are provided more by central permanent staff. Outputs as envisaged in Pillar 4 of the current LMP. 6. Level 6 plus -- Support for 3 legislative initiatives of each House starting with, as needed, an investigative mission, a policy seminar, and support for the drafting unit in the development of the bill. 7. Other support – technical assistance to the staff, e.g., a retreat to review and update all procedural manuals, including the Rules. An orientation workshop immediately after the 2014 election. Annex, Pg. 1 LIST OF ANNEXES Annex i. NDI Program Evaluation SOW Final Evaluation of the National Democratic Institute (NDI) Program in Liberia STATEMENT OF WORK I. EVALUATION PURPOSE The objective of this evaluation is to conduct a full and independent final evaluation of the National Democratic Institute (NDI) program in Liberia, “Supporting the Modernization and Development of the Legislature as a Co-Equal Branch of Government” and, to a lesser extent, the legislative process and the political will to engage in legislative modernization as viewed more broadly. The evaluation will assess results achieved, identify any implementation problems and challenges that affected program results, and provide actionable and strategic recommendations for possible follow on actions. This evaluation will examine a number of aspects of USAID's legislative assistance program in order to arrive at the necessary findings, conclusions, and recommendations that will enable the mission to learn from past experiences and make informed decisions on future programming in this sector. The evaluation will assess the effectiveness of USAID-funded activities and inform USAID/Liberia of the extent to which the stated overall project goals have been achieved. It will also assist the Mission to make judgments about the impact of changes in the operational environment on the achievement of results. Specifically, the evaluation will: 1. Assess the success of the program in achieving its four objectives 2. Identify any obstacles to implementation and evaluate how effectively the program responded to these challenges 3. Identify deficiencies in the design of the program 4. Provide to specific, actionable recommendations regarding: a. A Strengths-Weaknesses-Opportunities-Threats (SWOT) analysis of the lead partners (government of Liberia officials, civil society, staff and elected members) for legislative strengthening, e.g. key legislative committees, the Legislative Budget Office, the Joint Legislative Modernization Committee, the Legislative Information Service, the Offices of the Speaker and the President Pro Tempore, and notable caucuses b. the viability and political will for implementation of the Joint Modernization Plan c. a brief synopsis of other donor and government of Liberia interventions in this sphere d. the nature and scope of possible future interventions in the sector of legislative assistance, based on lessons learned Annex, Pg. 2 II. BACKGROUND Program Background After decades of autocratic rule and a devastating civil war, Liberians were hopeful that the leaders elected during the 2005 multiparty polls would ensure peace, foster reconciliation, and enact policies that promote economic growth and development. Liberians continue to express the desire for improvements in basic services, such as running water, electricity, health care and education, as well as increased employment opportunities and better management of the country’s national resources. Liberians also expect the country’s historically ineffective legislature to improve its capacity to represent constituents, legislate on issues of national interest, and conduct governmental oversight. Although Liberia’s Constitution provides for lawmaking and oversight by the legislative branch, as in many democratic states, the weak legislature is no match for the overly centralized power of the executive. If the current legislature fails to meet expectations for improved performance, Liberians are likely to lose faith in the country’s political institutions and could disengage from the political process, thereby undermining the consolidation of recent democratic gains. Soon after the inauguration of the 52nd Legislature in 2006, a 2006 United Nations Development Program (UNDP) assessment noted that the lack of experience and low education among members, the lack of systems and procedures for processing legislation, and poor infrastructure would hinder the legislature’s efforts to fulfill its mandate. Members of the House and Senate agreed with the assessment and began looking for ways to modernize and improve the performance of the institution. In 2008, the legislature created an ad hoc committee, the Joint Legislative Modernization Committee (JLMC) to identify the legislature’s challenges and recommend viable remedies. With support from the National Democratic Institute, the JLMC drafted a five-year development plan focused on five pillars: constituency representation; lawmaking; oversight; staffing; and work environment. The Joint Legislative Modernization Plan also acknowledged the need for technical assistance in three areas: 1) institutional development of the legislative branch, so as to sustain the quest for reform and good governance in the medium to long term; 2) capacity building of the professional staff, so as to better serve the members and the legislature; and 3) capacity building of the current members, so they can better perform their constitutional duties. In response to the legislature’s request for assistance in implementing the plan, USAID awarded a four￾year cooperative agreement to NDI $9,143,003 for the implementation of the “Supporting the Modernization and Development of the Legislature as a Co-Equal Branch of Government” program. The agreement was later extended for six months to account for a formula calculation error in a budget spreadsheet that resulted in a sizeable surplus. Since the inception of the program, NDI has undertaken the following activities as main highlights in the program:  Opening of the Legislature’s research service, library and archives  Establishment of a Legislative Budget Office (LBO)  Launch of the Legislature’s first website  House and Senate press bureaus assist Members and staff  Prepared key committees for an active role in the decentralization policy debate  Oriented new senior staff from each Member’s office  Prepared key committees and Women’s Legislative Caucus with skills in Gender Responsive Budgeting to examine pending national budget  Budget Summit for the House of Representatives Annex, Pg. 3  Policy Seminars Linking Lawmakers with Subject Matter Experts  Domestic Study Mission Investigations  Professional development seminars for legislative staffers  “Legislative Spotlight” Radio Programming Linking Constituents to the 53rd Legislature Future activities include:  Establishment of a technology center  International Study Mission to the Kenya and Uganda Parliamentary Budget Offices  Support for Updates to the Legislature’s Website Program Objectives The purpose of NDI’s “Supporting the Modernization and Development of the Legislature as a Co-Equal Branch of Government” program is to support the implementation of the JLMC strategic plan for modernization and development of Liberia’s legislature. The four program objectives are: 5) To enhance legislative capacity to fulfill lawmaking and oversight responsibilities by strengthening budget analysis, improving library and research services, increasing legislative drafting services capacity and improving committee operations. 6) To improve the capacity of the legislature to operate in a more accountable, transparent and efficient manner. Activities to support this include an in-depth orientation program for both lawmakers and staff, increasing the use of technology into legislative business, and institutionalizing accountability and transparency mechanisms. 7) To increase the capacity of civic groups to collect, analyze and disseminate information about the electoral process through coalition building, working with country coordinators to report on events such as voter registration, election violence, campaign conduct, NEC preparations and voter education campaigns as well as facilitating issue based legislative debates. 8) Enhance the capacity of civic groups to collect, analyze and disseminate information about the electoral process. Relevant History Nearly all of Liberia’s 3.5 million people21 were affected by the prolonged civil war from 1989 to 2003, which contributed to significant internal and international displacement, along with mass impoverishment, the collapse of law and order, and ruin of public and social infrastructure, including damage to the already weak and inadequate water and sanitation systems, schools, health clinics, and other structures. 21 This figure is from the latest national census, conducted in 2008. Recent data estimates place the Liberian population at just less than 3.8 million (July 2011, CIA World Fact Book accessible at https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/li.html). Annex, Pg. 4 The socio-economic damage inflicted by Liberia’s civil war was enormous. Liberia’s gross domestic product (GDP) fell by 90 percent between 1987 and 1995, and post-war poverty remains stubbornly high. Per capita GDP is only around US $200. A Core Welfare Indicators Questionnaire conducted in 2007 revealed a national poverty rate of 63.8 percent and in spite of increased GDP growth; there are no data to indicate that rates of poverty have declined since that time. The high poverty rate is an important element in Liberia’s ranking of 162 out of 169 countries for which data are available on the 2010 Human Development Index. Additionally, there is still a tremendous consolidation of power in the hands of the small Monrovia-based elite and the majority of Liberians perceive very few avenues for upward mobility. For all the improvement in the Corruption Perceptions Index rankings, corruption remains a serious problem and there is widespread belief that senior government officials are not held accountable for corrupt actions. The basic functioning of the public administration from Monrovia to the district level is critically low. Long-term national capacity-building for the civil service will remain a priority, in order to better enable the government to deliver services. The ability of the government to maintain peace and stability and to provide basic services in the long term hinges on: 1) the government’s capacity to raise public revenues and manage them transparently; and 2) its ability to foster an enabling environment that encourages private sector investment and social cohesion. Social cohesion is key in this country whose people went to war with one another due largely to a legacy of exclusionary politics. Both government and civil society have a vital role to play in creating national cohesion necessary for long-term development. The democratically-elected government of President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf is committed to equitable growth and greater transparency and accountability in the management of resources and delivery of services. The Government of Liberia’s (GOL’s) initial roadmap for national development, the Liberia Poverty Reduction Strategy (PRS), was developed through an inclusive and participatory process, with public consultations held in every county and district. With President Sirleaf’s re-election in the fall of 2011, the commitment to participatory development continues as outlined in the PRS II—Agenda for Transformation through Action. After a 14 year long civil war, the first rounds of legislative elections were held in 2005 and the 52nd Legislature took seat in January 2006. Six years later, after the second post-war elections, the 53rd Legislature took their seats on January 9, 2012 with a majority of members newly elected. This is reflective of the fact that only 25 (39.06%) of the 64 members of the House were re-elected. In the Senate, only 2 of 14 incumbent senators who sought re-election retained their seats. Only two of eight female legislators were re-elected. Public sentiment indicates that the people have not been comfortable with the decisions made during the stewardship of the 52nd Legislature. The public was especially spirited during debates on particular issues and have been dissatisfied with the actions of their elected officials. In 2014, half of the Senators in the Legislature will be up for re-election and it remains to be seen how changes in Liberia will affect the outcome of the next general elections. III. EVALUATION QUESTIONS The following key evaluation questions should be used to guide the evaluation process; however, the evaluation itself does not have to be limited to only these questions. The evaluation should be structured to address the degree to which program activities have achieved the objectives, the Annex, Pg. 5 effectiveness of the program, and to inform our understanding of the legislative process and political will to engage in legislative modernization more broadly, particularly in relation to the legislature’s receptiveness to the intervention design, objectives, and outcomes; and make specific, actionable recommendations for a possible follow-on program, including specific strategic re-designs or modifications, as well as the feasibility of a follow-on. In doing so, this evaluation should pay special attention to how results differ between female and male beneficiaries, and program and non-program beneficiaries, as well as staff and legislative beneficiaries. Key Questions  To what extent has the NDI program been successful in achieving its four objectives?  What factors contributed to or against these objectives?  How effective were both the NDI program design and its implementation in responding to legislative challenges in the Liberian context and any unexpected obstacles and the Liberian legislature’s response to the program?  How receptive has the legislature been to the intervention design, objectives, and outcomes? For example, does anyone in the legislature use, fund, or support the Legislative Budget Office established by NDI?  What underlying interests, incentives, and institutions in Liberia enable or frustrate legislative reform?  Who are the key stakeholders for legislative reform?  Has the legislature concretely demonstrated its will and ability to address its weaknesses to justify continued direct and indirect support to the legislature through USG assistance?  What are key avenues for reform for which there is broad-based/significant political will? Gender Disparities and Imbalances Gender disparities and imbalances are common in every sphere of Liberian life, and in most cases, it is women that are disproportionally disadvantaged by these disparities and imbalances.22 To reduce poverty and accelerate post-conflict development, there is no question that Liberia must more effectively engage the female half of its population. Women and girls play a central role in Liberia’s economy as consumers and producers. Currently, these roles come principally through the informal sector; agricultural production and petty trade of goods and services in local marketplaces. Gender-related evaluation questions would be:  What are the risks of leaving gender disparities and imbalances unaddressed as missed opportunities in building the capacity the legislature?  What is the effectiveness of the Women’s Caucuses? 22 Liberia National Gender Policy, Ministry of Gender and Development, Liberia 2009 Annex, Pg. 6 IV. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS METHODS Applicants are asked to submit a detailed evaluation design and methodology, but it is anticipated that the final methodology will be developed collaboratively with the evaluation team, USAID/Liberia Democracy and Governance Team, and appropriate GOL officials. It is anticipated that the evaluation will include qualitative and quantitative data collection from a purposive sample of key individuals and stakeholders, with selection criteria clearly articulated. Specific Tasks The evaluation will include a literature review and a series of meetings/interviews and possibly site visits. The literature review will, at a minimum, consider: “Supporting the Modernization and Development of the Legislature as a Co-Equal Branch of Government” program description and relevant program documents such as quarterly reports, data quality assessments (DQAs), work plans, Performance Management Plans (PMPs), newsletters, etc. The review should also include reports and information created by the legislature such as the Legislative Information Service’s Annual Report and the Legislative Budget Office’s analysis documents on the national budget, as well as the Joint Modernization Plan. The USAID mission in Liberia will assist in collecting background documents on USAID’s strategies and the NDI program for the evaluation team in advance of the field work. The contractor is required to gather and provide to the team outside studies, analysis, articles, etc. to orient the team to Liberia and the Legislature. Building on the literature review, the next step of the evaluation will include discussions with key stakeholders including USAID, Embassy, and NDI staff; members and staff of the legislature; and relevant donors engaging in legislative strengthening programs. Meetings and interviews with civil society and other stakeholders, such as the Law Reform Commission, the Governance Commission, etc will also be essential. Site visits to constituent offices in Bomi, Margibi, and Grand Bassa Counties, and meetings with past legislators may be necessary. USAID/Liberia will also prepare a preliminary list of contacts for donors, civil society, and government officials for the team prior to their travel to Monrovia. The assessment team should also seek out key informants in the Africa and Democracy, Conflict, and Humanitarian Assistance (DCHA) Bureaus in Washington prior to the commencement of the field work phase. Additionally, the contractor should plan on a conference call including team members and USAID/Liberia prior to beginning the field work portion of the assessment. An out-briefing and draft report will be required prior to the team’s departure from Liberia for the Democracy and Governance Team, USAID/Liberia senior management and relevant U.S. Embassy staff. A presentation of the report at USAID/Washington will also be required. In order to ensure the maximum value for learning and use, a description of the proposed evaluation methodology should include, at a minimum: 1. Study design (e.g., cross-sectional descriptive studies, quantitative and qualitative retrospective comparisons, etc.) and plans for data analysis Annex, Pg. 7 2. Methods of data collection (e.g., quantitative survey questionnaires, qualitative interview guides, key personnel interviews, unobtrusive or observational methods, secondary data analysis), how such tools will be developed and with whom, and the scope and time line for data collection, and key characteristics of data collection instruments (e.g., sample questions or an outline of interview guide topics) 3. Measures and plans undertaken in order to ensure protection and confidentiality during data collection The project evaluators should consider a range of possible methods and approaches to collecting and analyzing the information required to assess program impact, establish causal connections between activities and outcomes, and make programmatic recommendations. Before embarking on any in-country fieldwork or data collection, the evaluators will review and justify their choice of methodologies through the USAID/Liberia Agreement Officer’s Representative (AOR) and the Program Office Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist. The approach may be relatively simple or more complex approaches as appropriate. For example, the extent to which participatory appraisal methods, focus groups, workshops, etc., are used to elicit information and engage ultimate customers and implementation partners in the evaluation process will be determined by the evaluation team in consultation with the Mission. V. EVALUATION TEAM COMPOSITION, INDEPENDENCE AND QUALIFICATIONS Key evaluation team members include two expatriates and one Liberian national: a Team Leader (Legislative Strengthening), an Institutional Development Specialist (with West African regional expertise), and a Political Analyst who can address the political context of legislative reform. A Liberian logistics and administrative assistant should also be included as a team member. The evaluation team should include:  Team Leader (expatriate): The Team Leader will be a senior-level legislative strengthening expert with an advanced degree (MA, JD, LLM or Ph.D.) and significant experience working on legislative development projects and evaluations of USAID projects, ideally in post-conflict and transition settings. The Team Leader will take ultimate responsibility for the management of the team, the coordination of team activities, and preparation and submission of the draft and final reports. Experience in program impact evaluation and knowledge related to legislative strengthening in the West Africa region is required.  Institutional Development Specialist (expatriate): The ID Specialist will have significant experience in democracy and governance with special focus on institutional capacity building and development. The candidate should be a political or social scientist, preferably with an advanced degree. At least five years’ experience in DG research and programming required. Experience in designing, managing and/or evaluating institutional development/capacity building programs conducting assessments and developing strategies is required. West Africa experience is required and specific Liberia country knowledge is preferred. Ability to write technical material on short timelines required. Annex, Pg. 8  Liberian Political Analyst: The Political Analyst will provide specific expertise in political-economy analysis. Specifically, the Political Analyst is expected to provide an analysis of the political context to the receptiveness or resistance to legislative reform and the interests, incentives, and institutions that enable or frustrate such reform in the Liberian context. Experience in assessing political change, barriers to democratization, and strategy development is critical. The candidate should be a political or social scientist with at least five years’ experience in DG research and a demonstrated, in-depth understanding of the Liberian context. The Liberian Political Analyst must be independent and objective in his/her role.  Administrative Assistant: This team member will provide logistical, administrative, and clerical support to the team throughout the evaluation. The Team Leader is required to have demonstrated expertise in evaluation methodology. Collectively the team members must have experience in conducting both quantitative and qualitative data collection and analysis. Prior to their arrival in Liberia, all team members are required to familiarize themselves with USAID’s Evaluation Policy, with USAID’s publication outlining a good evaluation report, and with USAID’s checklist for assessing an evaluation report. Additionally, all team members should possess a strong familiarity with the political, economic, legislative, and policy context in Liberia, particularly since the end of the civil war. VI. EVALUATION TIMELINE AND LOGISTICS Prior to arrival in Liberia, the contractor should first complete a desk study to understand the legislative and policy context of Liberia, and how NDI activities address these challenges. This review should pay special attention to how the program fits into the mission’s Country Development and Cooperation Strategy (CDCS) strategy and the GOL’s Agenda for Transformation through Action. To support this review, USAID Liberia will provide electronic copies to the contractor of all documents to be reviewed two weeks prior to departure. USAID will provide a list of contacts. The evaluation team Administrative Assistant will take responsibility for all administrative and logistical requirements of the team. Ideally, the team would commence background review and preparation research on or about January 2 and begin field work on or about January 15, 2013. Upon arrival in country, the work plan shall be further refined with USAID/Liberia staff, as necessary. The team should also plan an out brief with USAID/Washington following completion of the evaluation. The USAID Agreement Officer’s Representative (AOR) for the NDI program and/or other USAID staff may join the contractor in selected evaluation study data collection and analysis efforts. Annex, Pg. 9 VII. LEVEL OF EFFORT The following level of effort is expected for the evaluation: Tasks Time (work days)/ Person Preparation/Background Reading and Team Building Exercise at TMG/HQ (prior to arrival in country, includes draft of an initial work plan) 10 days Round trip travel (US-Liberia-US) 3 days Evaluation of the NDI program (assumes 6 day work week) 24 days Draft Report and Out-brief (Full draft report, including executive summary, and an overview presentation to USAID/Liberia Mission) 6 days Second Report due (after USAID provides feedback on the DRAFT) 8 days Final Report due (following USAID feedback on the Second DRAFT) 5 days Out brief for USAID/Washington 1 day Total LOE 57 days VIII. EVALUATION DELIVERABLES The primary deliverable from this task will be a final report, which will address the success of the program towards achieving results, identify any implementation problems and challenges that affected program results, identify issues and questions across institutional development and democracy and governance, and provide actionable and strategic recommendations for possible follow on actions. The report should address the following:  The continued relevance of USAID assistance to the legislature in the current political environment and multiple scenarios for future direct or indirect engagement with the legislature.  NDI program impact on the Liberian legislative institution(s) vis-à-vis the mission's Democracy and Governance Objective: More effective, accountable and inclusive government.  NDI’s current project’s particular areas of success and weakness, and aspects of project design and implementation that contributed to program outcomes.  The degree to which the expectations of the primary beneficiaries (i.e., the members, staff, and administration of the Liberian legislature) were met by the performance of the current project. Were those expectations consistent with USAID’s goals and objectives?  Recommendations for future direct or indirect engagement with the Liberian legislature, given the legislature’s receptivity or resistance (among members and staffers) to past NDI Annex, Pg. 10 program interventions and possible future interventions, including an identification of those activities that appear most appropriate and feasible, with whom, and those that show less promise and should be avoided. The evaluation team is expected to produce the following deliverables: a. Workplan: A proposed work plan must be completed by the Evaluation Team and submitted to USAID at least 2-3 work days prior to the team’s arrival in-country. Upon arrival in country, the workplan shall be further refined with USAID/Liberia staff, as necessary. A conference call will be held with USAID and the contractor to define and clarify responsibilities, logistical support, and additional secondary documentation sources before the evaluation starts. The detailed work plan should include a timeline and matrix of the evaluation study design (including key questions and the methods and data sources used to address each question), draft questionnaires and other data collection instruments and field testing of interview protocol, as appropriate, selection criteria of respondents (including beneficiaries and non￾program beneficiaries), and an explanation of how ethical conduct of research involving human subjects and the protection and confidentiality of data will be ensured. b. Oral Briefings (In-brief and Out-brief): The evaluation team will meet with USAID/Liberia upon arrival in Monrovia. The team will also provide an oral briefing of its findings and recommendations to USAID/Liberia prior to departure from Liberia. A briefing for USAID/Washington will also be required. c. Field Work: Field work for the evaluation is estimated to take approximately 4-5 weeks or 18 to 24 working days in country and will be conducted according to the approved work plan. d. Draft Evaluation Report: A written report, in English, should be delivered to the USAID/Liberia COR and the Program Office for review prior to the out-brief. The draft report shall include the evaluation’s methodology, any limitations of the methodology, analysis, findings, and recommendations. More specifically, the report, which shall follow USAID branding procedures, must include:  A description of the evaluation purpose and the evaluation questions addressed in the report  Information on how the independence of the evaluation team was protected and identification of any objectivity and potential conflict of interest addressed, including sources and amount of funding for the evaluation  A detailed description of the data collection and analysis methods (including the sampling and/or selection criteria used)  Data analysis and findings (including acknowledgement and disclosure of any data limitations) specifically related to: - The continued relevance of USAID assistance to the legislature in the current political environment and multiple scenarios for future direct or indirect engagement with the legislature. Annex, Pg. 11 - NDI program impact on the Liberian legislative institution(s) vis-à-vis the mission's Democracy and Governance Objective: More effective, accountable and inclusive government. - NDI’s current project’s particular areas of success and weakness, and aspects of project design and implementation that contributed to program outcomes. - The degree to which the expectations of the primary beneficiaries (i.e., the members, staff, and administration of the Liberian legislature) were met by the performance of the current project. Were those expectations consistent with USAID’s goals and objectives? o An assessment of any differential program outcomes and anticipated impacts on males and females o Statements of differences (if any) regarding significant unresolved difference of opinion by funders, implementers, and/or members of the evaluation team  Actionable recommendations supported by the data for future direct or indirect engagement with the Liberian legislature, given the legislature’s receptivity or resistance (among members and staffers) to past NDI program interventions and possible future interventions, including an identification of those activities that appear most appropriate and feasible, with whom, and those that show less promise and should be avoided  Annex(es), which should include: o A copy of this SOW o Data collection instruments o Sources, sites, sampling frame, individual/focus group interviews, etc. included in data collection o Disclosure of conflicts of interest forms for all evaluation team members, either attesting to a lack of conflict of interest or describing existing conflict of interest e. Second Draft of Evaluation Report: A second draft report will be submitted electronically to the USAID/Liberia AOR and the Program Office within two weeks (or 10-12 working days) after receiving comments from USAID on the First Draft. This draft and the final report should include a three-page executive summary and body of between 30–40 pages. USAID will have two weeks or 10 working days to submit its comments on the second draft report. f. Final Evaluation Report: The contractor will have eight working days to submit the final evaluation report electronically to the USAID/Liberia COR and the Program Office after receipt of USAID’s comments on the second draft. Upon USAID final approval and guidance, the contractor will submit the final Evaluation Report to the Development Experience Clearinghouse (DEC) at http://dec.usaid.gov/default.htm. Annex, Pg. 12 Annex ii. Contacts for the NDI Evaluation USAID 1. Kristin M. Joplin Democracy & Governance Officer USAID 0776-734-682 kjoplin@usaid.gov 2. Laura Arntson, Ph.D., MPH Performance Management and Environmental Compliance Advisor USAID 0776-734-676 LArntson@usaid.gov 3. Danijel Dasic Infrastructure Advisor USAID 0777-872-602 DDasic@usaid.gov 4. Finley Y. Karngar Rule of Law Specialist USAID 0886-522-023 fkangar@usaid.gov 5. Keith Schulz Governance Advisor USAID 202-712-4219 KeSchulz@usaid.gov 6. Jeremy D. Meadows Democracy & Governance Officer USAID 202-712-1026 jmeadows@usaid.gov 7. Tara L. Thwing Democracy Officer, Bureau for Africa USAID 202-712-1907 tthwing@usaid.gov Annex, Pg. 13 8. Sarah Crites Country Development Officer, Bureau for Africa USAID 202-712-4544 scrites@usaid.gov STATE DEPARTMENT 1. Alusine M. Sheriff Econ-Commercial Section Embassy of the United States of America 0777-958-140, 0886-523-779, 0776-798-897 Sheriffm@state.gov 2. Jenkins Vangehn Political Specialist Embassy of the United States of America 0777-084-337, 0777-677-7319, 0886-554-789 VangehnJS@state.gov 3. Christian De Angelis Political/Economic Counselor Embassy of the United States of America 0776-777-000 DEANGELISCR@STATE.GOV NDI Current Staff 1. Sophia Moestrup, PH. D. Deputy Director Central and West Africa 202-728-6309 smoestrup@ndi.org 2. Gemima A. N. Barlow Senior Program Manager Central and West Africa 202-728-6343 gbarlow@ndi.org 3. Aubrey McCutcheon Resident Senior Director NDI 0777-026-627, 0777-026-175, 0880-813-713 Annex, Pg. 14 amccutcheon@ndi.org 4. Thomas Du Program Manager NDI 0777-026-627, 0777-026-175, 0886-523-361 tdu@ndi.org 5. Patrick Merloe Senior Associate and Director of Electoral Programs NDI 202-728-5507 pat@ndi.org 6. Leo Platvoet Senior Program Manager NDI 077-026-627, 0777-026-175, 0880-813-723 lplatvoet@ndi.org 7. Mardia Greaves-Bloh Program Officer-Legislative Strengthening NDI 077-026-627, 077-026-175, 0886-663-570 Former NDI Staff 1. Alexander Chavarria NDI Program Director Kosovo achavarria@ndi.org NDI Consultants 1. Tobias A. Dorsey Special Counsel U.S. Sentencing Commission 202-502-4512 tdorsey@ussc.gov 2. David Petchefsky NDI Kenya dpechefsky@ndi.org Annex, Pg. 15 3. David Hunter Former Secretary Senate of Montana davidhunter@mt.net 4. Mary Nell Bryant Former Information Services Officer U.S. Department of State marynell02@gmail.com United Nations 1. Chiyuki Kozuka Political Affairs Officer Political, Policy and Planning Section UNMIL 0770-319-163 kozuka@un.org 2. Samuel Udoko Political Affairs Officer UNMIL 05319136 udoko@un.org 3. Ademola Araoye Chief Political, Policy and Planning Section UNMIL 0770-319-124 araoye@un.org 4. Nessie Golakai Assistant Resident Representative for Governance UNDP-Liberia O886 440 315 nessie.golakai@undp.org Government of Liberia 1. Tanneh G. Brunson Coordinator Budget Policy & Development Unit Ministry of Finance Annex, Pg. 16 0886-236-578 tgbrunson@hotmail.com 2. Ralph N. Sonkarlay Technical Focal Point Department of the Budget Ministry of Finance 0886-498-773, 0777-498-773 nemenla2007@yahoo.com 3. Massa R. Lansanah Secretary General Liberia Chamber of Commerce 0777-857-805, 0886-800-473 Liberiachamber2006@yahoo.com, secgen@lcc.org.lr, mrlansanah@lcc.lr 4. Annette M. Kiawu Deputy Minister-Research & Technical Services Ministry of Gender & Development 0886-551-454 musukay@yahoo.com, annette.kiawu@mogd.com 5. Cllr. Frances Johnson Allison Executive Chairperson Liberia Anti-Corruption Commission (LACC) 0886-522-379 6. Chief Zan Zan Kawor Head Traditional Council of Liberia 0886-685-415 7. Morris Dukuly Liaison to the National Legislature Ministry of State 8. Ruth Jappah and Othello Gongar Governance Commission 0886-548-352 9. Hon. Gloria Scott Constitution Review Committee 0886-529-330 10. Blamo Nelson Annex, Pg. 17 Minister-Internal Affairs Former JLMC Chair 0777-871-019, 0886-512-519 blamonelson2012@yahoo.com 11. Cllr. Elizabeth J. Nelson Acting Chairman National Elections Commission (NEC) 0886-514-229 ejboyenneh@yahoo.com National Legislature 1. B. McCarthy Weh, II Director Legislative Information Service 0886-531-630, 0777-531-630 bmwlis@gmail.com, bmccarthy_wehii@yahoo.com 2. Hon. Cllr. S. Gayah Karmo Chairman-Statutory Judiciary Committee House of Representative 0886-205-334 skarmo@cox.net, Senjeh13@yahoo.com, barmo5023@gmail.com 3. Hon. Charles K. Bardyl Chairman-Commerce & Industry House of Representatives 0886-514-217 charlesbardyl@yahoo.com 4. Isaac Redd Director-Press Office House of Representatives 0886-517-882 5. Hon. Josephine M. G. Francis Chairman-Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries House of Representatives 0770-510-285 repfrancis@gmail.com 6. Prof. F. Julius Ceasar Director-Legislative Budget Office The Liberian Legislature 0886-543-204 Annex, Pg. 18 f.juliusc@yahoo.com 7. Jarlawah A. Tonpo Director-Press and Public Affairs The Liberian Senate 0886-534-594, 0777-534-594 8. Rt. Hon. Hans M. Barchue Deputy Speaker House of Representatives 0886-520-722, 0777-520-722 hbarchue@yahoo.com 9. Mildred N. Sayon Chief Clerk House of Representatives 0886-549-359 milliesyn2g7@gmail.com 10. Cletus Segbe Wotorson Chairman-Senate Standing Committee on Lands, Mines, Energy, Mineral resources and Environment 0886-586-557, 0886-529-567, 0776-528-712 monrovia20@msn.com 11. Hon Solomon C. George Co-Chairman-Youth & Sports House of Representatives 0777-542-261, 0886-778-110 solomoncgeorge@yahoo.com 12. Hon. Mariamu Fofana Chair-Gender Committee House of Representatives 0886-927-589 Miriamum43@gmail.com 13. Hon. Edward S. Forh Member: Rules, Order and Administration, Education and Public Administration, Elections and Inauguration, Good Governance and Government Reform House of Representatives 0770-551-436 esforh@yahoo.com 14. Chief/Senator Nye Suah Coco Annex, Pg. 19 Jewel Howard Taylor Senior Senator-Bong County 0886-821-344, 0886-558-162 lowerbong1@yahoo.com 15. Hon. Edwin M. Snowe, Jr. Chairman: Rules, Order and Administration House of Representatives 0777-660-800, 05-660-800 Snowedwin@aol.com, edwinsnowe@edwinsnowe.org 16. Hon. John A. Ballout Member: Ways, Means, Finance and Budget; Concession and Investment; Public Works and Rural Development; Information Broadcasting, Culture and Tourism; Joint Legislative Modernization 17. Hon. J. Alex Tyler, Sr. Speaker House of Representatives National Legislature 0886-511-688, 0886-516-443 nwliberia@yahoo.com 18. Hon. Peter S. Coleman Chair: Committee on Gender, Health, Social Welfare, Women & Children Affairs Liberian Senate 0886-510-137 pscoleman2003@yahoo.com 19. Hon. Gbehzongar M. Findley President Pro Tempore Liberian Senate 0886-510-121, 0777-510-121 Civil Society Organizations-Monrovia 1. Oscar Bloh Chairman Election Coordination Committee 0886-554-109 oscarbloh2004@yahoo.com 2. John O. Kollie Director Liberia Media for Democratic Initiatives 0886-513-080 Annex, Pg. 20 Liberiamediafoedemocracy2011@gmail.com 3. Eddie Jawolo Executive Director NAYMOTE 0886-510-479 4. Sayor Wahtoson Executive Director Center for the Promotion of Democracy in Liberia (CPD) 0886-560-749 5. Vera Garway Inter Religious Council of Liberia 0886-570-635 6. Vargulah Mayango Liberia Rural Women Association 0886-794-174 7. Harold M. Aidoo Institute for Research and Democratic Development (IREDD) Formerly Liberia Democratic Institute (LDI) 0886-523-021 haidoo@iredd.org 8. Chris N.M. Kaleebay CUPPADL 0886-845-990 9. Varney Jarsey Liberia National Student Union (LINSU) 0886-681-944 10. Melvin Jentzen Liberia National Student Union (LINSU) 0886-714-306 11. Gheplytheauo Thinicee United Muslim Women (UMWAEO) 0886-347-404 12. Pilate Johnson Catholic Justice and Peace Commission 0886-540-521 Annex, Pg. 21 13. Peter Quaqua Press Union of Liberia 0886-529-611 14. Carolyn Myers-Zoduah AGENDA 0886-769-663 Field Visits: Bomi 1. Samuel Brown Superintendent 0886-589-997 2. Ernest Gray Davis Development Superintendent 0886-578-734 Civil Society: 1. Bendu S. Johnson Women Care International 0886-887-198 2. Maima Fatoima Gola Women 0886-421-778 3. R. Zoe Dennis Youth 0880-654-482 4. Cecelia Goodline Rural Women 0886-974-364 5. Blama K. Goll Federation of Liberia Youth 0880-434-791 6. T. Sumo Labella Christian Community 0886-626-943 Annex, Pg. 22 7. James S. Sumo YES Inc 0880-315-199 8. Augustine B. Kollie Youth Making Media 0888-045-788 9. Omasco Z. Kamara Care for Humanity 0886-886-951 10. Foday D. Sesay Radio Bomi 0886-731-876 11. Amos B. Weah Radio Bomi 0880-003-689 Grand Bassa County 1. Etweeda Cooper Superintendent 0886-518-666 2. Chapman Adams County Education Officer 0886-530-850 Civil Society: 1. E. Surprise Whea Mano River Youth Parliament Liberia Chapter 0886-588-549 2. Veronica S. Maxwell My Sister 0880-755-186 3. Joanna Yekeku Rural Women 0886-651-384 4. Blojay P. S. Doe Annex, Pg. 23 Federation of Liberian Youth (FLY) 0880-405-602 5. Julie M. Flanjay BAWODA 0886-651-263 6. Evelyn P. S. Karyea FAWE 0777-239-811 7. Victoria Lewis Women in Cross Border Trade 0886-911-203 8. Jebeh Jay Davies Youth for Christ 0886-459-600 9. Cecelia Brown Grand Bassa Community College 0886-498-782 10. Deborah B. Doe Federation of Liberian Youth 0886-335-632 11. Bennetta S. Kollie Federation of Liberian Youth 0886-809-023 Donors 1. Maxwell Dapaah Financial Management Specialist World Bank 0886-373-930 mdapaah@worldbank.org Annex, Pg. 24 Annex iii. Project Work Plan EVALUATION PROJECT METHODOLOGY AND DATA ACQUISITION PLAN I. EVALUATION PURPOSE This mission is designed to provide a final evaluation of the National Democratic Institute (NDI) program in Liberia, “Supporting the Modernization and Development of the Legislature as a Co￾Equal Branch of Government”. A secondary goal is to examine more generally the overall quality of the legislative process and the extent of political will to engage in legislative modernization. As per the SOW the evaluation will a) assess results achieved, b) identify any implementation problems and challenges that affected program results, and c) provide actionable and strategic recommendations for possible follow on actions. This assessment will assist the Mission to make judgments about the impact of changes in the operational environment on the achievement of results. II. METHODOLOGY AND DATA ACQUISITION Given the particularly focused nature of the project with a discrete number of participants and potential respondents, as well as the time and resource parameters of the assessment, mainly qualitatively-oriented methodologies will be best suited to achieve the assessment’s aims. The TMG evaluation team proposes to develop information upon which it will make its judgment of this project by the following means identified below: Literature Review. The team has already begun to review documentary material pertaining to the project. This includes direct project documents including project RFA and NDI proposal, quarterly reports, performance monitoring plans and semi and annual reporting, and material produced by the project, such as the newsletter and the NDI and Legislature websites. Other sources of documentation include UNDP reports, press and academic articles, reports by human rights groups and other civic organizations, and web-based comments of observers. This literature review will be completed prior to team arrival in-country. Washington D.C. Interviews. The team will consult with USG personnel familiar with the project. These include USAID staff in the Africa and DCHA bureaus. The team will also interview staff at NDI headquarters and at the House Democracy Assistance Commission. Interviews with Key Participants - The team will seek out the perspectives of current and former Liberian MPs who have participated in project activities. These will take the form of structured interviews containing both common open and closed questions (a sample list of questions is attached). Answers to some of the questions will be aggregated for data collection and analysis purposes. When possible these interviews will be conducted in person. Given the existence of a legislative members’ directory, and to ensure the largest interviewee/respondent size possible, it is likely that some interviews will be conducted by telephone. The list of MPs to be interviewed will be determined in consultation with NDI based on clear and transparent criteria. On a parallel track with the MPs interviews, the team will seek out the perspectives of senior Liberian legislative staff who have participated in implementing the Legislative Modernization Plan. These will take the form of structured interviews containing both common open and closed Annex, Pg. 25 questions specifically pertaining to the staffer function (a sample list of questions is attached). In addition, a questionnaire for all legislative staff will be developed (a draft is attached). Common underlying questions will be oriented towards what did the participants gain from the program, how did they use it, what were impact or results accruing from this and what future activities would support legislative modernization? Interviews with Relevant Government Officials. It is important to gain the perspective of executive branch, and other government (and quasi-governmental) officials who have interacted with the legislature, or others who may be in a position to assess the functioning of the legislature, and of the NDI project. These will take the form of structured interviews containing both common open and closed questions. The team will be guided to a considerable extent in its choice of interviewees by the advice of the US embassy and USAID Mission. Interviews with Relevant Stakeholders. In order to gain a broader and multi-faceted perspective of the project the team will identify and interview representatives of key external constituencies impacted by legislative actions. This will include CSOs, journalists, diplomatic and aid personnel, and academic or other informed observers of the functioning of the legislature. These will take the form of structured interviews containing both common open and closed questions. Focus Groups. In order to broaden the scope of the evaluation, and to gain additional perspective, the team anticipates organizing several focus group sessions with key stakeholder groups, both in Monrovia and in each county visited. It is likely that the target participants will be voters and citizens who can comment on legislative outreach and constituent services, and civil society groups who can comment on advocacy and legislative outreach capabilities. Field Visit. While much of the project’s focus has been on the internal organization and strengthening of the legislature, it will be important for the team to generate some information regarding the perception of the legislature’s effectiveness from a constituent’s perspective. That will require a visit outside of Monrovia. The SOW suggests site visits to constituent offices in Bomi, Margibi and Grand Bassa counties; the final selection will be made in consultation with NDI within the first week after arrival of the team in-country. The team will organize focus groups during these visits. Direct exposure to/analysis of project outputs. In order to test the Liberian commitment to modernization, we will analyze the current status and use of four of the tools/mechanisms created through the project; 1. The website; 2. The legislative budget office; 3 The legislative information service; and 4. The bill tracking mechanism. How well these are being maintained and used will be an important indicator. In addition, we will analyze some of the planned activities and events that didn’t happen or that didn’t happen fully. III. TIMELINE (ILLUSTRATIVE/TBC) Week One – organization, courtesy calls, fact-finding, initial interviews Monday Jan 28 AM USAID/Liberia - L-MEP – organization and logistics issues; finalize list of interviews; political discussion. Annex, Pg. 26 Confirmed: January 28, 2013 09:00-10:00 Meeting with the Democracy and Governance Team (USAID) January 28, 2013 11:00-12:00 In-brief with the Front Office (USAID) January 28, 2013 15:00 NDI PM NDI – initial meeting; discuss data collection and data gaps; discussion of who to see and how (individually or in groups); set dates for follow-on meetings; agreement on which activities will be tested/examined in depth (confirmed) Tuesday Jan 29 AM Courtesy calls at the Legislature by (solely) the Evaluation Team: The President of the Senate; The Speaker of the House; The Clerk of the Senate; The Clerk of the House; Chair of the JLMC; Chair of the WLC Presentation of the Team; explanation of the assessment; initial discussions of how the USAID/NDI project is perceived ; agreement on who to see at the Legislature and how to see them (individually or in groups); discussion of the methodology (e.g., the questionnaire for the staff) PM Meeting with the other Donor partners (other than USAID).. Presentation of the Team; explanation of the assessment; discussion on of how the LMP is perceived; seek advice on who to see outside the Legislature; discussion of the methodology; data gathering on who is supporting the LMP and how; initial discussion of ideas for a follow-on project. Confirmed January 29, 2013 16:30-17:30pm Meeting with the TEC Teams Wednesday Jan 30 AM Meeting with NDI to review activities and results in detail PM 2-3 in-depth interviews with senior staff and/or MPs at the Legislature23 OR presentation and distribution of questionnaire for the staff. Confirmed January 30, 2013 13:00-14:00pm Meeting with the POL/Econ Team Thursday Jan 31 AM and PM In-depth Interviews with senior staff and MPs at the Legislature Friday Feb. 1 AM and PM In-depth Interviews with senior staff and MPs at the Legislature Saturday Feb. 2 Team meeting to review progress and to write up notes from the week. Week Two Monday Feb. 4 AM Meeting with USAID/L-MEP to review organizational issues; update list of interviews; resolve bottlenecks, etc. 23 Based on the initial discussions, some of these meetings may involve more than on MP – for example, the team may meet with the Modernization Committee or the Women’s Caucus as a group rather than individually. Annex, Pg. 27 PM Round-Table with CSOs identified as interested in the Legislature Tuesday Feb. 5 AM In-depth Interviews with senior staff and MPs at the Legislature PM Round-Table with the members of the Modernization Committee Wednesday Feb. 6 AM In-depth Interviews with senior staff and MPs at the Legislature PM Round-Table with of journalists who cover the Legislature Thursday Feb. 7 AM In-depth Interviews with senior staff and MPs at the Legislature PM Meetings with the Minister of Finance and other identified members of the Executive to discuss GOR commitment to the modernization of the Legislature Friday Feb. 8 Field visit to a constituency office; voters’ focus group Saturday Feb. 9 Return to Monrovia; team meeting to review the week and write up notes Week Three and Week Four Repeat Week Two with necessary adjustments (e.g., Round-Table with CSO-NEC, repeat interviews, former MPs, etc.) Week Five Prepare first draft of the report and present Out-brief to USAID/Liberia (Friday March 1 10:00- 12:00) Week Six Present Out-brief to USAID/Washington (Tuesday March 5) IV. EXAMPLES OF INTERVIEWEE SUBJECTS (This list will be updated during Week 1 based on pending consultations with NDI) USAID DG Team (Group meeting) MD in-brief Tech team brief (Group meeting) State Dept (Group meeting) Jenkins Vangehn (PolAsst) George Sarmiento (PolOff) Government of Liberia Min. Finance —budget bureau Min. Internal Affairs Governance Commission Min. Education* Min. Health* Min. Information Liberian Anti-Corruption Commission Local Government Annex, Pg. 28 Superintendents/County and Social Development Fund (SDF and CDF) Committees (The Superintendent is part of this committee and we will meet them together) School and Health Board members* (*Either the ministries of health and education or county health and education committees; our preference is the county health and education committees. Parties and Elections National Elections Commission Civil Society (This may be a group meeting) Liberian Democratic Institute NAYMOTE Center for Transparency and Accountability in Liberia Action for Genuine Democratic Alternatives Liberia Democratic Watch Catholic Justice and Peace Commission Federation of Liberian Youth Women NGOs Secretariat of Liberia Traditional authorities National Traditional Council Media (This may be a group meeting) Liberia Media for Democratic Initiatives Liberia Media Center Press Union of Liberia Community Radio Stations Truth Radio Observer Star Radio Focus group of journalists who cover the Legislature Foreign Donors (List TBC with NDI) JICA World Bank UNDP SIDA UNMIL EU—possible Legislature Director LBO (possibly also a round-table with the staff) Director LIS (possibly also a round-table with the staff) Librarian/Director of the Research Center Other senior staff with whose departments the project has worked (LIS, ICT++) Party/House leaders Annex, Pg. 29 Chairs of the Target Committees In the counties Constituency Office staff Citizens (re radio programs and independence of the office) V. SAMPLE INTERVIEW QUESTIONS/QUESTIONNAIRES For the meetings with NDI What activities or results were not fully implemented or achieved as planned – and why not? What do you regard as your successes and what made them possible? Did you encounter any unexpected obstacles? What did you do about them? Who are the champions of reform in the Liberian legislature? Do they know how to lobby the GOL strategically? What remains to be done or is incomplete? What suggestions do you have for a possible follow-on program? Is the LMP sufficient? Will the result of full implementation be an effective modern legislature? Are there components of the LMP that you think are under- or over-weighted? How strong is the will for reform in the leadership of the legislature? What examples of significant commitment can you cite? For the meetings with senior staff How is the USAID/NDI program regarded at the Legislature – is it seen as supportive of the LMP or as parallel to it? Which of the activities of the program worked well and improved the legislature and which ones worked not so well? Was the program responsive to your needs and able to adapt as needed? Please tell us about the status of the following mechanisms that were supported by the program: the bill-tracking mechanism, the LBO, the web-site, the LIS? Are they being maintained and used? Are being funded properly to carry out their mandates? Who are the champions of reform in the Liberian legislature? Do they know how to lobby the GOR strategically? Is the LMP sufficient? Will the result of full implementation be an effective modern legislature? What remains to be done or is incomplete? Are there components of the LMP that you think are under- or over-weighted? How strong is the will for reform in the leadership of the legislature? What examples of significant commitment can you cite? Does the GOL support the modernization of the legislature? What suggestions do you have for a possible follow-on program? For the MPs Same as senior staff plus: Did you participate in any of the trainings provided by the USAID/NDI program? If so, what did you learn and how do you use what you learned? For the CSOs Are the inputs of civil society welcomed by the Legislature and its committees? Is the Legislature more open to working with CSOs than it was five years ago? Most of the senior staff questions Annex, Pg. 30 For the government/executive branch representatives Has the NDI project impacted the functioning of the legislature? More generally, how has the legislature evolved over the past 4 years? From your perspective, how effectively is the legislature How would you characterize relations between the legislature and the executive? For the citizens in the constituencies Is this office here to serve you or to serve the MP? (is it partisan?) Has the office helped you? How? Have you heard any of the radio programs about the workings of the legislature? Were they interesting? Do you feel you understand the Legislature better now? Have you heard from your legislator directly about the workings of the legislature…and/or his/her role in those workings? STAFF QUESTIONNAIRE Thank you for agreeing to complete this questionnaire. Please do NOT sign this document or indicate your position; our intention is to ensure your privacy and confidentiality. Let’s get started. A: The Legislative Modernization Plan (LMP) Are you familiar with the Legislative Modernization Plan of the Legislature of Liberia? YES NO Can you name the partners who are helping the Legislature implement the Plan? ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ Next, please answer the following questions, using the following responses: 1=Strongly Agree; 2= Agree; 3= neither agree nor Disagree; 4= Disagree; 5= Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 1. I am well-trained now to do my job 2. I need more training to do my job well 3. The Legislature is currently able to perform its functions well 4. The staff are currently able to perform their functions well 5. The members of the Senate are currently able to perform their functions well 6. The members of the House of Representatives are currently able to perform their functions well 7. The Leadership of the Legislature supports the LMP 8. The GOL supports the LMP and will provide the means necessary to implement it and to sustain it 9. The Bill-Tracking mechanism is fully operational and is being used 10. The Rules and Procedures need further modification Annex, Pg. 31 11. The LMP includes everything necessary to make the Legislature of Liberia a modern and effective instrument of a participatory democracy 12. The LMP needs to be updated and modified 13. The people of Liberia want the Legislature to be outspoken and active on behalf of the citizens 14. The people who are in positions of power want the Legislature to be outspoken and active on behalf of the citizens 15. The members of the Senate and of the House are better able to perform their functions today than when they were first elected 16. The Legislative Information Service does its job well 17. The Legislative Information Service has adequate support and staff 18. The materials from the LIS are helpful and informative to me in my work 19. The Legislative Budget Office does its job well 20. The Legislative Budget Office has adequate support and staff 21. The materials from the LBO are helpful and informative to me in my work B: Training Attached to this questionnaire is a list of some of the staff training that has been supported by the USAID project implemented by NDI; please look at the list and indicate the trainings you attended. Next, for up to 3 the trainings in which you did participate, please answer the following questions, using the following responses: 1=Strongly Agree; 2= Agree; 3= neither agree nor Disagree; 4= Disagree; 5= Strongly Disagree Training topic and date attended: 1 2 3 4 5 22. The training was well organised 23. The training was relevant to my work 24. The training provided practical tools 25. I am better able to do my job as a result of the training 26. I learned valuable lessons during the training 27. I use those lessons in my position today If you answered “Strongly Agree” or “Agree” to Question 27, please describe examples of what you learned during the training and how you apply that knowledge in your current work: 1_____________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ 2_____________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ 3_____________________________________________________________________________ Annex, Pg. 32 ______________________________________________________________________________ Training topic and date attended: 1 2 3 4 5 22. The training was well organised 23. The training was relevant to my work 24. The training provided practical tools 25. I am better able to do my job as a result of the training 26. I learned valuable lessons during the training 27. I use those lessons in my position today If you answered “Strongly Agree” or “Agree” to Question 27, please describe examples of what you learned during the training and how you apply that knowledge in your current work: 1_____________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ 2_____________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ 3_____________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ Training topic and date attended: 1 2 3 4 5 22. The training was well organised 23. The training was relevant to my work 24. The training provided practical tools 25. I am better able to do my job as a result of the training 26. I learned valuable lessons during the training 27. I use those lessons in my position today If you answered “Strongly Agree” or “Agree” to Question 27, please describe examples of what you learned during the training and how you apply that knowledge in your current work: 1_____________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ 2_____________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ 3_____________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ With regard to training, what suggestions would you make for the future? (For example, what kind of training worked well, what kind did not work so well? What topics were overlooked and need to be included? What kinds of training would help you?) ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ Annex, Pg. 33 C. General Finally, please answer the following questions, using the following responses: 1=Strongly Agree; 2= Agree; 3= neither agree nor Disagree; 4= Disagree; 5= Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 28. Every day, you know what you have to do 29. You have a detailed and clear job description 30. Your job can change from one day to the next 31. When you have a problem, you know who you can go to for help 32. When you have a problem, you get help 33. In your present position, you receive training each year 34. At work, you have a personal office 35. In your office, you have an intranet connection 36. In your office, you have an internet connection 37. You have a system to keep your files safe 38. In your office, everyone collaborates on all the files 39. In your office, everyone handles different files 40. In your office, the first person available handles each new file 41. In your office, the arriving files are divided up according to specialization 42. In your office, it’s the director who divides up the files 43. In your office, it’s the team that divides up the files 44. In your office, each file is handled a single time 45. In your office, each file is handled several times 46. In your office, there are different steps to follow 47. In your office, each file has a number 48. In your office, each file is reviewed by a colleague 49. In your office, each file is reviewed by the office director 50. In your office, you draw up an activity report. 51. In your office, everyone is at his/her desk during working hours all day and every day 52. In your office, absent employees are replaced after a week of not coming to work 53. In your office, everyone goes home when his work for the day is completed 54. In your office, files accumulate without there being enough staff to handle them quickly 55. In your office, files are handled without too much delay 56. In your office, staffing needs have been assessed during the course of the past three years 57. In your office, recruiting has taken place during the past three years 58. In your office, the organization of work has been changed during the past three years Annex, Pg. 34 59. In your office, the equipment works 60. In your office, major equipment is repaired within two weeks 61. In your office, you lack the equipment to manage your files 62. In your office, you need some training to use your equipment 63. Your salary is paid each month 64. Your salary is paid in its entirety 65. Along with your salary, the administration gives you other benefits 66. You have had a job evaluation during the past three years 67. Any complaints you made were taken into consideration during the past three years 68. Your suggestions have been taken into consideration during the past three years Thank you for completing this questionnaire. All the information collected will be kept strictly confidential. Please put the questionnaire into the envelope provided, seal the envelope and return it to ______ Sincerely The USAID/NDI Assessment Team Training Activities supported by USAID/NDI during 2009-2012 April to June 2009 Skills Building Sessions with Budget Staff July to Sept. 2009 Skills Building Sessions with staff supporting the Women’s Legislative Caucus of Liberia (WLCL) Oct. to Dec. 2009 Coaching session with 11 staff members of the WLCL to enhance their on￾the-job skills and capacity. One hundred and sixty nine legislative staff members, including 39 women, attended NDI-sponsored workshops and educational events this quarter. Events included the development of a bill tracking system, a skills assessment questionnaire, and technical assistance to staff members of the JLMC, WLCL, and legislative committees. Jan. to March 2010 Training for six staff members to serve as budget analysts for the House and Senate and to enhance their budget analysis skills enhance their skills with key computer software and to learn Internet research techniques. 15 legislative staff members to attend a six-day computer skills training course Coaching sessions to legislative staff to help them improve their assistance to their committees. Skills building workshop with members and staff of WLC Annex, Pg. 35 One-hundred-eight legislative staff members, including 34 women, attended NDI workshops and educational events this quarter, strengthening their legislative skill set in such areas as committee procedures, budget analysis, the bill tracking system, and computer operations. April to June 2010 Training session with 11 staff members from the Senate Research Bureau and 15 staff members from the House Research Bureau. 210 legislative staff members attended NDI workshops or educational events this quarter to strengthen their skills, including on the bill tracking system, legislative staff structure and committee support office assessments, research strategies for the House and Senate research bureaus, and WLCL staff on organization and messaging skills July to Sept. 2010 247 legislative staff, including 75 women, attended NDI-organized activities this quarter that helped strengthen the staff’s knowledge in bill tracking, budget analysis, committee operations, and parliamentary operations. Oct. to Dec. 2010 Thirty-two staff from the LIS received training on basic computer skills, library management, customer service, and conducting research. The staff who participated in this training included 11 women. Jan. to March 2011 During this quarter, 40 staff attended trainings organized by NDI: Four staff from the two chambers participated in working sessions with NDI to identify ways to improve the bill tracking system, and develop recommendations for future advancements. Ten legislative staff members from the House and Senate budget offices, finance offices, Office of the Chief Clerk, and one personal staff member, participated in six day training on conducting budget analysis led by NDI. One personal staff each of the chairs for the House Committee on Elections and Senate Committee on Labor worked with NDI to plan public hearings, including identifying government and non-government witnesses, setting the agenda and informing the press. The director of the LIS and deputy directors of the library, archives and research service participated in weekly meetings with NDI staff to address central decisions that they will need to make before the opening of the LIS in April. Six staff from central staff departments in the House and the Senate participated in a planning session for the development of the legislative website. Annex, Pg. 36 April to June 2011 Twenty six LIS staff participated in a workshop conducted by NDI on library technology. Eight staff from the offices of the secretary of the Senate and chief clerk of the House attended an NDI’s workshop on the versions control system. July to Sept. 2011 Eight legislative staffers attended a Ubuntu training at the iLab facility in Monrovia from July 11 to 14. . From September 19 to 22, 20 legislative staff members attended a workshop for the LBO. Oct. to Dec. 2011 Seventeen staff members (including six women) attended NDI’s public relations workshop from October 18 to 21. Six staff members (including one woman) attended NDI follow-on training on how to organize photo archives and edit photos using the software GIMP on November 17. Seven press department staff members (including one woman) attended training on audio clips on December 1. Nine staff members from the LBO (including three women) and 17 staff members from the House and Senate Finance and Budget Committees (including four women) attended the LBO Directors’ Workshop from December 13 to 15. Twenty-four staff members of the LIS (including eight women) attended trainings on internet research tools and report writing and preparation from November 28 to December 11. Four LIS staff members (including two women) took part in a study mission to the Ghanaian Parliament from December 4 to 8. Seventy-four legislative staff members attended at least one of the NDI￾sponsored trainings on advanced and basic Ubuntu and Drupal. The staff members trained included: nine IT staffers (including one woman), five LBO staff members (including two women), 10 LIS staff members (including five women), 17 Press and Public Affairs Departments staff members (including 11 women), 11 from the chief clerk and secretary of the Senate offices (including two women), and 22 from other legislative support departments (including 11 women). Jan. to March 2012 Training for the LBO and the press bureaus; Annex, Pg. 37 Senate professional staff members acquired new skills related to the electronic voting system. The LIS began a month-long training on March 23 April to June 2012 NDI trained 123 new legislative staff, as detailed in the table below. Legislative Staff Trained by NDI Legislative Chamber Staff Position # Men Trained # Women Trained Total Trained Senate Research Officers 58 5 63 Chief of Office Staffers 7 3 10 House Research Officers 21 2 23 Chief of Office Staffers 26 1 27 Total 112 11 123 NDI also trained 21 press staff on photo editing, audio clipping, and writing press releases who have been counted in previous quarters, including 11 press staff members from the House and 10 from the Senate. NDI trained 27 staff members of the LIS on Microsoft PowerPoint, internet research tools and electronic database creation who have been counted in previous quarters. July to Sept. 2012 Thirty-eight (38) new legislative staff attended a professional development seminar on writing legislative summaries and conducting policy analysis. Annex, Pg. 38 Annex iv. Data Collection and Analysis Methods DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS METHODS The evaluation team adopted a mixed-method approach to generating data and information upon which it bases its conclusions. This included qualitative and quantitative data collection from a carefully selected sample of key individuals and stakeholders, with selection criteria clearly articulated. Methods included a literature review, key informant interviews, 7 focus groups, use of a survey questionnaire, and respondent content analysis. Consistent interview questions were prepared for different target groups.24 Specific Elements Literature Review – Prior to departure for Liberia the team conducted a comprehensive literature review has considered, inter alia, “Supporting the Modernization and Development of the Legislature as a Co-Equal Branch of Government” program description and relevant program documents such as quarterly reports, data quality assessments (DQAs), work plans, Performance Management Plans (PMPs), journal articles, newsletters, and other primary and secondary sources materials. The review also included reports and information created by the legislature such as the Legislative Information Service’s Annual Report and the Legislative Budget Office’s analysis documents on the national budget, as well as the Joint Modernization Plan (see Annex vii for a comprehensive list of documents consulted). Both NDI offices in Washington and Monrovia, as well as the USAID mission in Liberia were of considerable assistance in collecting background documents on USAID’s strategies and the NDI program for the evaluation team in advance of the field work. Washington D.C, Interviews - The assessment team met with key informants in the USAID Africa and Democracy, Conflict, and Humanitarian Assistance (DCHA) Bureaus and with NDI headquarters staff prior to the commencement of the field work phase. Additionally, the team held two conference calls with USAID/Liberia prior to beginning the field work portion of the assessment. Telephone interviews were also conducted with four former NDI consultants and staff familiar with the program prior to arrival in Monrovia. Key Informant Interviews - Interviews included multiple meetings with USAID, Embassy, and NDI staff; members and staff of the legislature; executive branch and other government representatives, members of officially constituted groups such as the Constitutional Reform 24 Selection Criteria. The team used a wide range of criteria to insure inclusiveness. In conducting the above data gathering activities the team took care to ensure both a comprehensive and representative cohort of respondents was represented. In addition to gender the criteria were comprised of age, occupation, provenance, exposure to the legislature, and educational background. NDI interviewed a total of 93 individuals or focus groups participants. They were closely matched by gender, with 60% male and 40% female. A complete list of respondents directly interviewed by the team, with additional disaggregated data is contained at Annex ii. In order to ensure privacy meetings and focus groups were closed to the press. The team also recommends that any public version of this report not include specific names of respondents. Annex, Pg. 39 Commission and the Governance Commission, donors engaging in legislative strengthening programs; civil society; and international NGO representatives in Monrovia. These semi￾structured interviews were conducted according to protocols which are included at Appendix x. A full list of interviewees is included in Annex x. Site visits – The team visited two sites outside of Montserrado County; Tubmanburg in Bomi County and Buchanan in Grand Bassa Counties. These sites were chosen as they represented different counties with different ethnic constituencies and socio-economic contexts. In these sites the team met with local officials, legislature constituency office workers, civil society members and voters. Focus Groups – The team conducted a total of seven focus groups. Four were with various civil society groups in Monrovia (including student groups, human rights organizations, women’s groups, and faith-based organizations), one was with journalists, and two were organized by civil society groups with civil society representatives and voters. Program Activity Observation – The team observed two NDI activities (legislative drafting training and electoral reform) which took place during their visit. Staff Questionnaire – A total of 90 staff questionnaires were distributed to personal and central staff members (the Questionnaire is at Annex viii). Interview Content Analysis – Content analysis of interviews and focus groups was conducted in order to identify the most frequently cited issues by Liberian respondents. This in turn permits identification of themes that are perceived of as important by key program stakeholders. In all the team interviewed a total of 93 individuals (including focus group participants), of which 57 were male and 36 female. Annex ii contains additional detailed interviewee information. Annex, Pg. 40 Annex v. Team Biographies TEAM BIOGRAPHIES The Hon. John Bosley P.C. is a parliamentary strengthening expert with extensive experience serving as a Member of Parliament (MP) and assisting to legislatures worldwide. Mr. Bosley brings to the NDI evaluation an impressive set of credentials. He was an MP in Canada for 14 years. During that period, he served as Speaker of the House of Commons and as Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee. As Speaker, he successfully implemented changes in parliamentary procedures that opened up the process to greater input from both other MPs and voters. Since leaving public office in 1993, Mr. Bosley has used his expertise to support the development of legislatures in several countries, with the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA), the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), and other donors. Mr. Bosley’s extensive technical experience lies in his understanding of the operations of Parliaments, his knowledge of accountability and oversight issues, and his ability to link civil society organizations (CSOs) into public policy formulation and oversight. His 20 years of international consulting experience includes training and mentoring MPs and staffers, assessing parliaments, designing and implementing projects, advising on anticorruption issues; drafting legislation; and improving the legislative process through information technology (IT) applications. Mr. Bosley has assessed legislative structures, operations, and the quality of work done by MPs and staffers. He has worked with legislative bodies in 18 countries, primarily in Africa, including orientation seminars for new MPs, seminars for budget committees, training for parliamentary research staff, and advising on strategic planning. Mr. Bosley holds a bachelor’s degree in philosophy, and a diploma in legislative drafting. He is fluent in English and proficient in French. Edward McMahon, Ed.D. currently holds a joint appointment as Research Associate Professor in the Departments of Community Development and Applied Economics, and Political Science at the University of Vermont. Dr. McMahon served as Dean’s Professor of Applied Politics and Director of the Center on Democratic Performance at Binghamton University from 1999-2003, as Africa Regional Director with the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs from 1990-1998, and as a diplomat with the U.S. State Department from 1981-1990. In recent years he has undertaken many consultancies on democracy and governance issues. In addition to writing frequent journal articles and book chapters on democracy and human rights issues, Dr. McMahon has co-authored Piecing a Democratic Quilt: Universal Norms and Regional Organizations (Bloomfield: Kumerian Press, 2006) and co-edited Democratic Institution Performance: Research and Policy Perspectives (Greenwood/Praeger, 2002). Frances Naiga Muwonge, Esq. attended Duke University (B.A. ‘97) where she majored in Comparative Area Studies before attending Washington University School of Law (J.D. ‘00). After graduation she was admitted to the New York State Bar. For almost four years Ms. Muwonge worked with the International Republican Institute as a Program Officer for Africa managing programs that ranged from working to strengthen political dialogue, access and consumption of political information as well as encouraging broader participation in all aspects Annex, Pg. 41 of elections. From 2005-2010, she worked with the United Nations Mission in Liberia. She served as Legal Officer for the October 2005 Presidential and Parliamentary elections and subsequently spent four years as a political analyst monitoring political developments of national import vis-à-vis the peace process and drafted policy papers for Mission leadership. Since 2010, Ms. Muwonge has worked as an international development consultant. Annex, Pg. 42 Annex vi. Documents Reviewed DOCUMENTS REVIEWED Ackerman, Ruthie. “Rebuilding Liberia, One Brick at a Time”, World Policy Journal, June 2009 26: 83-92. Flomoku, Peewee, Councillor Lenuel Reeves. “Formal and Informal Justice in Liberia.” Accord, June 2012, 23: 44-47. Harris, David. “Liberia 2005: An unusual African post-conflict election”, Journal of Modern African Political Studies, 44, 3, 2006: 375-395. House Democracy Assistance Commission. “Staff Assessment Visit to Monrovia, Liberia, April 27 - May 2, 2009”. Greenberg, Marcia E. May 2009. United States Agency for International Development (USAID): “A Gender Assessment for USAID in Liberia.” International Crisis Group. “Liberia: Time for Much-Delayed Reconciliation and Reform”, Africa Briefing no. 88, June 2012. Liberia: How Sustainable Is the Recovery?, Africa Report no. 177, August 2011. Justice and Peace Commission. “Summary Report of the House of Representatives Legislative Report Card, March-September 2010”. Justice and Peace Commission. “Summary Report of the Senate Legislative Report Card, March￾September 2010”. Liberian Legislature, Legislative Budget Office. Analysis of the FY2012/13 Draft national Budget (Provisional), July 2012. Liberian Legislature, Legislative Budget Office. “An Independent and Objective Analysis of the Approved 2012/2013 National Budget Conducted by the Legislative Budget Office (LBO)”. McGovern, Mike. “Rebuilding a Failed State”. Development in Practice, 2005, 15, 6. McKeown, Mary, Edward Mulbah. April 2007. Search for Common Ground: “Civil Society in Liberia: Towards a Strategic Framework for Support - An Overview of Civil Society in Liberia.” National Elections Commission Official Newsletter, “The Ballot”, January-March 2013. NDI Quarterly Reports, 2009-2012. NDI, Performance Monitoring Plan Documents and Reports, 2009-2012. Nelson, Sue, Terrence Lyons, PhD., Evan B. Smith and Sekou W. Konneh. November 2008. United States Agency for International Development (USAID): “Liberia Elections and Political Processes Program Evaluation Final Report.” Republic of Liberia Legislature, Joint Legislative Modernization Committee. “Modernization Plan 2009-2013”. Annex, Pg. 43 Office of the Director, Legislative Information Service. “Annual Report of the Legislative Information Service (LIS) Covering the Period April 2011 to May 2012. Republic of Liberia Legislature. “Know Your Representatives – House of Representatives”, 53rd Legislature. Republic of Liberia Legislature. “Know Your Representatives – Senate”, 53rd Legislature. Republic of Liberia Legislature website. http://legislature.gov.lr/. Republic of Liberia. “Citizen’s Guide to the National Budget, 2012/2013 Fiscal Year”. Government of Liberia. June 2009. “Truth and Reconciliation Commission Final Report – Volume II Consolidated.” Sawyer, Amos. “Emerging Patterns in Liberia's Post-Conflict Politics: Observations from the 2005 Elections”, African Affairs, 2008, 107, 427: 177-199 Steinberg, Jonny. “Liberia’s Experiment With Transitional Justice”, African Affairs, 109, 434: 135-144. UNDP. “Stocktake of the Implementation of the Liberian Legislature Modernisation Plan 2009- 13”, September 19, 2012 USAID Azerbaijan. “Parliamentary Program of Azerbaijan Evaluation Final Report”, July 2011. USAID Liberia. “The Legislative Budget Process and NDI’s Legislative Strengthening Program”, September 1, 2012. Women Legislative Caucus of Liberia. “Strategic Plan 2008-2011. Annex, Pg. 44 Annex vii. Survey Questionnaire and Responses (Quantitative Data) FREQUENCY TABLES Are you familiar with the Legislative Modernization Plan (the LMP) of the Legislature of Liberia? Frequency Percent Valid No 1 2.9 Yes 29 82.9 Total 30 85.7 Missing System 5 14.3 Total 35 100.0 Who are the partners who are helping the Legislature implement the plan Frequency Percent Valid USAID/NDI 32 91.4 Missing System 3 8.6 Total 35 100.0 I am well trained now to do my job Frequency Percent Valid Strongly agree 7 20.0 Agree 14 40.0 Neither agree nor disagree 6 17.1 Disagree 6 17.1 Strongly Disagree 1 2.9 Total 34 97.1 Missing System 1 2.9 Total 35 100.0 I need more training to do my job Frequency Percent Valid Strongly Agree 13 37.1 Agree 16 45.7 Neither Agree nor disagree 3 8.6 Disagree 3 8.6 Total 35 100.0 Annex, Pg. 45 The Legislature is currently able to perform its functions well Frequency Percent Valid Strongly Agree 6 17.1 Agree 11 31.4 Neither Agree nor Disagree 9 25.7 Disagree 6 17.1 Total 32 91.4 Missing System 3 8.6 Total 35 100.0 The staff are currently able to perform their functions well Frequency Percent Valid Strongly Agree 4 11.4 Agree 11 31.4 Neither Agree nor Disagree 10 28.6 Disagree 9 25.7 Strongly Disagree 1 2.9 Total 35 100.0 The members of the Senate are currently able to perform the functions well Frequency Percent Valid Strongly Agree 5 14.3 Agree 8 22.9 Neither Agree nor Disagree 12 34.3 Disagree 7 20.0 Total 32 91.4 Missing System 3 8.6 Total 35 100.0 Annex, Pg. 46 The members of the House of Representatives are currently able to perform the functions well Frequency Percent Valid Strongly Agree 6 17.1 Agree 8 22.9 Neither Agree nor Disagree 11 31.4 Disagree 9 25.7 Total 34 97.1 Missing System 1 2.9 Total 35 100.0 The leadership of the Legislature supports the LMP Frequency Percent Valid Strongly Agree 7 20.0 Agree 14 40.0 Neither Agree nor Disagree 6 17.1 Disagree 3 8.6 Strongly Disagree 5 14.3 Total 35 100.0 The GOL supports the LMP and will provide the means necessary to implement it and to sustain it Frequency Percent Valid Strongly Agree 3 8.6 Agree 15 42.9 Neither Agree nor Disagree 4 11.4 Disagree 7 20.0 Strongly Disagree 6 17.1 Total 35 100.0 Annex, Pg. 47 The Bill-tracking mechanism is fully operational Frequency Percent Valid Strongly Agree 4 11.4 Agree 20 57.1 Neither Agree nor Disagree 8 22.9 Disagree 2 5.7 Total 34 97.1 Missing System 1 2.9 Total 35 100.0 The rules and procedures need further modifications Frequency Percent Valid Strongly Agree 15 42.9 Agree 15 42.9 Neither Agree nor Disagree 3 8.6 Disagree 1 2.9 Total 34 97.1 Missing System 1 2.9 Total 35 100.0 The LMP includes everything necessary to make the Legislature of Liberia a modern and effective instrument of a participatory democracy Frequency Percent Valid Strongly Agree 14 40.0 Agree 11 31.4 Neither Agree nor Disagree 8 22.9 Disagree 1 2.9 Strongly Disagree 1 2.9 Total 35 100.0 Annex, Pg. 48 The LMP needs to be updated and modified Frequency Percent Valid Strongly Agree 11 31.4 Agree 15 42.9 Neither Agree nor Disagree 5 14.3 Disagree 2 5.7 Total 33 94.3 Missing System 2 5.7 Total 35 100.0 The people of Liberia want the Legislature to be outspoken and active on behalf of the citizens Frequency Percent Valid Strongly Agree 27 77.1 Agree 6 17.1 Neither Agree nor Disagree 2 5.7 Total 35 100.0 The people who are in positions of power want the Legislature to be outspoken and active on behalf of the citizens Frequency Percent Valid Strongly Agree 10 28.6 Agree 10 28.6 Neither Agree nor Disagree 4 11.4 Disagree 9 25.7 Strongly Disagree 2 5.7 Total 35 100.0 Annex, Pg. 49 The members of the Senate and of the House are better able to perform their functions today than when they well first elected. Frequency Percent Valid Strongly Agree 8 22.9 Agree 17 48.6 Neither Agree nor Disagree 7 20.0 Disagree 1 2.9 Strongly Disagree 2 5.7 Total 35 100.0 The Legislative information service does its jobs well Frequency Percent Valid Strongly Agree 8 22.9 Agree 19 54.3 Neither Agree nor Disagree 6 17.1 Disagree 2 5.7 Total 35 100.0 The Legislative information service has adequate support and staff Frequency Percent Valid Strongly Agree 4 11.4 Agree 11 31.4 Neither Agree nor Disagree 13 37.1 Disagree 6 17.1 Strongly Disagree 1 2.9 Total 35 100.0 Annex, Pg. 50 The materials from the LIS are helpful and informative to me in my work Frequency Percent Valid Strongly Agree 13 37.1 Agree 15 42.9 Neither Agree nor Disagree 3 8.6 Disagree 2 5.7 Strongly Disagree 1 2.9 Total 34 97.1 Missing System 1 2.9 Total 35 100.0 The Legislative budget office does its job well Frequency Percent Valid Strongly Agree 10 28.6 Agree 18 51.4 Neither Agree nor Disagree 3 8.6 Disagree 3 8.6 Strongly Disagree 1 2.9 Total 35 100.0 The Legislative budget office has adequate support and staff Frequency Percent Valid Strongly Agree 7 20.0 Agree 11 31.4 Neither Agree nor Disagree 10 28.6 Disagree 3 8.6 Strongly Disagree 3 8.6 Total 34 97.1 Missing System 1 2.9 Total 35 100.0 Annex, Pg. 51 The materials from the LBO are helpful and informative to me in my work Frequency Percent Valid Strongly Agree 6 17.1 Agree 13 37.1 Neither Agree nor Disagree 14 40.0 Disagree 2 5.7 Total 35 100.0 The training was well organized Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree 30 38% 35 45% 11 14% 2 3% 0 0% Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree The training was relevant to my work 35 45% 38 49% 4 5% 0 0% 1 1% Annex, Pg. 52 Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree The training provided practical tools 19 24% 41 53% 9 12% 5 6% 4 5% Annex, Pg. 53 Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree I am better able to do my job as a result of the training 14 18% 46 59% 13 17% 4 5% 1 1% Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree I learned valuable lessons during the training 20 26% 46 59% 9 11% 1 1% 2 3% Annex, Pg. 54 Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree I use those lessons in my position today 21 27% 38 49% 12 15% 7 9% 0 0% Annex, Pg. 55 Every day, you know what you have to do Frequency Percent Valid Strongly Agree 14 40.0 Agree 18 51.4 Neither Agree nor Disagree 1 2.9 Disagree 2 5.7 Total 35 100.0 You have a detailed and clear job description Frequency Percent Valid Strongly Agree 13 37.1 Agree 16 45.7 Neither Agree nor Disagree 5 14.3 Strongly Disagree 1 2.9 Total 35 100.0 Your job can change from one day to the next Frequency Percent Valid Strongly Agree 6 17.1 Agree 7 20.0 Neither Agree nor Disagree 8 22.9 Disagree 10 28.6 Strongly Disagree 2 5.7 Total 33 94.3 Missing System 2 5.7 Total 35 100.0 When you have a problem, you know who you can go to for help Frequency Percent Valid Strongly Agree 17 48.6 Agree 15 42.9 Disagree 1 2.9 Strongly Disagree 1 2.9 Total 34 97.1 Missing System 1 2.9 Total 35 100.0 Annex, Pg. 56 When you have a problem, you get help Frequency Percent Valid Strongly Agree 7 20.0 Agree 14 40.0 Neither Agree nor Disagree 10 28.6 Disagree 1 2.9 Strongly Disagree 1 2.9 Total 33 94.3 Missing System 2 5.7 Total 35 100.0 In your present position, you receive training each year Frequency Percent Valid Strongly Agree 5 14.3 Agree 5 14.3 Neither Agree nor Disagree 5 14.3 Disagree 11 31.4 Strongly Disagree 6 17.1 6 1 2.9 Total 33 94.3 Missing System 2 5.7 Total 35 100.0 At work, you have a personal office Frequency Percent Valid Strongly Agree 2 5.7 Agree 2 5.7 Neither Agree nor Disagree 3 8.6 Disagree 18 51.4 Strongly Disagree 8 22.9 Total 33 94.3 Missing System 2 5.7 Total 35 100.0 Annex, Pg. 57 In your office, you have an intranet connection Frequency Percent Valid Strongly Agree 3 8.6 Agree 6 17.1 Neither Agree nor Disagree 4 11.4 Disagree 10 28.6 Strongly Disagree 9 25.7 Total 32 91.4 Missing System 3 8.6 Total 35 100.0 In your office, you have an internet connection Frequency Percent Valid Strongly Agree 4 11.4 Agree 7 20.0 Neither Agree nor Disagree 1 2.9 Disagree 11 31.4 Strongly Disagree 8 22.9 Total 31 88.6 Missing System 4 11.4 Total 35 100.0 You have a system to keep your files safe Frequency Percent Valid Strongly Agree 5 14.3 Agree 21 60.0 Neither Agree nor Disagree 3 8.6 Disagree 3 8.6 Strongly Disagree 2 5.7 Total 34 97.1 Missing System 1 2.9 Total 35 100.0 Annex, Pg. 58 In your office, everyone collaborates on all the files Frequency Percent Valid Strongly Agree 2 5.7 Agree 11 31.4 Neither Agree nor Disagree 6 17.1 Disagree 11 31.4 Strongly Disagree 4 11.4 Total 34 97.1 Missing System 1 2.9 Total 35 100.0 In your office, everyone handles different files Frequency Percent Valid Strongly Agree 2 5.7 Agree 10 28.6 Neither Agree nor Disagree 4 11.4 Disagree 14 40.0 Strongly Disagree 4 11.4 Total 34 97.1 Missing System 1 2.9 Total 35 100.0 In your office, the first person available handles each new file Frequency Percent Valid Agree 4 11.4 Neither Agree nor Disagree 7 20.0 Disagree 16 45.7 Strongly Disagree 5 14.3 Total 32 91.4 Missing System 3 8.6 Total 35 100.0 Annex, Pg. 59 In your office, the arriving files are divided up according to specialization Frequency Percent Valid Strongly Agree 4 11.4 Agree 16 45.7 Neither Agree nor Disagree 3 8.6 Disagree 7 20.0 Strongly Disagree 3 8.6 Total 33 94.3 Missing System 2 5.7 Total 35 100.0 In your office, it's the director who divides up the files Frequency Percent Valid Strongly Agree 2 5.7 Agree 9 25.7 Neither Agree nor Disagree 3 8.6 Disagree 16 45.7 Strongly Disagree 4 11.4 Total 34 97.1 Missing System 1 2.9 Total 35 100.0 In your office, it's the team that divides up the files Frequency Percent Valid Strongly Agree 2 5.7 Agree 5 14.3 Neither Agree nor Disagree 9 25.7 Disagree 13 37.1 Strongly Disagree 5 14.3 Total 34 97.1 Missing System 1 2.9 Total 35 100.0 Annex, Pg. 60 In your office, each file is handled a single time Frequency Percent Valid Strongly Agree 3 8.6 Agree 6 17.1 Neither Agree nor Disagree 10 28.6 Disagree 12 34.3 Strongly Disagree 2 5.7 Total 33 94.3 Missing System 2 5.7 Total 35 100.0 In your office, each file is handled several times Frequency Percent Valid Strongly Agree 2 5.7 Agree 12 34.3 Neither Agree nor Disagree 7 20.0 Disagree 10 28.6 Strongly Disagree 1 2.9 Total 32 91.4 Missing System 3 8.6 Total 35 100.0 In your office, there are different steps to follow Frequency Percent Valid Strongly Agree 2 5.7 Agree 20 57.1 Neither Agree nor Disagree 6 17.1 Disagree 4 11.4 Strongly Disagree 2 5.7 Total 34 97.1 Missing System 1 2.9 Total 35 100.0 Annex, Pg. 61 In your office, each file has a number Frequency Percent Valid Strongly Agree 3 8.6 Agree 10 28.6 Neither Agree nor Disagree 6 17.1 Disagree 10 28.6 Strongly Disagree 4 11.4 Total 33 94.3 Missing System 2 5.7 Total 35 100.0 In your office, each file is reviewed by a colleague Frequency Percent Valid Strongly Agree 4 11.4 Agree 6 17.1 Neither Agree nor Disagree 10 28.6 Disagree 9 25.7 Strongly Disagree 4 11.4 Total 33 94.3 Missing System 2 5.7 Total 35 100.0 In your office, each file is reviewed by the office director Frequency Percent Valid Strongly Agree 4 11.4 Agree 13 37.1 Neither Agree nor Disagree 5 14.3 Disagree 10 28.6 Strongly Disagree 1 2.9 Total 33 94.3 Missing System 2 5.7 Total 35 100.0 Annex, Pg. 62 In your office, you draw up an activity report Frequency Percent Valid Strongly Agree 9 25.7 Agree 12 34.3 Neither Agree nor Disagree 7 20.0 Disagree 4 11.4 Strongly Disagree 1 2.9 Total 33 94.3 Missing System 2 5.7 Total 35 100.0 In your office, everyone is at his/her desk during working hours all day and every day Frequency Percent Valid Strongly Agree 7 20.0 Agree 10 28.6 Neither Agree nor Disagree 7 20.0 Disagree 7 20.0 Strongly Disagree 3 8.6 Total 34 97.1 Missing System 1 2.9 Total 35 100.0 In your office, absent employees are replaced after a week of not coming to work Frequency Percent Valid Agree 1 2.9 Neither Agree nor Disagree 6 17.1 Disagree 15 42.9 Strongly Disagree 11 31.4 Total 33 94.3 Missing System 2 5.7 Total 35 100.0 Annex, Pg. 63 In your office, everyone goes home when his/her work for the day is complete Frequency Percent Valid Strongly Agree 6 17.1 Agree 7 20.0 Neither Agree nor Disagree 5 14.3 Disagree 10 28.6 Strongly Disagree 5 14.3 Total 33 94.3 Missing System 2 5.7 Total 35 100.0 In your office, files accumulate without there being enough staff to handle them quickly Frequency Percent Valid Strongly Agree 1 2.9 Agree 2 5.7 Neither Agree nor Disagree 6 17.1 Disagree 19 54.3 Strongly Disagree 3 8.6 Total 31 88.6 Missing System 4 11.4 Total 35 100.0 In your office, files are handled without too much delay Frequency Percent Valid Strongly Agree 9 25.7 Agree 13 37.1 Neither Agree nor Disagree 7 20.0 Disagree 4 11.4 Strongly Disagree 1 2.9 Total 34 97.1 Missing System 1 2.9 Total 35 100.0 Annex, Pg. 64 In your office, staffing needs have been assessed during the course of the past three years Frequency Percent Valid Strongly Agree 2 5.7 Agree 8 22.9 Neither Agree nor Disagree 13 37.1 Disagree 6 17.1 Strongly Disagree 5 14.3 Total 34 97.1 Missing System 1 2.9 Total 35 100.0 In your office, recruiting has taken place during the past three years Frequency Percent Valid Strongly Agree 8 22.9 Agree 7 20.0 Neither Agree nor Disagree 5 14.3 Disagree 11 31.4 Strongly Disagree 3 8.6 Total 34 97.1 Missing System 1 2.9 Total 35 100.0 In your office, the organization of work has been changed during the past three years Frequency Percent Valid Strongly Agree 7 20.0 Agree 5 14.3 Neither Agree nor Disagree 8 22.9 Disagree 11 31.4 Strongly Disagree 2 5.7 Total 33 94.3 Missing System 2 5.7 Total 35 100.0 Annex, Pg. 65 In your office, the equipment works Frequency Percent Valid Strongly Agree 7 20.0 Agree 11 31.4 Neither Agree nor Disagree 10 28.6 Disagree 3 8.6 Total 31 88.6 Missing System 4 11.4 Total 35 100.0 In your office, major equipment is repaired within two weeks Frequency Percent Valid Strongly Agree 2 5.7 Agree 1 2.9 Neither Agree nor Disagree 8 22.9 Disagree 16 45.7 Strongly Disagree 7 20.0 Total 34 97.1 Missing System 1 2.9 Total 35 100.0 In your office, you lack the equipment to manage your files Frequency Percent Valid Strongly Agree 4 11.4 Agree 9 25.7 Neither Agree nor Disagree 5 14.3 Disagree 11 31.4 Strongly Disagree 3 8.6 Total 32 91.4 Missing System 3 8.6 Total 35 100.0 Annex, Pg. 66 In your office, you need some training to use your equipment Frequency Percent Valid Strongly Agree 9 25.7 Agree 13 37.1 Neither Agree nor Disagree 10 28.6 Disagree 1 2.9 Strongly Disagree 1 2.9 Total 34 97.1 Missing System 1 2.9 Total 35 100.0 Your salary is paid each month Frequency Percent Valid Strongly Agree 23 65.7 Agree 9 25.7 Neither Agree nor Disagree 2 5.7 Total 34 97.1 Missing System 1 2.9 Total 35 100.0 Your salary is paid each in its entirety Frequency Percent Valid Strongly Agree 17 48.6 Agree 11 31.4 Neither Agree nor Disagree 3 8.6 Disagree 2 5.7 Strongly Disagree 1 2.9 Total 34 97.1 Missing System 1 2.9 Total 35 100.0 Annex, Pg. 67 Along with your salary, the administration gives you other benefits Frequency Percent Valid Strongly Agree 10 28.6 Agree 9 25.7 Neither Agree nor Disagree 5 14.3 Disagree 5 14.3 Strongly Disagree 5 14.3 Total 34 97.1 Missing System 1 2.9 Total 35 100.0 You have had a job evaluation during the past three years Frequency Percent Valid Strongly Agree 4 11.4 Agree 10 28.6 Neither Agree nor Disagree 4 11.4 Disagree 10 28.6 Strongly Disagree 5 14.3 Total 33 94.3 Missing System 2 5.7 Total 35 100.0 Any complaints you made were taken into consideration during the past three years Frequency Percent Valid Agree 6 17.1 Neither Agree nor Disagree 11 31.4 Disagree 11 31.4 Strongly Disagree 6 17.1 Total 34 97.1 Missing System 1 2.9 Total 35 100.0 Annex, Pg. 68 Your suggestions have been taken into consideration during the past three years Frequency Percent Valid Strongly Agree 1 2.9 Agree 9 25.7 Neither Agree nor Disagree 10 28.6 Disagree 9 25.7 Strongly Disagree 4 11.4 Total 33 94.3 Missing System 2 5.7 Total 35 100.0 Annex, Pg. 69 Annex viii. Survey Qualitative Responses NDI LIBERIA LEGISLATIVE STRENGTHENING PROGRAM EVALUATION STAFF QUESTIONNAIRE WRITTEN RESPONSES CODE B. TRAINING: 1ST RESPONSE B. TRAINING: 2ND RESPONSE B. TRAINING: 3RD RESPONSE B. TRAINING: 4TH RESPONSE 001 - Bill Training - Research Skills - Basic Computer Skills: These are being applied to my pursuit work; - Library Management, Customer Service & Conducting Research - Enable me to adequate assist Library users in the LIS - Internet Research - Library - 002 - I learned about cataloging, how to access information in a timely manner - Microsoft, Power Point, Database, Creation that helps to store our records, - The Legislative Summary / Bill drafting, which helps me in my current work - Same - Same - To provide more capacity building for staff that was unfortunate in the last training. And to improve the timing in terms of training, instead of 2 – 5 days 003 - I learned Introduction to free and open Source (Ubuntu 10.04) - Drupal Content Management System - I installed Ubuntu on most of the computers in my office and - Advance Ubuntu 11.04 - Advance Drupal - - I would suggest the donors provide long-term capacity building and not 2 – 5 days workshop Annex, Pg. 70 used them daily 004 - Research Methodology - Use the training to conduct research for members - Legislative Summary: Summarized the code of conduct bill for member - Statistics: Statisticize quarterly and annual reports - Attended Library technology training used the training to supervise the library service - Attended a week-long training in Ghana, used the exchange to properly administer the affairs of the LIS - Conducted a month-long training for staff of the LIS – Several personnel of the NDI facilitated the training program - Used the training program to provide quality service to members and staff - We need more training in the areas of Policy brief, legislative summary and as well commence training in speech drafting, talking points and reports writing. 005 - My current position as a computer operator, I apply the Ubuntu training in my day to day work - I was fortunate to attend one of the NDI’s training in the US with the congress - I learned a lot. I only hope and wish that I will be given the privilege to put into practice all that I learned about committee work - - 006 - I attended the Ubuntu training; it helped me to understand the operation of computer well - I attended the Ubuntu training. The Ubuntu training helped me to understand the computer well - I attended the Ubuntu Training - I want improvement in the analysts area 007 - - - - All topics were well taught, especially how to open folders and email etiquette. We need internet and more computers to get work done faster Annex, Pg. 71 008 - I learned how to prepare the budget analysis, indicating / doing comparative analysis between years past and present showing decrease or increase in values of ministries and agencies - I learned how to find discrepancy items in the budget, highlight those findings for appropriate redress - Finally, I also learned how to make details summary budget analysis reports by representing them by graph, pic, charts, or bar charts - I learned how to make budget analysis report - I shall apply knowledge obtained from NDI’s training to my current work whenever I am urged to perform budgetary analysis - I learned that Bill comes in the house in the form of a petition, has its 1st reading and be sent to committee room; from the committee room, the Bill will have its 2nd reading and under the supervision of the rules, constitute the 3rd reading and the Bill will pass into forceful law. When the Bill pass into law, it will be enrolled and sent to the President for signature, and if she does not sign it after 21 days, the Bill will become a law - I suggested that the preparation of the budget analysis reports be reconducted to help those employees who did not perform well to cover up - I noticed that budget performance report was overlooked and I think there is a need for it to be included in the next training. 009 - - - - 010 - The training time has always been short as a result; topics were not discussed in detail. Ex. Financial management exercise, and budget analysis and reporting. Training outside of Capitol Building is or out of Liberia will be better, will have no Annex, Pg. 72 distractions. 011 - - - - I will like to be trained in the future how to analyze the budget, some budget analysis, some computer skills need to be added. Both National and International training 012 - Fiscal impact analysis of proposed and legislation gives an idea of the magnitude of changes to be brought about in outlay of state resources if proposed legislation is passed. - Methods learned as to how to conduct such analysis helps me in my conduct of such analysis - - - The kind of trainings offered so far, in my judgment are too short and not in depth. There is therefore need for a new strategy to actually build capacity of staff thru long term training 013 - - - - 014 - I learned how to use the computer - What to do as budget analyst when given a test - I was taught how to analyze the budget - What to look for first if you were given the draft to analyze - - 015 - Basic Computer Training: Skills gathered proved beneficial in speed, accuracy and efficiency. - Fiscal Impact Analysis: Helpful to me in understanding financial implications deriving from legislation - Budget Analysis: gives me an - - - Annex, Pg. 73 understanding of quantitative and qualitative techniques used in the composition of the national budget as well as the geographic and economic distribution of the country’s wealth 016 - I learned more things then I never knew before - The training made me to do my work well - The training has made me to know more about computer - The training made me to know about Ubuntu - The training helped me to know about Ubuntu and other things about computer 017 - Voucher control - Increase of amendments on Bill(s) - Same - - 018 - - - - 019 - During the training, I learned about the computer and Ubuntu - - - In the future, computer training needs to be considered 020 - I presently use my Ubuntu Training to do my office work - I am currently applying the filing system to be saved and sustain my office file. - Same as of the next page (previous) - Presently applicable in my work - Training on the use of exploring the internet - More Training on computer programming 021 - I use the software - - Ubuntu training, and now I am doing all my work in this software - 022 - It helped me understand the computer well in word; it raised my skill in it. - It also helped manage my information - - - 023 - I learned to use the open office - - - The Ubuntu training I Annex, Pg. 74 that comes within the Ubuntu package. Today, I use open office to do my spread sheet and word processing work attended worked very well, but most of the staff trained in the technical aspect of Ubuntu are not being used. I recommend that they be used to avoid waste of the skills acquired 024 - For example, I can now do my work on a computer - Find the variances between ministries and agencies - - - To have training compared to those from the Western World 025 - I learned about Budget Analysis and Fiscal Impact Analysis and this has been helpful in my current work - - - I strongly suggest that all departments that are involved with financial matters should be given opportunity for outside training. The budget analysis introduced is not standard and therefore there must be advance training in analysis. This advance training will help participants to adequately identify flaw in government revenue projection 026 - - I learned about Computer software called Ubuntu. It helped me in so many ways. It made me to know how to save my personal document in special folder. It also taught me how to save some office related - - Annex, Pg. 75 document 027 - Druple content management software - Open source software Ubuntu - Freedom fore, upload content on the freedom fore - - - I suggest that refresher training be conducted every three months. Druple and Ubuntu work well. The Legislative website needs improvement 028 - The training was very relevant to my computer knowledge - Well, I learned about water mark, today, I can print on the screen water mark during my work and this was well applied to my day to day work - - 029 - Script Writing (Press Release) - Audio and Picture editing - Cropping, jpeg- sizing, Committee operations and knowing how to promote my bosses - - - 030 - I learned to research on different internet services such as Google, yahoo, etc. - I learned parliamentary research for MPS and learned to confidentially work for MP if required - Also learned to write MP’s concise, precisely or to a specific point - - - Kind of training did not work so well are: effective policy analysis writing, legislative summary writing effective public policy papers, in-depth analysis of policy brief, rational policy analysis approach 031 - I learned Power Point presentation; research strategies, word processing for reporting; excel to do graphic analysis / - I’ve learned critical reporting techniques for parliamentary research staff; Using computer to - Report writing and elements of writing for Parliament or members of - All training were well organized but all of shorter durations one of which would have taken months to Annex, Pg. 76 charts-pie, line, etc. using the Boolean logic to extrapolate information; AND, +, NAND, etc. - Using encyclopedia, books of fact, books and electronic / internet research, standardized arrangement of books on the shelves; deciphering internet resources, etc. reach for books and other resources on the shelve; library world (software) - Dealing with topical issues raised in plenary; Parliamentary outreach; dealing with or persuading members of Parliament, creating profiles for members; significance of providing research information for members and its impact on the constituents. Parliaments; doing legislative summary(ies), insert charts/graphs in reports; using Power Point presentation, - Conducting research and managing library resources; precise, etc. perfect. We need training for longer periods ranging from 6 months to one year especially MSc in Law, Economics, Management, Public Administration, etc. for LIS staffers if we intend to modernize the Legislation 032 - Coaching session which enhanced my working ability - Computer Training which made me to know typing, making my job easy - Bill Tracking workshop did enhance my knowledge on how a bill is tracked - The coaching session did enhance by working capabilities - The computer skill training provided a bit of computer knowledge - The Bill tracking workshop provided an idea of how bills are tracked and brought on the floor for discussion - The coaching session did enhance by work capability - The computer training did provide me with a bit of computer knowledge - The Bill Tracking knowledge was acquired during this training - Continue the computer skill training every three months - Bills tracking skill training should be done every six (6) months - The Computer Skill Training worked better than all the trainings 033 - During these training, I learned about GIMP, this program helped me very well in performing my job; now I am able to edit photos well - - - I would suggest that NDI help us with additional camera (s) and computer (s) to enhance our work well and let there be at least 1 or 2 more trainings 034 - Report Writing - I know how to open a - - The Freedom Fore needs Annex, Pg. 77 - Photo taking and editing of photos - Open source software, Ubuntu and Freedom Fore website and download and upload from the net - I know the Ubuntu Software well - I can use the computer well to do my work more training - The Audio Editing needs more training and Druple 035 - I learned about Ubuntu Operating System, I applied it to my daily working skills - I learned about the Ubuntu Operating System and I have achieved a lot, applied to my work today - I learned about Ubuntu Computer Operating System and applied it to my daily working system - Though I attended the NDI workshop once, and it was the Ubuntu Operating System but more need to be done to include all of the staff of the House of Representatives Annex, Pg. 78 Annex ix. NDI Activities Legislative Budget Office (LBO) training topic / type of service date # of participants male female Pre-LBO David Pechefsky hosted a working session with staff from the legislature and staff of members of the House and Senate budget committees on the budget process and their respective roles June 18 to 19, 2009 57 not available not available Pre-LBO Pechefsky provided a four-day training for staff members identified to serve as budget analysts for the House and Senate; participants reviewed the previous year national budget by sector, discussed strategies to provide lawmakers with pertinent information about the budget, and identified questions that lawmakers could ask of the different ministries; participants also strengthened their computer skills, including learning to create graphs and basic budget briefing documents to present relevant information to lawmakers in a user-friendly manner February 9 to 12, 2010 6 staff members identified to serve as budget analysts for the House and Senate not available not available Pre-LBO Pechefsky supported legislative budget analysts in their analysis of the draft 2010/2011 national budget May16 to 28, 2010 6 staff members identified to serve as budget analysts for the House and Senate not available not available Pre-LBO 6-day training on developing legislative staff capacity to support the legislature in their annual review of the budget topics included: budget analysis, developing briefing material with ministry specific budget information, producing charts with microsoft office February 2011 10 8 2 Annex, Pg. 79 LBO Working session on Budget Analysis/Provide LBO leadership with terms of reference May 30 to June 11, 2011 4 members of LBO leadership and 11 analysts not available not available LBO Pechefsky conducted a 10-day workshop alongside LBO Director, Julius Caesar, and former Deputy Budget Director for Kenya, Kubai Khaisiani. Topics included: ● how to draft fiscal impact statements for proposed legislation, ● the Public Finance Management Strategy and the role of the LBO, ● how to structure the analysts in the office, and ● the LBO’s contribution to the new member orientation for the future 53rd Legislature September 2011 20 members of the legislative staff, including senior members of the LBO staff and select staff of the House and Senate not available not available LBO 4-day workshop: to update the LBO budget briefing documents; to develop a new template for budget briefing documents, used at the legislative orientations to introduce members to the work of the LBO and explain the legislature’s role in budget oversight February 2012 20 legislative support staff (17 LBO staff members and 3 staffers from the Senate and House Budget Departments) 16 4 LBO HDP Staff Institute on budget analysis at the U.S. Congress October 15 to 19, 2012 2; NDI assisted two LBO deputy directors for macroeconomic policy and expenditures to attend the HDP Staff Institute on budget analysis at the U.S. Congress 2 0 LBO LBO study mission: two weeks of hands-on learning at the PBOs in Kenya and Uganda October 13 to 27, 2012 4; LBO director, deputy director for revenue, and two senior analysts 4 0 Annex, Pg. 80 LBO NDI provided financial and technical assistance to the LBO to produce a workplan outlining its proposed activities until June 2013 October 2012 LBO LBO NDI provided financial and technical assistance to the LBO to produce an informational brochure for legislators and the public to educate them about the work of the LBO; it includes a short history of the LBO and describes the services it provides to the legislature. November 2012 LBO Legislative Information Service (LIS) department training topic / type of service date # of participants male female library and archive NDI hired Sawyer Inc. for the renovation of the legislative library and archive facilities. NDI also contracted Milton and Richards Inc. as architects to supervise the renovation. NDI also selected an IT firm, PCL Liberia LTD, to assess and install the network data cabling for the library and archives April to June, 2010 N/A N/A N/A library NDI procured appropriate equipment, books, and other reference materials for the library; contracted with Books for Africa (BFA), to provide 350 books (seminal legal texts, dictionaries, atlases and publications on human rights); a parliamentary library bibliography was contributed by the House Democracy Partnership; in addition, NDI purchased over 100 books, and equipment that was unavailable in Liberia such as book carts, bookends, book display holders, step stools, archival pens, and a library security system. Other items, such as computers, printers, scanners, and photocopiers were purchased in Liberia April to June, 2010 N/A N/A N/A Annex, Pg. 81 Library, Archives, House and Senate research services NDI conducted basic computer training on microsoft applications and an introduction to using the internet October 11, 12, 2010 24 not available not available 4 departments of the LIS Rita Pschorr led a series of workshops on basic library management and conducting research; topics included: customer service techniques, ethics, rules and regulations November 22 to 25, 2010 32 21 11 LIS Library Staff Mary Nell Bryant trained library staff on how to use the Library of Congress cataloguing system, how to read call numbers, how to catagorize books according to subject matter, how to organize books on the shelves, and how to ensure the collection remains organized December 2 and 3, 2010 12 not available not available LIS LIbrary Staff and House and Senate research services Bryant tought Library and research staff how to use Library World online cataloguing system, including how to conduct searches, identify key terms, narrow and expand a search to improve results and understand information provided in a database December 6, 2010 12 not available not available 4 departments of the LIS Retraining on library management, including responsibilities of an effective librarian, customer service techniques, and approaches to responding to requests December 7 and 8, 2010 32 21 11 4 departments of the LIS research roundtable with directors and deputy directors of departments to develop policies and procedures to govern LIS December 9, 2010 not available not available 4 departments of the LIS Bryant provided an introduction to internet research December 12, 2010 12 not available not available Director of the LIS, and Deputies of Research, Archives, and Library weekly brainstorming sessions to address central decisions before the opening of the library March 2011 4 3 1 Annex, Pg. 82 LIS Internet research, creating google accounts, subscribing to RSS, online cataloguing of collections in Library World, and overview of U.S. Embassy resources that can be utilized by LIS April 14-22, 2011 26 not available not available LIS Directors Outreach strategies for the department in order to draw more users, particularly lawmakers August 12, 2011 4 3 1 LIS Directors Bryant helped define roles for LIS and set job performance goals in addition to editing and finalizing job descriptions October to December 2011 4 3 1 LIS Staff Bryant conducted follow-up training on skills and techniques for supporting the library and conducting research; and promoting their services to the 53rd Legislature November 2011 24 16 8 LIS Ghana study mission: to learn how resources are used by Ghanaian parliament and share best practices December 2011 4 2 2 Archives LIS signed MOU with Liberian National Archives to foster support from this government institution January 9, 2012 LIS N/A N/A Research and Library 2 workshops on policy making, the use of digital tools, and the creation of electronic databases; the workshops complemented a month-long series of workshops initiated by the LIS for its staff April 10 and 17, 2012 27 not available not available LIS legislative summary drafting; strategies and tools on how to write analytical summaries of bills introduced in the legislature July 2012 30 23 7 Legislative Press Bureaus training topic / type of service date # of participants (House and Senate) male female Annex, Pg. 83 Public relations workshop for Legislature staff to be more proactive in their service delivery to members, how to apply the principles discussed, how to utilize photography as an effective communication tool and audio editing when reporting on the work of the legislature. Following the workshop, NDI assisted participants in creating an action plan to: • publish House and Senate newspapers monthly; • issue a weekly press release on the Legislature’s activity; • create audio clips and distribute them to community radio stations; and • update the Legislative website regularly. October 18 to 20, 2011 20 staff members not available not available Follow-up training for photography skills, best ways to edit photos using GIMP, how to open source editing, how to archive photos, etc refresher training on taking portrait photographs and editing them with GIMP software working session on editing audio clips using Audacity, an open-source software for voice and music editing 3 day training on photo editing and audio clipping; how to use GIMP, how to upload, caption, and restyle digital photographs; practice using Audacity software to create audio clips, edit audio tracks and use the playback control toolbar November 17, 2011/ December 1, 2011 not available not available not available January 25, 2012 not available not available not available January 27, 2012 not available not available not available May 30 - June 1, 2012 21 staff (House:11, Senate:10) not available not available Refresher ICT Training in utilizing: Ubuntu, Drupal, GIMP, Audacity, and OpenOffice Liberian Legislative Freedom Fone system Training November 19 to 23, 2012 8 staff (House: 5, Senate: 3) 5 3 December 10, 2012 6 staff (House: 3, Senate: 3) 5 1 Assistance provided to the Joint Legislative Modernization Committee (JLMC) type date legislature # of participants (House and male female Annex, Pg. 84 Senate) NDI provided targeted technical assistance as needed to the JLMC and legislative staff as new issues arose, or to provide new techniques that would be useful to the implementation of the JLMC's strategic plan April 24, 2009 52nd JLMC not available not available 2 day roundtable with the JLMC in Buchanan to assist legislators and staff to prioritize activities and discuss funding strategies to advance the plan’s implementation, particularly phase III May 15 to16, 2009 52nd 14 not available not available Plenary session of the JLMC to discuss the modernization plan, adoption of a framework for oversight of the implementation plan, a review of activities by donor partners and plans for the upcoming JLMC retreat July 29, 2009 52nd 7 not available not available JLMC retreat for members to map out their strategy and activities for a one year implementation of the Strategic Plan September 25 to 26, 2009 52nd 9 not available not available Organized 7 formal meetings to work with the legislature to develop a bill tracking system, with key stakeholders including the Secretary of the Senate and the Chief Clerk of the House October 21 to November 28, 2009 52nd 10 not available not available Led working sessions with the secretariat to follow up on the JLMC's last retreat and codify revisions to the group's workplan December 8 to 9, 2009 52nd 10 not available not available meeting: focused on identifying the best approach to distribute modernization plan, organize an in-country donor conference to find funding to carry out its modernization plan, and review recent program activities March 26, 2010 52nd 6 not available not available Annex, Pg. 85 NDI produced and provided formal reports to the JLMC that covered the following topics: professionalizing the legislature's staff structure, establishing a committee support office, and restructuring the legislature’s information services to assist the JLMC with implementing the Legislature's Moderinization Plan (LMP) and tracking progress April to June, 2010 52nd JLMC NDI provided assitance to a JLMC meeting to discuss the status of the modernization plan and the upcoming visit of the U.S. Congressional Delegation; the JLMC demonstrated the Legislature's dedication to modernization by including one million dollars in the national budget for pillar 5 of the LMP July 2, 2010 52nd not available not available not available NDI met with JLMC co-chair to discuss the process for recruiting and vetting a director for the Legislative Budget Office (LBO) which was established by the legislature in the previous quarter October to December 2010 52nd 1 Briefing conducted to help prepare members of the Joint Ways, Means, and Finance Committee (JWMFC) of the House and Senate for public hearings on the budget in early July. April to June, 2011 52nd 13 11 2 Meeting to discuss the implementation of the LMP, brainstorm current JLMC activities and discuss a final evaluation of the LMP July 4, 2012 53rd 8 of the 16 members not available not available JLMC retreat to review the findings of the UNDP evaluation, assess performance on the implementation of the LMP, and re-prioritize implementation of ongoing and yet-to￾commence activities September 21, 2012 53rd 5 2 3 Annex, Pg. 86 Legislative Policy Seminars for Members seminar topic date types of participants # of lawmakers (House and Senate) male female follow-on workshops Decentralization and Local Governance May 16, 2012 lawmakers, staffers, representatives of the Governance Commission, representatives of executive ministries, the UNMIL, local NGOs, the National Traditional Council, and several media organizations 13 (House:9 Senate:4) 10 3 N/A Gender Responsive Budgeting (GRB) June 27, 2012 attended by 150 participants, including President Sirleaf, the Gender Committees of the House and Senate, and the Women’s Caucus 23 (House:15, Senate:8) 14 9 • workshop on how to integrate GRB into lawmakers’ roles of representation, lawmaking and oversight, attended by 46 members and legislative staff of the House and Senate • workshop on the respective roles of ministries and CSOs in implementing GRB, attended by 16 key staff members of the ministries of Finance; Gender, Development and Planning; and Economic Affairs and Commerce, as well as 11 CSO representatives Electoral Law Reform Septembe r 19, 2012 attended by 80 participants, legislators, representatives from the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the NEC, political parties, civil society, NGOs and donor agencies 15 (House:3, Senate:12) 12 3 NDI contunies work with the legislature and the NEC on electoral reform through a UNDP funded program that began in Nov. 2012 Youth Development October 17, 2012 attended by 126 participants, including Senate President Joseph Boakai and Minister of Youths and Sports Tornorlah Varpilah; representatives, members of the Federation of Liberian Youth (FLY) 13 (House:13, Senate:0) 12 1 • On October 18, NDI organized follow-up meetings for NDI expert consultant, Dr. Brempong-Yeboah with committee members and Minister Varpilah to discuss potential next steps to increase employment among youth. • On October 19, NDI Annex, Pg. 87 organized a working session for 16 members of 11 civil society youth organizations to assist them in creating a platform for youth to advocate for policy recommendations to improve youth and job creation policy and for their inclusion in the planning and implementation of youth programs Affordable and Adequate Housing January 16, 2013 attended by 40 participants, including legislators, legislative staff, civil society representatives, members of government and international organizations 6 (House: 4, Senate:2) 5 1 This seminar was a follow-on activity to the investigative study mission that members conducted on this topic in September 2012 Investigative Study Missions for Members mission topic date # of participants Committees male female Affordable and Adequate Housing September 3 to 7, 2012 4 legislators and 1 chief of staff of the Liberian legislature • House Leadership Committee on Health and Social Welfare • House Committee on Gender and Child Development • House Committee on Public Works and Public Account and Expenditure • Senate Standing Committee on Public Works • Senate Leadership Committee on Health and Gender 3 1 Extractive Industries December 10 to 13, 2012 6 legislators • House Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Committee • House Investment and Concessions Committee • House Contracts, Monopolies and Public Procurement Commission • Senate Concession and Investment Committee • Senate Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Committee • Senate Public Accounts and Audits 6 0 Annex, Pg. 88 Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Assistance training date legislative department/staff # of participants (House and Senate) male female 6 day computer skills training course at the Inter-Digital Computer School in Monrovia; staff learned how to operate a computer and use the Microsoft Windows operating system, key software programs (Microsoft Word, Excel, Access, and PowerPoint), and basic Internet research techniques February 22 to 27, 2010 archives, library, budget office, bill tracking staff 3 staff from legislative archives, 2 from the legislative library, 6 legislative budget analysts, and 4 from the Chief Clerk’s and Secretary of the Senate’s offices who run the bill tracking system not available not availabl e Chris Doten Conducted assessment of Liberian Legislature to determine how technology can be adopted to increase transparency and efficiency February 2011 legislative leadership, committee chairs, staff in the Office of the Secretary of the Senate and the Chief Clerk, and staff of key support services and technologies in Monrovia not available N/A N/A Chris Doten shared the technology support strategic plan that had been developed with various legislators and staff; the plan included developing a website and communication platform; establish a tech center; and establish Ubuntu as the primary operating system for the legislature April to June, 2011 legislative leadership N/A N/A N/A IT training for Ubuntu and OpenOffice July 11 to 14, 2011 Central Administration Staff, LIS 8 not available not availabl e Annex, Pg. 89 Participants received five days of hands-on skills building at the iLab Liberia facility to assist them to utilize ICTs to manage their day-to-day responsibilities effectively and efficiently November 19 to December 4, 2012 legislative administrative staff, including 6 staff members from the recently established Committee Support Services Office (CSS) 48 legislative administrative staff (House: 25, Senate: 23) 40 8 ICT help desk training at the Sahara Technology Solutions facility; staff acquired skills to manage ICTs, including systems, computers and software. NDI also conducted a training of trainers (ToT) session to enable them to train on the use of ICTs and to troubleshoot IT issues for members and legislative staff December 3 to 7, 2012 3 LIS staff, 1 LBO staff, 3 Senate Information Technology (IT) staff, and 3 House IT staff, all of whom will serve as staff for the Legislative Help Desk. 10 (House: 3, Senate:3, LIS:3, LBO:1) 9 1 Procurements type amount date beneficiary legislative department Printed and bound copies of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission report 10 July 28, 2009 Senate Committee on Rules, Order, and Administration NDI procured and installed two computers, two uninterrupted power supplies (UPS), one printer, one photocopier, one file cabinet, and one back-up hard drive for both the House and the Senate. NDI also supplied paper, folders, and other materials to make the bill tracking offices functional 16 January 2010 House and Senate bill tracking Laminated copies of LIS policies and procedures to the legislature for distribution 120 April 2011 all senators, representatives and departments Annex, Pg. 90 a heavy-duty color printer in the research department of LIS to increase LIS staff efficiency 1 April 2012 LIS a printer in the Secretary of the Senate’s office for use in the Senate voting chamber to print voting and attendance records for public access 1 April 2012 the Secretary of the Senate’s office a desktop computer and backup system for six LBO analysts from the Senate and House offices; one color printer 13 pieces of equipment May 2012 LBO Assistance provided to the Women Legislative Caucus Of Liberia (WLCL) type date # of participants (House and Senate) Meeting with caucus members to discuss their understanding of the role of the WLCL in Liberia's legislature, re-new their commitment to the caucus's strategic plan, and discuss their hopes for the WLCL's future June 20, 2009 10 Workshop with WLCL staff focusing on how to further the WLCL's goals July 3, 2009 13 Meeting with WLCL staff members to introduce the purpose and objective of the staff assessment, review the assessment form, and then conduct the assessment that focuses on how to improve the organizational structure of the WLCL to be more efficient and cohesive August 14, 2009 11 Skills building training in Kakata, Margibi County, using the information from the staff assessment, and focusing on office management, report writing, legislative research process, and media outreach August 22 and 23, 2009 12 Day-long coaching session with staff members of the WLCL to enhance their on-the-job skills and capacity December 2, 2009 11 Annex, Pg. 91 skills building workshop with members and staff: concepts on legislative involvement in the budget process, overview on gender responsive budgeting; NDI expert consultant David Hunterled a session on re-election campaigning that focused on campaign targeting, messaging, and communication February 8, 2010 2 representatives, 3 senators, and 13 staff members of the Caucus Inauguration of newly elected leaders of the WLCL and alliance building event, to strengthen ties between female lawmakers and CSOs focusing on women’s issues March 24, 2010 112 participants, including Ruth Caesar, Chairperson, Liberian Women National Forum Steering Committee; Frances Johnson Morris, Commissioner, Liberian Anti Corruption Commission; Senator Cletus Wotorson, President Pro Tempore, Liberian Senate; and representatives from USAID and UNMIL WLCL retreat, focused on the following four key priorities: campaign planning, passing the Gender Equity in Politics Act, improving teamwork and communication amongst Caucus members, and influencing the 2010/2011 national budget bill; included sessions on message development, communication and strategies to influence the national budget bill, also workshops with Caucus staff May 13 to 16, 2010 10 of the 14 members of the Caucus were able to attend the retreat as well as nine staff members NDI assisted the WLCL to organize a public hearing on gender equity legislation; NDI helped to identify witnesses for the hearing and to develop advocacy messages that would be used to educate lawmakers about the value of increasing women’s political participation; the caucus worked with women civil society leaders to ensure a significant turnout of supporters attended the hearing May 31, 2010 A gender and legislative specialist, Elizabeth Powly, agreed to review the draft Gender Equity Act on a pro-bono basis; NDI staff subsequently presented Ms. Powly’s recommendations to the Caucus June 2010 7 members and 7 support staff of the WLCL Strategic planning session held between the Liberia Women National Political Forum, Women NGO Secretariat of Liberia, and the WLCL focused on strategies to increase women’s political participation in the 2011 electoral process, including the passage and implementation of the Gender Parity Bill September 2 and 3, 2011 More than 200 lawmakers, legislative staffers, civil society leaders and members of the international community participated in the event Annex, Pg. 92 Assistance provided to Legislative Committees type date Committee and # of participants (House and Senate) male female NDI expert consultant David Pechefsky assisted the House and Senate finance committees to hold a joint closed-door meeting to analyze information gathered during the three-day public hearing and discuss a number of recommended changes to Liberia's revenue code and the draft Public Financial Management Act of 2009 June 15 and 17, 2009 House and Senate finance committees; 22 not available not available NDI provided organizational and media assistance to hold a three-day public hearing on the 2009-2010 national budget to collect citizen and expert views to assist members of the House and Senate budget committees June 15 to 17, 2009 House and Senate budget committees; 30 not available not available Assisted the legislative conference committee in a working session held in Robertsport, Grand Cape Mount County, to analyze and debate pending electoral legislation August 7 to 8, 2009 House and Senate Election Committees; 9 (House), 5 (Senate), and 12 legislative staff 22 4 One-day retreat for members of the House Committe on Elections and Inauguration in Harbel, Margibi County. The group discussed the pending referendum bill including term lengths for the president, senators, and representatives; a residency clause for the president; election and inauguration dates; and constitutional requirements for political party membership. September 2 , 2009 House Judiciary Committee, 3; 7 representatives, 3 legislative staff not available not available Annex, Pg. 93 Senate Committee on Rules, Order and Administration held two meetings, discussed the development of a code of ethics, building the capacity of committee staff, and strengthening the capacity of all staff who support the administration of the Senate. NDI rsuggested ideas for the code of ethics and provided assistance in editing the code April to June 2009 Senate Committee on Rules, Order and Administration; 8 legislators and 8 staff not available not available NDI assisted the House Ways, Means, and Finance Committee in organizing a public hearing on the Public Financial Management and the New Revenue Code Acts at the Capitol Building in Monrovia; NDI worked with staff to: draft invitation letters to speakers, develop and circulate an agenda for the hearing, publicize the hearing through radio announcements and newspaper ads, follow up with invited speakers, arrange other logistics for the hearing, and write activity reports about the hearing July 15 , 2009 42 people participated, including 17 lawmakers not available not available NDI assisted the House Committees on Judiciary and Health and Social Welfare in organizing a public hearing on the Anti-Malaria Tax Waiver Bill in Tappita City and Nimba County; NDI worked with staff to: draft invitation letters to speakers, develop and circulate an agenda for the hearing, publicize the hearing through radio announcements and newspaper ads, follow up with invited speakers, arrange other logistics for the hearing, and write activity reports about the hearing August 22 , 2009 150 people attended, 5 representatives 110 45 2-day skills building workshop aimed to address skill areas requested by the staff (legislative committee system, staff committee services and functions). Topics included: the legislative committee system, staff committee services and functions, clerical and administrative support, media and public access, and legislative research assignments. October 22 to 23, 2009 24 legislative staff members from 8 targeted committees not available not available Annex, Pg. 94 NDI assisted legislative staff to organize and assist committees to conduct public hearings; NDI worked with staff to: draft invitation letters to speakers, develop and circulate an agenda for the hearing, publicize the hearing through radio announcements and newspaper ads, follow up with invited speakers, arrange other logistics for the hearing, and write activity reports about the hearing January to March 2010 eight committees to organize a total of six public hearings in Monrovia: • Autonomous Commissions and Agencies Committee (9 Senators) • House Committees on Judiciary and National Security (5 Representatives) •Senate Committee on Health & Social Welfare, Gender Development, Women and Children (7 Senators) • Senate Committee on Judiciary, Claims, Petition, and Human Rights (7 Senators) • House and Senate Committees on Investment & Concession; Ways, Means, & Finance; and Judiciary (6 Senators and 7 Representatives) • Senate Committee on Judiciary, Claims, Petition, and Human Rights (3 Senators) 30 10 NDI provided technical guidance to assist legislators and staff to conduct consultative meetings and public hearings to investigate an incident of violence in Voinjama and Zorzor in Lofa County March 9 to 13, 2010; March 18 to 21, 2010 4 senators and 2 support staff ; 5 representatives and 2 support staff not available not available NDI worked with support staff from the Senate Committee on Autonomous Agencies and the Senate and House Committees on Energy and the Environment to help the staff draft committee work plans for these committees andto prepare meeting minutes, agendas, and invitation letters April 2010 Senate Committee on Autonomous Agencies and the Senate and House Committees on Energy and the Environment not available not available Annex, Pg. 95 NDI expert consultant David Pechefsky assisted staff members to analyze the draft 2010/2011 national budget and supported members of the Ways, Means and Finance Committees to prepare for budget public hearings. Staff reviewed the 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 budgets by sector, and developed simple graphs and charts to illustrate basic information about allocations to ministries and departments. Staff also drafted narratives highlighting spending trends that indicate a potential policy change; they completed the analysis documents on proposed budgets for five government ministries: finance, education, public works, justice, and internal affairs. During the hearings, members acknowledged the support they received from their staff members and drew on information provided in the briefing documents when formulating questions for government ministers who were testifying May 2010 members and staff of the House and Senate Ways, Means and Finance Committees not available not available Pechefsky provided comments on the legislative budget office bill and made recommendations on the mandate, lines of authority, administrative structure, recruitment of personnel, and disciplinary action for the budget office May 2010 Members of the House and Senate Ways, Means and Finance Committees not available not available NDI supported staff from 8 legislative committees to conduct public hearings; NDI helped draft invitation letters to speakers, develop and circulate an agenda for the hearing, publicize the hearing through radio announcements and newspaper ads, follow up with invited speakers, arrange other logistics for the hearing, and write activity reports about the hearing April to June, 2010 • Senate Committee on Education and Public Administration (12) • House Joint Committees on Health and Social Welfare and Judiciary (4) • Senate Ways, Means, and Finance Committee; House and Senate Budget Committees (5) • House Committee on Lands, Natural Resources, and Environment (4) • House Joint Committees on Investment and Concessions; Contracts and Monopolies; Agriculture, Forestry (7) not available not available Annex, Pg. 96 NDI provided organizational, logistical, and financial support for several hearings upcountry for a fact-finding mission concerning a complaint that accused the firm ADA-LAP, Inc. of violating its concession agreement with the government May 2010 6 representatives and 2 staff members traveled to Foyah district in Lofa County to conduct oversight on the issue not available not available NDI supported Senate Judiciary Committee staff to draft invitation letters to speakers, develop and circulate an agenda for the hearing, publicize the hearing through radio announcements and newspaper ads, follow up with invited speakers, arrange other logistics for the hearing, and write activity reports about the hearing. The Topic of this hearing was: Nationality Law July 2, 2010 Senate Judiciary Committee; 5 Lawmakers not available not available NDI assisted the House Committee on Health and Social Welfare to draft invitation letters to speakers, develop and circulate an agenda for the hearing, publicize the hearing through radio announcements and newspaper ads, follow up with invited speakers, arrange other logistics for the hearing, and write activity reports about the hearing. The Topic of this hearing was: Tax waiver on non commercial essential drugs August 4, 2010 House Committee on Health and Social Welfare; 13 Lawmakers not available not available NDI assisted the House Committee on Health and Social Welfare to draft invitation letters to speakers, develop and circulate an agenda for the hearing, publicize the hearing through radio announcements and newspaper ads, follow up with invited speakers, arrange other logistics for the hearing, and write activity reports about the hearing. The Topic of this hearing was: Establishment of a national AIDS commission August 20, 2010 House Committee on Health and Social Welfare; 15 Lawmakers not available not available NDI provided organizational, logistical, and financial support to six representatives to conduct an independent study review to inform pending legislation establishing Lake Piso Basin area as a protected area September 15 to 18, 2010 The members represented the House committees on Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries; Land, Mines and Energy; Information & Tourism; and Judiciary. 6 Representatives from these various committees not available not available Annex, Pg. 97 Prepare agenda and identify appropriate witnesses for oversight hearing March 23, 2011 House Committee on Elections and Inaugeration not available not available NDI met with the Chair of the House Committee on Elections to discuss areas for collaboration on activities related to the 2011 electoral process October to December 2010 Chair of the House Committee on Elections; 1 0 1 NDI assisted with the preparation for Decent Work Bill March 2011 Senate Labor Committee not available not available Retreat for staff to amend pending bills before the conclusion of the 52nd Legislature June 24 to 26, 2011 Senate Technical Committee; 14 members and 3 Staff 16 1 Review and consideration of a code of conduct bill for public officials and employees July 8 and 11, 2011 Judiciary Reform, and Good Governance and Government Reform Committees; 7 not available not available Assistance provided to Committee Support Services (CSS) type date # of participants (House and Senate) male female 5 coaching sessions with committee support staff to assist staff in developing a three-month workplan to guide committee activities January 8 to 15, 2010 10 (House: 4, Senate: 6); participants included 2 staff members from each of the following committees: Senate Rules, Order, and Administration; House Rules, Order, and Administration; Senate Ways, Means, and Finance; House Ways, Means, and Finance; and Senate Lands, Mines, and Energy not available not available NDI expert consultant David Hunter conducted an assessment of key steps for establishing committee support offices for the legislature; laid out short term goals that could be accomplished by January 2011 and longer term goals with would take at least one year May 2010 Secretary and deputy Secretary of the Senate; Chief Clerk and deputy Chief Clerk of the House; Senator Jah’s chief of staff; the House bill drafting staff; 6 senators; and 2 representatives not available not available Annex, Pg. 98 Assistance provided for Legislative Drafting training topic / activity date # of participants (House and Senate) male female day-long training session to discuss: committee procedures, role of research in supporting committee work, the bill tracking system, ways to conduct appropriate research, the information needs of lawmakers, and how to prepare a policy brief for a legislative committee June 4, 2010 11 staff members from the Senate Research Bureau and 15 staff members from the House Research Bureau not available not available NDI conducted an assessment of the functional capacity of the legislative drafting unit September 2012 the leadership of the JLMC, staff of the legislative drafting services, and the chairs of the judiciary committees of the House and Senate not available not available Assistance provided for Legislative Procedures and Documentation topic / type date participants from the House and Senate male female NDI expert consultant, Stanly Bach provided written feedback on a draft of the Liberian Senate's standing rules of order, which was shared and discussed with members of the Senate Committee on Rules, Order, and Administration at a workshop August 14 , 2009 10 senators from the Senate Committee on Rules, Order, and Administration not available not available Provided 10 copies of comparative and background materials on legislative codes of ethics April 2009 legislators and staff of the House and Senate not available not available Annex, Pg. 99 Drafted directories for both the House and the Senate that list all members, committee assignments, contact information, and other important details to help the public and civil society organizations interact with their legislators August 2009 N/A N/A N/A Provided guidance to legislators and the clerk of the House and Secretary of the Senate during the review of the legislature's staffing structure in preparation to develop job descriptions; developed an organizational chart that delinates the structure of each office September 2009 legislators and the clerk of the House and Secretary of the Senate not available not available NDI developed and printed 3,000 copies of a Frequently Asked Questions Guide to the Legislature; the guide describes the role and structure of the legislature, how a bill becomes a law, and how citizens can participate in the legislative process January 2010 House and Senate leadership not available not available NDI developed and printed How Laws Are Made manual, which outlines Liberia's legislative process March 2010 NDI held a two-day working session with the Secretary of the Senate and Chief Clerk of the House of Representatives to review, revise, and validate the manual before it was printed 2 0 NDI expert consultant David Hunter assisted staff from the offices of the Secretary of the Senate and the Chief Clerk of the House to implement the draft bill tracking system January 25 to February 10, 2010 Hunter worked on a daily basis with the enrolling and engrossing clerks in the House and Senate not available not available Annex, Pg. 100 Hunter assisted legislature to implement and institutionalize the bill tracking system and provided guidance on troubleshooting challenges May 5 to 28, 2010 Hunter met with the Secretary of the Senate, Chief Clerk of the House, and relevant legislative staff to verify the accuracy and usefulness of the bill tracking spreadsheets; worked with the bill tracking staff and inspected every file of every bill; reviewed the spreadsheets with staff after each plenary session, and facilitated meetings between the House and Senate bill tracking staff to coordinate updates on actions occurring during each house’s plenary session not available not available NDI led small group sessions with the enrolling and engrossing clerks of the House and Senate where they prepared and practiced presentations to educate other legislative staff and media members. July to Sept, 2010 The bill tracking staff led six separate orientation sessions this quarter with staff from the House and Senate research bureaus, House and Senate press bureaus, offices of the Secretary of Senate and Chief Clerk of the House, House and Senate budget offices, protocol department Women’s Legislative Caucus (WLCL), and NDI’s eight targeted committees. Members of the media also attended an orientation session, which focused on how to use the bill tracking system to report on pending legislation. In total, 180 legislative staff, journalists and civil society representatives were educated on the bill tracking system. not available not available NDI printed copies of House and Senate directories of the 52 Legislature and provided them to legislators, CSOs, and internationals. 500 House directories / 300 Senate directories July to Sept, 2010 not available not available Printed 250 copies of the Senates Rules and Procedures October to December, 2010 not available not available Annex, Pg. 101 Hunter continued to assist the legislature in improving the quality of documentation services to contribute to transparent and efficient operations; also made recommendations that NDI can assist with strengthening daily documentation of proceedings January to March 2011 bill tracking clerks, central administration staff not available not available Bill tracking orientation session for CSOs that concentrate on government transparency and accountability initiatives. The purpose was to better acquaint the CSOs with the new bill tracking system April 15, 2011 None from legislature (CSOs have 11 men and 1 woman participate) 11 1 Hunter conducted trainings for the enrolling and engrossing clerks from the chief clerk of the House and the secretary of the Senate's offices on ways to improve the bill tracking system April-June, 2011 7 staff members (6 from Senate, 1 from House) not available not available NDI worked with the chief clerk and the secretary of the Senate to transfer key documents from the 52nd legislature from its offices to the archives October, 2011 chief clerk and the secretary of the Senate 2 0 Meeting with bill tracking staff in the secretary of the Senate's office to provide assistance on how to label and organize electronic files on the computer July 8, 2011 bill tracking staff not available not available follow-up session with the chief clerk of the house on the implementation of a version control system, particularly the techniques of using word processor software to label versions of bills as “first reading,” “second reading,” etc., and to use track changes to show what amendments have been made to the document. July 19, 2011 the chief clerk of the house 1 0 support to the rules amendment process of 53rd legislature; NDI consultant David Hunter drafted a set of proposed amendments to the Senate Rules, based on input and feedback from his numerous meetings with members February 2012 Secretary of the Senate, members of the Senate ad hoc committee considering the issue, senators,the president pro tempore; Representative Edwin Snowe, the chair of the House Committee on Rules, Order and Administration, and fellow committee members to discuss proposed amendments to the House Rules not available not available Annex, Pg. 102 support to the Senate’s electronic voting system; reviewed the script that could be used to call for a roll call vote and how the vote tally could be converted to an electronic file. Hunter also drafted a script on how to use the voting system February 2012 the assistant secretary of the Senate and two Senate support staff not available not available NDI re-published the brochure “How our Laws are Made” May 2012 1,000 copies of the brochure were distributed to all legislators and four ministries, 170 civil society organizations, 21 community radio stations and 10 other media partners; the brochure provides an overview of how a bill becomes a law and has been used by legislators and civil society organizations as a tool to explain to citizens how the legislative process works N/A N/A Version control - support to update the bill tracking spreadsheet to reflect the information of the 53rd Legislature April-June 2012 the offices of the Secretary of the Senate and the Chief Clerk; the offices’ staff also created new headings and footers for newly introduced bill backs to distinguish them from bills introduced in the 52nd Legislature not available not available budget summit to assist the House’s review of the 2012/2013 draft national budget and to prepare members of the House Ways, Means and Finance Committee for joint budget hearings in August July 12 and 13, 2012 in cooperation with Deputy Speaker Hans Barchue and the LBO; 60 representatives attended the summit and acquired skills in analyzing a national budget and reviewing it as representatives of their particular districts 53 7 Directories for both House and Senate of the 53rd Legislature September 2012 ############################ not available not available Annex, Pg. 103 Assistance provided to Chiefs of Office Staff & Resource Officers to Members event training topic date # of participants (House and Senate) male female series of professional development seminars techniques for reviewing bills, preparing lawmakers for hearings, analyzing policy and exercising the legislature’s oversight powers; Chiefs of staff: how to manage both the lawmaker and fellow staff members, encourage and evaluate staff performance, represent constituents, work with civil society and interact with the press; staff also learned about the services provided to lawmakers and legislative staff by the LBO, LIS, and the legislature’s offices for press and public affairs and legislative drafting April 16 to 21, 2012 123 personal legislative staff of new and returning members of the 53rd Legislature; House:50, Senate:73 112 11 professional development seminar drafting policy analysis and legislative summaries July 16 to 24, 2012 147 legislative staff (House: 71, Senate: 46; LIS:30) 129 18 Orientations for Representatives and Senators Orientation date # of participants (House and Senate) male female Senate, 53rd Legislature 2/29 - 3/1/ 2012 25 senators (including all 13 new members) 23 2 House of Representatives, 53rd Legislature 3/15- 3/16/2012 50 representatives (including 42 of the 49 new members) 42 8 Annex, Pg. 104 Annex x. USAID Liberia, The Legislative Budget Process and NDI's Legislative Strengthening Program Annex, Pg. 105 Annex, Pg. 106 Annex, Pg. 107 Annex xi. List of NDI Sub-grants Liberia - USAID Cooperative Agreement No. 669-A-00-09-00070-00 2009-2013 Subgrant Partners Subgrantee Subgrant Amount Program Focus Liberia Media for Democratic Initiatives (LMDI) $65,943.00 to produce and broadcast a radio series called "the Legislative Spotlight," connecting lawmakers and citizens (issued August 2012) The Foundation for Human Rights and Democracy (FOHRD) $24,915.25 to carry out civic/voter education prior to the 2011 elections in Montserrado County to include youths, women, first time voters, and the disabled (issued September 2011) Bassa Concerned Citizens Movement (BCCM) $18,000.00 to conduct civic/voter education for 2011 Liberia national referendum and presidential and legislative elections in Sinoe County (issued August 2011) The Southeastern Women Development Association (SEWODA) $36,000.00 to conduct two rounds of voter education, one in advance of the 2011 national referendum, and one in advance of the legislative and presidential polls in October 2011; as well as to organize two debates for Senate candidates in Maryland and Grand Kru counties (issued July 2011) The Civic Education and Good Citizenship Movement (CEGCM) $36,000.00 to carry out civic education in preparation for the 2011 national referendum and the general and presidential elections in both Gbarpolu and Lofa Counties (issued July 2011) Liberia Media Initiatives (LMI) $65,943.00 to produce and broadcast radio programs to educate Liberians especially rural communities about the 2011 national referendum and the general and presidential elections (issued July 2011) West Africa Network for Peace Building-Liberia (WANEP) $300,000.00 to observe the 2011 elections as part of the Elections Coordinating Committee (ECC) coalition (issued 2011) Star Radio $77,428.00 to produce and broadcast radio programs, including the first series of “the Legislative Spotlight,” to enhance the public’s understanding of the work of the 52nd legislature, especially as it relates to members lawmaking, representation and oversight roles (issued July 2009) Total Subgrants $624,229.25 Annex, Pg. 108 Annex xii. Disclosure of Conflict of Interest Forms Annex, Pg. 109 Annex, Pg. 110 Annex, Pg. 111 U.S. Agency for International Development 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20523 Tel: (202) 712-0000 Fax: (202) 216-3524 www.usaid.gov