This publication was produced for review by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). It was prepared by EnCompass LLC for the Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning (MEL) Activity El Salvador (Contract No. 7200AA20D00011/Task Order No. 72051922F00003). The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United States Government. FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION Municipal Governance Project (MGP) Evaluation Report February 2024 PHOTO | USAID/EL SALVADOR MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT ii | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT USAID.GOV ABSTRACT The Final Performance Evaluation of the Municipal Governance Project (MGP) in El Salvador (September 2017–March 2024) evaluated MGP’s key results, sustainability, good practices, and lessons learned for future initiatives. Municipal specialists acknowledged revenue increases in financial management due to arrears collection and expanded tax bases through cadastre updates. However, political decisions actively limited the setting of recommended service fees. Technical staff and service managers noted service improvements in solid waste collection, better coverage of public lighting, higher efficiency in family register procedures, new collection tools for market fee services, and georeferenced cadastre in cemeteries. The use of digital tools, citizen committees, and involvement of civil society organizations (CSOs) emerged as key elements, with observed positive outcomes in various pilot interventions. Municipal actors and CSOs expressed satisfaction with MGP’s technical assistance. However, upcoming challenges involve ensuring the sustainability of investments, technological equipment, and knowledge transfer, particularly considering frequent personnel changes with each municipal administration, as well as preparations for municipal consolidation in 2024. iii | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT USAID.GOV CONTENTS ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS...................................................................................................... IV EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................................................................... VI EVALUATION PURPOSE AND EVALUATION QUESTIONS ..........................................................11 Evaluation Purpose ..........................................................................................................................................................11 Evaluation Questions......................................................................................................................................................11 PROJECT BACKGROUND.........................................................................................................................12 EVALUATION METHODS AND LIMITATIONS...................................................................................14 Evaluation Design.............................................................................................................................................................14 Sampling .............................................................................................................................................................................14 Methodology.....................................................................................................................................................................15 Strengths and Limitations...............................................................................................................................................17 FINDINGS........................................................................................................................................................18 Changes in Finance and Service Delivery...................................................................................................................18 Influential Factors.............................................................................................................................................................23 Potential Sustainability ....................................................................................................................................................28 Municipal Engagement and Responsiveness...............................................................................................................31 Perception of Technical Assistance.............................................................................................................................37 Barriers to Applying Knowledge..................................................................................................................................41 Social Inclusion with Gender Equality.........................................................................................................................42 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................................................45 Conclusions.......................................................................................................................................................................45 Recommendations...........................................................................................................................................................49 REFERENCES...................................................................................................................................................53 ANNEXES ........................................................................................................................................................54 Annex A: Evaluation Team............................................................................................................................................54 Annex B: Evaluation Scope of Work ..........................................................................................................................55 Annex C: Detailed Methodology .................................................................................................................................68 Annex D: Data Collection Instruments .....................................................................................................................71 Annex E: Municipalities Supported by MGP............................................................................................................126 Annex F: Data Collection Tools Administrated.....................................................................................................132 Annex G: Data Analysis ...............................................................................................................................................137 Annex H: Conflict of Interest Disclosures..............................................................................................................148 iv | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT USAID.GOV ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ADS Automated Directives System CDCS CHSS Country Development Cooperation Strategy San Salvador Historic Center COAMSS Council of Mayors and Planning Office of the Metropolitan Area of San Salvador CSO Civil society organization DG Democracy and Governance Office DRG DOM Democracy, Human Rights, and Governance Center National Directorate for Municipal Public Works EHPM Multipurpose Household Survey/Encuesta de Hogares de Propósitos Múltiples EQ Evaluation Question ES-CAM USAID/El Salvador and Central America & Mexico Regional Mission ET Evaluation Team FGD Focus group discussion FODES FY Economic and Social Development Fund/Fondo para el Desarrollo Económico y Social (de los Municipios de El Salvador) Fiscal year GESI Gender equality and social inclusion GOES Government of El Salvador/Gobierno de El Salvador ICT Information and Communications Technology IP Implementing partner IT Information technology KII Key informant interview MGP MIACCION Municipal Governance Project Citizens of San Miguel in Action NGO Nongovernmental organization v | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT USAID.GOV OPAMSS Planning Office of the Metropolitan Area of San Salvador/Oficina de Planificación del Área Metropolitana de San Salvador PCT Plan for Territorial Control POS Point of service PPL Bureau for Policy, Planning, and Learning REF Family Status Registry/Registro del Estado Familiar RNPN National Registry of Natural Persons ROAA Regional Office of Acquisition and Assistance RPO SIGE Regional Program Office Social Inclusion with Gender Equality TA Technical assistance UGB Gerardo Barrios University USAID United States Agency for International Development USG WSP United States government WSP USA Solutions vi | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT USAID.GOV EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PROJECT BACKGROUND The Municipal Governance Project (MGP) in El Salvador, implemented by WSP USA Solutions (WSP) began in September 2017 with a Task Order completion date in March 2024, and a total investment of U.S. $36 million. At the outset, MGP had three objectives: (1) Improved national support and framework for decentralizing, (2) Strengthened ability of intermediaries and Government of El Salvador (GOES) institutions to deepen decentralization and improve coordination, and (3) Enhanced municipal capacity to plan for, administer, and deliver services. During the implementation, MGP faced challenges such as new elected national authorities with different perspectives, new local administrations, and a drastic reduction in fiscal transfers, causing substantial negative effects in the municipalities. Also, the effects of the COVID-19 (since 2020). Internally, MGP has faced a pause in donor funds (since 2020), leading to adjustment in the original scope of operations, with a focus on Objective 3. The project provided technical support to 31 municipalities of different sizes across geographical locations. EVALUATION PURPOSE AND EVALUATION QUESTIONS The purpose of the Final Performance Evaluation of MGP is to inform USAID/El Salvador and Central America & Mexico Regional Mission (ES-CAM) about how the changes in the political context affected project implementation, how likely is it that MGP’s results are sustainable, and the lessons learned that the Mission can use for similar activities. Exhibit 1: Evaluation Questions EVALUATION QUESTION SUB-QUESTIONS 1. To what extent did MGP build or strengthen municipalities’ capacity to (1) improve financial management and own-source revenue generations and (2) provide quality services to the citizens? 1.1 What are the key changes the municipalities experienced in (1) quality of financial management, including own-source revenue generation, and (2) quality of services provided to citizens? 1.2 What have been the main internal and external factors that have influenced these changes? 1.3 What results achieved by MGP have the potential to continue to exist after USAID’s funding ends? 2. To what extent did MGP change municipal engagement and responsiveness with recipient groups such as citizen oversight committees and those residents benefiting from service delivery projects? 3. How do the municipalities and other beneficiaries perceive the technical assistance provided by MGP? 4. What hindrances or barriers do different types of beneficiaries or stakeholders face in applying the knowledge gained through MGP? 5. How did WSP USA Solutions (WSP) integrate gender equality and inclusive development into MGP implementation? vii | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT USAID.GOV METHODOLOGY The evaluation team (ET) employed a mixed methods approach to address the Evaluation Questions (EQs), using qualitative and quantitative methods and techniques. Specifically, the ET used key informant interviews (KIIs), focus group discussions (FGDs), direct observation (DO), desk review, and a survey. To enhance the robustness of findings, qualitative data were triangulated and complemented with quantitative data, including the analysis of the evaluation survey, open data from public portals, and quantitative studies commissioned by MGP. FINDINGS CHANGES IN FINANCE AND SERVICE DELIVERY 1. The ET found that municipalities from the sample had improved revenue generation processes, following MGP assistance, especially arrears collection. Although adjusting fee service proved challenging. 2. Informants noted that strengthened capabilities as well as renovation and equipping of the offices and municipal teams enabled innovations, improved financial management, citizen services, and historic city center revitalization. In addition, health, and safety conditions and labor relations improved. INFLUENTIAL EXTERNAL AND INTERNAL FACTORS 3. The drastic reduction of the national Economic and Social Development Fund (FODES) transfer and the legal pressures to improve public sector processes and implement new service provision procedures contributed to the municipalities’ involvement in MGP-supported initiatives. 4. The multidimensional COVID-19 crisis affected project implementation, altering project priorities and activities toward meeting the biosafety protocols. 5. The commitment and support from mayors, municipal councils, managers, and staff with existing competencies were pivotal to MGP’s success. On the other hand, the lack of qualified municipal personnel and turnover limited MGP’s implementation. 6. Citizen committee members and municipal staff reported that a perceived improvement of public safety conditions in the urban, peri-urban marginalized, and rural areas enabled municipal actions supported by MGP, especially in Cohort 2. POTENTIAL SUSTAINABILITY 7. The sustainability of the tax software depends on a financed maintenance plan. Additionally, the future consolidation of municipalities, following a national policy, presents a new scenario where tax software and cadastre models will probably have to interface with common software. 8. KII participants argued that improvements in municipal service and historic center revitalization will probably continue. The greatest challenge to sustainability is making the significant investments required for sustaining or scaling up, given resource restrictions. 9. Informants and desk review analysis suggest that the lack of engagement of multi-actor roundtables in San Miguel and Santa Ana have limited the potential for sustainability of historic center revitalization. viii | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT USAID.GOV MUNICIPAL ENGAGEMENT AND RESPONSIVENESS 10. There is evident engagement between administrative units and citizen committees when the committee-administrator responsibilities are clear, and committees are involved in mobilizing service users to improve the service (e.g., Apopa and Nejapa). 11. No formal engagement arose from the complementary civil society organization (CSO) subgrants for historic centers and the municipalities, although there is better coordination with the technical municipal units. 12. The creation of multidisciplinary, multi-area municipal technical teams to work together on improving different municipal services was a key internal facilitating factor. It was possible to develop a culture where quality of service reflected inclusive service delivery. PERCEPTION OF TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 13. Finance specialists expressed satisfaction with the training and technical assistance and suggested broadening the technical assistance (TA) to cover budgeting, public accounting, and treasury. The tax software improved their work but timely technical support from the provider of the tax software is needed. 14. Interviewees were satisfied with the different types of technical assistance, training, and in-kind donations they received from MGP to improve prioritized municipal services and resolve the specific problems identified in the diagnostic studies. SOCIAL INCLUSION WITH GENDER EQUALITY 15. The municipal women’s unit did not play a role in Social Inclusion with Gender Equality (SIGE) activities at the local level. The SIGE work plan and staff continuity stopped in 2020 with the restructuring of project priorities due to USAID budget cuts, so activities could not continue. 16. With Cohort 1, MGP promoted SIGE in customer services using a Letter of Rights and promoted a change in the organizational culture to value inclusion and gender equality, a process which the Municipality of San Salvador replicated on its own. CONCLUSIONS 1. Revenue collection improved in the short term as a result of an appropriate strategy. In general, the municipalities achieved higher collection of own-source revenues. The TA, tax software—especially in the medium and small municipalities—and cadaster updated played a pivotal role for this purpose. However, the financial data trend shows that after an initial increase, the level of current revenue collected decreased, suggesting the need to continue working on the levels of fee services. According to specialists’ opinions, the drastic reduction of FODES encouraged municipal fiscal efforts and incentives to work with MGP. 2. The improvement of municipal capabilities, infrastructure, and equipment translated into better local services. The improvement of working conditions in the administrative offices and operational service units led to better performance and citizens enjoying a greater sense of security, ease, order, comfort, reliability, and efficiency in service delivery. ix | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT USAID.GOV 3. Municipal and CSO initiatives revitalized hubs while implementing demonstration initiatives in urban upgrading. Municipal and CSO initiatives to revitalize the historic urban centers of San Salvador, San Miguel and Santa Ana strengthened their strategic planning visions. However, these efforts were limited in scope compared with the aspirational goals of achieving public-private partnerships and regulatory streamlining to attract investment. 4. Political commitment and staff competencies enabled or limited MGP implementation. Commitment from the mayors, municipal councils, and key management enabled or limited successful implementation of MGP. The presence of staff with existing competencies was positive. 5. The COVID-19 crisis dramatically altered municipal and project priorities. 6. The sustainability of tech equipment and machinery depends on a financed maintenance plan or earmarked budget. Municipalities will continue using equipment during the useful life of the assets. Longer-term sustainability is difficult to establish. 7. Pilot interventions in municipal service with tangible results will probably continue. Improvements made through pilot interventions in municipal service provision and historic center revitalization that had publicly recognized results and political support will probably continue, especially in medium and larger municipalities. Significant investments are required for sustaining or scaling up these efforts, including the historic center revitalizations. 8. Trust between municipalities and citizens’ committees with co-responsibility contributed to sustainability. Also, CSOs that received subgrants have strengthened their organizations, proving that they can manage grants of larger amounts than in the past. 9. Municipal stakeholders had a positive perception of technical assistance to improve municipal finances and needs. Informants appreciated the prioritization of problems and the generation of knowledge for meeting challenges. However, there were concerns about the technical support solving specific errors in the tax software. 10. Transformation to an inclusive organizational culture is possible. The Municipality of San Salvador has proven it is possible to initiate transformation to an inclusive organizational culture of services based on human rights. 11. The SIGE plan was affected by a reduction of funds and the gender equality strategy was limited. The work plan for the integration of SIGE was cut from the 2020 Contingency Plan, which affected gender tasks thereafter. Nevertheless, the presence of U.S. government (USG) standard gender indicators ensured at least the measures for participation were maintained. MGP’s approach did not target women’s units for empowerment to ensure MGP SIGE results, and in general, stakeholders lacked strong competencies to identify and resolve cultural discriminatory gender barriers. RECOMMENDATIONS The recommendations focus on five main areas and are intended to guide future USAID local development initiatives. RECOMMENDATION 1 FINANCE. In future activities, prioritize finance TA, tailoring content for different municipality sizes. Follow MGP’s successful roadmap for revenue by focusing on arrears collection, tax-base expansion, and digitized cadastres. Emphasize setting appropriate service fees, identifying crucial costs, monitoring x | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT USAID.GOV revenue collection performance, and inserting incentive policies. On the expenditure side, include budgeting, earmark for maintenance, and address procurement, accounting, and treasury functions. Align with the USAID Digital Agenda, showcasing financial innovations from MGP to aid other municipalities. Stress sustainability by guiding fund allocation for information technology (IT) equipment maintenance and depreciation. RECOMMENDATION 2 SERVICE DELIVERY. In the short to medium term, there is a need for support to integrate diverse and complex districts into new municipal configurations. Following the MGP roadmap, begin by establishing a solid baseline using an assessment of district and municipal institutional capabilities to comply with legal competencies. Following MGP consultation practices, elaborate a strategic institutional work plan, consulting the local population, local CSOs and businesses, as well as relevant national government agencies, to propose evidence-based strategies and prioritize investments. RECOMMENDATION 3 MUNICIPAL ORGANIZATION AND CSO. Consider strategies for reengineering administrative and service processes, drawing insights from MGP: (i) establish and strengthen multidisciplinary, multi￾district teams to reengineer integrated regulations, processes, and innovations; (ii) deepen and broaden digital transformations within municipal administrative processes, emphasizing the integration of tax software with multipurpose cadastre modules—this cross-cutting element should enhance overall governance and efficiency; (iii) sustain the establishment of citizen and market seller committees as a good practice from MGP; and (iv) continue selecting local organizations with significant territorial embeddedness and provide them with inputs to strengthen their competence in managing USAID subgrant practices. RECOMMENDATION 4 KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT. In the planning and execution of future activities, prioritize knowledge management and learning by systematically disseminating best practices. Foster continued knowledge transfer through virtual and in-person modalities and encourage the exchange of experiences through various channels. Establish regular coordination teams for knowledge sharing, involve municipal decision-makers in planning training curricula, and support the professionalization of municipal administration through alliances with higher education institutions. RECOMMENDATION 5 GESI. In future initiatives, replicate MGP’s successful practices and tools to foster an inclusive service delivery culture by (i) incorporating gender and inclusive development objectives in the theory of change and maintaining them throughout project cycle; (ii) safeguarding budget allocations for GESI activities and mapping vulnerable populations; (iii) featuring custom indicators in the project Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning Plan to measure expected GESI results; and (iv) ensuring the training of all technical and management staff in USAID GESI policies, including the strengthening of competencies for Municipal Women’s Units and other social units in municipal decision-making processes. 11 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT USAID.GOV EVALUATION PURPOSE AND EVALUATION QUESTIONS EVALUATION PURPOSE The purpose of the Final Performance Evaluation of the USAID Municipal Governance Project (the Project, or MGP) is to inform the USAID/El Salvador and Central America & Mexico Regional Mission (USAID ES-CAM) how changes in the political context affected the implementation of MGP, how likely it is that the MGP results are sustainable, and what lessons from MGP the Mission could use for future activities. USAID/El Salvador will use the findings and recommendations of this evaluation to start the design of a new, evidence-based local development activity. The primary audience for this evaluation is ES-CAM, particularly Mission Management, the Democracy and Governance Office (DG), the Regional Office of Acquisition and Assistance (ROAA), the Regional Program Office (RPO); and the implementing partner (IP), WSP. Other audiences inside USAID that may be interested in the evaluation results are the Bureau for Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC); the Bureau for Policy, Planning, and Learning (PPL); and the Bureau for Democracy, Human Rights, and Governance (DRG). External audiences include the Government of El Salvador (GOES) and municipality representatives, private sector representatives, populations from the Project municipalities, and other donors. EVALUATION QUESTIONS Exhibit 2: Evaluation Questions EVALUATION QUESTIONS SUB-QUESTIONS 1. To what extent did MGP build or strengthen municipalities’ capacity to (1) improve financial management and own-source revenue generations; and (2) provide quality services to the citizens? 1.1 What are the key changes the municipalities experienced in (1) quality of financial management, including own-source revenue generation, and (2) quality of services provided to citizens? 1.2 What have been the main internal and external factors that have influenced these changes? 1.3 What results achieved by MGP have the potential to continue to exist after USAID’s funding ends? 2. To what extent did MGP change municipal engagement and responsiveness with recipient groups such as citizen oversight committees and those residents benefiting from service delivery projects? 3. How do the municipalities and other beneficiaries perceive the technical assistance provided by MGP? 4. What hindrances or barriers do different types of beneficiaries or stakeholders face in applying the knowledge gained through MGP? Evaluation Objectives • Identify sustainable results. • Identify lessons learned to use in future USAID activities. 12 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT USAID.GOV EVALUATION QUESTIONS SUB-QUESTIONS 5. How did WSP USA Solutions (WSP) integrate gender equality and inclusive development into MGP implementation? PROJECT BACKGROUND AWARD NUMBER: AID-519-TO-17-00001 AWARD DATES: September 14, 2017–March 24, 2024 FUNDING LEVEL: $36,639,037.72 IMPLEMENTING PARTNER: WSP MGP was initiated in September 2017 with a life of project through March 2024. At the outset, MGP had three objectives: (1) Improved national support and framework for decentralizing, (2) Strengthened ability of intermediaries and Government of El Salvador (GOES) institutions to deepen decentralization and improve coordination, and (3) Enhanced municipal capacity to plan for, administer, and deliver services. Located in Central America, El Salvador had 6.4 million inhabitants in 2022 and a density of 301 inhabitants per square kilometer. Its territory is divided into 14 departments and 262 municipalities.1 According to the Multipurpose Household Survey (EHPM) 2022,2 64 percent of the population is concentrated in five departments (San Salvador, La Libertad, Santa Ana, Sonsonate, and San Miguel).3 According to its Constitution, the national executive administration is led by the President of the Republic, elected every five years, and local governments are run by mayors, elected every three years. The Legislative Branch (Asamblea Legislativa at the national level) and the multiparty municipal councils are elected every three years.4 The Project proposed to support a process of decentralization as “an important component of El Salvador’s broader inclusive development goals and its strategy for reducing crime, violence, and insecurity,” addressing the concern that “limited state capacity to combat and prevent crime can erode the confidence of the people, undermining good governance and trust in democracy.” Municipalities are currently responsible for providing essential and infrastructure services, such as water and sanitation, public lighting, solid waste management, cemetery maintenance, and road repair at the local level. FACTORS AFFECTING THE IMPLEMENTATION During implementation, institutional factors affected MGP. These challenges included new authorities with different perspectives at the national (since 2019) and local (2021) levels. New national policies that 1 Starting May 1, 2024, the territory will be divided into 44 municipalities according to Ley Especial para la Reestructuración Municipal. Asamblea Legislativa de la República de El Salvador -AL- (2023). Page 2. 2 Encuesta de Hogares de Propósitos Múltiples (EHPM). 3 Banco Central de Reserva -BCR- (2023) Encuesta de Hogares de Propósitos Múltiples 2022. Page 7. 4 Asamblea Constituyente de la República de El Salvador -AC- (1983). Constitución Política de la República de El Salvador. Page 16. 13 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT USAID.GOV drastically reduced the intergovernmental fiscal transfer and paused decentralization of the state caused severe damage to municipalities that were highly dependent on transfers. Internally, the Project also faced a pause in donor funds (since 2020), and the original scope of operations was adjusted and limited to Objective 3. The Project provided technical support to 31 municipalities of different sizes and in different geographical locations. MGP included 11 of these municipalities in Cohort 1, which ran from 2018 to 2020,5 and 20 in Cohort 2, which ran from 2020 to September 2023. Additionally, guided by the urban hub initiative defined in the fiscal year (FY) 2020–2025 El Salvador Country Development Cooperation Strategy (CDCS) to support migration policies, MGP included larger municipalities.6 While the Evaluation Team (ET) was conducting this evaluation, the Legislative Assembly approved a territorial restructuring, aggregating the 262 districts under 44 municipalities.7 The latter will be effective on March 3, 2024, during the elections of municipal councils, including mayors. As of May 1, 2024, council members in each of the new 44 municipalities will be able to produce bylaws under the new territorial division.8 OBJECTIVE 3 MGP Objective 3 was that “Improving municipal government performance and responsiveness will increase the state’s legitimacy, enhance public trust, and contribute to higher levels of development in El Salvador.”9 The Project was designed to improve municipal capacity to plan for, administer, pay for, and deliver services with an inclusive approach.10 In each case, municipalities would create mechanisms to increase citizen participation as well as the transparency and accountability of the municipal government in implementing the activities. Thus, MGP oriented its efforts to invest in equipment and infrastructure and provide technical assistance (TA) to improve financial management; municipal services such as solid waste management, market management, public lighting, cemetery management, Registry of Families (REF) management; and rehabilitation of the historic centers.11 The Project had a Social Inclusion with Gender Equality (SIGE) strategy with five lines of action and two staff persons, who implemented two lines of action in 2018 and 2019, promoting an inclusive culture of municipal service delivery. The prioritization of the 2020 Consolidation Plan cut this strategy and unit, leaving these activities incomplete and three lines of action unaddressed. 5 Municipalities of Cohort 1 were also included in some activities with Cohort 2. 6 SOW, Op.Cit. Pages 9–10. 7 Ley Especial para la Reestructuracion Municipal, 2023. It is to be implemented beginning on June 22, 2023. 8 Op, Cit. Article 3, page 15; Article 9, page 17; Article 14, page 18. 9 SOW Op.Cit. page 2. The original theory of change was: Deepening decentralization, enhancing inter-governmental coordination, and improving municipal government performance and responsiveness would increase the state's legitimacy, enhance public trust, and contribute to higher levels of security and development in El Salvador. 10 MGP planned these interventions for fiscal year 4 and 5. In USAID. Municipal Governance Project. Updated Work Plan (Year 4). October 1, 2020, to September 30, 2021. Final version. January 2021. Page 4; and USAID. Municipal Governance Project. Updated Work Plan (Year 4). October 1, 2021, to September 30, 2022. Final version. August 2021. Page 4. 11 It is worth noting that MGP included or emphasized different activities in each year, for example the Project began revitalizing historic centers in Year 3 and expanded the support in Year 4. In USAID. Municipal Governance Project. Work Plan (Year 3). October 1, 2019, to September 30, 2020. August 2019. Page 31. 14 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT USAID.GOV EVALUATION METHODS AND LIMITATIONS This final performance evaluation applied a combination of two types of evaluation: (1) Outcome Evaluation and (2) Process or Implementation Evaluation. EVALUATION DESIGN At the outcome level, the evaluation assessed whether the expected results were achieved as result of MGP, and at the process level, it considered how the activities were implemented. The administration of the evaluation allowed the ET to answer the Evaluation Questions (EQs) about changes, sustainability, perceptions, factors that either facilitated or hindered outcomes; SIGE plans and practices; and the policies and practices of municipality participation. Additionally, the evaluation provided information about the design of future activities in municipal development. SAMPLING The ET applied a non-probabilistic sampling method using purposeful and stratified selection techniques. The stratification captured TA variations due to the different size of municipalities and cohorts, and TA in different services.12 From a group of 31 municipalities supported by MGP, the evaluation focused the collection of qualitative data from a sample of seven municipalities. 13 MUNICIPALITIES MGP provided TA to municipalities to improve the generation and collection of own-source revenues, the provision of services with quality, and in-kind grants for equipment and infrastructure. While MGP provided TA to almost all municipalities to improve their finances, it did not provide TA for the same municipal service in all areas. While 13 municipalities received TA to improve the quality of municipal market services, 11 to improve REF services, and 8 to improve solid waste management, only 5 were supported to improve public lighting and 2 received TA in cemetery management and infrastructure. Additionally, in Cohort 2, the Project adjusted its strategy and worked with a demand-driven approach. Each municipality prioritized and selected only one service that needed improvement: solid waste management, market administration, public lighting, cemetery management, or REF. In 2020, with the CDCS updated, two urban centers emerged as priority municipalities (Santa Ana and San Salvador), and the third hub was already part of Cohort 1 (San Miguel). The ET selected the sample municipalities through the following process: 1. Phase 1: Cohorts. Cohort 1 and Cohort 2 were sampled independently, with 11 municipalities in Cohort 1 and 20 in Cohort 2. These two cohorts differed because they were supported in different periods and Cohort 2 benefited from the lessons learned in Cohort 1. Municipalities in Cohort 2 were also able to prioritize the municipal service they received as part of the TA. 2. Phase 2: Urban consolidation. Using existing municipal data, the ET constructed an indicator that served as a proxy for a municipality’s level of financial capacity. The indicator is the per capita collection of current revenues (mainly taxes, fees, and contributions). Municipalities in El Salvador collect taxes based on commercial, industrial, financial, and service activities. Additionally, the denser the area, the more revenues were generated. The indicator measured the degree of consolidation 12 Non-Probability sampling, in Michael Patton, Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods (2001). Pages 230–244. 13 The evaluation team also visited a pilot municipality to test the tools and data collection process. 15 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT USAID.GOV and was used to categorize municipalities into three per capita revenue collection ranges (large, medium, and small) within each cohort.14 3. Phase 3: Services. To be systematic, the ET selected the first or second municipality in each cohort and each consolidation range, depending on which service MGP supported. The ET then checked whether the sample included all services and if the selected municipalities were in different regions of the country. Additionally, the ET checked that the sample captured municipalities that excelled in service delivery improvement. The evaluation sampling also allowed the ET to spotlight municipalities showcasing effective citizen and user participation practices. The subject-matter expert reviewed the practices of citizen participation in the sampled municipalities. Exhibit 3 shows more details of the selected sample of municipalities. Exhibit 3: Sample of municipalities COHORT DEPARTMENT MUNICIPALITY POPULATION15 PER CAPITA CURRENT INCOME US$ 202116 RANGE17 1 San Miguel San Miguel 214,621 $93.65 1 1 San Salvador Panchimalco 53,335 $27.75 2 1 Cuscatlán San Pedro Perulapán 56,727 $13.93 3 2 San Salvador San Salvador 335,097 $676.91 1 2 Santa Ana Santa Ana 250,318 $50.86 2 2 San Salvador Apopa 155,228 $35.30 3 1 San Salvador Service analysis Nejapa 36,502 $90.41 1 Source: Annex E. Annex E provides further information about the municipalities supported by MGP. METHODOLOGY The ET addressed the EQs through various methods, including a desk review, key informant interviews (KIIs), focus group discussions (FGDs), and direct observations for qualitative data, and an online survey to collect quantitative data. Annex C includes a table with the methods and techniques arranged by EQ. QUALITATIVE METHODS Desk Review: The team reviewed the annual work plans, semi-annual progress reports, Social Inclusion and Gender Integration Strategy, MEL plans, monitoring reports and datasets (e.g., perception surveys), training curricula, specialized consultancies on context-related topics, and attendance lists of the training events of citizens committees and municipal staff. In parallel, the desk review analysis considered relevant USAID documents such as the CDCS 2022–2025, the U.S. Strategy for Addressing the Root Causes of Migration in Central America, the 2023 USAID Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment Policy, ADS 201, and external documents such as local government legislation, and municipal fiscal data. 14 The thresholds were constructed for each Cohort. Cohort 1, Range 1: 51.91 to 103.95; Range 2: 20.22 to 51.90; Range 3: 4.51 to 20.21. Cohort 2. Range 1: 53.46 to 676.91; Range 2: 36.05 to 53.45; Range 3: 9.26 to 36.04. 15 Dirección General de Estadísticas y Censos (DIGESTYC), Proyecciones de población 2023 16 Op. cit. 17 Each Cohort was divided into three ranges of per capita current income. 16 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT USAID.GOV Key Informant Interviews: The ET interviewed key informants using tailored interview guides with open-ended questions. The team interviewed USAID staff, MGP staff, municipal authorities and technical staff, and members of the local organizations that supported project implementation. This selection process allowed the ET to interview those with the most knowledge of the project implementation and results. The interview guides were tailored to answer the EQs by examining the municipal services and TA supported by MGP in each municipality sampled. The KIIs included mayors, managers, or the most senior staff; financial managers; municipal services managers; IT staff; and the MGP coordinators in the municipalities (referente) who served as a bridge between the municipality and the MGP team. Focus Group Discussions: This method complemented the information collected in the KIIs by organizing FGDs with citizen committees, allowing triangulation. The dynamics in this method benefited from bringing together participants with similar characteristics. The ET organized FGDs with the citizen committees within the municipalities sampled. For KIIs and FGDs, the data collection instruments were designed based on the evaluation matrix, tailored with specific information for each sample municipality. Responses were captured using recordings of the meetings and note taking by data collectors. The ET transcribed the recordings using Trint and the analysis using Dedoose. Direct Observation: The observation visits documented the condition of the equipment and infrastructure supported by MGP, its visible benefits and shortcomings, using a checklist (see Annex D Instrument 13) as well as photographs as part of the data analysis. The ET administered the KIIs and FGDs after participants listened to or read the consent form. The ET emphasized its confidentiality measures to participants, confirmed that their participation was voluntary, and explained how it protected participants’ information by coding and saving all the data collected in a protected institutional cloud. QUANTITATIVE METHODS Survey: The ET administered a survey using Survey Monkey. The purpose was to cross-reference the information collected from the documentation, KIIs, and FGDs with the results from the survey. The survey examined perceptions and opinions regarding the TA quality from two main groups: municipal staff—elected authorities and technical—and the CSO members of service committees; both groups were supported by MGP. The project provided a database with 403 and 46 individuals’ names and contacts from municipal administrations and CSOs, respectively. The survey was confidential, no names or identification were requested. The team delivered the survey by email to municipal staff and by WhatsApp to CSO. The survey was available between October 17 and 27, 2023, and had a response rate of 27 percent (107 respondents) of municipal staff, and 46 percent (21 respondents) for CSOs. Annex D contains the guides to data collectors, consent forms, KIIs, FGDs, DO guide formats, and the survey. Analysis: The ET reviewed user perception survey results related to the municipal services contracted by MGP. The ET constructed comparative data using historical municipal budgets from the Fiscal Transparency Web Portal of El Salvador. The analysis looked for revenue changes during the 2016 to 2022 period and compared the MGP municipalities with the rest of the municipalities in the country. 17 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT USAID.GOV FIELDWORK The team administered the tools in all visited municipalities according to the following plan: Exhibit 4. Data collection tools administered by organization and date DATE ORGANIZATION AND MUNICIPALIY KII FGD DIRECT OBSERVATION September 27–28, 2023 WSP 7 - - September 6 and 28, 2023, virtual USAID 2 - - September 29, 2023 San Pedro Perulapán 5 - 1 October 2–3, 2023 San Miguel 7 1 1 October 6 and 12, 2023 San Miguel 2 - - October 4, 2023 Pachimalco 5 - - October 5–6, 2023 Santa Ana 6 1 2 October 11, 2023, virtual Santa Ana 1 October 8–9, 2023 Apopa 4 1 2 October 9, 2023 Nejapa 2 1 1 October 10, 2023 San Salvador 5 - 1 October 24, 2023 Community of Practice 2 TOTAL 46 6 8 Pilot, September 25, 2023 Olocuilta 6 1 1 Source: Annex F, Sections B and C. STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS Strengths. The ET confirmed the KII and FGD agendas and dates without any issues in all sampled municipalities. In all municipalities, a designated municipal staff member served as the Project Coordinator throughout MGP evaluation implementation, which greatly facilitated communication. The design was comprehensive, considering the perceptions and opinions of all actors and using quantitative information to triangulate and enrich the findings. Limitations. In the Cohort 1 sampled municipalities, informants provided partial information about the initial TA process due to changes of authorities and personnel after municipal elections in 2021, but provided important information on the current supervision, operation, and financing of service delivery. For three out six FGDs, one municipality member participated as an observer. Their presence did not affect the attendees’ participation and dialogue, since the participants agreed to proceed with the meeting in their presence. 18 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT USAID.GOV FINDINGS Q1. TO WHAT EXTENT DID MGP BUILD OR STRENGTHEN MUNICIPALITIES’ CAPACITY? CHANGES IN FINANCE AND SERVICE DELIVERY Finding 1: KIIs revealed that following the MGP TA, current resource collection was generally higher as result of successful short-term strategies, which included arrears collection, diagnosis and recovery plans, and cadastre updates. Although adjusting fee service proved challenging. MGP recognized that municipalities’ financial dependency on the central government was a significant challenge and meant that their fiscal effort to collect fees and taxes was minimal. In this context, informants described the Project implementation phase as a planned process that, when combined with contributions from the municipalities, resulted in synergies and positive results. According to the MGP performance reports and interviews, the strategy began with a financial assessment, followed by a focus on collection from arrears balances and expansion of the tax base through a cadastre update. Both elements had rapid results, creating a positive environment in the financial unit. While municipal staff asserted their knowledge of arrears administration, they also confirmed that with the TA from MGP, they detected weaknesses in their approach. According to IP specialists, the strategy also included cost analysis to set appropriate levels of service fees. Regarding cost analysis, informants also mentioned the importance of supplementing MGP studies with their own analysis. Municipal informants noted that with the TA they have: ● Implemented new processes and new mechanisms that allowed a better flow of information which, in the end, delivered benefits; ● Understood the weight of direct and indirect costs; ● Had better control of taxpayers’ information; ● Collected current resources—arrears—at levels three to four times higher than in the past; and Evaluation Sub-Question 1.1 What are the key changes the municipalities experienced in (1) quality of financial management, including own-source revenue generation and (2) quality of services provided to the citizens? Summary of Findings • The ET found that municipalities from the sample had improved revenue-generation processes following MGP assistance, especially arrears collection. • In service delivery, the ET found strengthened capabilities among municipal technical teams; more efficient and inclusive delivery of services, particularly those supported by willing citizen or market seller committees; and improved working conditions for municipal employees in solid waste management services, public lighting services, municipal market services, cemetery management, and family registry services procedures. 19 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT USAID.GOV ● Incorporated or reclassified thousands of business and residential tax units. Trend analysis conducted by the ET using Fiscal Transparency Portal data shows different levels of collection improvements among municipalities. The larger municipality, San Salvador, had higher per capita collection levels in comparison to the rest of municipalities. Municipalities in Cohort 1 (without San Miguel) had increases in collection after MGP TA. Cohort 2 (without San Salvador and Santa Ana) had fluctuating levels of collection. However, the collection of current resources decreased in Cohort 1 (10 out of 11) and Cohort 2 (8 out of 12 with available data), after years with high collection rates. The latter could suggest that after the rapid collection of the arrears and expansion of the tax base, MGP’s strategy had to continue working on setting appropriate service fee levels. In the survey, municipal respondents recognized that the two most important benefits of the tax software were facilitating their work switching from paper to digitalized documents and reducing taxpayers’ waiting time. Out of 46 respondents, the majority chose these options, 74 percent, and 72 percent, respectively. The third option was keeping the taxpayers’ data updated (see Exhibit 5). MGP has successfully introduced digital tools to small municipalities (e.g., tax software). However, sampled municipalities, especially those already running tax software such as San Salvador and Santa Ana, declined the MGP tax software and preferred in-grant TA to improve their digital equipment. According to the survey administered by the ET, out of 59 respondents who were familiar with the tax software, 32 acknowledged that their municipality was using the software completely, 14 were using it partially, and 5 revealed that they received the software but were not using it yet, mainly because they The cadastre is linked to the tax system, and we are interested to increase the revenues, but also give a better service to taxpayers, when you have . . . updated and georeferenced data we can give better service not only to taxpayers, but the cadastre could be used for all the municipal units, for all type of infrastructure and social projects, risk management. —Male, Municipal Finance Manager Talking about numbers, in 2022 we collected more than $2 million in comparison to the average of the last 5 years. . . . It means that the Project had an impact. —Male, Municipal Finance Manager 4% 7% 17% 46% 72% 74% Others Do not know Allow having a single window for payment of various services. Keep the data of taxpayers updated. Reduce waiting time for taxpayers. Have all taxpayer information digitized and avoid paperwork. If you have received the tax software and are using it, what are the three most important benefits of working with the software? Exhibit 5: Benefits of working with tax software Evaluation Survey, October 2023 20 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT USAID.GOV were still migrating information. Only 1 respondent indicated that they had not renewed the contract with the technical support company. Testimonies from municipal finance staff revealed the significant contributions of integrating technology in their daily tasks, notably reducing wait times. Annex G, section A, shows more analysis of the time series of municipal revenues per group of municipalities. The quotation at left (see box) provides an example. Finding 2: Municipal decision-makers and staff, service-related citizen committee members, and municipal market directive council members, along with documentary evidence, indicated that municipal teams’ capabilities were strengthened at the technical and organizational levels, and in infrastructure and equipment. These capacity improvements allowed them to introduce technical and organizational innovations that led to improved municipal financial management, citizen service delivery, and revitalization of historic city centers. Strengthened capabilities were applied to the multidisciplinary design and coordination of service innovation initiatives, and greater use of IT to generate precise actionable knowledge to improve planning, monitoring, and service delivery. For example, municipal staff indicated that the strengthened technological capabilities of the municipal information and planning unit in Apopa enabled them to identify and prioritize problems more precisely and efficiently. This facilitates dialogue with community members who appreciate the municipal effort to understand their problems in preparation for these meetings. This information, validated with communities, also enabled improved project planning and implementation, as well as better quality project proposals to mobilize external resources from private companies, national governmental agencies, and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and international cooperation for development. There was also significant emphasis on strengthening municipal communications teams to generate and communicate audiovisual products to different target populations. I am never going to forget the case when a lady came to present a claim that she was charged twice for the same concept. . . . We did not have the records updated in the tax unit to prove it was actually paid, but this taxpayer remembers the date, so as last resort, we went to the accounting office to look for a paper, imagine if we did not have the paper. Now with the software we are serving them better in less time. —Male, Municipal Finance Manager Communication is really very important. How we convey the message of what is being done, what is being achieved. . . . Communication will always be a fundamental piece so communities or citizens can know first￾hand what is being done . . . in the municipality. . . . They [MGP] provided training, knowledge to technicians, inputs or work tools were improved with better quality cameras . . . different strategies on how to communicate to the population. . . . We are still pending with the website, but I feel that this is going to benefit us a lot because it is another communication that we are going to have directly between the citizen and the municipality. —Female, KII 21 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT USAID.GOV CHANGES IN SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSITION SERVICES Solid waste management was made more efficient in Apopa by opening new areas of coverage; redesigning and planning collection schedules and communicating them effectively to users; procuring specialized equipment; and providing municipal worker training and interactive learning in communities of practice and through an international experience exchange. Members of the community committee on solid waste collection and recycling identified changes related to improved health conditions, the creation of new public spaces being used by residents, and the overall appearance of their neighborhood, which might improve their property values. CHANGES IN PUBLIC LIGHTING Members of service support committees, municipal technical staff, and MGP semiannual reporting identified key changes to increase access to public lighting in previously underserved neighborhoods by installing LED lamps to replace less energy efficient lamps, generating budget savings. Service efficiency was reportedly improved through the creation of georeferenced maps, allowing municipalities to better manage maintenance and fee collection. Positive indirect socioeconomic effects identified were longer functioning of local businesses and creation of new entrepreneurial ventures to take advantage of greater nocturnal activity, as well as reduced incidents of insecurity in newly lighted isolated areas. CHANGES IN MUNICIPAL MARKET SERVICES Members of service support committees, municipal technical staff, and MGP semiannual reporting indicate that the key changes achieved in municipal markets services were to provide a better and more productive environment for municipal market employees, vendors, and customers by investing grant funding to renovate deteriorated infrastructure and equipment. Market management was made more efficient and transparent through the installation of an application for fee collection using point-of￾service (POS) equipment and reducing the risk of theft of cash for those involved. The provision of improved quality services was supported through training of municipal market personnel and organized vendors. CHANGES IN MUNICIPAL CEMETERY SERVICES Members of service support committees, municipal technical staff, and MGP semiannual reporting identified key changes made to municipal cemetery management in Nejapa that improved the quality of cemetery users’ and workers’ experience, safety, accessibility, and comfort through infrastructure renovation. Municipal employees and the citizen support committee advocated to gain municipal council approval for implementation of a new cemetery ordinance to increase fees for the maintenance and upgrading of the service, implementing a new manual for cemetery management procedures. CHANGES IN MUNICIPAL FAMILY REGISTRY SERVICES Members of service support committees, municipal technical staff, and MGP semiannual reporting identified key changes in REF services to improve citizen experiences, such as shorter times in processing services, more comfortable surroundings, and respectful attitudes among service providers. However, due to changes in the registration procedure and the issuing of REF documents to comply with National Registry of Natural Persons (RNPN) requirements, the waiting time increased because the equipment and REF software were insufficient to implement the required processes. The monitoring data of the waiting time in REF services showed that out of four municipalities, the waiting time 22 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT USAID.GOV decreased in one municipality (Ilobasco) but increased in three (San Martin, San Salvador, and San Vicente). The comparison of the baseline data to the endline data showed that the average waiting time increased, changing from 9.3 minutes to 10.4 minutes across the four municipalities. MGP supported the development of digital literacy and e-ID (digital signature), which facilitated the delivery of services online. When MGP supported the creation of decentralized offices, MGP realized the office would need digital signatures to avoid going to the municipality’s main office. According to the assessment report of USAID, obtaining e-signatures is still costly for municipalities.18 MGP has supported the participation of authorities and REF staff in a workshop to develop a roadmap for implementing procedures offered by the REF online. CHANGES IN MUNICIPAL HISTORIC CITY CENTER REVITALIZATION Municipal and MGP representatives, and MGP documentation indicate that the key changes the municipalities made to revitalize the historic urban centers were the preparation or strengthening of Strategic Plans for revitalization, which articulated long-term visions for urban revitalization and guided the prioritization of model initiatives in urban upgrading of public spaces. Local CSOs were strengthened and revitalized economic activity and engaged in cultural animation of activities. The revitalized spaces better enabled walking and socializing, allowing visitors to use new urban furniture in pedestrian promenades, and enjoy embellished landscapes. Annex G, section B details the changes and innovations in service delivery and historic city center revitalization that resulted from MGP. Finding 3: Municipal staff affirmed that the training, as well as the renovation and equipping of their offices, improved their financial and management tasks, health and safety conditions, labor relations, and motivation to improve service quality. This motivation extended to providing more respectful attention to users, particularly those most vulnerable, such a trans person, and elderly women.19 During the interviews, financial managers highlighted the positive approach of TA combined with equipment and furniture. This approach addressed the technical needs to maintain financial health and included improving workstations by providing new IT equipment and desks. In one direct observation at the Municipal Center of Administration and Information (CIAM) office located in a retail mall in Apopa, the ET noted that the Center was equipped with technology and had an appropriate and modern layout for citizen service. An informant in that municipal center indicated that all personnel in the two centers (Headquarters and CIAM) were trained in all the administrative and financial processes, allowing them to serve citizens with needs in either area. The informant added that customer satisfaction increased by approximately 20 percent, to 80 percent.20 18 Digital Ecosystem Country Assessment (DECA) El Salvador February 2023. Pages 37–38. 19 KII REF, San Pedro Perulapán, 29 September 2023. 20 Informant referred to the perception survey administered by MGP. Now the personnel have computers, after our needs assessment we found technicians working manually, with computers we covered two limitations, a better work environment and a better experience to taxpayers. —Male, Municipal Finance Specialist 23 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT USAID.GOV At a district office in San Salvador that was renovated, informants reported having better working conditions for the provision of services to the public. The renovation was based on a design created by the municipal architectural team. To improve citizens’ experience accessing REF and other municipal services, as well as the office space for municipal workers, MGP provided furniture and computer workstations. The Project also added a new meeting space where none was available before. This allowed the district office to host meetings with business representatives, employees, and local citizen groups, including women and youth. The MGP gave public lighting operations personnel industrial safety toolkits. The MGP specialist commented that municipal solid waste collection workers in Apopa had a “changed attitude for working” due to a “dignification” of their working conditions. Their initial skepticism toward the proposal was transformed into an appreciation of the installations and will to take care of them. Specifically, he stated: INFLUENTIAL FACTORS Finding 4: Drastic reduction of the national FODES transfer to municipalities affected them, especially the small ones that were highly dependent on this transfer, limiting their resources to invest and to cover MGP counterpart contributions. Nevertheless, according to the MGP specialist, FODES reduction encouraged a higher commitment from municipalities to raise revenue collection and seek MGP support. Evaluation Sub-Question 1.2 What have been the main internal and external factors that have influenced these changes? Summary of Findings • The reduction of the Economic and Social Development Fund (FODES) motivated smaller municipalities to take advantage of MGP to improve their own sources of revenue generation (external to MGP). • Lack of political support for changes that affect voters and the frequent rotation of personnel with each change of administration have limited the benefits of technical assistance in municipalities (external to MGP). • The USAID/El Salvador CDCS FY 2020–2025 changed the geographic focus and added the three urban hubs to MGP. This required adaptations to the methodologies that had been developed, which were not wholly appropriate for such large municipalities (internal to MGP). All the improvements were provided to employees through the dignification of their spaces. Before they had nowhere to eat their food, now they even have a place where they can leave their contaminated clothes to be washed. — Male, KII 24 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT USAID.GOV As discussed with the IP, the FODES is a general revenue-sharing transfer from the national government to local governments, which could cause a lack of fiscal effort and promote dependency, especially in small municipalities. The national government drastically reduced the FODES transfers in 2020. This had different effects on municipalities depending on their size. After the reduction of transfers, the specialist expected fiscal efforts to increase, and that municipalities would take advantage of MGP TA. The review of the historical trend of current resources confirmed that resource collection increased, but only for the short term, suggesting the need for a policy of performance incentives. Based on interviews and the quantitative data reviewed, this evaluation could not determine the exact effect of MGP TA. The quotations below (see box) provide examples from two small municipalities. In the case of larger municipalities, a person responsible for historic center revitalization in San Miguel emphasized that the municipality was financially solvent to cover the operational costs, but not to cover investments in strategic revitalization projects with its own resources. A more positive perspective was expressed in the case of Santa Ana, regarding the effects of projects implemented by the National Directorate for Municipal Public Works (DOM) in the municipality, compensating for the reduced FODES. Finding 5: The 2020 CDCS focuses on supporting the population of major sources of irregular migration such as San Salvador, Santa Ana, and San Miguel, explaining USAID MGP’s incorporation of these urban hubs in Cohort 2.21 These hubs have municipal management with more complex processes and bigger tax bases than the other municipalities. Their demands for studies (e.g., cost analysis) to set tariffs required more experienced consultants than the Project initially provided. Combined with the reduction of USAID funds, this only allowed the Project to support one service per municipality in Cohort 2, in addition to the revitalization of historic centers. In April 2020, USAID/El Salvador published a new Strategy FY 2020–2025 CDCS. Changes in the CDCS required that MGP add a new task, the revitalization of historic centers. The document states that “USAID/El Salvador will focus geographically on El Salvador’s three urban hubs where most people live 21 The municipality of San Miguel was already part of Cohort 1, but the activity of revitalizing its historic center was added in 2020, when Cohort 2 began receiving technical support. But we pay the salary of the Council with FODES funds, close to 340,000 dollars annually, yes, the reduction affected us, I cannot deny it, all the needs I covered before with FODES, I had to cover it later with our own funds, and practically we end up with nothing. —Male, Municipal Finance Specialist How it affected us? We with the FODES money only made investments, let see, we received around 200,000 dollars, that was monthly, now with the reduction of FODES we receive 25,000 dollars monthly, now we keep investing it but on a smaller scale. —Male, Municipal Finance Specialist 25 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT USAID.GOV and work, and which comprise the major sources for irregular migration to the United States.”22 As a result of this change in strategy, MGP added the Santa Ana and San Salvador municipalities. The Project was already working with San Miguel as part of Cohort 1. Informants felt the processes of these larger municipalities were more complex and required consultants who were exposed to or had experience in organizations of the same size to carry out diagnoses and studies. Finding 6: The commitment and support of mayors, municipal councils, managers, and staff with existing competencies allowed the implementation of the TA in finance and service delivery to advance. However, the lack of qualified personnel and turnover initially limited the implementation of MGP strategies. The importance of political will is evident in cases where the municipalities made efforts to comply with the counterpart financing agreements to complement grant funding. Despite efforts to develop justified proposals that would improve management and fee structures to better guarantee sustainability and resources necessary for continuous improvements, there was only sufficient political support to approve four out of the 25 proposals drafted and submitted for approval by municipal councils. 23 This was due in part to political restrictions imposed on such increases by central government leadership and perceptions of political costs with voters. One notable exception documented in the evaluation was the successful advocacy of the citizen service support committee and municipal staff to gain approval for a specific proposal related to new management procedures and fees for cemetery services in Nejapa. Informants cited the lack of political support from the council as a recurrent internal factor to clear and approve the cost analysis studies and the appropriate level of service fees. 22 USAID/El Salvador. (2020) Country Development Cooperation Strategy (CDCS) FY 2020–2025. Amended and updated on March 24, 2021. Page 20. 23 The MGP reported supporting a total of 25 municipalities (11 Cohort 1 and 14 Cohort 2) in the process of diagnosing the costs of municipal service provision and drafting revised ordinances with fee structures designed to make these services more financially sustainable. As of the final Semi-Annual Progress Report No. 9 (covering October 1, 2022–March 31, 2023) the municipal councils from four of these municipalities (Quezaltepeque, Mejicanos, Nejapa, and Soyapango) “approved fee increases on specific fees,” one (San Vicente) approved but then “reverted the increases,” nine proposals had been submitted for consideration but were “still pending approval from the Municipal Councils,” six municipalities were still in the process of drafting their proposals, and a service costing study had been completed in San Salvador that the MGP asserted “the municipality will use this as an input for a draft of the proposed service fees rates to be included in a Municipal Service Fee Ordinance” (MGP 2023, p. 15). 26 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT USAID.GOV Interviews revealed that municipal staff played a vital role in backing up and accepting MGP TA and its strategies. There were cases where the manager had to convince the financial teams to accept changes brought by MGP. Another manager negotiated with the civil servant union to work together to improve the financial area. In the case of service delivery personnel, the historic center revitalization and REF teams in San Salvador and the municipal financial management team from Santa Ana were recognized by their colleagues in communities of practice for their contributions to enable significant learning. The director of the municipal planning team in Apopa provided leadership in the newly created municipal technical team and played an active liaison role with the mayor and city council. Informants indicated that another internal factor that affected the implementation of the TA in the finance unit was the lack of personnel (fiscalizadores in Spanish) to implement quick resource collection focused on the needed recovery of arrears. MGP specialists identified as problematic the limited technical competencies for planning related to the different areas of service improvement. A female manager from Cohort 1 shared her concern because the only engineer responsible for the tax software quit the week of the interview, and no other personnel could administer the software. In another municipality, the REF and tax software were not being used due to the lack of people to adequately install and manage them. Finding 7: The multidimensional COVID-19 crisis negatively affected MGP implementation, altering municipal and Project priorities toward meeting COVID-19 biosafety protocols, especially in municipal markets and solid waste collection, which continued throughout, and later in other areas as municipalities opened service provision. Finding 8: Informants indicated that on the national level, there were legal pressures to improve public sector processes and implement new service provision procedures, which motivated involvement in MGP-supported initiatives, while new regulation of public procurement negatively affected municipal purchases relevant to MGP-supported efforts. In the case of COVID-19, an MGP specialist indicated that the necessary virtualization of training and TA services presented significant challenges for MGP staff and consultants, as well as participants with limited internet access. Relevant legal pressures representing challenges that motivated greater participation in MGP activities to improve bureaucratic processes included laws for the Elimination of Bureaucratic Barriers and the Law to Improve Regulations. The Comprehensive Solid Waste Law that regulated municipal solid waste management and requires new efforts to promote recycling was also a positive motivating factor to We practically have the Comptroller office 24/7 with demands of information, also we have Treasury and the auditor also requesting information, but we only have three collectors (fiscalizadores). —Male, Municipal Finance Specialist In the municipalities, it is very difficult with the political environment, where the administrations go for three years, and if they lose popularity, it is done . . . the administration enter to learn, and to make it worse, they lay off the person that knows the work, have the right knowledge, then they bring their people that don’t know, did not managed well the arrears and the debts grew, and then it is very difficult to collect, if you cannot pay 10, less you can 100. —Male, Municipal Finance Specialist 27 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT USAID.GOV improve these services and pilot recycling. However, there were also indications that the new law regulating public purchases had created difficulties for its application, slowing municipal procurement of agreed upon counterpart investments. Finding 9: Citizen service support committee members and municipal staff reported that a perceived improvement of public safety conditions in the urban, and especially the peri-urban marginalized and rural areas, enabled municipal actions supported by MGP, and greater public confidence to use the improved services and revitalized historic centers, especially in Cohort 2. During the implementation of the first MGP cohort, security issues limited municipal teams’ ability to carry out inspections for the installation of new public lighting in several municipalities. This was also an issue at the beginning of the pilot intervention in solid waste management with the establishment of the citizen committee in Apopa, which was at that time under gang control. However, during Cohort 2 implementation, a municipal representative argued that the Territorial Control Plan generated greater security and allowed them to expand their working hours and visit communities they were previously unable to visit. In the case of the Nejapa cemetery, members of the citizen service support committee and municipal employees said that the new security measures have reduced what was a serious problem for many people using this municipal service. The municipal employee in charge of the cemetery explained that gangs controlled the territories divided by the street in front of the cemetery, and thus controlled who entered and who could not, and that this is no longer the case. A representative of the municipal historic center revitalization team highlighted the importance of the “new security” as a positive factor enabling historic center revitalization in San Miguel. He shared that the security measures implemented by the central government provided “freedom” for people who previously felt restricted in their use of the historic center. He argued that the revitalization actions were carried out with the purpose of providing this population with positive alternatives for the use of their new “freedom.”24 24 The Plan for Territorial Control (PCT) was launched by President Bukele on June 20, 2019, as part of a government strategy to reduce criminality. It is headed by the National Civil Police in coordination with the armed forces and the entire government cabinet. To support its advancement, the National Assembly approved a Regime of Exception on March 27, 2022, and by November 2023 it approved the Law of National Integrity, to provide the legal and institutional framework for policies to reduce violence and poverty by integrating social initiatives, thus launching phase VI of the PCT. The Territorial Control Plan also arises from the central government. So, it allows us to expand our schedules, to be able to go to communities where we couldn’t. . . . To the installed technical capacity and the technical knowledge given by the Project is added the Territorial Control Plan. —Male, Municipal Solid Waste Management Specialist 28 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT USAID.GOV POTENTIAL SUSTAINABILITY Finding 10: The sustainability of the tax software depends on a financed maintenance plan. Additionally, the future consolidation of municipalities presents a new scenario where tax software and cadastre models will have to interface with common software. Interviews in a large municipality indicated that, as result of the municipality consolidation, municipalities with software that handles a large tax base will likely absorb the tax base of smaller municipalities or would try to interface with the smaller municipalities using MGP tax software. The interviews suggest there is an advantage for the municipalities supported by MGP, because their personnel were introduced to or strengthened in using technology in administration, finance, and service delivery. One specialist commented that the future consolidation of the municipalities is an opportunity to work toward the unification of the systems. Finding 11: Municipal technical staff and decision-makers, as well as MGP experts, argued that improvements through pilot interventions in municipal service provision and historic center revitalization that have generated tangible positive results will probably continue. In general, the greatest challenge to sustainability is making significant investments in the physical infrastructure or equipment required for sustaining or scaling up, given internal and external resource restrictions. Where pilot initiatives generated significant visible positive results, especially where they enabled increased revenues and do not require significant new investments, municipal technical staff and decision-makers, as well as MGP experts, suggested that political will exists to invest scarce municipal resources or mobilize external resources to maintain and scale them up. SUSTAINABILITY IN SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSITION SERVICES One example of potential sustainability due to increased incomes is the technical redesign of trash collection routes in Apopa. This started as a pilot supported by the Project, and the Apopa municipality is now in the process of scaling it up to include the continual redesign of collection routes as an Evaluation Question 1.3 What results achieved by MGP have the potential to continue to exist after USAID’s funding ends? Summary of Findings • Financial TA provided to build the capacity of municipal personnel to use tax software will be useful in the transition to form larger municipalities. • Improvements through pilot interventions in municipal service provision and historic center revitalization that have generated tangible positive results will probably continue. However, the multi-actor roundtables designed to support revitalization efforts have limited potential for sustainability. 29 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT USAID.GOV institutionalized practice. Through this effort, the municipality also managed to increase its income from service charges and make the service more financially sustainable. According to the municipal staff person responsible for trash collection, this effort generated greater political support from the environmental unit that managed trash collection. As a result, continued scaling up is planned for 2024, specifically oriented toward implementing at-source separation of organic and recyclable materials on at least five routes. The national law on integral solid waste management is also a motivating factor to introduce and institutionalize recycling. SUSTAINABILITY IN MARKET SERVICES The introduction of a POS to charge market fees and the renovation of bathrooms and parking lots could continue because they have produced positive results, including increasing revenues. SUSTAINABILITY IN REF SERVICES The new municipal installations for REF demonstrate potential for being sustainable. Municipal and MGP staff involved in REF services said that it is difficult to conceive of going back to the chaotic past of using physical records, that the changes have reached a critical stage of “no return” and “institutionalization,” and that the digitalization of the registry process is clearly a superior, more efficient, less costly alternative. The equipment is also durable (4 to 5 years), and there is evidence of staff commitment to use the new technology to sustain this process through completion. Maintenance and even upgrading of the donated computers is happening. SUSTAINABILITY IN CEMETERY SERVICES A municipal representative said that the improvements in cemetery services in Nejapa would continue, at least until the end of this municipal term. They also stated that the costs of maintenance were being incorporated into the municipal budget for 2024, and that they are projecting the purchase of a new property for a necessary expansion of the cemetery. SUSTAINABILITY IN PUBLIC LIGHTING One example of a challenge in maintaining and progressively scaling up investments in municipal services is the continuation of the replacement of public lighting with LED technology. There is a general sense that this is positive and should continue, and there is evidence of a gradual process to replace older lighting technology with LED, with the goal of 100 percent replacement to reduce costs. However, even regular maintenance of current public lighting is a “constant struggle.” With improved monitoring of the system and incremental design improvements to better protect the lights, maintenance has improved. In some municipalities such as the registered case of Panchimalco, the installation and repair of public lighting is included in the municipal budgets, however, in others, such as San Pedro Perulapán, this is not the case and purchases are decided on a case-by-case basis, depending on available resources. SUSTAINABILITY OF CITIZEN SUPPORT COMMITTEES In Apopa, the local citizen committees organized around trash collection are now scaling up. The person responsible for this initiative indicated that community organization is the key to sustainability of the whole effort. Representatives from one waste disposal service committee stated that they have decided to continue because the achievements are positive and have cost them effort, and nobody else is in a better position to guarantee continuation of the work. They hope that the municipality continues 30 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT USAID.GOV supporting them through the work of the “environmental delegates,” especially in relation to the new initiative of source separation and recycling. They argue that the success of this pilot project and the municipality’s support and belief in them favored scaling up replication. In the case of a market vendors’ committee in Santa Ana, one member said that the committee is an important nexus between the municipality and the vendors that can facilitate communication, and thus should be continued. To guarantee this, she said it would be important to further train the committee on the reasons for its existence, given that it is new and many of the new members have never been a part of this type of organization.25 FINAL CONSIDERATIONS OF MUNICIPAL SERVICE DELIVERY In general, one MGP expert believes that the municipalities will have the capabilities to maintain the new service improvements and maintain new infrastructure, equipment, etc. However, they will not be able to replicate the investments made with project resources, given the current scarcity of municipal resources for this type of investment. In relation to historic center revitalization, an MGP representative indicated that, given the reduction in FODES and limited own resources for significant new investments, the embellishment and illumination of more historically relevant buildings is unlikely. He argues that the most promising strategy to scale up revitalization efforts is to “sell this project to the DOM.” The political will of the central government for this is a positive external factor, especially in San Salvador, but it also depends on the proactivity of the municipalities. In San Salvador, there is a positive perception of the technical capabilities to maintain, update, and manage the web page and application to promote the historic center for visitors and investors. There were doubts about the maintenance of the web page because this requires more investment. The generally positive perspective on the sustainability of the changes introduced in municipal service provision and historic center revitalization will hold at least until the end of the current municipal governmental periods. The new municipal election cycle in 2024 will introduce discontinuities in municipal staff employment and efforts made by previous governments. The subsequent process of reconfiguring new municipalities and consolidating existing ones as districts is a source of significant uncertainty among all the actors involved, particularly in relation to the sustainability of the results in this complex new scenario. For example, the consolidation of the municipal REF systems in existing municipalities that are converted into “districts” will be a challenge, but one that is already being discussed in San Salvador. Finding 12: Analysis of evidence from interviews with municipal and MGP experts and challenges cited in MGP reports suggests that the multi-actor roundtables with municipal and relevant national public, local civil society, and business actors in San Miguel and Santa Ana have limited potential for sustainability as mechanisms to support the ongoing dynamics of revitalization of the historic centers. No such mechanism was formed in San Salvador despite significant attempts to do so. 25 See further in-depth discussion of this type of citizen service support committees in findings related to EQ 2. 31 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT USAID.GOV In San Miguel, one MGP representative considered the proactive facilitation of MIACCION (Citizens of San Miguel in Action) with the municipality and civil society to be a positive indicator of sustainability. However, they were unsuccessful in generating and maintaining business sector participation in this effort. In Santa Ana, the municipal representative interviewed indicated they have not yet established a municipal-level roundtable, that this has been difficult, but they have had dialogue with the business representatives and intend to implement it. In Santa Ana, one MGP representative argued that what remained strengthened would be “at least a mechanism of dialogue between interested actors.” In San Salvador, the historic center revitalization team indicated that they preferred to establish bilateral relationships with key stakeholders to negotiate collaboration directly. Finding 13: According to municipal technical staff and MGP experts, effective technical instruments could sustain relevance for the continuation of revitalization efforts in the historic centers. The instruments for strategic planning with proven utility in the revitalization of the historic centers of San Miguel, Santa Ana, and San Salvador are: (1) the databases that contain strategic information for real estate investors and the web-based platforms for public access developed by the Planning Office of the Metropolitan Area of San Salvador (OPAMSS) and the Gerardo Barrios University (UGB) in San Miguel, and (2) the manual on how to deal with structurally damaged buildings in the historic center of San Salvador developed by the OPAMSS. In San Salvador, the sustainability of these MGP-supported contributions depends on whether they are valued and taken up by the new GOES centralized San Salvador Historical Center (CHSS) authority, created by the new Law for the CHSS (May 2023), that will assume the role and competencies of the municipality of San Salvador and the OPAMSS in the planning and implementation of revitalization projects, as well as the administrative procedures related to real estate investments. MUNICIPAL ENGAGEMENT AND RESPONSIVENESS Evaluation Question 2. To what extent did MGP change municipal engagement and responsiveness with recipient groups such as citizen oversight committees and those residents benefiting from service delivery projects? Summary of Findings • The MGP changed municipal engagement and responsiveness in willing municipalities with the introduction of citizen committees to be co-responsible for the identification and implementation of service improvements, which was particularly successful with solid waste management and cemetery services. MGP also introduced an inclusive culture of services that has been adopted and upscaled in the municipality of San Salvador. 32 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT USAID.GOV Finding 14: The evaluators confirmed that MGP introduced three mechanisms for engagement and responsiveness: (1) citizen and market seller committees; (2) alliances with CSOs using subgrants to mobilize citizens in the revitalization of historic centers; and (3) promotion of social inclusion in the organizational culture of service delivery. Finding 15: There is evident engagement between administrative units and citizen committees in municipalities when the committee-administrator responsibilities are clear, and committees are involved in mobilizing service users to improve the service. This was seen in solid waste management (Apopa) and cemetery management (Nejapa). Citizen committees and market seller committees were the result of a process of needs identification, consultation, and inclusive service awareness raising to determine how services could be improved and which stakeholders would be involved. This process was an important aspect of showing municipalities how they can involve the citizen user population through an approach of co-responsibility, in which citizen committees mobilize the user population. Some services lend themselves more to this approach (like solid waste management and cemeteries, and markets to a lesser extent) than others (REF, financial services). The MGP document review found evidence from a baseline study (FRAMe Study)26 that included citizen participation in municipal affairs. For Cohort 1 the study found, in 2018, that “Within the area of Governance and Leadership of the Municipal Council, the weakest issue in the eleven municipalities was citizen participation.”27 No citizen committees were established in the Cohort 1 municipalities. Nevertheless, other mechanisms were used in both Cohorts 1 and 2 to involve citizens in service improvement. These were consultations, awareness-raising sessions for inclusive services, and presentations of study results (for taxes and ordinances). A document review of quarterly and semiannual project reports showed that the Project established 21 committees in 28 of the 31 municipalities involved in MGP, 5 committees in Cohort 1 and 16 in Cohort 2. The evaluation survey reached 21 committee participants (71 percent women, 24 percent men, 4 percent self-defined) from committees in nine Cohort 2 municipalities (three of which were in the Evaluation sample), who belonged to committees for markets (48 percent), solid waste management (33 percent) cemeteries (10 percent) and public lighting (10 percent). This provided a second source of sampling evidence to confirm what was reported by MGP. 26 USAID Municipal Governance Project (MGP) (2018). Quarterly Progress Report No. 2, (January 1–March 31, 2018). April 2018. 27 USAID Municipal Governance Project (MGP) (2018). Quarterly Progress Report No. 4 (July 1–Sept. 30, 2018). USAID El Salvador Mission, October 2018. Page 21. 33 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT USAID.GOV Exhibit 6: Citizen and vendor committees created, and type of input provided to function, MGP Cohorts 1 and 2 INPUT SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT MARKETS PUBLIC LIGHTING CEMETERIES TOTAL % OF PROJECT TOTAL No. of municipalities attended 8 13 5 2 28 90% No. of citizen committees supported 8 (C1 = 2) 10 (C1 = 3) 1 2 21 68% Technical Assistance to organize and train committees 5 7 1 2 15 48% Training for committees 0 7 0 0 7 23% Perception studies 5 7 1 2 15 48% Source: Own analysis using information provided in the quarterly and semiannual reports from September 2017 to March 2023 provided by MGP to the Evaluation Team. As Exhibit 6 shows, primary inputs to strengthen the newly formed committees were TA (hands-on training sessions) and formal training. Interviews found that committees such as those for solid waste management and cemetery management received local training and benefited from knowledge-exchange activities such as visits to municipalities with improved services. In addition, MGP’s surveys to measure changes in users’ perception of the quality of the improved services helped to complete the cycle for citizen and market seller committees by measuring the change in perception in the time of service and quality of treatment users receive. Other evidence that confirmed the outcome of the above efforts came from four FGDs with committees (two FGDs with market sellers, one with solid waste disposal, and one with cemetery management). There were 25 participants in total (72 percent female, 28 percent male). The committee most engaged in service delivery was Apopa’s solid waste management, and one member described municipal engagement in this way: In fact, you know that maybe our committee was a pilot plan. . . . Then, in the end we have come to understand that this pilot plan that they started with us did work and it is where they, as municipality, have believed in us, as committees and have been forming more committees. — Male, FGD We, as a board, met many times there, in the municipality where the Council was in session. They only took as with lies and they never told us what improvements were going to be done, that is the only thing that the people are upset about . . . —Male, FGD 34 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT USAID.GOV Neither of the two market seller committees was operating in regular market premises or showed the same degree of engagement as the other two committees. The market seller committees in San Miguel had lost the market installation to a fire and market sellers had been reaccommodated in other markets or authorized street vending locations. In Santa Ana, the installations were being refurbished and the administration had recently changed and was organizing the management of a larger territory. This committee was established in 2022. The informants agreed that their functions had not been clear since the change in administration, and that communication had been limited regarding what was happening with the remodeling of the site and how it involved them. In the words of a committee informant: This comment validates the approach of co￾responsibility that MGP promoted. When the responsibilities of both actors are clear and the municipality provides the support required for citizens to perform their role, the committees operate well and participants are enthusiastic in their responses (Apopa, Nejapa), whereas in locations where the social contract has broken down (no premises or signs that there will be any in San Miguel, breakdown in communication and mutual trust in Santa Ana) the committees are not operating in an optimum manner. Finding 16: No formal engagement arose from the complementary CSO subgrants for historic centers and the municipalities, although there is better coordination with the technical municipal units. However, these cities are left with smaller local CSOs that have greater capacity to manage funds to mobilize the public through cultural activities, create local cultural tourism offerings, and generate data to identify opportunities for investment. The document review shows that MGP began providing subgrants for the revitalization of historical centers, starting in 2021 with the Municipality of Santa Ana, and in 2023 the Municipality of San Miguel. In 2021, MGP also opened a new mechanism of municipal collaboration by providing subgrants to two CSOs in San Miguel and, in 2022, one in Santa Ana. In Santa Ana, in 2022 and again in 2023, MGP granted funds to Beautiful Arts Foundation (FBA) to work on an art and performance agenda related to activities in the public spaces of the historic center of Santa Ana. This included cultural and performing arts events, the Open-Air Weekend School of Arts, and Placemaking activities in the main fairway of the historic center. The 2023 grant was for the continuation of this type of cultural agenda. In Santa Ana, to respond the question of what had the municipality learned from their participation, a CSO Informant said: . . . the board works as a link between the municipality and the vendors. Then the success of the operation and that the information flows correctly is based in the good information that is received from the people at the top and how it is managed in the committee and how it has been transmitted. —Male, FGD . . . I do not know, because let’s say that we have noticed that they suddenly call us and say, “you know, we are going to hold this event an would like you to participate” . . . and there is, like more aperture; I still think that more could be done because they still have not integrated us in a plan they have similar to this with AID; we do integrate them in our plans . . . in the publicity we do not enter much, they never mention the (CSO) . . . in great measure the municipality has seen what the organization has done and has replicated it, that wins the population; we wish they had invited us too . . . —Male, KII CSO 35 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT USAID.GOV UGB received a subgrant to produce business intelligence data and analysis for the historic center of San Miguel. This grant included: (1) a business intelligence web page supported by a database with real estate market and urban economy information about the historic center, and (2) knowledge-transfer activities to convey business intelligence to entrepreneurs and street vendor representatives. The San Miguel subgrant went to MIACCION to support the revitalization process of public spaces in the historic center through the promotion of cultural tourism. This grant included the provision of office furniture and electronic equipment for MIACCION and consultancies for the development of (1) an inventory of cultural assets with potential for cultural tourism; (2) market analysis for cultural tourism; and (3) administrative and operational manuals for MIACCION.28 Interviews with the CSO in San Miguel identified some perceived benefits from implementing the subgrant in terms of the work with the public (see box). Finding 17: The creation of multidisciplinary, multi-area municipal technical teams to work together on improving different municipal services was a key internal facilitating factor to achieving success, because each member assumed their respective role and received support to make contributions. Finding 18: It is possible to develop a culture where quality of service reflects inclusive service delivery using letters of rights and a process that includes a unit responsible for leadership, dynamic hands-on training and the involvement of all levels of staff, support of all the unit chiefs, a technical-level committee of unit chiefs to guide institutional improvement, and feedback mechanisms (perception surveys and suggestion boxes for staff and the user population). The MGP reports show that the initial needs assessment in Santo Tomas in 201829 “revealed that citizens feel there is a lot of discrimination in the way that the municipality delivers their services.” The SIGE unit worked with this municipality to develop, in coordination with the municipal government and citizens, the definition, adoption, and implementation of Letters of Rights and Obligations, which constitute commitments to their citizens. By 2019, in Cohort I municipalities, Letter of Rights processes took place in Armenia (for REF, Current Accounts, and municipal tax administration unit UATM), San 28 MGP (2022). Semi-Annual Progress Report No. 8 April to Sept 2022. Page 48. 29 USAID Municipal Governance Project (MGP) (2018), Quarterly Progress Report No. 4 July 1–Sept. 30, 2018. Pag. 25 For us really, the impact that we have had in the acceptance of the same Migueleños and the recognition of the Migueleños themselves of being able to preserve these spaces to generate tourism, that change in attitude, and above all in valuing or revaluing the place where we live or of what we live . . . —Female, KII CSO In San Miguel, the CSO involved in business information for the historic center indicated that so far, In the municipality there has been no approaching from their part towards us. —Male, KII CSO 36 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT USAID.GOV Miguel (Current Accounts), San Salvador (REF), and Panchimalco (REF).30 This new practice resulted in the 2019 publication of the “Guide for the Preparation of Letters of Rights and Duties for Users of Municipal Services.” In 2020, the Communications Unit published copies of letters of rights for the municipalities to display in their service sites. This practice was not continued with Cohort 2 municipalities after the 2020 Contingency Plan. As part of MGP’s SIGE strategy, in the line of action for Development of Skills and Competencies, MGP promoted municipal leadership efforts to improve service delivery with equality, inclusion, and diversity by promoting the establishment of technical committees that included the social units of the municipalities. In 2019, MGP reported awareness and sensitization activities for municipal staff using a play about assistance to vulnerable groups, and conducted workshops in Santa Ana, Olocuilta, and Zacatecoluca to promote inclusive development and draft proposals to form technical committees that would coordinate the implementation of municipal priority actions. It also reported training municipal officials in organizational culture, customer service, and inclusive management in Sonsonate, Armenia, and Panchimalco.31 In the Municipality of San Salvador, the Unit for Quality Control took leadership of its process32 and trained 100 municipal public servants in topics such as in teamwork, results-based management, and citizen service, and with its own resources, replicated nine workshops with 180 officials in the Tax Management department and the REF and Cadastre Units. As to the relevance of creating the multidisciplinary teams to work together to improve municipal services, a good practice is shown in Apopa, where the team initially formed to work with the MGP on improving solid waste services was later institutionalized by municipal authorities and its scope of action broadened to support new project formulation, preparation of municipal budgeting, etc. Annex G contains testimony from the interview with the Quality Control Unit of the Municipality of San Salvador, which describes the process of cultural transformation based on continuous improvement and a human right–inclusive approach. This work began in 2021 and is still in operation, and the interview outlines the steps taken and the key elements that have made the process produce satisfactory results. This annex is included to describe a good practice that is still in effect because it could be useful to other municipalities in the future. Key elements they have identified in the overall process are: ● Unit chiefs are on board; ● Capacity-building for all levels of staff; ● Staff involvement from chiefs to operators; ● Institutional improvement technical team with unit chiefs; 30 MGP (2019). Semi-Annual Progress Report No. 2 April to Sept 2019. Oct. 2019. 31 USAID (2020). USAID Municipal Governance Project. Semi-Annual Progress Report No. 4 (April 1, 2020– September 30, 2020). El Salvador. September 2020. Page 47 32 Idem USAID (2019) SAPR 2, Page 45. The technical Municipal Committee was created, it still exists, and I believe that it is one of the great innovations, to say it that way, of the Project; because if not, they would have taken every manager in their area, many times we would not have had that facility. —Male, KII 37 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT USAID.GOV ● A policy of continuous improvement; and ● Suggestion boxes. PERCEPTION OF TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE Finding 19: The finance specialists expressed satisfaction with the training and technical assistance and suggested broadening the TA to cover budgeting, public accounting, and treasury. Municipal informants shared their satisfaction with the technical support and the MGP approach delivered to the financial unit. One financial manager and his team felt that they were the actual implementers and not only spectators. However, to maintain this level of satisfaction, the informant would like to see the implementation of monitoring of the results after the Project ends, to guarantee that nothing will be lost. According to the survey, out of 89 respondents, 35 were very satisfied with the TA in finance (39 percent), 42 were satisfied (47 percent), and only 10 were less satisfied (11 percent). Evaluation Question 3 3. How do the municipalities and other beneficiaries perceive the technical assistance provided by MGP? Summary of Findings • The different modalities of technical assistance were well received. In financial management they would like to extend it to other areas; they liked the tax software but suggested improvements in the provider’s support for problem-solving. • Citizen committees and CSOs were satisfied with the technical assistance received, because it helped them perform the responsibilities assigned to their roles or in their agreements. Source: Evaluation Survey, October 2023 2.2% 11.2% 39.3% 47.2% No opinion Less satisfied Very satisfied Satisfied If your municipality received TA in finance, how satisfied are you? Exhibit 7: Satisfaction with technical assistance received 38 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT USAID.GOV Finding 20: The finance specialists commented that the tax software improved their work. They also indicated the need to improve the technical support, which affected their work due to delays in correcting processing errors. Interviewees and survey respondents recognized the importance of the tax software, and IP specialists have made efforts to strengthen the abilities of municipal staff as users. As MGP ends, municipalities are using their resources to renew contracts for technical support with the software company. A group expressed concerns with the technical support due to the response time and the actual support they were receiving from the company. Survey respondents33 who were familiar with the use of the tax software first identified the production of incorrect due balances (for different reasons) as a limitation (12 out of 19 respondents), and the second most mentioned limitation was the software being incomplete (8 out of 19 responses). The staff of one of the visited municipalities shared their experience of the company having to bring a backup of the tax base information and, after that, the team experienced the same problems they had with the previous version of the system. A current account manager commented on her preoccupation with the security of the information because anybody could enter data in the application. Other repeated comments indicated that the tax software was not complete. One municipal finance manager noted that the municipality could have purchased the cemetery module to be added to the tax software as a new and separate product, because it was not included as part of the technical support contract with the company. 33 Survey administered by the ET. October 2023. Maybe not in the practice, but to have the basic knowledge of some terminology that I didn’t know before, after dealing with the work and training, I was able to bring clarifying concepts, exploring ideas and I feel that the training has been very useful, because I can supervise the units and request them information. —Male, Municipal Coordinator The part of the strategy to recover the arrears, I think it was good and I am thankful, but I would have liked a more comprehensive approach, meaning, because I am already in the finance unit and the support did not touch treasury, nothing in the accounting unit, nothing in the budget unit. —Male, Municipal Financial Manager Then they told us they were going to give us the matrix [coding work], and we were going to be responsible and if our technician works on it, they will erase it completely. . . . Then I did not want to tell them that they will not administer it . . . the company has told us that they will keep the support until we do tell them in writing that we are responsible. —Male, Finance Specialist 39 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT USAID.GOV One factor that caused friction between municipal staff and the company tech professionals was ownership of the coded source. Considering the current USAID Digital Agenda, MGP tax software and tech support could be improved in the future by following the guideline to use open sources, and stressing cybersecurity and inclusion where feasible, since MGP staff feedback mentioned that institutional tax software for governments is generally proprietary and not open source. Finding 21: Municipal employees and citizens in the service committees and vendor organizations interviewed were satisfied with the different types of technical assistance, training, and in-kind donations they received from MGP to improve prioritized municipal services and resolve the specific problems identified in the diagnostic studies and action plans for each municipality. Members of the municipal historic center revitalization teams expressed general satisfaction with the fluidity of communication with the MGP team. There is a generally positive perception of the quality, value, and practical utility of the new knowledge acquired as well as the diversity of training, technical assistance, and other learning opportunities MGP provided to the municipal service teams and those in charge of historic center revitalization. This satisfaction is reflected in municipal employees’ responses when asked about the quality of MGP technical assistance received, with 62 percent rating it as quite adequate and 31 percent as sufficient.34 MUNICIPAL SERVICE PROVISION The municipal staff interviewed indicated that municipal needs were reflected in the process of co￾creating the technical specifications and budget for the different in-kind donations. For example, the TA for operating the new market management information system was positively valued as useful in resolving doubts about this initiative, “professional,” and dynamic. Interviewees felt it was important to learn from someone with specific knowledge of market administration. The training integrated a learning-by-doing approach, combined with personalized coaching in some cases, and focused on key issues related to the quality and accessibility of municipal service provision. The benefits of this practical approach to training can be seen where pilot initiatives are being scaled up, such as in Apopa, where the redesign of solid waste collection routes is now a routine systematic process and the organization and training of citizen committees to co-manage this service at the local level continues to expand. This scaling up is being conducted by the municipal team based on their learning from the initial training, and the person responsible for this work recognized the MGP specialist’s positive contribution of proactively searching for alternatives to support continued advances. The MGP team demonstrated flexibility and sensitivity to emerging priorities. For example, the training in occupational security for market management, workers, and vendors was specifically oriented toward fire prevention and safety measures at a time when several major fires had occurred at municipal markets in San Salvador, Santa Ana, Ahuachapán, and San Miguel. The TA related to public lighting focused on understanding the system, the location of light posts, and how best to apply municipal regulations for determining fees. A municipal staff member noted the value of the manual created through the TA that establishes the procedures for soliciting, approving, and 34 Survey administered by the ET. October 2023. 40 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT USAID.GOV continuing to scale up the municipal public lighting system in an ordered way, in coordination with the electrical distribution company. Municipal employees demonstrated satisfaction and contentment with the quality of the TA for REF, especially the personalized attention and systematic assistance of the MGP technical staff who were in charge of REF training and TA. They also indicated appreciation for the practical, short training sessions, which were adapted to the nature of this highly demanded service and the limited time available for training. In San Salvador, to amplify the training reach and impact on municipal REF works, a core team of 10 was trained and replicated their training for 90 people directly involved providing REF services in the central and district offices. In the Nejapa municipal cemetery, employees indicated complete satisfaction with the service provider that created and installed the georeferenced inventory of grave sites, and the technology that provides access to this information through a computerized system with a map showing the location of the grave and enables onsite payment of service charges. The technicians were “accessible” and swift to resolve any errors that were detected. In general, employees appreciated the quality of the assistance received from the MGP staff member. Market vendors participating in FGDs found the training and one-on-one mentoring improved their sales and earnings through better displays, client relations, and the accounting of their income and expenses. They stressed the importance of the personalized coaching because it facilitated their assimilation and application of learning. Vendors also valued learning how to better manage their finances, investments, income, and profits, as well as the acquisition of loans from informal service providers (prestamistas). The market vendor training on attention to clients resulted in a notable improvement in the way they were attending to their clientele, according to municipal employees interviewed. Environmental committees found their training key to training neighborhood residents in solid waste management and separating for recycling. HISTORIC CITY CENTER REVITALIZATION MIACCION took on a new role in designing and implementing a cultural tourism “route” in the historic center of San Miguel, as an extension of its concern for protection and recovery of historic patrimony. This work focused on the inclusion of small and medium-sized enterprises as a particular interest of MGP. MGP wanted to promote cooperation between the municipalities, civil society, and the business sector, and planned a learning trip to Colombia to visit different initiatives. However, according to an MGP specialist, the team mistakenly offered to buy tickets for the participants, but when this was not possible, the potential participants from the business sector decided not to participate. This resulted in losing an important opportunity to establish cooperation with the business sector in the revitalization process. The trip did create greater cohesion between the municipal revitalization teams that did participate, which helped in the creation of a functioning community of practice. Annex G provides details about the community of practice experience. A municipal revitalization team member (from Santa Ana) suggested that the MGP timelines did not always consider the demanding work agendas of their municipal counterparts and recommended greater flexibility in the planning of project activities. 41 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT USAID.GOV Members of the municipal historic center revitalization team in San Salvador indicated that the procurement process for the urban furniture, materials, and equipment required to meet the quality standards established for revitalization efforts proved to be deficient in terms of the timeliness of fabrication and delivery by the selected providers, as well as quality control by MGP. The municipal team established strict quality control procedures before accepting the deliveries. The web page and application to promote the revitalized historic center of San Salvador were delivered but not accepted by the municipal team due the need to update the information on the web page and make adjustments to the functioning of the application to correct the “many errors” they encountered when testing it. The municipal communications team was creating new audiovisual materials for the service provider to integrate before publicly launching the website and application. They acknowledged that the consultant in charge had been responsive in resolving the issues, although it was done “in their own time.” BARRIERS TO APPLYING KNOWLEDGE Finding 22: The municipal informants recognized they still faced limitations in applying new skills and knowledge after MGP training in cost analysis to set appropriate fees, due to the lack of political support from the Council or because the estimated costs translated into higher fees, sometimes several times the initial fee level. According to an IP specialist, no reference or methodology existed to calculate and analyze service delivery costs. MGP covered the gap and developed guidelines and training sessions. Other municipalities began their cost studies and compared their results with MGP studies. As many interviewees commented, the one and most important barrier is the lack of Council political support, and as stated earlier, only four out of 25 proposals submitted for consideration were approved. One staff member of a small Evaluation Question 4 4. What hindrances or barriers do different types of beneficiaries or stakeholders face in applying the knowledge gained through MGP? Summary of Findings • Stakeholders interviewed reported few hindrances to the application of knowledge gained in their work. • The MGP process of needs identification, best methods to deliver the TA, and flexibility in the time and form of delivery have been successful, resulting in external factors being the only hindrance reported. • Examples of barriers are the lack of political support to implement tax or fee study recommendations, and lack of time to attend peer-replicated training in citizen committees. I have been working in cost analysis since 2022 . . . the consultancy paid by the Project maybe it did not produce the results it was supposed to, first because it is linked with a modification of the cost structure, and all municipal governments have always the problem that when we have to transfer the cost of the service to the population, and they perceive it as we are increasing the taxes, and if there is not a good communication, we can run into trouble. —Male, Finance Specialist 42 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT USAID.GOV municipality also pointed out that results could be impossible to apply because the actual cost of delivering the service could be at least five times the original price. He gave the example of producing a birth certificate, which they priced at $2, and the cost study set at $10. During the interview, a financial manager pointed out that the application of cost analysis should consider the cost of safe conditions in the service of solid waste collection and be clear about the costs of inefficiencies in the service that could be transferred to the population. SOCIAL INCLUSION WITH GENDER EQUALITY Finding 23: MGP prepared a SIGE strategy based on the Social Promotion Law and a needs assessment. It had five lines of action, a work plan, and a social inclusion specialist and a gender specialist to coordinate. The Municipal Women’s Unit did not play a role in SIGE activities at the local level. The SIGE work plan and staff continuity stopped in 2020 with the restructuring of project priorities due to USAID budget cuts, and activities could not continue. Finding 24: In 2018–2019, MGP developed staff guidelines for mainstreaming SIGE in municipal services. With Cohort 1, the Project promoted SIGE in customer services using a Letter of Rights as a tool and promoted a change in the organizational culture to value inclusion and gender equality. The Municipality of San Salvador replicated this process on its own. The MGP document review pertaining to SIGE showed that most activities were implemented in 2018 and 2019. The MGP Year 2 work plan stated that the role of SIGE is to increase social cohesion “to build trust in the governance system through promoting more responsive management in municipalities.” In addition, it identified as vulnerable groups: women, migrants, youth, people with disabilities, the elderly, and Indigenous people, among others.35 MGP formulated a SIGE strategy with five lines of action: (1) Awareness Building, (2) Knowledge Building, (3) Development of Skills and Competencies, (4) Establishing Alliances and Assuring Continuity, 35 Municipal Governance Project Work Plan (Year 2) October 1, 2018, to September 30, 2019. El Salvador, March 2019. Page 46 Evaluation Question 5 How did WSP integrate gender equality and inclusive development into MGP implementation? Summary of Findings • MGP’s social inclusion with gender equality (SIGE) strategy, outlined with five lines of action, faced challenges in funding stability, leading to its elimination and non-implementation of activities in certain lines. Despite this, efforts to promote social inclusion persisted throughout the Project. 43 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT USAID.GOV and (5) Constructing Inclusive Social Capital for Sustainable Change. Among the key assumptions for the implementation of this strategy, the one that did not hold was “Funding from United States Government for the Project will continue stable during the whole life of the Project.” Funding cuts resulted in a Consolidation Plan in 2020 where the SIGE unit was eliminated and its Action Plan activities in lines 4 and 5 were not implemented. Activities in the first three lines of action were left incomplete. The promotion of social inclusion was the main approach used during the rest of the Project. In the first year (2018), Result 3 activities included raising staff awareness of SIGE issues, and developing guidelines to integrate a SIGE perspective in their work. With municipal employees, activities were raising awareness, incorporating SIGE into services by promoting the Letter of Rights, and training in customer service management.36 MGP work plans and reports show that a major effort was undertaken with municipalities in mancomunidades to promote Letters of Rights. By March 2020, MGP reported37 its achievements from 2017 to 2019 in the implementation of the SIGE strategy. Capacity-building and knowledge strengthening of Cohort 1 municipalities and mancomunidades attended in Result 2 included 50 municipal officials from 15 municipalities. To mainstream SIGE, there were two municipal technical coordination committees in operation (Santa Ana and Zacatecoluca), and MGP SIGE had developed two methodological guides (for mainstreaming and for Letters of Rights). The Project had promoted a change in institutional culture to a perspective of rights and service to citizens by drafting four Letters of Rights in 4 municipalities and 4 mancomunidades. It also promoted participation and transparency mechanisms with videos delivered for basic sign language training to 30 municipalities, with more than 150 municipal employees trained in San Salvador and Sonsonate; and educated 28 municipalities about accessible technological tools (web pages) for people with disabilities. In addition, through collective training for the empowerment of political leadership among women and youth, two courses drew 112 women and 60 men (youth) from 26 municipalities.38 The Semi-Annual Progress Report No. 5 (October 1, 2020–March 31, 2021), reported no SIGE activities in that period. Nevertheless, the Communications section reported helping with the Letter of Rights template. Evidence of these activities and perceptions of their effect in municipalities were collected using an evaluation survey of municipal staff and elected officers, another survey with members of service and market seller committees, and the KII and FGD interviews conducted in the sample municipalities. These verified the following: ● Letters of Rights caught the interest of many municipalities: The evaluation survey showed that 36 percent of respondents (46 percent men and 54 percent women) from 11 municipalities said they have used Letters of Rights and obligations in service delivery in their municipalities. Two of these were part of the evaluation sample. ● SIGE content in the service committee training sessions got the message across: The delivery of respectful service to citizens who were users was observed and stated by FGD informants in the sample municipalities. This was validated in the evaluation survey for citizen service committees from 9 municipalities, 3 of which were part of the evaluation sample. The survey showed that 81 percent of 36 Municipal Governance Project Quarterly Progress Report No. 4 (July 1–Sept. 30, 2018). El Salvador. October 2018. 37 USAID Municipal Governance Project Semi-Annual Progress Report No. 3 (October 1, 2019–March 31, 2020). El Salvador. March 2020 38 USAID MGP Semi-Annual Progress Report No. 3 (October 1, 2019–March 31, 2020). Page 58 44 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT USAID.GOV respondents (57 percent women and 24 percent men) said that in the training sessions and TA they had learned about coexistence with social inclusion in relation to the work of the committee. ● SIGE training for municipal stakeholders has raised awareness: The evaluation survey of municipal employees and elected officials showed that 50 percent (31 percent male, 19 percent female) said SIGE had been included in the training. By type of position, 43 percent were municipal employees and 7 percent were elected officials. Among the 46 percent of respondents who reported applying the SIGE knowledge in their work (18 percent female and 28 percent male), 40 percent were municipal employees and 6 percent were elected officials. In addition, when asked if, as a result of MGP technical assistance, the manner in which the municipality takes advantage of citizen participation to improve service delivery has changed, 22 percent (12 percent male and 10 percent female; 18 percent employees, 4 percent elected officials) said yes, that it consults citizens about the coverage and quality of the services. A larger percentage, 43 percent (26 percent male, 17 percent female; 37 percent employees and 6 percent elected officials), said that the municipality informs citizens about the services. Of the 17 municipalities that responded, only 4 provided no answers to these two options. Furthermore, when asked if there is a municipal policy or manual stating how staff must treat the user population that comes in search of their services, 50 percent said yes (30 percent male, 20 percent female; 42 percent employees and 8 percent elected officials). Of the 25 municipalities that answered this question, 19 provided positive responses. ● MGP promoted a change in municipal culture: In the Municipality of San Salvador,39 initial efforts have continued and show results perceived as positive by the unit interviewed. Interviews with the information unit in Apopa also showed that it collects and provides information with variables of inclusion that is georeferenced and used for municipal decision-making, and it has a technical coordinating team that seeks inputs from a social unit.40 Regarding the training of MGP staff, their training approach was contingent on their time availability, according to interviews. 39 Interview with Municipal Quality Control Unit, Municipality of San Salvador, October 10, 2023. 40 Interview with Municipal Information Unit, Apopa. October 9, 2023. The sensitization was developed, and a methodological tool. But the avalanche of things that had to be done, and the times for training in this theme they did not find; and some guidelines were developed. Some people retook them more than others. Then, it is not that they had a program for permanent training in the interior, but that some actions were developed, some methodological tools, very attentive to the indicator to respond to it. — Female, KII 45 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT USAID.GOV CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS CONCLUSIONS EVALUATION QUESTION 1.1 Conclusion 1 MGP implemented a successful strategy focusing municipal efforts in arrears collection and cadastre update. With the rapid results, municipalities were able to test the tax software. Personnel were able to identify the benefits of digitizing their processes, which translated to shorter waiting times and more resources collected in arrears in comparison to previous years. However, the quantitative data also indicate that after the short term, the collection of current revenue decreases requiring continued work to set appropriate service fees and local taxes. Associated Findings ● Finding 1 Conclusion 2 MGP achieved its stated goal of enhancing municipal capacity to plan for, administer, and deliver accessible, high-quality public services by strengthening the capabilities of municipal staff to introduce technical and organizational innovations to improve finance and service delivery, and improving working conditions, which led to better performance, labor relations, and motivation to focus on the quality and inclusiveness of services. As a result of these efforts, citizens enjoy a greater sense of security, ease, order, comfort, reliability, and efficiency in service delivery; and positive indirect socioeconomic and environmental effects are emerging as a positive contribution to more sustainable local development. Associated Findings ● Finding 2 ● Finding 3 Conclusion 3 Municipal and OSC initiatives to revitalize the historic urban centers of San Salvador, Santa Ana, and San Miguel strengthened visions in their strategic planning, while implementing model initiatives in urban upgrading. However, these efforts were limited in scope compared with the aspirational goals of creating avenues for widened stakeholder participation, achieving public￾private partnerships and regulatory streamlining to attract investment to the historic centers, and forming a strategic municipal relationship with OSC as the basis for sustainability. The mechanisms to meet the stated goal of stimulating local economic activity and better managing informal vendor issues were extremely limited in scope. Associated Findings ● Finding 2 46 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT USAID.GOV EVALUATION QUESTION 1.2 Conclusion 4 The drastic reduction of FODES hurt municipal finances, especially in small municipalities.According to specialists’ opinions, it encouraged municipal fiscal effort and incentive to work with MGP. Associated Findings ● Finding 4 Conclusion 5 MGP had to work with larger municipalities after the CDCS 2020–2025 approval, which required more innovative and experienced support from consultants and MGP in the financial area. Having a larger tax base and management tasks, it was more difficult to guide the municipal team and differentiate the results obtained from their own current processes from the results obtained as a product of the TA. The scope of work for MGP in Cohort 2 benefited from the lessons learned in Cohort 1, but there were more challenges in covering the demand. Associated Findings ● Finding 5 Conclusion 6 A significant lesson from MGP is the fundamental importance of generating tangible positive results that generate the necessary commitment from the mayors, municipal councils, and key management to enable successful implementation of innovative initiatives. Identifying and involving motivated people with leadership and existing competencies proved to be a good practice. However, the lack of qualified personnel and turnover are risks that should be proactively mitigated. This will depend on the presentation of MGP results to the newly elected administrations of consolidated municipalities. Motivating the retention of competent staff to operate the improved services and financial management systems is a strategic challenge to the sustainability of the capacity-building delivered to different units of the current municipalities (which are soon to be districts). Associated Findings ● Finding 6 Conclusion 7 Key external factors that limited the achievement of MGP were the multidimensional COVID-19 crisis, which dramatically altered municipal and project priorities and challenged effective service provision; the pause of resources from USAID; and legal guidelines. Another external factor, the perceived improvement of public safety conditions, enabled MGP TA. Associated Findings ● Finding 7 ● Finding 8 ● Finding 9 EVALUATION QUESTION 1.3 Conclusion 8 Municipalities will continue using the tech equipment during the useful life of the assets. Longer-term sustainability is difficult to establish. The digitized tax base data will remain. The challenges of future municipal integration could trigger a favorable mobilization of the resources needed to further improve municipal digital capabilities. Associated Findings ● Finding 10 47 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT USAID.GOV Conclusion 9 Consolidating and scaling up innovative improvements made through pilot projects in municipal service provision and historic center revitalization will depend on the effective communication of publicly recognized results to motivate newly elected municipal governments and officials to mobilize the significant new investments required to achieve this in the context of the newly consolidated municipalities. Associated Findings ● Finding 11 Conclusion 10 The medium- and long-term sustainability of the historic center revitalization efforts will depend on municipal capabilities for resource mobilization from external sources and networking to enable key national government authorizations.The planning and technical instruments developed to provide strategic information for real estate investors and orientation to deal with structurally damaged buildings could positively contribute to this process if recognized and valued by decision-making authorities. Associated Findings ● Finding 12 ● Finding 13 EVALUATION QUESTION 2 Conclusion 11 Municipalities that are engaged in the operation of citizen committees with co-responsibility for improving service delivery have developed mutual trust, which enabled improvements in municipal performance. This condition contributes to their sustainability. Associated Findings ● Finding 14 ● Finding 15 Conclusion 12 CSOs that receive subgrants have established coordination relations with municipal units related to public activities. Institutionally, the subgrants have been a constructive practice that has strengthened the organizations, proving that they are capable of managing grants of larger amounts than in the past, and raising their profile as USAID collaborating CSOs.They all drew larger audiences to their events, generating new economic activities or key information to invest in the historic centers, in spite of not establishing formal alliances with the municipalities. Associated Findings ● Finding 16 Conclusion 13 The Municipality of San Salvador has proven it is possible to initiate the transformation of the organizational culture to be more inclusive based on human rights. Associated Findings ● Finding 17 ● Finding 18 EVALUATION QUESTION 3 Conclusion 14 In general terms, municipal stakeholders had a positive perception of the Project regarding TA to improve municipal finances. There were concerns about technical support for the software, solving specific errors during the process of calculations, and the need to renew the contract.The USAID Digital Agenda provides a framework that guides digitization processes and, Associated Findings ● Finding 19 ● Finding 20 48 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT USAID.GOV together with MGP experience, could be an asset during the consolidation of municipalities. Conclusion 15 MGP used effective mechanisms to detect needs for building competencies and technical assistance. Actors appreciated the prioritization of problems at work and reported that the TA generated significant knowledge for meeting challenges. Existing limitations of time to dedicate to training, specifically for REF staff and market vendors, were addressed by shortening training sessions and adding one-on-one coaching to facilitate learning. Identifying and meeting the capacity-building needs of the larger, more complex municipalities that were added as urban hubs in 2020 was a challenge, because they had more experience and technical competencies. Associated Findings ● Finding 21 EVALUATION QUESTION 4 Conclusion 16 Participants did not report major challenges to implementing their learning in practice. The one instance found was insufficient political support to approve products of the technical assistance, such as recommended changes in the service fee structures. Associated Findings ● Finding 22 EVALUATION QUESTION 5 Conclusion 17 The work plan for SIGE integration was cut in the 2020 Contingency Plan, which affected gender tasks thereafter. Nevertheless, the presence of USG standard gender indicators ensured at least the measures for participation were maintained. It was effective in introducing a culture of inclusive delivery in the provision of municipal services (i.e., Apopa’s information unit introduced georeferencing to gender and social variables to analyze its citizen database). Including the requirement to apply SIGE in CSO subgrant agreements was effective in reflecting this in their activities. Associated Findings ● Finding 23 Conclusion 18 The project downplayed gender equality in its strategy, which had opportunity costs: (1) Social units, particularly the Women’s Unit, which were not empowered in the role of advisors to the technical coordinating committees to ensure MGP SIGE results; (2) In not mapping the diversity of the population targeted by services to measure gender and inclusion gaps relevant to the Project and measuring the effect of capacity-building on the stakeholders; and (3) In not strengthening stakeholder competencies to identify and resolve cultural discriminatory barriers faced by women in the different services. Associated Findings ● Finding 24 49 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT USAID.GOV RECOMMENDATIONS The recommendations presented below represent the sequence of the analysis carried out to respond to the evaluation questions. They focus on five main areas and are intended to guide action on technical assistance provided by future USAID local development activities. RECOMMENDATION 1. FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT (C1, C2, C4, C5, C6, C7, C8, C15, C17) To USAID, IP, and municipalities, short and medium term: In future USAID activities, the design could maintain the TA in finance on the revenue and expenditure side. For the revenue side, apply MGP’s roadmap, which had rapid results in own-resource collection, beginning with assessment and focusing on arrears collection and tax-base expansion with updated and digitized cadastre for the short term. Continue working on setting appropriate fee levels for services, identifying the most crucial costs that need to be covered, and constantly monitoring the performance of revenue collection. A future project could incorporate the successful story of the Nejapa cemetery to work with users in setting the appropriate service fees. Results also suggested the need to insert incentives to continue improving own-source revenue collection. On the expenditure side, include budgeting with earmarks for maintenance and procurement; for larger and medium-size municipalities, strengthen two fundamental systems that complement cash accounts and budgeting: accounting and treasury. In the future, consider differentiation of TA content for cities of different sizes—larger municipalities need a bigger market of providers and corporations to support more complex products, like digital tools. During the last year of MGP implementation, USAID published its Digital Strategy, which will improve the administration of the tax software tested by MGP and other digital tools. The integration process of districts presents an opportunity for USAID to showcase the financial technical innovations piloted in MGP to benefit other municipalities. A future project should also promote sustainability by guiding municipalities to earmark funds for maintenance and depreciation of IT equipment. In the case of digital innovations, a future project should consider municipal practices that enhance inclusion and cybersecurity when connecting and communicating with citizens and taxpayers. Continue the development of the digital government experience initiated with MGP by systematizing the e-signature experience and the piloted online services. In future projects, USAID could promote, with the collaboration of the IP, the “interoperability by embracing open-source software solutions.”41 RECOMMENDATION 2. SERVICE DELIVERY (C2, C3, C4, C5, C6, C7, C9, C10, C11, C12) To USAID and IPs, short and medium term: Considering that the most pressing challenge for improving municipal governance in the short to medium term in El Salvador is integrating diverse and complex districts into new municipal configurations, it is recommended to promote a process that starts with the dissemination of MGP best practices to strengthen municipalities and strategically plan historic center revitalization. For dissemination, systematize best cases in service delivery with a cost-effective analysis to show the financial needs for implementation of piloted and successful service delivery. Following the MGP 41 USAID, Digital Frontiers, DAI. Digital Ecosystem Framework. Page 11. Also USAID Digital Strategy. 50 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT USAID.GOV roadmap, begin by establishing a solid baseline with a district and municipal assessment of institutional capabilities to comply with legal competencies. USAID and its future IP should support the newly consolidated municipalities to design and implement a participatory process, following MGP consultation practices, to elaborate a strategic institutional work plan. This should include consulting the local population, local CSOs and businesses, as well as relevant national government agencies, to propose evidence-based strategies and prioritize investments for strengthening municipal service provision, as well as the revitalization of historic city centers and other public spaces. Also needed are an analysis for prioritization, and design of innovative approaches to assume co-responsibility of additional municipal competencies established in the municipal code, in coordination with municipal businesses (especially Small and Medium Enterprises [SMEs]), local CSOs, concerned user citizens, and relevant national governmental agencies. Consider operational and investment planning to reengineer and integrate municipal administrative and work processes. This includes the following key elements based on learning from MGP: (1) Create and strengthen multidisciplinary and multi-district teams to reengineer integrated regulation, processes, and innovations for finance and municipal services and revitalization of historic centers; (2) Support favorable42 municipal employee working conditions; and (3) Learn from historic center revitalization efforts, embellishment of public spaces and historic buildings, creation of new pedestrian promenading streets, CSO socioeconomic dynamization, and the creation of virtual platforms to access data for investment promotion. Deepen and broaden systemic digital transformations of municipal administrative processes and governance as a cross-cutting element. Strengthen the necessary municipal capabilities and learning, based on the MGP experience, by integrating tax software with multipurpose cadastre modules; easing the payments; providing online services in REF; facilitating market fee payment using POS; and georeferencing for digitized mapping of market vendor stalls, cemetery graves, solid waste recollection routes, public lighting post distribution, and other municipal services. The outcome of this process of digital transformation should be strengthened municipal capabilities to systematically introduce and manage digital technologies to improve the measurable outcomes of municipal work. It should promote the responsible use of digital technology in municipal governance, and strengthen the openness, inclusiveness, and security of municipal-level digital ecosystems, in direct relation to the two core, mutually reinforcing objectives of the USAID Digital Strategy.43 RECOMMENDATION 3. STRENGTHENING CIVIL SOCIETY AND MUNICIPAL RELATIONS (C3, C13, C17) To USAID and future IPs of municipal governance strengthening initiatives, short and long term: 42 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948). “Everyone has the right to life, to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favorable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment”. Source: https://www.ilo.org/static/english/protection/safework/worldday/products09/booklet_09-en.pdf 43 Here digital transformation implies the system adoption of “digital technology” as is defined in the USAID Digital Strategy 2020–2024: “not only to describe a type of technology but also to refer to the platforms, processes, and range of technologies that underpin modern information and communications technologies (ICT), including the Internet and mobile-phone platforms, as well as advanced data infrastructure and analytic approaches.” This strategy should also adopt the definition of a “digital ecosystem,” adapted to the municipal scale of action, as integrating “the stakeholders, systems, and enabling environments that together empower people and communities to use digital technology to gain access to services, engage with each other, or pursue economic opportunities” (USAID, no date, pp. 4, 6). 51 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT USAID.GOV Continue the establishment of citizen and market seller committees to be co-responsible for improvements in service delivery, following MGP good practices such as: ● Systematizing the work flow developed by MGP to set up these committees in municipalities, paying special attention to MGP’s role as a facilitator between stakeholders, promoting a co-responsibility perspective in formulating roles and responsibilities, ensuring that municipal resources to make the process sustainable are identified and allocated in municipal budgets, and providing technical assistance using the same MGP criteria and methodology that identify needs and deliver tailored capacity-building. ● For CSOs, continue with the MGP approach used to support historic center revitalization by selecting CSOs that are local, small, or medium-sized, and have grassroots involvement. Provide them with inputs to strengthen their administrative capacity, competence to manage projects using USAID subgrant practices, and capacity to develop new options for social and/or economic opportunities and support the continuity of these initiatives when they are proven feasible. RECOMMENDATION 4. MANAGEMENT OF KNOWLEDGE PRODUCED BY MGP (C15, C16) To USAID and future IPs of municipal governance strengthening initiatives: In the design and implementation of a future project, include a strategy for knowledge management and learning that includes: ● Continuing knowledge transfer for capacity-building using virtual and in-person modalities and facilitate self-learning and peer-to-peer training; ● Making use of all knowledge documented by MGP by storing it in a SharePoint type of facility, and sharing it with concerned stakeholders including central government authorities; ● Using communities of practice, municipal exchange visits, virtual exchanges of good practices from other countries, and other such mechanisms early in the project to introduce knowledge into groups of municipalities; ● Adopting as a regular practice the setup of project coordination teams that incorporate all relevant technical and social functional units to share knowledge for design and problem-solving; ● Continuing to support the establishment and strengthening of competencies of information units and communication units in municipalities, with a gender equality and social inclusion perspective; ● Inviting CSOs interested in areas of municipal work to become involved through diverse citizen participation mechanisms, and encouraging them to form communities of practice to ensure continuity of the objectives they have gained through their advocacy efforts when there are changes in government administration; and ● Incorporating municipal decision-makers (mayors, managers, and councils) as the first actor when planning training or in-service coaching. For USAID, medium term to long term: Support the professionalization of municipal administration by generating a supply of professionals with administrative, technical, and technological competencies for municipal government. These professionals can become a trained human resource supply that new municipal administrations can hire and thus overcome the drawbacks of staff rotation. To implement this support, seek the alliance of academic institutions of higher education and make available to them all the training knowledge products (diploma programs, thematic training, and studies, among others) developed by MGP to assist in enriching their future curricula. 52 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT USAID.GOV RECOMMENDATION 5. GENDER EQUALITY AND SOCIAL INCLUSION (C17, C18) To USAID and IPs, short and medium term: In future municipal government initiatives, replicate MGP good practices in promoting a culture of inclusive service delivery, using and adapting the documents and tools developed by MGP. In future project designs, strengthen gender equality outputs by: ● Incorporating the gender and inclusion objectives in the theory of change and maintaining them throughout the project cycle. ● Safeguarding the budget for GESI activities by earmarking allocations to protect them from reallocation to other activities or potential budget cuts. In the event of resource cuts, a proportion of the budget should be protected to continue activities. ● Using the project baseline to map stakeholder groups and make visible the vulnerable groups residing in the project’s geographic area of involvement, disaggregating by gender, social and economic variables, and measuring gender and inclusion gaps among and within stakeholder groups for the project baseline. ● Introducing custom indicators to measure the GESI expected outputs of the project in the Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning Plan. These can be associated to the USG standard indicators by providing information on the behavior of gender gaps for the project stakeholders. ● Including a question on self-perception of vulnerability in the attendance lists for stakeholders, to identify which vulnerable groups are participating in project activities. ● Incorporating gender analysis tools (measuring gender and inclusion gaps, analyzing causes using gender analysis dimensions stated in ADS 205) into the baseline mapping of project stakeholders, and reporting on these gaps in the project progress reports annually and upon closing. ● Including the training of all technical and management staff on USAID GESI policies and the use of gender analysis tools as part of the training plan. ● Adding, as a municipal GESI strategy, the strengthening of competencies for the Municipal Women’s Units and other social units, in a new role to provide gender and inclusion input to technical units and remain the source of inclusion and gender equality inputs to municipal decision-making. 53 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT USAID.GOV REFERENCES El Salvador Legislative Assembly. El Salvador Republic Constitution. (1983). [Asamblea Constituyente de la República de El Salvador -AC- (1983). Constitución Política de la República de El Salvador.] Central Reserve Bank. (2023), Household Survey 2022. [Banco Central de Reserva (2023). Encuesta de hogares de propósitos múltiples 2022.] Fiscal Transparency. Transparencia Fiscal. https://www.transparenciafiscal.gob.sv/ptf/es/PTF2-Index.html. Accessed on August 8, 2023 General Directorate for Statistics and Census. Population Projections 2023. Dirección General de Estadísticas y Censos (DIGESTYC) (no date), Proyecciones de población 2023. Michael Patton. (2001). Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. Municipal Governance Project. (2021). Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning Plan. Social Impact, Inc. (2021). USAID/Vietnam under USAID Learns. Sample Theories of Change (annotated version). USAID. (2020). Operational Policy for the Program Cycle, ADS Chapter 201, ADS 201.3.6.4, Partial Revision Date: 10/28/2020. USAID/El Salvador. (2020) Country Development Cooperation Strategy (CDCS) FY 2020-2025. Amended and updated on March 24, 2021. USAID/El Salvador and Central America & Mexico Regional Mission. (2023). Statement of Work. Final Performance Evaluation of the USAID Strengthening Local Governance for Security and Development Project, USAID. (2021). Municipal Governance. Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning Plan. Uwimana Julie and Jennifer Kuzara (2020). A commissioner’s guide to probability sampling for surveys at USAID. USAID, Digital Frontiers, DAI. Digital Ecosystem Framework. USAID Digital Strategy | Digital Development 54 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT USAID.GOV ANNEXES ANNEX A: EVALUATION TEAM Team Member Role Betty Lozan Evaluation Team Leader Andrew Cummings Municipal Administration Specialist Margarita Sánchez Civil Society Organizations / Community Development Specialist Walter Mejía Statistician/Data Collector Marvin Flamenco Data Collector Allison Vásquez Data Collector Johanna Constanza Task Manager 55 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT USAID.GOV ANNEX B: EVALUATION SCOPE OF WORK STATEMENT OF WORK (SOW) USAID/EL SALVADOR FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID STRENGTHENING LOCAL GOVERNANCE FOR SECURITY AND DEVELOPMENT PROJECT A. Purpose of the Evaluation The purpose of the Final Performance Evaluation of the USAID Strengthening Local Governance for Security and Development Project (hereinafter referred as “Municipal Governance project” or “MGP”) is to inform USAID/El Salvador on how the changes in the political context affected the implementation of the MGP, how likely is it that the results of the MGP are sustainable, and what are the lessons learned that the Mission could use for future activities. USAID/El Salvador will use the findings and recommendations of this evaluation to start the design of a new local development activity based on evidence. The evaluation will provide empirical evidence on management issues and will document learning and continuous improvement. The Mission will use the findings of this evaluation to have inputs for the design of future activities. As per ADS 201.3.6.4, and given the purpose mentioned above, this evaluation is a combination of two types of evaluations: a) Outcome Evaluation and b) Process or Implementation Evaluation. The principal audience of this evaluation will be USAID/El Salvador; particularly Mission Management, the Democracy and Governance Office (DG), the Regional Office of Acquisition and Assistance, and the Regional Program Office (RPO); and the Implementing Partner, WSP. Other audiences inside USAID interested in the evaluation results are the Bureau for Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC); the Bureau for Policy, Planning, and Learning (PPL); and the Democracy, Human Rights, and Governance (DRG) Center. External audiences include intermediate and ultimate beneficiaries1 (representatives of the Government of El Salvador (GOES) and municipalities, representatives of the private sector, etc.), as well as other donors. The Mission will disseminate the lessons learned and best practices identified in this evaluation to stakeholders to be considered for future similar activities. These stakeholders include the GOES, private sector, and other donors working in municipal governance and local development. This final Performance Evaluation is scheduled for the end of the fourth quarter of FY 2023, with approximately six months left of implementation of the activity. The evaluation will cover the period from September 14, 2017, through March 31, 2023. B. Background Information Activity Implementing Partner Award Number and Dates Funding Municipal Governance WSP AID-519-TO-17-00001 September 14, 2017-March 24, 2024 $ 36,639,037.72 56 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT USAID.GOV The purpose of the MGP is to strengthen decentralization and local government capacity in El Salvador to increase security and development. This is done by building a consensus around increased decentralization; enhancing inter-governmental coordination and the use of intermediary institutions; and strengthening the ability of municipalities to plan, pay for, and deliver effective, responsive services in a participatory and accountable manner. The project provides targeted, customized, sustainable, and mutually reinforcing technical assistance to counterparts and partners at the national, intermediary, and municipal levels. MGP focused its assistance in 31 out of the 262 municipalities. The MGP was designed with the following theory of change: Improving municipal government performance and responsiveness will increase the legitimacy of the state, enhance public trust, and contribute to higher levels of development in El Salvador.2 MGP has three objectives and several results under each objective3: Under the USAID/El Salvador Country Development Cooperation Strategy (CDCS) 2020 – 2025, MGP contributes to the Development Objective 3 “Government Responsiveness, Accountability, and Transparency Improved”. Specifically, MGP contributes to the Intermediate Result (IR) 3.1 “Performance improved in select public institutions”. MGP also contributes to the Pillar 2 of the U.S. Strategy for Addressing the Root Causes of Migration in Central America (RCS) “Combating corruption, strengthening democratic governance, and advancing the rule of law. ” C. Evaluation Questions USAID has several learning agendas that help both the Agency and the Mission to fill critical knowledge gaps. For example, USAID/El Salvador’s CDCS 2020-2025’s Learning Plan includes the following learning 57 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT USAID.GOV question: LQ 3.1 Has the performance of public sector institutions supported by USAID been met with public satisfaction over this CDCS period? The following six evaluation questions, in priority order, have been identified to achieve the purpose of this evaluation and to contribute to the Mission and Agency’s learning agendas. The Evaluation Team should answer them and clearly present them in the Final Report in terms of how they relate to the evaluation purpose. 1. To what extent did MGP build or strengthen municipalities' capacity 1) to improve financial management and own-source revenue generations; and 2) to provide quality services to the citizens? 1.1 What are the key changes the municipalities experienced in 1) quality of financial management including own-source revenue generation, and 2) quality of services provided to citizens? 1.2 What have been the main internal and external factors that have influenced these changes? 1.3 What results achieved by MGP have the potential to continue to exist after USAID’s funding ends? 2. To what extent did MGP change municipal engagement and responsiveness with recipient groups such as citizen oversight committees and those residents benefiting from service delivery projects? 3. How do the municipalities and other beneficiaries4 perceive the technical assistance provided by MGP? 4. What hindrances or barriers do different types of beneficiaries or stakeholders face in applying the knowledge gained through MGP? 5. How did WSP integrate gender equality and inclusive development into MGP implementation? The Evaluation Team should answer the sub-questions separately in the report and use the data collection and analysis of the sub-questions to answer the main questions. In addition, the Evaluation Team should incorporate, to the extent feasible, analysis of possible differences associated with gender or social groups, particularly historically excluded groups (youth, people with disabilities, indigenous populations, etc.), and report these separately for men and women. As an example, the Evaluation Team should consider gender, age, or other social-related barriers when analyzing the obstacles to apply new knowledge in the country. D. Evaluation Methodology, Data Collection, and Analysis For this performance evaluation, a non-experimental mixed-methods design that combines a comprehensive, rigorous analysis of existing quantitative data with customized qualitative techniques designed to elicit primary data from a wide range of counterparts, partners, beneficiaries, and stakeholders is recommended. This approach allows for triangulation of complementary data to elucidate linkages between activity inputs and outputs. The Evaluation Team should consider a range of possible methods and approaches for collecting and analyzing the data to address the evaluation questions thoroughly. The use of participatory methods and activities that will enhance collaboration and dialogue among counterparts is required. Further, data collection and analysis methods should follow applicable Institutional Review Board (IRB) guidance on data security to ensure safety and confidentiality of all individuals providing data or information for the purposes of the evaluation. The finalized evaluation methods and approaches, data collection plan and analysis will be included in the Evaluation Plan submitted to USAID for revision and approval before field visits and data collection begin (see Deliverables section below). The method(s) proposed should comply with the USAID Evaluation Policy and ADS 201. 58 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT USAID.GOV The data collection plan for this evaluation will include, at a minimum: i) a desk review of relevant documents such the Contract, Annual Work Plans, and Contingency Plans; Activity Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning Plan; Performance reports; Training curricula; and studies or other deliverables prepared; and ii) qualitative data collection through key informant interviews and/or focus group discussions, promoting equal opportunity of participation of women and men when applicable. USAID/El Salvador expects both qualitative and quantitative data to be collected; and the results will be coded, triangulated, and analyzed for content. The Evaluation Team is encouraged to propose additional/alternate data collection and analysis methods in the Evaluation Plan that they consider can yield stimulating, robust evidence in answering each of the evaluation questions. Data collection shall be systematic, and data must comply with the five data quality standards of validity, integrity, precision, reliability, and timeliness. Specific interview, survey, and/or focus group protocols will be appended to the Evaluation Plan and finalized with approval from USAID/El Salvador; the questions should be used to answer the evaluation questions listed in this document and address the purpose of this evaluation. All data collected in response to the evaluation questions must have as much disaggregation as possible. At a minimum, and per USAID Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment Policy and ADS 205.3.8.2, all data must be disaggregated and analyzed by sex, as well as analyzed for any differences between effects on men and women or male and female participation. D1. Desk review of relevant documents USAID/El Salvador will provide the Evaluation Team with all relevant documents, such as the contract between USAID and WSP and its amendment(s) including the expected results, performance reports stating the results achieved, etc. The Evaluation Team must review these documents and other existing literature provided by USAID/El Salvador and others in preparation for the initial team planning meetings and before meeting with local stakeholders for interviews. The Evaluation Team is expected to review these, make their own contextual literature research, and create a Review Matrix to be delivered to USAID/El Salvador as part of the final Evaluation Report. The Review Matrix should indicate how key information extracted from various data sources and methods is linked to each evaluation question. At a minimum, the Evaluation Team shall review the following documents relevant to the Performance Evaluation. USAID/El Salvador will provide these documents to the Evaluation Team: ● USAID/El Salvador Country Development Cooperation Strategy 2020 - 2025 ● Contract and its amendments ● Activity MEL Plan ● Annual work plans ● Quarterly and/or Annual reports ● Curriculum of the different training provided ● Social Inclusion and Gender Strategy ● Análisis y diagnóstico del alcance de la desconcentración ● Sistematización de mejores modelos y prácticas de las mancomunidades en El Salvador ● Estrategia para la prestación de servicios a personas migrantes, retornadas y sus familias en municipios y asociaciones de municipios de El Salvador ● Diagnósticos de Finanzas Públicas Municipales D2. Review of performance and context data 59 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT USAID.GOV MGP has an activity-specific MEL Plan that contains information (definitions, disaggregation levels, units of value, collection methods, etc.) on a number of standard and custom performance indicators during activity implementation. The Evaluation Team will use performance data as part of the data analysis and should report on it in the Final Report as it relates to the evaluation questions stated above and satisfies relevant data quality standards. Context data should be analyzed and included to the maximum extent possible when answering the evaluation questions. One example of a context indicator related to this activity is the Vanderbilt University’s Americas Barometer “level of trust in municipal governments”. The Evaluation Team is encouraged to use context data at the national and municipal levels in their analysis, and other geographic analyses. D3. Key informant interviews, surveys, focus group discussions The Evaluation Team will interview stakeholders, through key informant interviews, group interviews, short surveys, and/or focus group discussions. Interviews can be virtual or in-person. By ADS 201.3.6.8, the Evaluation Team may directly collect and analyze feedback from MGP beneficiaries. The Evaluation Team will include both men and women in the stakeholders’ consultation processes, and, if applicable, representatives of vulnerable groups (youth, people with disabilities, etc.). USAID/El Salvador or WSP will provide key informant contact information once the evaluation begins. At minimum, the Evaluation Team will collect information from: ● Key USAID/El Salvador staff (Contracting Officer’s Representative, DG backstop in RPO, DG Management); ● WSP (MGP’s staff); ● Central Government: National Registry of Natural Persons (RNPN, by its acronym in Spanish) and the former Salvadoran Institute of Municipal Development (ISDEM, by its acronyms in Spanish); and ● Local stakeholders such as the COAMSS/OPAMSS, mayors and municipal councils and municipal staff, crime and violence prevention municipal councils, local civil society organizations, local businesses and entrepreneurs, among others. If feasible, the Evaluation Team will also collect information from other stakeholders: ● USAID staff in Washington D.C. (LAC, DRG, etc.); ● Other donors working in areas like MGP; and ● Other actors that can provide an insight into USAID programmatic impacts. A sampling plan describing the selection process, such as purposeful, random, or a combination of approaches;5 for organizations and stakeholders for key informant interviews, surveys, and focus group discussions must be included in the Evaluation Plan and Final Report. D4. Direct observation In consultation with USAID/El Salvador and WSP, the Evaluation Team will select, if applicable, relevant opportunities for direct observation. Selection should be based on the sampling plan developed for the Evaluation Plan and included in the Final Report. The Evaluation Team may conduct direct observation at events hosted or by the activity during the fieldwork period of the evaluation. The Evaluation Team can use these events to talk with stakeholders 60 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT USAID.GOV and beneficiaries, conduct interviews, and collect additional data as evidence to answer the evaluation questions. USAID/El Salvador and WSP will provide the Evaluation Team with a list of events once the evaluation begins, if appropriate. As of March 31, 2023, MGP has provided a combination of long-term technical assistance, short-term technical assistance, and grant-funded support for two cohorts of municipalities: Department Municipality Distance from downtown San Salvador (in kms) Ahuachapán Ahuachapán (cohort 2) 100 Cabañas Ilobasco (cohort 2) 56.2 Cuscatlán Cojutepeque (cohort 1) 34.7 Cuscatlán San Pedro Perulapán (cohort 1) 28 La Libertad Zaragoza (cohort 1) 18 La Libertad Quezaltepeque (cohort 2) 22.2 La Libertad Santa Tecla (cohort 2) 12.7 La Paz Olocuilta (cohort 1) 27.2 La Paz Zacatecoluca (cohort 1) 64.5 San Miguel San Miguel (cohort 1) 135 San Salvador Apopa (cohort 2) 15 San Salvador Ciudad Delgado (cohort 2) 13 San Salvador Guazapa (cohort 1) 30 San Salvador Panchimalco (cohort 1) 18 San Salvador Mejicanos (cohort 2) 6.2 San Salvador Tonacatepque (cohort 2) 28.2 San Salvador Cuscatancingo (cohort 2) 11 San Salvador Ayutuxtepeque (cohort 2) 7.5 San Salvador Nejapa (cohort 2) 18.6 61 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT USAID.GOV San Salvador San Marcos (cohort 2) 10.4 San Salvador Ilopango (cohort 2) 11.2 San Salvador San Martín (cohort 2) 22.2 San Salvador San Salvador (cohort 2) 0 San Salvador Santo Tomás (cohort 1) 45 San Salvador Soyapango (cohort 2) 10 San Vicente San Vicente (cohort 2) 60.2 San Vicente Tecoluca (cohort 2) 74.4 Santa Ana Santa Ana (cohort 2) 69.6 Sonsonate Armenia (cohort 1) 50.3 Sonsonate Sonsonate (cohort 1) 66.2 Usulután Usulután (cohort 2) 117 Cohort 1 municipalities were selected based on a group of municipalities that were previously assisted by USAID’s Government Integrity Activity. The work with this cohort ended in 2020. The majority of Cohort 2 municipalities was selected on the basis of the urban hub initiative defined in the CDCS. Five of these municipalities in Cohort 2, however, were selected because of their size and geographic importance. The work with Cohort 2 started in 2021. The Evaluation Team will ensure representation of various municipalities with variation in size, distance from downtown, number of activities, etc. in the sample. All the city halls to be visited are in urban areas of the municipality and are easily reachable by car departing from San Salvador. D5. Team planning meetings An initial team-planning/kick off meeting will be held in person or virtually between USAID/El Salvador and the Evaluation Team and between WSP and the Evaluation Team before the submission of the Evaluation Plan so that USAID/El Salvador can clarify any questions, expectations, and guidelines. The expected results of this meeting are to: ● Clarify each team member's role and responsibilities. ● Confirm the anticipated timeline and deliverables. ● Discuss data collection tools and methodologies by evaluation question to be presented in the Evaluation Plan. ● Identify communications logistics and how the Evaluation Team, USAID/El Salvador, and WSP will communicate with each other. 62 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT USAID.GOV Additional meetings may be held as deemed necessary by USAID/El Salvador and/or the Evaluation Team. E. Deliverables It is estimated that no more than 110 working days of services from the starting date of the evaluation will be required to complete a high-quality evaluation as stated under this SOW. Note the ‘working days’ reference here and below are estimated numbers of days that may vary according to the schedule of work that will be presented by the evaluation team in its Evaluation Plan, and which will be reviewed and approved by USAID. During that time frame, the evaluation team shall submit the following deliverables: 1. An Evaluation Plan, in Word Calibri font size 12, 6 to be completed by the Evaluation Team no later than 15 calendar days after the Team Planning Meetings and Kick-off meetings. USAID will receive the Evaluation Plan via electronic mail and review it to provide comments no later than five (5) working days after receiving the document. The Evaluation Plan will provide details of how the various deliverables, tasks, and activities will be undertaken. It must include at least: o Activity description. o Evaluation design,7 and the explanation of why one design or mix of designs proposed is the most appropriate, its limitations, and how these limitations will be addressed. o A matrix summarizing the following information per each evaluation question: ▪ Method(s) for data collection, data source, the explanation of why one method or mix of methods is the most appropriate, its limitations and the ways to address them. ▪ Technique(s) for data analysis,8 the explanation of why one analysis technique or mix of techniques is the most appropriate, its limitations and the ways to address them. o Data Management Plan9 describing the capture of data (for example, interview notes or live recording), storage and transfer, and how all data will be handled in such a manner as to protect the identities of informants in any situations where there are comments could potentially have a negative impact on their employment or security. o Timeline and/or Milestone Plan, including tentative starting time for data collection and duration of each activity conducted under the evaluation. o Drafts of data collection protocols, such as questionnaires or focus group moderator guide(s), interview scripts, consent form,10 etc. o Evaluation Team composition, roles, and responsibilities. o Location for the evaluation and site visit plan, if applicable If the Evaluation Plan includes key informant interviews, surveys, and/or focus group discussions, the Evaluation Plan should include the following information: a. How the interviews/surveys will help to answer the evaluation questions b. Who will conduct the interviews/surveys and why are they qualified to do so? c. What the rationale and methods are for deciding the number, timing, and location of the interviews/surveys d. How the participants will be selected and recruited e. How the interviews/surveys will be recorded f. How the interview/survey data will be analyzed and presented The Evaluation Plan, particularly the data collection and analysis protocols, as well as interview and focus group guides, must be approved by USAID prior to the start of data collection and the field work. All interview protocols must be submitted in English though for tools to be administered in Spanish, the team will present them in the Evaluation Plan in the language of application instead of a translated English 63 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT USAID.GOV version. The Evaluation Team will have another five (5) working days to make any changes. Once the Evaluation Plan is approved, the Evaluation Team will submit to USAID an electronic copy in PDF. Any subsequent change to the Evaluation Plan must be approved by USAID. The Evaluation Team will provide USAID and MGP with a preliminary briefing on the Evaluation Plan prior to the beginning of data collection. 2. Brief weekly bullet reports of activities submitted to the manager of this evaluation by electronic mail due every Fridays by the close of business. 3. A Preliminary Findings Briefing for USAID, WSP, and other stakeholders that USAID/El Salvador consider necessary on the preliminary findings identified by the Evaluation Team immediately after finalizing the data collection phase and before starting the draft report. Depending on the audience, the briefing may be conducted in English or Spanish. If the briefing were held in-person, only the Team Leader and local Team members would need to be present. If the briefing is held virtually, the whole team should attend. The Preliminary Findings Briefing will be used by the Evaluation Team as a feedback exercise to prepare the Draft of the Final Report. This briefing will be done 70 calendar days after the approval of the Evaluation Plan. 4. Co-creation workshop(s) to draft the recommendations of the evaluation. The idea of the co-creation workshop(s) is to get inputs from USAID/El Salvador, WSP, and other stakeholders on how the Mission can improve future activities, based on the findings and conclusions. The Evaluation Team will define the number of workshops needed as well as the number of hours the workshops will last. The workshop(s) can be in-person or virtual. The Evaluation Team will be responsible to draft practical recommendations and to include them in the post-evaluation action plan. 5. A Draft of the Final Report in Word, Calibri font size 12, submitted for review due no later than 90 calendar days after the approval of the Evaluation Plan via electronic mail. RPO will be responsible for coordinating the peer-review process with different offices within USAID/El Salvador and USAID/Washington and for distributing it to the implementing partner and other stakeholders for comments. USAID/El Salvador will consolidate all comments and send the draft back to the Evaluation Team within 10 working days. It is required that the evaluation team use the USAID Evaluation Report Template. Another useful resource is USAID’s how-to note on preparing evaluation reports. At a minimum, and in accordance with the USAID Evaluation Policy and ADS 201, the Final Report and its draft versions must include the following sections: ▪ An abstract of not more than 250 words briefly describing what was evaluated, evaluation questions, methods, and key findings or conclusions. The abstract should appear on its own page immediately after the evaluation report cover. ▪ Executive Summary of the purpose, background, evaluation questions, findings, conclusions, and recommendations (no more than five pages). ▪ Purpose of, audience for, and anticipated use(s) of the evaluation. ▪ Description of the MGP, including the award number, award date, funding levels, and implementing partner. ▪ Brief background information: country and/or sector context; specific problem or opportunity the intervention addresses; and the development hypothesis, theory of change, or simply how the intervention addresses the problem. ▪ Evaluation questions. ▪ Thorough description of the evaluation design and any challenge/limitations,11 with emphasis on the timeliness and methods for data collection and data analysis. ▪ Relevant data analysis tables. 64 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT USAID.GOV ▪ Findings and conclusions drawn from the analysis of the findings.12 ▪ Action-oriented, practical, and specific recommendations with defined responsibility for the action. ▪ A dissemination plan of findings, conclusions, and recommendations to intended users of the evaluation. In line with standard evaluation processes, this include debrief to the Mission on the FCRs, similar debrief to external stakeholders if welcomed by the Mission, and posting of the approved report and infographics on the DEC. And. ▪ Appendices: ▪ Original SOW, annotated with any changes approved by USAID. ▪ Evaluation and data collection team composition, qualifications and experience, and roles on the team; with signed conflict-of-interest disclosures for all real or perceived conflicts of interest. ▪ Data collection protocols and instruments including questionnaires and checklists. ▪ Review matrix of documents consulted. ▪ Meeting notes. ▪ Complete schedule of evaluation activities, meetings, and interviews. ▪ List of individuals and organizations contacted, and sites visited. ▪ Tables, graphs, pictures taken during site visits, maps. USAID/El Salvador expects to receive a high-quality Draft Report from the Evaluation Team. USAID/El Salvador will assess the quality of the Draft Report using the Evaluation Report and Review Template. 6. Final Report in PDF, font Calibri size 12, no longer than 40 pages in its body, excluding the cover page; Table of Contents; List of Acronyms; and Appendices. The approved Final Report must adhere to USAID’s Evaluation Policy and ADS 201, Criteria to Ensure the Quality of the Evaluation Report,13 and must be submitted in English and Spanish and have incorporated USAID's comments, as appropriate. The Final Report will be due to USAID/El Salvador 10 working days after the Evaluation Team receives comments on the draft and no later than 110 calendar days after the start of the evaluation. 7. A Two-Page infographic that includes a summary of the evaluation methodology and reach, purpose, findings, conclusions, and recommendations. The Infographic will be prepared in English and Spanish in PDF. 8. Any raw data (qualitative or quantitative) collected in electronic form and the respective codebook in English is due no later than 120 calendar days after the starting date of the evaluation. As per ADS 540, the Evaluation Team must submit to the Development Data Library (DDL), in a machine-readable, non-proprietary format, a copy of any datasets, and their codebooks in English and metadata, that are used (or of sufficient quality) to produce an Intellectual Work. 9. Other deliverables as identified during the kickoff meeting and agreed to by USAID/El Salvador and the Evaluation Team. All reports and papers will be considered draft versions until they are approved by USAID/El Salvador. These draft documents must be labeled with the word “DRAFT” on the cover page. Findings must be presented as analyzed facts, strong qualitative and quantitative evidence and data, and not based on anecdotes, hearsay or the compilation of people’s opinion. To ensure unbiased findings, there is no guarantee that findings will be modified based on USAID/El Salvador’s suggestions. The Evaluation Team will research, investigate, and corroborate as objective any suggestion before it is 65 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT USAID.GOV incorporated in the findings, and the change will be noted in the draft document so as to have a record of the change. All submitted reports and presentations must be thoughtful, well-researched, and well-organized documents, and objectively answer the evaluation questions. When writing the report, the Evaluation Team must remember the different audiences. The style of writing should be easy to understand and concise, while making sure to address the evaluation questions and issues with accurate and data-driven findings, justifiable conclusions and practical recommendations.14 The Evaluation Team should clearly list any biases or limitations that exist during both data collection and analysis (selection bias, recall bias, unobservable differences between comparator groups, etc.). In addition, all real or possible conflicts of interest must be disclosed by each member of the Evaluation Team in writing. When quoting an individual in any report, the Evaluation Team must always give the context or circumstances of the quote. Correcting a grammatical error in the quote may be valid, but not rewording an entire phrase. When translating quotes from one language to another, the Evaluation Team should do so in an idiomatic way and care must be taken to ensure that the tone of the translation is equivalent to the tone of the original. Quotes should be presented in their original language in report texts. All reports must comply with the USAID Graphic Standards Manual and the ADS Style and Format Guide. Once USAID has approved the Final Report and the Infographic, the Evaluation Team will make them 508 compliant and submit them to USAID’s Development Experience Clearinghouse (DEC).15 The Evaluation Team will email USAID the DEC link for the evaluation reports. USAID may attach a Statement of Differences as an Annex to any Final Report if any differences remain in the final version. F. Evaluation Management F1. Evaluation Team This performance evaluation will use a combination of multidisciplinary international, regional, and/or local experts. The Evaluation Team must include at a minimum the following three positions: Evaluation Team Leader Minimum Qualifications Education: Master’s degree in fields such as Economics, Public Administration, Political Sciences, International Relations, or other fields related to international development is required. Ph.D. or doctorate degree or professional with Doctoral candidacy is a plus. Formal training in monitoring and evaluation is a plus. Experience in municipal government operations is desired. Language Proficiency: American English Level IV and Spanish Level IV Work Experience: At least eight years of relevant prior experience conducting rigorous external evaluations using both quantitative and qualitative methods for development objectives and monitoring projects and programs overseas, preferably in Latin America. Knowledge and detailed understanding of Central America’s economic, social, cultural, and political characteristics and its development environment is necessary. Work experience in Central America is a plus. At least eight years of project management experience in development is required. Experience with management of multidisciplinary teams is a plus. Familiarity with U.S. Government objectives, approaches, operations, and policies, particularly as they relate to evaluations is a plus. 66 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT USAID.GOV Role: The Evaluation Team Leader will be responsible for overseeing and coordinating all activities related to this performance evaluation and for ensuring the production and completion of quality deliverables in a professional manner, in conformance with this SOW. Municipal Administration Specialist Minimum Qualifications Education: Master’s degree in fields such as Economics, Accounting, Business Administration, Industrial Engineer, or other related fields is required. Formal training in monitoring and evaluation is a plus. Knowledge of Salvadoran political economy is necessary. Language Proficiency: American English Level III and Spanish Level IV. Work Experience: At least five years of progressively responsible, professional-level experience conducting organizational capacity assessments focused on municipal administration and their capacity to provide services. Experience with the application of methodologies for social science research is preferred. Familiarity with USAID’s objectives, approaches, and operations, particularly as they relate to evaluations is a plus. Work experience in Central America is preferred. Civil Society Organizations / Community Development Specialist Minimum Qualifications Education: Master’s degree in fields such as Economics, Sociology, International Relations, Public Administration, Political Sciences, or other related fields is required. Formal training in monitoring and evaluation is a plus. Knowledge of Salvadoran political economy is necessary. Experience in working with municipal governments is desired. Language Proficiency: American English Level III and Spanish Level IV. Work Experience: At least five years of progressively responsible, professional-level experience conducting analysis focused on community development or related fields. Experience with the application of methodologies for social science research is preferred. Familiarity with USAID’s objectives, approaches, and operations, particularly as they relate to USAID Evaluation Policy is a plus. Work experience in Central America is preferred. The Evaluation Team should have considerable experience in designing, monitoring, and evaluating development assistance programs. They must have proficiency in MS Office Suite and have excellent written, proofreading, and oral presentation skills, the ability to conceptualize and write clearly and concisely, and pay attention to details. Understanding of the Latin American context is necessary, with a preference for personnel with work experience specifically in Central America. At least one member must have experience in transforming qualitative data, analyzing quantitative data, and producing data visualization in an easily digestible format. At least one member of the team must have experience in integrating gender equality and inclusive development (GID) approaches in evaluations, assessments, and studies; and experience in conducting research studies with perspective of GID. All Team members will be required to provide in advance to USAID a signed statement indicating any conflict of interest. The Team Leader must be someone external to USAID. No Evaluation Team 67 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT USAID.GOV members shall have been directly involved in the implementation of the activity in any stage. Anyone who has been directly employed by USAID/El Salvador, WSP, or its partners in the last five years must not be considered as part of the Evaluation Team. Data collectors: If deemed necessary, the implementing team may decide to engage data collectors to support field work activities. F2. Logistics The Evaluation Team will be responsible for all logistics support necessary under this SOW, including field office administration, all travel arrangements (with required USAID/El Salvador clearances), team planning facilitation and appointment scheduling, coordination with all partners and stakeholders involved, administrative services (computer support, printing and copying), report editing and dissemination, and for complying with provisions set forth in this SOW. USAID/El Salvador will provide limited support to the Evaluation Team. This support may include assistance in arranging high-level meetings; access to the U.S. Embassy compound in El Salvador, as necessary; and access to all reports, data, and other relevant documents created by WSP. USAID representatives may accompany the Evaluation Team for some or all the evaluation, especially in high level meetings. The Evaluation Team is expected to consider this when making logistical arrangements. 68 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT USAID.GOV ANNEX C: DETAILED METHODOLOGY EVALUATION QUESTIONS SUBQUESTIONS METHODS AND TECHNIQUES ANALYSIS SOURCE CATEGORIES GENERAL LINES OF INQUIRY 1. To what extent did MGP build or strengthen municipalities' capacity 1) to improve financial management and own-source revenue generations, and 2) to provide quality services to the citizens? 1.1 What are the key changes the municipalities experienced in 1) quality of financial management including own-source revenue generation, and 2) quality of services provided to citizens QUALITATIVE KIIs (in-person and virtual if needed) FGD Document review QUANTITATIVE Survey Narrative analysis from coded text of qualitative primary information. Analysis of secondary source information, triangulate findings. from primary source Descriptive statistics, trend analysis. IP staff, Municipal authorities, and staff Service users Municipal staff and users of public lighting, cemetery, and participation Project documentation and background information of municipalities Reports of Municipal finances, service coverage, user satisfaction All informants How do authorities and municipal civil servants perceive the financial status and service delivery improvements after MGP TA? What are the quality improvements in each service after MGP TA? Has the municipal own resource collection changed? Has the expenditure structure changed? 1.2 What have been the main internal and external factors that have influenced these changes? QUALITATIVE KIIs (in-person and virtual if needed) FGD Document review QUANTITATIVE Survey Narrative analysis from coded text of qualitative primary information. Analysis of secondary source information, triangulate findings from primary source. Descriptive statistics, trend analysis. IP team, Municipal authorities, and staff Services users, Community of Practice Project documentation All informants How have the organizational, institutional, and financing factors supported or hindered improvement in financial health and service delivery in municipalities? 1.3 What results achieved by MGP have the potential to continue to exist QUALITATIVE KIIs (virtual and in￾person) FGD Narrative analysis from coded text of qualitative primary information. IP staff, Municipal authorities, and staff Service users, Community of Practice How the organizational, institutional, and financial resources support the sustainability of activities, 69 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT USAID.GOV after USAID’s funding ends? Observation visits Document review QUANTITATIVE Survey Assessment of physical elements. Analysis of secondary source information, triangulate findings from primary source. Descriptive statistics, trend analysis. Infrastructure sites Project documentation and municipal reports. Reports of Municipal finances, budget appropriation for capital and maintenance All informants including infrastructure services? Does new tax software have patent rights to allow improvements? Variance in the sustainability of results among different municipalities Do municipalities plan to continue the areas of MGP with their own resources? Has the latter caused an increase in non-funded current and capital expenditures? 2. To what extent did MGP change municipal engagement and responsiveness with recipient groups such as citizen oversight committees and those residents benefiting from service delivery projects? QUALITATIVE KII FGD Document review QUANTITATIVE Survey Narrative analysis from coded text of qualitative primary information. Analysis of secondary source information, triangulate findings from primary source. Descriptive statistics, trend analysis. Municipal authorities, staff, IP, USAID, and community leaders Service users and Community of Practice, oversight committees Project documentation, other studies All informants Explore how MGP support Municipalities in changing their policies and practice of inclusiveness, accountability, and transparency. What methods of participation did municipalities develop when engaging with users and citizens after TA by the municipalities? How influential was the capacity strengthening for municipal staff, CSO leaders, and members? How has satisfaction with service provision been measured? 70 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT USAID.GOV 3. How do the municipalities and other beneficiaries perceive the technical assistance provided by MGP? QUALITATIVE KII FGD QUANTITATIVE Survey Narrative analysis from coded text of qualitative primary information. Descriptive statistics, trend analysis. Municipal authorities, staff, IP, community leaders Service users All informants How about the timeframe of implementation and components contents, methodologies, and approaches of TA? What other TA areas or components would municipalities like to work with? 4. What hindrances or barriers do different types of beneficiaries or stakeholders face in applying the knowledge gained through MGP? QUALITATIVE KII FGD QUANTITATIVE Survey Narrative analysis from coded text of qualitative primary information. Descriptive statistics, trend analysis. Municipal authorities, staff, IP, community leaders Service users and Community of Practice Municipal authorities and staff, users, and community leaders What were the areas of knowledge transfer and what methodologies were used and what was expected to change in the municipalities? Based on the previous questions, what organizational, institutional, and financial factors affected (+ or -) the knowledge gained by beneficiaries What are differences between different groups of beneficiaries? 5. How did WSP integrate gender equality and inclusive development into MGP implementation? QUALITATIVE KII FGD Document review QUANTITATIVE Survey Narrative analysis from coded text of qualitative primary information. Analysis of secondary source information, triangulate findings from primary source. Descriptive statistics, trend analysis. Municipal authorities, staff, IP, community leaders Service users, providers (markets), Community of Practice Project documentation and other specialized publications All informants How was this commitment considered during the project's onset? How did national policies like the Letter of Rights – rights to receive services – influenced the MGP approach? How MGP strengthened its capacity and empowerment? 71 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT USAID.GOV ANNEX D: DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENTS INSTRUCCIONES A PERSONAS ENTREVISTADORES/FACILITADORES Antes de salir a campo, asegúrese que tiene los siguientes materiales e información: ● Copia de la carta o mensaje de aceptación de la entrevista, participación en el grupo focal, u observación directa. ● Formato (s) de consentimiento informado. ● Datos del lugar y del entrevistado(s). Si ya tiene todos los datos de la persona entrevistada antes de la entrevista, verifique los datos con él o ella antes de la entrevista. ● Agenda del día o semana con el horario de cada entrevista y direcciones de los lugares (en caso no sean todos en el mismo lugar). ● Verifique que la persona estará disponible en el día y hora que acordaron; asegúrese que no es feriado o descanso en la municipalidad visitada. ● Por cada municipalidad, lleve consigo la información básica o lista de las áreas y servicios en la que recibió asistencia técnica o subsidios, como capacitaciones, infraestructura o equipamiento. Su preparación es importante para realizar preguntas de sondeo o indagación (Probe Questions) en caso las respuestas hayan sido muy concisas o débiles. ● El cuestionario de entrevista (s). Asegúrese que lleva un cuestionario por cada entrevistado, es posible que los instrumentos tengan una o más preguntas en particular para el entrevistado. ● La guía de facilitación de los grupos focales; asegúrese que lleva la guía adecuada ya que los participantes pueden pertenecer a diferentes grupos o segmentos de la población. ● Grabadora digital; se recomienda no usar su celular para grabar. ● Baterías de reemplazo o cable para cargar su grabadora. ● Cuaderno de notas y lápiz o lapicero. ● Lleve tablas preparadas con la información de las personas a ser entrevistadas con anticipación y verifique antes de la reunión. Ejemplos de tablas: CUADRO. DATOS DE LA PERSONA INFORMANTE FECHA: HORA: LUGAR: ENTREVISTADOR/A: RECOLECTOR/A DE DATOS: NOMBRE DE LA PERSONA ENTREVISTADA: HOMBRE: __ MUJER: __ CARGO: DEPARTAMENTO: MUNICIPIO: TELÉFONO: CORREO ELECTRÓNICO: CUADRO. LISTA DE PERSONAS QUE ELIGEN ESTAR EN EL GRUPO FOCAL # Nombre Teléfono Hombre Mujer Urbano Rural 1 2 3 4 5 72 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT USAID.GOV 6 7 8 CONSENT FORMS FOR KII FORMULARIO DE CONSENTIMIENTO INFORMADO PARA ENTREVISTAS [ESTE DOCUMENTO TIENE DOS PARTES: (1) HOJA DE INFORMACIÓN Y (2) CONSENTIMIENTO DE ENTREVISTA Y DE GRABACIÓN] Parte I. Buenos días, mi nombre es [ ] y el de mi compañero de trabajo es [ ], trabajamos para EnCompass, empresa que recibió el encargo de la Agencia de los Estados Unidos para el Desarrollo Internacional en El Salvador para evaluar el proyecto de Gobernabilidad Municipal que ellos financiaron y que está por concluir. [Seleccionar una opción que aplique según el tipo de entrevistado] Opción 1. Alcalde y Referente de la Municipalidad. Nos gustaría entrevistarla/lo en su calidad de alcalde de la municipalidad y/o Referente quién tiene una visión completa y única del apoyo del proyecto. Opción 2. Especialista en el área de finanzas municipales. Nos gustaría entrevistarla/lo en su calidad de especialista en el área de finanzas [recaudación de impuestos y tasas, catastro, software de recaudación], ya que tiene una visión especializada y única del apoyo del proyecto, así como de las necesidades de su municipalidad vis a vis la calidad de la asistencia técnica brindada. Opción 3. Especialista o profesional en servicios municipales. Nos gustaría entrevistarla/lo en su calidad de especialista en el servicio municipal [mercados, manejo de desechos sólidos, alumbrado público o cementerio] ya que tiene conocimiento especializado del servicio, de las necesidades de su municipalidad y del apoyo del proyecto para atender esas necesidades. Opción 4. Especialista temas transversales. Nos gustaría entrevistarla/lo en su calidad de especialista del área de [desarrollo inclusivo, participación ciudadana y/o igualdad de género] ya que tiene una visión completa del apoyo del proyecto y conocimiento especializado de esta importante área. La entrevista durará aproximadamente una hora para conocer su experiencia con el Proyecto. La información que usted nos brinde será confidencial, y nos ayudará a reportar logros alcanzados y áreas de mejora a ser consideradas en iniciativas o proyectos futuros financiadas por la cooperación o donantes. Su participación en esta entrevista es totalmente voluntaria, no queremos que se sienta obligada (o) a participar, si tiene dudas me puede preguntar cuándo lo considere necesario, así mismo si al finalizar le surgen preguntas con gusto le responderemos. Si decide participar, puede elegir a qué preguntas responder o detener la entrevista en cualquier momento. Esta entrevista es totalmente confidencial y anónima. Usamos reglas muy estrictas para mantener la seguridad de la información compartida en esta entrevista. Todas sus respuestas e información personal se mantendrán en un lugar seguro durante un año y no se compartirán con nadie fuera del equipo 73 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT USAID.GOV encargado de la evaluación. Toda documentación con su nombre o firma en papel será destruido pasados los 15 días después de aprobado el informe y no será guardado con el resto de información proveniente de la entrevista. Los audios y documentos relacionados se guardarán un año. Su nombre u otro dato específico que lo identifique no aparecerá vinculado a esta entrevista, ya que le asignaremos un código. También queremos manifestarle que no se proporciona ningún pago o reconocimiento por esta entrevista a usted o su institución en la que trabaja. Esta evaluación fue revisada y aprobada por la Junta de Revisión de EnCompass LLC que cuida la seguridad y confidencialidad de las personas entrevistadas. Si desea obtener más información sobre la revisión ética de la entrevista, comuníquese con la Junta de Revisión de EnCompass LLC IRB@encompassworld.com. Si quiere comunicarse en el futuro sobre esta actividad puede dirigirse a la Gerente de la Actividad Johanna Constanza Santamaría, (JConstanza@encompassworld.com). Teléfono directo (WhatsApp): 7806 2712 [ ENTREGUE ESTA PÁGINA A LA PERSONA ENTREVISTADA] [PAGE BREAK] Parte 2. [INDIQUE A LA PERSONA ENTREVISTADA] Vamos a proseguir con su consentimiento de la entrevista y para la grabación de nuestra conversación. Quiero confirmar que ha leído el formulario de consentimiento o que se lo he leído. ¿Tiene alguna pregunta adicional? [DESPUÉS DE RESPONDER LAS PREGUNTAS DE LA PERSONA ENTREVISTADA] ¿Acepta voluntariamente participar en esta evaluación? Anote la respuesta de la persona entrevistada con sus iniciales: Sí _______ No _______ Iniciales del entrevistador: ________ [SI EL ENCUESTADO RESPONDE QUE SÍ] [EXPLIQUE] Quisiéramos tener un registro preciso de lo que dice, la información que comparta con nosotros es muy importante para nuestro equipo. Nos gustaría grabar nuestra conversación. La grabación se puede detener en cualquier momento, y podemos proseguir tomando nota escrita de sus respuestas. Como le comenté, nadie fuera del equipo evaluador tendrá acceso a esta información, la grabación también estará codificada. Entonces ¿Me / nos da permiso para grabar esta entrevista? ¿Podríamos grabar esta entrevista? 74 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT USAID.GOV Anote la respuesta de la persona entrevistada con sus iniciales: Sí ______ No ______ Iniciales del entrevistador: ___________ [Si la persona entrevistada responde que no] Agradézcales por su tiempo y finalice la entrevista. 75 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT USAID.GOV CONSENT FORMS FOR FGD FORMULARIO DE CONSENTIMIENTO INFORMADO PARA LOS GRUPOS FOCALES [ESTE DOCUMENTO TIENE DOS PARTES: (1) HOJA DE INFORMACIÓN Y (2) CONSENTIMIENTO DE ENTREVISTA Y DE GRABACIÓN] Parte I. Buenos días, mi nombre es [ ] y el de mi compañera/o de trabajo es [ ], trabajamos para EnCompass, empresa que recibió el encargo de la Agencia de los Estados Unidos para el Desarrollo Internacional en El Salvador para evaluar el proyecto de Gobernabilidad Municipal que ellos financiaron y que está por concluir. Nos gustaría conversar con ustedes en grupo por una hora aproximadamente para conocer sus experiencias con el Proyecto, en particular la experiencia como comité ciudadano que apoya la mejora de un servicio municipal. La información que ustedes nos brinden nos ayudará a reportar lecciones aprendidas y que partes del proyecto se podrían ajustar o mejorar en proyectos futuros financiados por la cooperación o donantes. La participación en esta reunión es totalmente voluntaria y esperamos que nadie haya sido obligada (o) por nadie a participar, ¿Tienen alguna pregunta o duda que deseen aclarar? La metodología le da a cada persona la oportunidad de comentar. Si tienen dudas me pueden preguntar cuándo lo que consideren necesario, así mismo si al finalizar les surgen preguntas con gusto les responderemos. Al participar, ustedes pueden decidir sobre qué temas comentar o no, y si lo consideran necesario pueden retirarse en cualquier momento. La información que compartan la utilizaremos para la evaluación, pero no tendrá conexión con sus nombres. Por eso les estamos dando esta viñeta con un número de lista para que, en vez de sus nombres, utilicemos los números cuando hablemos y tomemos notas y así todo queda anónimo, guardando la confidencialidad. El equipo mantendrá su confidencialidad. Similarmente les pedimos a las personas participantes que mantengan la confidencialidad de lo que digan sus colegas en esta reunión. Queremos que ustedes se sientan a gusto en esta reunión. Antes de aceptar participar me pueden preguntar lo que consideren necesario, así mismo si a lo largo de esta actividad o si al finalizar les surgen preguntas con gusto le responderemos. Pueden cambiar de opinión y pueden optar por omitir cualquier pregunta que no deseen responder. Pueden dejar el grupo, si lo desean. No hay ningún problema, ese es su derecho. Su participación es completamente voluntaria. Si elige no participar, eliminaremos sus datos de contacto y cualquier otra información que haya proporcionado hasta ese momento. Les pediríamos que se retiren de la reunión para mantener la conversación solo entre los participantes. El equipo del estudio mantendrá todas sus comentarios y nombres en un lugar seguro durante un año y no compartirá esta información con nadie que no participe en la evaluación, incluyendo la municipalidad o el proyecto de Gobernabilidad. Toda documentación con su nombre o firma en papel será destruido pasados los 15 días después de aprobado nuestro informe y no será guardado con el resto de información proveniente de nuestra reunión. Además, si aceptan participar y aprueban la grabación, sus nombres u otro dato específico que lo identifique no aparecerán vinculado a esta reunión, ya que le 76 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT USAID.GOV asignaremos un código al archivo de audio. Los audios y documentos relacionados serán guardados un año. También queríamos manifestarle que no hay beneficios directos como pagos, reembolsos por transporte o reconocimiento por participar en este estudio. Similarmente, si ahorita decidiera no participar, tampoco hay ninguna penalidad. De nuestra parte, no hemos identificado ningún riesgo derivado a su participación, pero si ustedes perciben alguno por favor díganlo para que podamos acordar la forma de mitigarlo. Eso incluye la sala donde nos estamos reuniendo, si es que piensan que no es adecuado o se sienten incómodos de conversar aquí. Esta evaluación ha sido revisada y aprobada por la Junta de Revisión de EnCompass LLC que cuida la seguridad y confidencialidad de los entrevistados. Si desea obtener más información sobre la revisión ética del cuestionario de la entrevista, comuníquese con la Junta de Revisión de EnCompass LLC (IRB@encompassworld.com). Si quieren comunicarse en el futuro sobre esta actividad puede dirigirse a la Gerente del Proyecto Johanna Constanza Santamaría, (JConstanza@encompassworld.com) Teléfono directo (WhatsApp): 7806 2712 [ ENTREGUE ESTA PÁGINA A LAS PERSONAS PARTICIPANTES] [PAGE BREAK] Parte 2. [PREGUNTE] Quiero confirmar si han leído el formulario de consentimiento o que se los he leído. ¿Tienen alguna pregunta adicional? [DESPUÉS QUE FACILITADOR RESPONDE LAS PREGUNTAS, FACILITADOR INDICA A LAS PERSONAS PARTICIPANTES] Vamos a proseguir solicitándoles su consentimiento para la participación en este grupo y para la grabación de nuestra conversación. Tenemos una tabla con sus nombres y pueden marcar allí si quieren participar y que aceptan la grabación. [PREGUNTE] Entonces ¿Aceptan voluntariamente participar en esta reunión? En cuanto a la grabación quisiéramos tener un registro preciso de lo que comentan, la información que compartan con nosotros es muy importante para mejorar los proyectos. La grabación se puede detener en cualquier momento, y podemos proseguir tomando nota escrita de sus respuestas. Como les comenté, nadie fuera del equipo de estudio tendrá acceso a esta información, la grabación estará codificada. 77 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT USAID.GOV [PREGUNTE] ¿Podríamos grabar la conversación en esta reunión? [PROSIGA A LLENAR LA TABLA LLAMANDO A CADA PARTICIPANTE| Número de encuestado en el grupo No participará Participará Iniciales del recolector de datos 78 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT USAID.GOV INSTRUMENTO 1. ENTREVISTA CON FUNCIONARIO (S) DE USAID: COR, ACOR, ESPECIALISTA EN GÉNERO E INCLUSIÓN, ESPECIALISTA EN GOBERNABILIDAD INSTRUCCIONES AL ENTREVISTADOR (A): ● LEA EL FORMATO DE CONSENTIMIENTO INFORMADO Y SIGA SUS INSTRUCCIONES. ● PROSIGA A LLENAR LOS DATOS DEL ENTREVISTADO EN LA TABLA ADJUNTA Y GUARDELA EN UN LUGAR SEGURO. ES RECOMENDABLE TENER LOS DATOS POR ANTICIPADO Y SOLO VERIFICARLO CON LA PERSONA ENTREVISTADA. ● PROSIGA CON LA ENTREVISTA. 1. ¿Ha estado involucrado personalmente en el diseño, la implementación o monitoreo y evaluación del proyecto de Gobernanza Municipal? 2. Basado en su conocimiento y experiencia ¿Cuál es el propósito del proyecto para la misión de USAID? 3. ¿Cuáles fueron los resultados esperados más importantes y cómo iban a lograrlo? 4. Durante la implementación del proyecto, ¿Cuáles fueron los cambios más importantes realizados al proyecto? PE 1 (pregunta de evaluación) 5. ¿Cuáles son los logros más importantes del proyecto? En relación con: ● la mejora de la gestión financiera y la generación de mayores ingresos propios de tasas e impuestos, ● servicios municipales de mayor calidad y accesibilidad, y ● revitalización de los centros históricos de Hubs Urbanos priorizados. 6. En su opinión, ¿Cuáles han sido los factores o elementos que facilitaron que el proyecto logre resultados, a pesar de enfrentar múltiples adversidades del contexto? En relación con: ● la mejora de la gestión financiera y la generación de mayores ingresos propios de tasas e impuestos, ● servicios municipales de mayor calidad y accesibilidad, y ● revitalización de los centros históricos de Hubs Urbanos priorizados. ¿Cómo y por qué? 7. En su opinión, ¿Cuáles han sido los principales factores o elementos que han limitado o dificultado el logro de los resultados esperados del proyecto? En relación con: ● la mejora de la gestión financiera y la generación de mayores ingresos propios de tasas e impuestos, ● servicios municipales de mayor calidad y accesibilidad, y ● revitalización de los centros históricos de Hubs Urbanos priorizados. PE 2 8. ¿En qué medida el apoyo del proyecto permitió a los municipios mejorar la participación y la capacidad de respuesta a las demandas ciudadanas de servicios municipales accesibles y de calidad? PE 5 17. ¿En qué medida y cómo es que la aplicación de una estrategia de GESI ha contribuido al logro de los resultados esperados del proyecto? PE 1 79 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT USAID.GOV 10. ¿En qué medida cree usted que las municipalidades y otros actores, que recibieron apoyo del proyecto, tienen suficiente capacidad y motivación para continuar con actividades relacionadas a?: ● mejora de la gestión financiera y generación de mayores ingresos propios de tasas e impuestos, ● brindar servicios municipales de mayor calidad y accesibilidad, y ● revitalización de los centros históricos priorizados. Probe Question: ¿Por qué si o no? 11. ¿Cuáles son las lecciones más significativas derivadas del proyecto y por qué logró o no sus propósitos relacionados con el fortalecimiento de las municipalidades apoyadas? 12. ¿Le gustaría agregar alguna información adicional que considera importante y que no hemos tocado hoy día? ¡MUCHAS GRACIAS! 80 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT USAID.GOV INSTRUMENTO 2. ENTREVISTA CON ESPECIALISTA DEL MGP EN EL ÁREA DE MANEJO FINANCIERO INSTRUCCIONES AL ENTREVISTADOR: ● LEA EL FORMATO DE CONSENTIMIENTO INFORMADO Y SIGA SUS INSTRUCCIONES. ● PROSIGA A LLENAR LOS DATOS DEL ENTREVISTADO EN LA TABLA ADJUNTA Y GUARDELA EN UN LUGAR SEGURO. ES RECOMENDABLE TENER LOS DATOS POR ANTICIPADO Y SOLO VERIFICARLO CON EL ENTREVISTADO. ● PROSIGA CON LA ENTREVISTA. i. ÁREA FINANCIERA 1. (1.1.2.) En su opinión, ¿Cuáles han sido los cambios ocurridos en las municipalidades en la gestión de sus finanzas a raíz del apoyo recibido del Proyecto? 2. (1.1.3.) Podría describirnos ¿Qué se ha hecho en términos de actividades de capacitación, asistencia técnica, equipamiento para mejorar las finanzas municipales? ii. ASISTENCIA TÉCNICA 3. Después de la asistencia técnica, ¿Qué cambios han ocurrido en la recaudación de ingresos propios en las municipalidades? Preguntas de sondeo: ● ¿En especial la recaudación de los impuestos municipales? ● ¿En cuanto a la recaudación de tasas por servicio? ● ¿En cuanto a estrategias para recuperar las moras en impuestos y tasas? ● ¿En cuanto al manejo de las deudas e imagen crediticia? 4. De lo que conoce u observado, ¿Cómo han respondido las municipalidades a la creación o la mejora de su catastro y qué uso le están dando? Pregunta de sondeo: ● ¿Lo usan más allá de lo financiero? 5. De lo que conoce o ha observado, ¿Los funcionarios están utilizando el análisis de costos de los servicios para fijar tasas apropiadas para mantener servicios de calidad? 6. De lo que conoce o ha observado, luego de la asistencia técnica, ¿Cómo han cambiado la forma en que las municipalidades priorizan los gastos corrientes e inversiones? ¿Podría compartir unos ejemplos? 7. (1.2.1A) En su opinión, ¿qué elementos o factores dentro de las municipalidades ayudaron a aprovechar la asistencia técnica y donaciones del proyecto?, ¿En específico para cambiar la capacidad de recaudación y sanear sus finanzas? 8. ¿Qué retos encontró dentro de las municipalidades para implementar la asistencia técnica en el área financiera? ¿Cuáles? 9. (1.2.1 B) Hablemos ahora de los factores externos, es decir elementos fuera de la organización municipal, ¿Qué elementos o circunstancias externas a las municipalidades cree usted promovieron que las municipalidades aprovechen la asistencia técnica? 81 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT USAID.GOV 10. ¿Hubo factores externos que dificultaron aprovechar esta asistencia técnica?, como legales, políticos u otros. 11. ¿Qué efecto tuvo la reducción drástica de las transferencias del gobierno central a partir del [año] en las finanzas municipalidades, especialmente la recaudación de ingresos propios? Preguntas de sondeo: ● ¿En el pago de planillas? ¿Inversiones pendientes? ¿pago de sus deudas con garantía de las transferencias? 12. ¿Hay otro dispositivo legal o regulación del nivel central que haya afectado positiva o negativamente el manejo de las finanzas municipales durante la vida del proyecto? 13. ¿Cree que las municipalidades puedan continuar utilizando las metodologías para mejorar su manejo financiero?, por ejemplo, actualización continua de su catastro, realizar o actualizar sus estudios de costos. 14. ¿Cuáles serían los elementos o factores que pudieran afectar la sostenibilidad de los cambios logrados en las municipalidades? Pregunta de sondeo: ● ¿Qué tal los recursos humanos capacitados, falta de cultura de mantenimiento, rotación de personal, cambio de autoridades u otros? iii. CAPACITACIONES 15. (4.1) En el tema de fortalecimiento humano, ¿Organizó o impartió algún tipo de capacitación, taller, curso o diplomado brindado por el proyecto? Pregunta de sondeo: ● ¿En qué área y cómo fue el formato?: en persona, en pequeños grupos, virtuales y colectivos u otra modalidad. ● Sabe si al momento de planificar las capacitaciones (horario, instalaciones, etc.), ¿Se consideró las necesidades de grupos vulnerables - personas con discapacidades, nivel de acceso a la internet, conocimiento de la tecnología, acceso a mujeres, jóvenes, indígenas, LGBTI, entre otros -? ● ¿Encontraron participantes con discapacidades de los municipios (personal, ciudadanía) que participaron en las diversas capacitaciones? 16. ¿Han realizado seguimiento si lo aprendido por los funcionarios lo han puesto en práctica? ¿Sobre todo en el tema de finanzas? Pregunta de sondeo: ● ¿Me puede dar ejemplos? 17. Desde su perspectiva, ¿Hay algo que haya hecho difícil que los participantes apliquen en su trabajo lo que aprendieron? iv. COMUNIDADES DE PRÁCTICA 18. (4.3) ¿De qué manera cree usted que la participación de funcionarios municipales en una comunidad de práctica sobre finanzas les ha sido útil en relación con su desempeño laboral? 19. En las CoP sobre finanzas, ¿Cuáles son los temas, conocimientos y experiencias que los funcionarios municipales comparten? 20. ¿De qué municipalidades provienen en su mayoría? ¡MUCHAS GRACIAS! 82 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT USAID.GOV INSTRUMENTO 3. ENTREVISTA CON ESPECIALISTAS DEL MGP EN LAS ÁREAS DE SERVICIOS MUNICIPALES INSTRUCCIONES AL ENTREVISTADOR: ● LEA EL FORMATO DE CONSENTIMIENTO INFORMADO Y SIGA SUS INSTRUCCIONES. ● PROSIGA A LLENAR LOS DATOS DEL ENTREVISTADO EN LA TABLA ADJUNTA Y GUARDELA EN UN LUGAR SEGURO. ES RECOMENDABLE TENER LOS DATOS POR ANTICIPADO Y SOLO VERIFICARLO CON EL ENTREVISTADO. ● ASEGÚRESE EN APLICAR LA ENCUESTA DEL SERVICIO MUNICIPAL QUE EL ENTREVISTADO ES RESPONSABLE O CONOCE. ● PROSIGA CON LA ENTREVISTA. MERCADOS 1. (1) En general, considerando el trabajo del proyecto MGP, ¿En qué grado cree que ha fortalecido la capacidad de los municipios en el manejo de la organización, fortalecimiento humano e infraestructura de los mercados? Pregunta de sondeo: ● ¿Podría darnos un par de ejemplos? ¿Tal vez los más importantes? 2. (1-2.1) ¿Podría describir brevemente en qué ha consistido el fortalecimiento que han brindado? i. ASISTENCIA TÉCNICA 3. (1.1.-2) ¿Cuáles son los principales cambios que usted o el proyecto pudo observar en las municipalidades en el servicio de mercados? Preguntas de sondeo: o ¿En cuanto al personal municipal capacitado para organizar el servicio de mercados con o sin coordinación con los vendedores? o ¿Involucramiento del personal municipal para capacitar a los vendedores, para que mejoren la atención al usuario e incrementen sus ventas? o ¿En cuánto inversión y equipamiento? 4. De lo que usted conoce u observado, ¿Los funcionarios municipales están utilizando el análisis de costos del servicio de mercados para fijar tasas apropiadas (a los vendedores) que permita mantener un servicio de calidad? 5. (1.2.-2ª) ¿En su opinión, ¿Qué elementos dentro de las municipalidades, favorecieron la implementación de la asistencia técnica en el tema de mercados? Pregunta de sondeo: ¿Cuáles y cómo? 6. En el otro extremo, ¿Hubo factores internos que dificultaron o limitaron el aprovechamiento de esta asistencia técnica? ¿Cómo? 7. (1.2.-2B) ¿Qué factores externos, fuera de las municipalidades, promovieron el aprovechamiento de lo que ofreció el proyecto? ¿Cómo? 8. De lo que conoce u observa ¿Qué factores externos dificultaron a las municipalidades aprovechar esta asistencia técnica? ¿Cómo? 83 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT USAID.GOV 9. ¿Nos puede comentar sobre las políticas y prácticas de las municipalidades en el mantenimiento de la infraestructura de los mercados? 10. (1.3.1) Pensando en el futuro de los mercados, ¿Qué cambios en las municipalidades, en el área de gestión de mercados considera que van a continuar al cierre del proyecto? Pregunta de sondeo: ● ¿Por qué considera que será así? 11. ¿Cuáles considera que no van a continuar funcionando? ¿Y por qué? ii. CAPACITACIONES 12. (4.1) En el tema de fortalecimiento humano, ¿Organizó o impartió algún tipo de capacitación, taller, curso o diplomado brindado por el proyecto? ¿Para el tema de mercados? Pregunta de sondeo: ¿Cómo fue el formato?, en persona, en pequeños grupos, virtuales y colectivos u otra modalidad. 13. ¿Han realizado seguimiento si lo aprendido por los funcionarios lo han puesto en práctica? Pregunta de sondeo ● ¿Me puede dar ejemplos? 14. Desde su perspectiva, ¿Hay algo que haya hecho difícil que los participantes apliquen en su trabajo lo que aprendieron sobre la organización y funcionamiento de los mercados? iii. COMUNIDADES DE PRÁCTICA 15. (4.3) Comunidades de Práctica en el tema de mercados, ¿De qué manera les ha sido útil que los funcionarios municipales participen en una comunidad de práctica en el área de mercados municipales? 16. ¿Cuáles son los temas y experiencias que se comparten en la Comunidad de Práctica sobre esta área de mercados? 17. ¿De qué municipalidades provienen en su mayoría? i. GÉNERO E INCLUSIÓN SOCIAL 18. (1.3.-2.1) GESI ¿Conoce si ha quedado alguna unidad en la municipalidad fortalecida para promover el desarrollo inclusivo de personas con discapacidad, LGBTIQ+ y jóvenes e igualdad de género en el área de mercados municipales al cierre del proyecto? Pregunta de sondeo: ● Me podría indicar, en caso siga en funcionamiento esta unidad, ¿Cuáles son sus actividades principales? RECOLECCIÓN Y DISPOSICIÓN DE DESECHOS SÓLIDOS 1. (1) En general, considerando el trabajo del proyecto MGP, ¿En qué grado cree que ha fortalecido la capacidad de los municipios en el manejo del servicio de recolección y disposición de desechos sólidos? Pregunta de sondeo: ● ¿Podría darnos un par de ejemplos? ¿Tal vez los más importantes? 2. (1-2.1) ¿Podría describir brevemente en qué ha consistido el fortalecimiento que han brindado? 84 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT USAID.GOV i. ASISTENCIA TECNICA 3. (1.1.-2) ¿Cuáles son los principales cambios que usted o el proyecto pudo observar en el servicio de recolección y disposición de los desechos, administración de las plantas de transferencia o uso de los equipos? Preguntas de sondeo: o ¿En cuanto al personal municipal capacitado para brindar un mejor servicio? o ¿Mayor inversión y equipamiento? o ¿Involucramiento del personal de gestión municipal para capacitar al personal operativo de limpieza pública? 4. De lo que usted conoce u observado, ¿Los funcionarios están utilizando el análisis de costos de los servicios para fijar una tasa apropiada para mantener un servicio de calidad en la recolección y disposición de desechos sólidos? 5. (1.2.-2ª) En su opinión, ¿Qué elementos dentro de las municipalidades, favorecieron la implementación de la asistencia técnica en el tema de desechos sólidos? Pregunta de sondeo: ¿Cuáles y cómo? 6. En el otro extremo, ¿Hubo factores internos que dificultaron o limitaron el aprovechamiento de esta asistencia técnica? Pregunta de sondeo: ¿Cuáles y cómo? 7. (1.2.-2B) ¿Qué factores externos, fuera de las municipalidades, promovieron el aprovechamiento de lo que ofreció el proyecto en el servicio de recolección y disposición de desechos sólidos? Pregunta de sondeo: ¿Cuáles y cómo? 8. De lo que conoce u observa ¿Qué factores externos dificultaron a las municipalidades aprovechar la asistencia técnica en el servicio de recolección y disposición de desechos sólidos? 9. ¿Nos puede comentar sobre las políticas y prácticas de las municipalidades con respecto al mantenimiento de la infraestructura y equipamiento del servicio? 10. (1.3.1) Pensando en el futuro del servicio de recolección y disposición de desechos sólidos, ¿Qué cambios en las municipalidades considera que van a continuar implementándose al cierre del proyecto? Pregunta de sondeo: ¿Por qué considera que será así? 11. ¿Cuáles considera que no van a seguir realizándose o funcionando? ¿Y por qué? ii. CAPACITACIONES 12. (4.1) En el tema de fortalecimiento humano, ¿Organizó o impartió algún tipo de capacitación, taller, curso o diplomado brindado por el proyecto en tema de financiamiento, organización de rutas en el servicio de recolección y disposición de los desechos sólidos? Pregunta de sondeo: ● ¿En qué área y cómo fue el formato?, en persona, en pequeños grupos, virtuales y colectivos u otra modalidad. 13. ¿Han realizado seguimiento si lo aprendido por los funcionarios lo han puesto en práctica? Pregunta de sondeo: 85 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT USAID.GOV ● ¿Me puede dar ejemplos? 14. Desde su perspectiva, ¿Hay algo que haya hecho difícil que los participantes apliquen en su trabajo lo que aprendieron en este servicio? iii. COMUNIDADES DE PRÁCTICA 15. (4.3) ¿De qué manera les ha sido útil a los funcionarios municipales del área de manejo de manejo de desechos sólidos participar en una comunidad de práctica? 16. ¿Cuáles son los temas y experiencias que comparten en la Comunidad de Práctica? 17. ¿De qué municipalidades provienen en su mayoría? iv. GÉNERO E INCLUSIÓN SOCIAL (1.3.-2.1) GESI, ¿Conoce si ha quedado alguna unidad en las municipalidades fortalecidas para continuar promoviendo el desarrollo inclusivo e igualdad de género en el área del manejo del servicio de recolección y disposición de desechos sólidos al cierre del Proyecto? Pregunta de sondeo: ● Me podría indicar, en caso sigan en funcionamiento estas unidades, ¿Cuáles son sus actividades principales? ALUMBRADO PÚBLICO 1. (1) En general, considerando el trabajo del proyecto MGP, ¿En qué grado cree que han podido fortalecer la capacidad de los municipios en el manejo de la infraestructura y equipamiento del servicio de alumbrado público? Pregunta de sondeo: ● ¿Podría darnos un par de ejemplos? ¿Tal vez los más importantes? 2. (1-2.1) ¿Podría describir brevemente en qué ha consistido la asistencia técnica que han brindado? ii. ASISTENCIA TÉCNICA (1.1.-2) ¿Cuáles son los principales cambios que usted o el proyecto pudo observar en las municipalidades en el servicio de alumbrado público, uso de los equipos e instalaciones? Preguntas de sondeo: o ¿En cuanto al personal municipal capacitado para brindar un mejor servicio y atención a los usuarios? o ¿Mayor inversión y equipamiento? o ¿Involucramiento del personal municipal de gestión para capacitar al personal de operaciones del servicio de alumbrado público para que mantengan la infraestructura? o ¿Se ha hecho sensibilización a la población usuaria para informar sobre la cobertura del servicio (por ejemplo, campañas para dar a conocer las mejoras del servicio a la población)? 4. ¿De lo que usted conoce u observado, ¿Los funcionarios están utilizando el análisis de costos del servicio para fijar una tasa apropiada para el funcionamiento y mantenimiento del alumbrado público? 5. (1.2.-2A) ¿En su opinión, ¿Qué elementos dentro de las municipalidades, favorecieron la implementación de la asistencia técnica en el tema de alumbrado público? Pregunta de sondeo: ¿Cuáles y cómo? 86 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT USAID.GOV 6. En el otro extremo, ¿Hubo factores internos que dificultaron o limitaron el aprovechamiento de esta asistencia técnica? Pregunta de sondeo: ¿Cuáles y cómo? 7. (1.2.-2B) ¿Qué factores externos, fuera de las municipalidades, promovieron ese aprovechamiento de lo que ofreció el proyecto? Pregunta de sondeo: ¿Cuáles y cómo? 8. De lo que conoce u observa ¿Qué factores externos dificultaron a las municipalidades aprovechar esta asistencia técnica? 9. ¿Nos puede comentar sobre las políticas y prácticas de las municipalidades con respecto al mantenimiento de la infraestructura y equipamiento del servicio de alumbrado público? 10. (1.3.1) Pensando en el futuro del servicio de alumbrado público, ¿Qué cambios en la gestión y operación del servicio considera que van a continuar implementándose en las municipalidades al cierre del proyecto? Pregunta de sondeo: ● ¿Por qué considera que será así? 11. ¿Qué cambios considera que no van a seguir realizándose o funcionando? ¿Y por qué? iii. CAPACITACIONES 12. (4.1) En el tema de fortalecimiento humano, ¿Organizó o impartió algún tipo de capacitación, taller, curso o diplomado brindado por el proyecto en el manejo del servicio de alumbrado público? Pregunta de sondeo: ● ¿En qué área y cómo fue el formato?, en persona, en pequeños grupos, virtuales y colectivos u otra modalidad. 13. ¿Han realizado seguimiento si lo aprendido por los funcionarios lo han puesto en práctica? Pregunta de sondeo: ● ¿Me puede dar ejemplos? 14. Desde su perspectiva, ¿Hay algo que haya hecho difícil que los participantes apliquen en su trabajo lo que aprendieron? iv. COMUNIDADES DE PRÁCTICA 15. (4.3) ¿De qué manera les ha sido útil que los funcionarios municipales participar en una comunidad de práctica sobre alumbrado público? 16. ¿Cuáles son los temas y experiencias que comparten? 17. ¿De qué municipalidades provienen en su mayoría? v. GÉNERO E INCLUSIÓN SOCIAL 18. (1.3.-2.1) GESI ¿Conoce si ha quedado alguna unidad en las municipalidades fortalecidas para continuar promoviendo el desarrollo inclusivo e igualdad de género en el área de alumbrado público al cierre del Proyecto? 87 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT USAID.GOV Pregunta de sondeo: ● Me podría indicar, en caso siga en funcionamiento esta unidad, ¿Cuáles son sus actividades principales? ● ¿Tiene conocimiento si el alumbrado público instalado ha tenido alguna incidencia en los tipos y/o frecuencia de incidentes de delincuencia o violencia contra la población, y mujeres en particular? REGISTRO DEL ESTADO FAMILIAR 1. (1) En general, considerando la asistencia técnica del Proyecto MGP, ¿En qué grado cree que ha fortalecido a los municipios en el manejo y equipamiento del servicio de REF? 2. (1-2.1) ¿Podría describir brevemente en qué ha consistido el fortalecimiento que han brindado el proyecto para la mejora del REF? i. ASISTENCIA TÉCNICA 3. (1.1.-2) ¿Cuáles son los principales cambios en el servicio REF en las municipalidades? Ej. software, equipos e instalaciones. Preguntas de sondeo: o ¿En cuanto al personal municipal capacitado para brindar un mejor servicio y con atención a los usuarios mejorada? o ¿Mayor equipamiento y software? o ¿Trabajo y sensibilización de población usuaria para el buen uso de los servicios y mantener al día sus registros? 4. (1.2.-2A) En su opinión, ¿Qué elementos dentro de las municipalidades, favorecieron la implementación de la asistencia técnica en el tema de REF? Pregunta de sondeo: ¿Cuáles y cómo? 5. En el otro extremo, ¿Hubo factores internos que dificultaron o limitaron el aprovechamiento de esta asistencia técnica? Pregunta de sondeo: ¿Cuáles y cómo? 6. (1.2.-2B) ¿Qué factores externos, fuera de las municipalidades, promovieron el aprovechamiento de lo que ofreció el proyecto en el área de REF? Pregunta de sondeo: ¿Cuáles y cómo? 7. De lo que conoce u observa ¿Qué factores externos dificultaron a las municipalidades aprovechar esta asistencia técnica? 8. (1.3.1) Pensando en el futuro del funcionamiento del servicio de REF, ¿Qué cambios en las municipalidades considera que van a continuar implementándose al cierre del proyecto? Pregunta de sondeo: ● ¿Por qué considera que será así? 9. ¿Cuáles considera que no van a seguir funcionando? ¿Y por qué? ii. CAPACITACIONES 10. (4.1) En el tema de fortalecimiento humano, ¿Organizó o impartió algún tipo de capacitación, taller, curso o diplomado brindado por el proyecto en el tema de REF? Pregunta de sondeo: 88 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT USAID.GOV ● ¿En qué área y cómo fue el formato?, en persona, en pequeños grupos, virtuales y colectivos u otra modalidad. ● ¿Tiene conocimiento de si se tomaron en cuenta factores de inclusión como necesidades de personas con discapacidad, tener acceso a la tecnología, nivel educativo, acceso a mujeres y jóvenes, indígenas, LGBTI, entre otros al decidir dónde y cómo brindar las capacitaciones? 11. ¿Han realizado seguimiento si lo aprendido por los funcionarios lo han puesto en práctica en su sistema REF? Pregunta de sondeo: ● ¿Me puede dar ejemplos? 12. Desde su perspectiva, ¿Hay algo que haya hecho difícil que los participantes apliquen en su trabajo lo que aprendieron? iii. COMUNIDADES DE PRÁCTICA 13. (4.3) ¿De qué manera les ha sido útil en su trabajo a los funcionarios municipales participar en una comunidad de práctica en el área de registro del estado familiar? 14. ¿Cuáles son los temas específicos y experiencias que han compartido en el tema del REF? 15. ¿De qué municipalidades provienen en su mayoría? iv. GÉNERO E INCLUSIÓN SOCIAL 16. (1.3.-2.1) GESI ¿Conoce si ha quedado alguna unidad en la municipalidad fortalecida para continuar promoviendo el desarrollo inclusivo e igualdad de género en el área de REF en las municipalidades al cierre del Proyecto? ¡MUCHAS GRACIAS! 89 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT USAID.GOV INSTRUMENTO 4. ENTREVISTA CON TOMADORES DE DECISIÓN DE NIVEL POLÍTICO (ALCALDE O CONCEJAL) Y REFERENTES MUNICIPALES INSTRUCCIONES AL ENTREVISTADOR: ● LEA EL FORMATO DE CONSENTIMIENTO INFORMADO Y SIGA SUS INSTRUCCIONES. ● PROSIGA A LLENAR LOS DATOS DEL ENTREVISTADO EN LA TABLA DE DATOS ADJUNTA Y GUARDELA EN UN LUGAR SEGURO. ES RECOMENDABLE TENER LOS DATOS POR ANTICIPADO Y SOLO VERIFICARLO CON EL ENTREVISTADO. ● PROSIGA CON LA ENTREVISTA. 1. ¿Desde su perspectiva como (alcalde/alcaldesa, miembro del concejo municipal) cuál fue el propósito de participar en las actividades del proyecto de gobernanza municipal? PE 1 (Pregunta de Evaluación) 2. ¿Cuáles han sido las actividades más importantes que la municipalidad ha implementado en función del desarrollo local, con el apoyo del proyecto? Preguntas de sondeo: ● Manejo financiero y capacidad de generar ingresos propios ● Calidad de prestación de servicios municipales ● Revitalización del centro histórico (solamente San Miguel y San Vicente) i. MANEJO FINANCIERO 3. (1.1.2) De acuerdo con los informes que tiene a su disposición, ¿En qué aspectos ha quedado fortalecida la municipalidad con respecto al manejo de las finanzas municipales a partir del trabajo realizado con el proyecto MGP? Preguntas de sondeo: ● ¿Recaudación de impuestos y tasas por servicios? ● ¿Gastos en inversiones? 4. (1.2.1A) En su opinión, ¿Qué factores internos, dentro de la municipalidad, les ayudaron a aprovechar la asistencia del proyecto? 5. En su opinión, ¿Qué factores internos, dentro de la municipalidad, limitaron que pudieran aprovechar la asistencia del proyecto? 6. (1.2.1 B) Hablemos ahora de los factores externos, es decir elementos fuera de su organización, ¿Qué factores externos promovieron el aprovechamiento de lo que ofreció el MGP? 7. ¿Qué factores externos dificultaron o limitaron aprovechar esta asistencia técnica? 8. De todas las áreas donde el proyecto trabajó con ustedes ¿Cuáles son los cambios realizados en el manejo de las finanzas municipales que considera que van a continuar funcionando adecuadamente al cierre del apoye de MGP? ii. SERVICIOS MUNICIPALES 9. (1-2.1) De acuerdo con los informes que tiene a su disposición, ¿En qué aspectos ha quedado fortalecida la municipalidad con respecto a los servicios municipales que han sido fortalecidos con el MPG? 90 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT USAID.GOV Pregunta de sondeo: o a) Registro Familiar (REF), b) Recolección y disposición de desechos sólidos, c) Mercados, d) Alumbrado público y e) Cementerios. 10. (1.3.1) Con base en las capacidades municipales que han sido fortalecidas por el Proyecto, ¿Hasta dónde cree que la municipalidad, sin el apoyo del Proyecto, será capaz de continuar con las nuevas prácticas para: ● el fortalecimiento del manejo de sus finanzas y la generación de ingresos propios? ● seguir mejorando la calidad y accesibilidad de los servicios públicos municipales? ● seguir con las actividades planificadas para la revitalización del centro histórico? PE 2 11. PE 2- En su percepción, desde que se involucraron en las actividades del proyecto ¿Cómo ha cambiado la forma en que la municipalidad aprovecha la participación ciudadana para mejorar la atención en los servicios a la población usuaria? PE 3 12. (3.1) En general, ¿Cuál es su percepción de la calidad de la asistencia técnica de USAID a través del proyecto? ¿Está satisfecho? Preguntas de sondeo: ● ¿Qué cree pueda mejorarse? y ¿Qué elementos de asistencia técnica agregaría para una futura intervención similar? ● ¿Qué sugeriría hacer diferente, en términos de: coordinación, componentes del fortalecimiento, ¿modalidad de implementación? 13. (3.3) GESI. Para la municipalidad, ¿de qué manera les han sido útiles la asesoría técnica, acompañamiento, talleres y capacitaciones recibidas en el tema de género e inclusión social para fortalecer capacidades y la prestación de servicios municipales? Preguntas de sondeo: ● ¿Ha cambiado la manera de prestar servicios tomando en cuenta los aprendizajes de la asesoría técnica recibidas en el tema de género e inclusión social? ● ¿Ha disminuido quejas de la población usuaria sobre los servicios? ¿O han aumentado los comentarios positivos sobre la calidad de la atención a la población usuaria? PE 4 14. (4.1) ¿Participó usted en algún tipo de capacitación, taller, curso o diplomado que haya brindado el MGP? Pregunta de sondeo: ● ¿En qué área o tema fue capacitado? ¿Ha podido ponerlo en práctica en la municipalidad? ¿Por qué si o no? PE 5 15. En su percepción, ¿De qué manera han integrado la igualdad de género y la inclusión de todos los grupos poblacionales en el trabajo que ha promovido MGP en su municipio? 16. (5.1) En su percepción, ¿Cuál considera que es uno de los resultados importantes y evidentes de aplicar la inclusión e igualdad de género en el trabajo hecho con el MGP? Sobre todo, si tienen o tuvieron las Unidades de la Mujer e Inclusión. 91 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT USAID.GOV 17. (5.9) En la alcaldía, ¿hay alguna unidad responsable de velar por el cumplimiento de la Ley de Protección Social? ¿Cuál? y ¿qué aspectos de la ley aplican? 18. ¿Hay algo que quisiera agregar antes de terminar la entrevista? Pregunta de sondeo: ● ¿Tiene para compartir alguna lección aprendida sobre cómo aprovechar mejor la asistencia técnica que llega a las municipalidades? ¿Tanto por quien la brinda como por la municipalidad que la utiliza? ¡MUCHAS GRACIAS! 92 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT USAID.GOV INSTRUMENTO 5. ENTREVISTA CON PROFESIONALES MUNICIPALES DEL ÁREA DE MANEJO FINANCIERO INSTRUCCIONES AL ENTREVISTADOR: ● ES POSIBLE QUE EL COORDINADOR SEA ESPECIALISTA EN UNA DE LAS ÁREAS QUE RECIBIO ASISTENCIA TÉCNICA. ● LEA EL FORMATO DE CONSENTIMIENTO INFORMADO Y SIGA SUS INSTRUCCIONES. ● PROSIGA A LLENAR LOS DATOS DEL ENTREVISTADO EN LA TABLA DE DATOS Y GUARDELA EN UN LUGAR SEGURO. ES RECOMENDABLE TENER LOS DATOS POR ANTICIPADO Y SOLO VERIFICAR LA INFORMACIÓN CON EL ENTREVISTADO. ● REVISE CON ANTICIPACIÓN Y TENGA DISPONIBLE EL IMPRESO DEL PORTAFOLIO DE ASISTENCIA TÉCNICA DEL PROYECTO POR COHORTE Y MUNICIPALIDAD Y FOCALICE SU INTERÉS EN EL ÁREA DE ACUERDO CON LA ESPECIALIZACIÓN DEL ENTREVISTADO. ● ASEGÚRESE EN APLICAR LA ENCUESTA EN EL ÁREA MUNICIPAL QUE EL ENTREVISTADO ES RESPONSABLE O CONOCE. ● PROSIGA CON LA ENTREVISTA. ÁREA FINANCIERA 1. (1.1.2.) De acuerdo con lo que usted conoce, ¿De qué manera ha quedado su municipalidad fortalecida con respecto a la calidad del manejo de las finanzas municipales? 2. (1.1.3.) Podría describir ¿Qué se ha hecho en términos de actividades de capacitación, asistencia técnica, equipamiento para mejorar las finanzas de su municipio? ASISTENCIA TÉCNICA 3. Después de la Asistencia Técnica, ¿Cuáles son Los cambios que han ocurrido en la recaudación de ingresos propios de su municipalidad? Preguntas de sondeo: ¿En especial los impuestos municipales? ¿En cuanto a la recaudación de tasas por servicio? ¿En cuanto a estrategias para recuperar las moras de impuestos y tasas? ¿En cuanto al manejo del endeudamiento municipal o mora tributaria? 4. ¿Nos puede contar cómo actualizaron su catastro con la asistencia técnica del proyecto? ¿Han podido usar el catastro en varias responsabilidades o áreas, además del área financiera? 5. De lo que conoce ¿Están los funcionarios utilizando análisis de costos para fijar tasas apropiadas para mantener servicios con calidad? Pregunta de sondeo: ● ¿Tienen algunas barreras para poder hacer o actualizar el estudio de costos? 6. De lo que conoce u observado luego de la asistencia técnica, ¿Cómo ha cambiado su municipalidad en la priorización de los gastos corrientes e inversiones?, podría compartir unos ejemplos. 7. (1.2.1A) En su opinión, ¿qué elementos o factores dentro de las municipalidades les ayudó a aprovechar la asistencia técnica y donaciones que brindó el proyecto?, en específico para mejorar la capacidad de recaudación y sanear sus finanzas? 93 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT USAID.GOV Pregunta de sondeo: ¿Cuáles y cómo? 8. ¿Nos puede comentar sobre los elementos o factores internos en su municipalidad que les dificultó aprovechar la asistencia técnica del Proyecto? Pregunta de sondeo: ¿Cuáles y cómo? 9. (1.2.1 B) Hablemos ahora de los factores externos, es decir elementos fuera de la municipalidad. ¿Qué elementos o circunstancias externos cree usted promovieron que las municipalidades aprovechen la asistencia técnica? 10. ¿Hubo factores externos que limitaron el aprovechamiento de lo que ofreció el MGP?, ej., legales, políticos u otros. Pregunta de sondeo: ¿Cuáles y cómo? 11. ¿Como les afectó la eliminación de las transferencias del gobierno central? Preguntas sondeo: ● ¿En cuanto al pago de planillas? ¿Inversiones pendientes? ● ¿Hay otra ley o regulación del nivel central que haya afectado las finanzas municipales durante la vida del proyecto? 12. ¿Cree que su municipalidad continuará utilizando las metodologías y prácticas mostradas por el proyecto en su manejo financiero? Como, por ejemplo, actualización continua de su catastro, desarrollo o actualización de sus estudios de costos Pregunta de sondeo: ¿Qué medidas han tomado al respecto? 13. ¿Aparte de lo ya mencionado, ¿Cuáles serían los cambios que continuarán después del cierre del proyecto? 14. ¿Del fortalecimiento recibido, en el área financiera ¿Cuáles serían los elementos que estarían en riesgo de no poder ser sostenible? Pregunta de sondeo: ¿Recursos humanos capacitados, cultura de mantenimiento, cambio de autoridades u otros? 15. (3.1)- Según su percepción ¿En qué grado están satisfechos con la calidad de la asistencia técnica del proyecto en la mejora de la recaudación de impuestos y tasas, mejora del gasto? 16. (3.2) ¿Cuál de las actividades de asistencia técnica considera que ha brindado resultados más eficaces o útiles para la municipalidad en la mejora de las finanzas? 17. ¿Qué áreas o elementos de la asistencia técnica en su área podría cambiar o mejorar? ¡MUCHAS GRACIAS! 94 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT USAID.GOV INSTRUMENTO 6. ENTREVISTA PROFESIONALES MUNICIPALES DE LAS ÁREAS DE SERVICIOS MUNICIPALES INSTRUCCIONES AL ENTREVISTADOR: ● ES POSIBLE QUE EL COORDINADOR SEA ESPECIALISTA EN UNA DE LAS ÁREAS QUE RECIBI Ó ASISTENCIA TÉCNICA. ● LEA EL FORMATO DE CONSENTIMIENTO INFORMADO Y SIGA SUS INSTRUCCIONES. ● PROSIGA A LLENAR LOS DATOS DEL ENTREVISTADO EN LA TABLA DE DATOS Y GUARDELA EN UN LUGAR SEGURO. ES RECOMENDABLE TENER LOS DATOS POR ANTICIPADO Y SOLO VERIFICAR LA INFORMACIÓN CON EL ENTREVISTADO. ● REVISE CON ANTICIPACIÓN Y TENGA DISPONIBLE EL IMPRESO DEL PORTAFOLIO DE ASISTENCIA TÉCNICA DEL PROYECTO POR COHORTE Y MUNICIPALIDAD Y FOCALICE SU INTERÉS EN EL SERVICIO MUNICIPAL DE ACUERDO CON LA ESPECIALIZACIÓN DEL ENTREVISTADO: ● Registro Familiar (REF) b) Recolección de desechos sólidos c) Mercados d) Alumbrado público e) Cementerios, f) Renovación del Centro Histórico. ● ASEGÚRESE EN APLICAR LA ENCUESTA DEL SERVICIO MUNICIPAL QUE EL ENTREVISTADO ES RESPONSABLE O CONOCE. ● PROSIGA CON LA ENTREVISTA. MERCADOS 1. (1) En general, considerando el apoyo del Proyecto MGP, ¿En qué grado cree que les ha ayudado a fortalecer su capacidad en el manejo de los mercados? Incluyendo la mejora de la infraestructura. Pregunta de sondeo: ¿Podría darnos un par de ejemplos? ¿Tal vez los más importantes? 2. (1-2.1) ¿Podría describir brevemente en qué ha consistido este fortalecimiento que ha recibido? Pregunta de sondeo: ¿Vendedores con mayor formación para atender a sus usuarios y mantener su organización e infraestructura? i. ASISTENCIA TÉCNICA 3. (1.1.-2) ¿Cuáles son los principales cambios que ustedes han implementado en la gestión de los mercados? Preguntas de sondeo: ● ¿En cuanto al personal municipal capacitado para organizar el servicio de mercados, con o sin coordinación con los vendedores? ● ¿capacitación a vendedores para que mantengan un buen servicio con sus clientes, mantengan su organización e infraestructura y aumenten sus ventas? ● ¿En cuanto a la inversión y equipamiento del mercado? ● ¿Trabajo y sensibilización a la población usuaria para el mejor uso de los servicios (por ejemplo, campañas para dar a conocer mejoras en los servicios)? 4. ¿Están utilizando el análisis de costos del servicio para fijar tasas apropiadas para mantener en funcionamiento el servicio de mercados con calidad? 5. (1.2.-2A) En su opinión, ¿Qué elementos dentro de su municipalidad, favorecieron la implementación de la asistencia técnica en el tema de mercados? Pregunta de sondeo: ¿Cuáles y cómo? 95 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT USAID.GOV 6. En el otro extremo, ¿Hubo factores internos que dificultaron o limitaron el aprovechamiento de esta asistencia técnica? Pregunta de sondeo: ¿Cuáles y cómo? 7. (1.2.-2B) De lo que conoce ¿Qué factores externos, fuera de su municipalidad, promovieron el aprovechamiento de lo que ofreció el proyecto? Pregunta de sondeo: ¿Cuáles y cómo? 8. De lo que conoce ¿Qué factores externos dificultaron a las municipalidades aproveche la asistencia técnica en mercados? Pregunta de sondeo: ¿Cuáles y cómo? 9. ¿Nos puede comentar sobre las prácticas de las municipalidades con respecto al mantenimiento de la infraestructura de los mercados? 10. (1.3.1) Pensando en el futuro de los mercados, ¿Qué cambios en el área de mercados considera que van a continuar implementándose al cierre del proyecto? Pregunta de sondeo: ¿Por qué considera que será así? 11. ¿Cuáles considera que no van a seguir realizándose o funcionando? ¿Y por qué? 12. (3.1)- Según su percepción ¿En qué grado está satisfecho con la calidad de la asistencia técnica del Proyecto en la mejora de los mercados? 13. (3.2) ¿Cuál de las actividades de asistencia técnica que ha recibido, tuvo resultados más eficaces o útiles para la municipalidad en la mejora de los mercados? 14. ¿Qué áreas o elementos de la asistencia técnica recibidos en el área de mercados podría cambiar o mejorar? 15. ¿Qué elementos de asistencia técnica agregaría en el área de mejora de servicios de mercados? ii. CAPACITACIONES 16. (PE4.1) ¿Participó usted en algún tipo de capacitación, taller, curso o diplomado que haya brindado el MGP? ¿En qué área o tema fue capacitado? 17. ¿Qué cambiaría o agregaría a las capacitaciones? 18. ¿Lo que aprendió en esas capacitaciones, lo ha podido poner en práctica? Pregunta de sondeo: ● ¿Me puede dar un ejemplo? 19. (2.1 A)-GESI: ¿Se brindaron capacitaciones sobre inclusión e igualdad de género al personal municipal y lideres y lideresas de los comités de ciudadanos del servicio? ¿Cuáles fueron los efectos y beneficios observados de esa capacitación? 20. (2.1. B)-GESI ¿Se brindaron capacitaciones para personas vendedoras del mercado municipal? 96 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT USAID.GOV 21. ¿Cuáles fueron los cambios o beneficios que se observan a raíz de esa capacitación a las vendedoras? Pregunta de sondeo: ● ¿En la organización de los mercados, en la seguridad, lograr mayores ventas? iii. GÉNERO E INCLUSIÓN SOCIAL 22. (1.3.-2.1) GESI Conoce si ha quedado o va a quedar alguna unidad en su municipalidad fortalecida para continuar promoviendo el desarrollo inclusivo e igualdad de género en el área de mercados municipales al cierre del Proyecto? Pregunta de sondeo: ● Me podría indicar, en caso siga en funcionamiento esta unidad, ¿Cuáles son sus actividades principales? 23. (PE 2) ¿En su percepción, desde que colaboran con el MGP, ¿Cómo ha cambiado la forma en que la municipalidad aprovecha la participación ciudadana para mejorar la atención en los servicios a la población usuaria? RECOLECCIÓN Y DISPOSICIÓN DE DESECHOS SÓLIDOS (1). En general, considerando el trabajo del proyecto MGP, ¿En qué grado cree que ha fortalecido la capacidad de su municipio en el manejo de la recolección y disposición de residuos sólidos, incluyendo en inversión en infraestructura y equipamiento del servicio? Pregunta de sondeo: ● ¿Podría darnos un par de ejemplos? ¿Tal vez los más importantes? (1-2.1) ¿Podría describir brevemente en qué ha consistido el fortalecimiento que ha recibido en el tema de manejo de desechos sólidos? i. ASISTENCIA TÉCNICA (1.1.-2) ¿Cuáles son los principales cambios que ha ocurrido en el servicio de recolección y disposición de los desechos, administración de las plantas de transferencia o uso de los equipos? Preguntas de sondeo: o ¿En cuanto al personal municipal capacitado para brindar un mejor servicio? o ¿Mayor inversión y equipamiento? o ¿Involucramiento del personal de gestión municipal para capacitar al personal operativo de limpieza para que mantengan un buen servicio, la organización de rutas y mantenimiento de equipos e infraestructura? o ¿Trabajo y sensibilización de población usuaria para el mejor uso de los servicios? ¿Por ejemplo la gestión de reciclaje? ¿De lo que usted conoce ¿Los funcionarios están utilizando el análisis de costos del servicio para establecer tasas apropiadas para mantener el servicio de limpieza pública con calidad?, incluyendo barrido, recolección y disposición de residuos sólidos. (1.2.-2ª) ¿En su opinión, ¿Qué elementos dentro de las municipalidades, favorecieron la implementación de la asistencia técnica en el tema de manejo de desechos sólidos? Pregunta de sondeo: ¿Cuáles y cómo? En el otro extremo, ¿Hubo factores internos que dificultaron o limitaron el aprovechamiento de la asistencia técnica? Pregunta de sondeo: ¿Cuáles y cómo? 97 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT USAID.GOV (1.2.-2B) ¿Qué factores externos, fuera de las municipalidades, promovieron el aprovechamiento de la asistencia técnica en el manejo de desechos sólidos? Pregunta de sondeo: ¿Cuáles y cómo? De lo que conoce ¿Qué factores externos dificultaron a su municipalidad aprovechar la asistencia técnica del proyecto en el área de desechos sólidos? ¿Cuáles son las políticas y prácticas de su municipalidad en el tema de mantenimiento de la infraestructura y equipamiento del servicio de recolección y disposición de desechos sólidos? Pregunta de sondeo: ¿Cuáles son las prácticas de mantenimiento de los equipos brindados por el MGP y Quién es responsable? ¿Los capacitó en esto el MGP? (1.3.1) Pensando en el futuro del servicio de recolección y disposición de desechos sólidos, ¿Cuáles de las prácticas promovidas por el MGP considera que van a continuar funcionando al cierre del proyecto? Pregunta de sondeo: ¿Por qué considera que será así? ¿Cuáles considera que no van a seguir realizándose o funcionando? ¿Por qué? (3.1) Según su percepción, ¿En qué grado está satisfecho usted con la calidad de la asistencia técnica del proyecto en la mejora del servicio de recolección y disposición de desechos sólidos? (3.2) ¿Cuál de las actividades de asistencia técnica considera que ha brindado resultados más eficaces o útiles para la municipalidad en la mejora de los desechos sólidos? ¿Qué áreas o elementos de la asistencia técnica en su área podría cambiar o mejorar? ¿Qué elementos de asistencia técnica agregaría? ii. CAPACITACIONES (PE4.1) ¿Participó usted en algún tipo de capacitación, taller, curso o diplomado que haya brindado el MGP en el manejo del servicio de recolección y disposición de desechos sólidos? ¿Qué cambiaría o agregaría a las capacitaciones? ¿Lo que aprendió en esas capacitaciones, lo ha podido poner en práctica? Pregunta de sondeo: ¿Me puede dar un ejemplo? (2.1 A)-GESI: ¿Se brindaron capacitaciones sobre inclusión e igualdad de género al personal municipal y lideres y lideresas de comités ciudadanos para el servicio? ¿Cuáles fueron los efectos y beneficios observados de esa capacitación? (2.1. B)-GESI ¿Se brindaron capacitaciones a usuarios sobre de manejo de desechos sólidos? ¿Cuáles fueron los cambios o beneficios que se observan a raíz de la capacitación? iii. GÉNERO E INCLUSIÓN SOCIAL (1.3.-2.1) GESI ¿Conoce si ha quedado alguna unidad en la municipalidad fortalecida para continuar promoviendo la inclusión e igualdad de género en el área de residuos sólidos al cierre del Proyecto? Pregunta de sondeo: Me podría indicar, en caso siga en funcionamiento esta unidad, ¿Cuáles son sus actividades principales? ¿Conoce si ha habido algún cambio en la práctica de contratar mujeres para el servicio de desechos sólidos? 98 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT USAID.GOV (PE 2) En su percepción, desde que colaboran con el MGP, ¿Cómo ha cambiado la forma en que la municipalidad aprovecha la participación ciudadana para mejorar la provisión del servicio de desechos sólidos? ALUMBRADO PÚBLICO (1) En general, considerando el trabajo del proyecto MGP, ¿En qué grado cree que ha fortalecido la capacidad de su municipio en la provisión del servicio de alumbrado público?, incluyendo la infraestructura y equipamiento. Pregunta de sondeo: ¿Podría darnos un par de ejemplos? (1-2.1) ¿Podría describir brevemente en qué ha consistido el fortalecimiento que ha recibido? i. ASISTENCIA TÉCNICA (1.1.-2) ¿Cuáles son los principales cambios que la municipalidad implementó en servicio de alumbrado público? Preguntas de sondeo: o En cuanto al personal municipal capacitado para brindar un mejor servicio y con atención a los usuarios mejorada o ¿Mayor inversión y equipamiento? o ¿Involucramiento del personal municipal de gestión para capacitar al personal operativo del servicio de alumbrado público en la gestión y mantenimiento de la infraestructura y equipamiento? o ¿Trabajo y sensibilización de población usuaria para informar sobre la cobertura del servicio de alumbrado público? ¿Están utilizando el análisis de costos del servicio para fijar una tasa apropiada para mantener en funcionamiento el servicio de alumbrado público? (1.2.-2A) En su opinión, ¿Qué elementos dentro de su municipalidad, favorecieron la implementación de la asistencia técnica en el tema de alumbrado público? Pregunta de sondeo: ¿Cuáles y cómo? En el otro extremo, ¿Hubo factores internos que dificultaron el aprovechamiento de esta asistencia técnica en el servicio de alumbrado público? Pregunta de sondeo: ¿Cuáles y cómo? (1.2.-2B) De lo que conoce, ¿Qué factores externos, fuera de su municipalidad, promovieron el aprovechamiento de la asistencia técnica del proyecto en el área de alumbrado público? Pregunta de sondeo: ¿Cuáles y cómo? De lo que conoce u observa ¿Qué factores externos dificultaron a su municipalidad aprovechar la asistencia técnica en el servicio de alumbrado público? ¿Cuáles son las políticas y prácticas de la municipalidad con respecto al mantenimiento de la infraestructura y equipamiento del alumbrado público? Pregunta de sondeo: ¿Cuáles y cómo? (1.3.1) Pensando en el futuro del servicio de alumbrado público ¿Qué cambios en su municipalidad considera que van a continuar implementándose al cierre del proyecto? Pregunta sondeo: ¿Por qué considera que será así? ¿Cuáles considera que no van a seguir realizándose o funcionando? ¿Por qué? 99 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT USAID.GOV (3.1)- Según su percepción ¿Está satisfecho con la calidad de la asistencia técnica del Proyecto en la mejora del servicio de alumbrado público? (3.2) ¿Cuál de las actividades de asistencia técnica considera que ha brindado resultados más eficaces o útiles para la municipalidad en la mejora del alumbrado público? ¿Qué áreas o elementos de la asistencia técnica en su área podría cambiar o mejorar? ¿Qué elementos de asistencia técnica agregaría? ii. CAPACITACIONES (PE4.1) ¿Participó usted en algún tipo de capacitación, taller, curso o diplomado que haya brindado el MGP en la gestión del servicio del alumbrado público? ¿En qué área o tema fue capacitado? ¿Qué cambiaría o agregaría a las capacitaciones? ¿Lo que aprendió en esas capacitaciones, lo ha podido poner en práctica? Pregunta sondeo: ¿Me puede dar un ejemplo? (2.1 A)-GESI: ¿Se brindaron capacitaciones sobre inclusión e igualdad de género al personal municipal y lideres y lideresas de comités ciudadanos del servicio de alumbrado público? ¿Cuáles fueron los efectos y beneficios observados de esa capacitación? (2.1. B)-GESI ¿Se brindaron capacitaciones para usuarios del alumbrado público? ¿Cuáles fueron los cambios o beneficios que se observan a raíz de la capacitación? iii. GÉNERO E INCLUSIÓN SOCIAL (1.3.-2.1) GESI Conoce si ha quedado alguna unidad en la municipalidad fortalecida para continuar promoviendo la inclusión e igualdad de género en el área de alumbrado público al cierre del Proyecto? Pregunta de Sondeo: Me podría indicar, en caso siga en funcionamiento esta unidad, ¿Cuáles son sus actividades principales? ¿Conoce si ha habido algún cambio en la práctica de contratar mujeres para el servicio de alumbrado público? (PE 2) ¿En su percepción, desde que colaboran con el MGP, ¿Cómo ha cambiado la forma en que la municipalidad aprovecha la participación ciudadana para mejorar la atención en los servicios a la población usuaria? REGISTRO DEL ESTADO FAMILIAR (1) En general, considerando la asistencia técnica del Proyecto MGP, ¿En qué grado cree que ha contribuido a fortalecer su municipalidad en el manejo y equipamiento del servicio de REF? Pregunta de sondeo: ¿Podría darnos un par de ejemplos? (1-2.1) ¿Podría describir brevemente en qué ha consistido el fortalecimiento que ha recibido para la mejora del REF? i. ASISTENCIA TÉCNICA (1.1.-2) ¿Cuáles son los principales cambios en el servicio REF en su municipalidad Preguntas de sondeo: o En cuanto al personal municipal capacitado para brindar un mejor servicio y con atención a los usuarios mejorada 100 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT USAID.GOV o ¿Mayor equipamiento y software? o ¿Trabajo y sensibilización de población usuaria para el uso del servicio y mantener al día los registros de su familia? (1.2.-2A) En su opinión, ¿Qué elementos dentro de la municipalidad, favorecieron la implementación de la asistencia técnica en el tema de REF? Pregunta de sondeo: ¿Cuáles y cómo? En el otro extremo, ¿Hubo factores internos que dificultaron o limitaron el aprovechamiento de esta asistencia técnica en el área REF? Pregunta de sondeo: ¿Cuáles y cómo? (1.2.-2B) ¿Qué factores externos, fuera de su municipalidad, promovieron el aprovechamiento de lo que ofreció el proyecto en el área de REF? Pregunta de sondeo: ¿Cuáles y cómo? De lo que conoce ¿Qué factores externos dificultaron a las municipalidades aprovechar la asistencia técnica en REF? (1.3.1) Pensando en el futuro del funcionamiento del servicio de REF, ¿Qué cambios en las municipalidades considera que van a continuar implementándose al cierre del proyecto? Pregunta de sondeo: ¿Por qué considera que será así? (3.1)- Según su percepción ¿En qué grado está satisfecho con la calidad de la asistencia técnica del Proyecto en la mejora del servicio REF? (3.2) ¿Cuál de las actividades de asistencia técnica considera que ha brindado resultados más eficaces o útiles para la municipalidad en la mejora del REF? ¿Qué áreas o elementos de la asistencia técnica en el área de REF podría cambiar o mejorar? ¿Qué elementos de asistencia técnica agregaría? ii. CAPACITACIONES (PE4.1) ¿Participó usted en algún tipo de capacitación, taller, curso o diplomado que haya brindado el MGP en el tema del REF? ¿En qué área o tema fue capacitado? ¿Qué cambiaría o agregaría a las capacitaciones? Lo que aprendió en esas capacitaciones, ¿Lo ha podido poner en práctica? Pregunta de sondeo: ¿Me puede dar un ejemplo? (2.1 A)-GESI: ¿Se brindaron capacitaciones sobre inclusión e igualdad de género al personal municipal y lideres y lideresas de comités de ciudadanos de servicios? ¿Cuáles fueron los efectos y beneficios observados de esa capacitación? (2.1. B)-GESI ¿Se brindaron capacitaciones para personal del REF? ¿Cuáles fueron los cambios o beneficios que se observan a raíz de esa capacitación? iii. GÉNERO E INCLUSIÓN SOCIAL (1.3.-2.1) GESI ¿Conoce si ha quedado alguna unidad en la municipalidad fortalecida para continuar promoviendo la inclusión e igualdad de género en el área de REF en las municipalidades al cierre del proyecto? Pregunta sondeo: o ¿En la formación de inclusión y género que se ha brindado, se capacitó al personal del REF para dar servicios a hombre o mujeres trans? 101 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT USAID.GOV (PE 2) En su percepción, desde que colaboran con el MGP, ¿Cómo ha cambiado la forma en que su municipalidad aprovecha la participación ciudadana para mejorar la atención en los servicios REF a la población usuaria? ¡MUCHAS GRACIAS! 102 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT USAID.GOV INSTRUMENTO 7. ENTREVISTA INDIVIDUAL A UNIDADES MUNICIPALES DE LA MUJER INSTRUCCIONES AL ENTREVISTADOR: ● LEA EL FORMATO DE CONSENTIMIENTO INFORMADO Y SIGA SUS INSTRUCCIONES. ● PROSIGA A LLENAR LOS DATOS DEL ENCUESTADO EN LA TABLA DE DATOS Y GUARDELO EN UN LUGAR SEGURO. ES RECOMENDABLE TENER LOS DATOS POR ANTICIPADO Y SOLO VERIFICARLO CON EL ENTREVISTADO. ● PROSIGA CON LA ENTREVISTA. PE 1 1. (1.3.-2.1 GESI) ¿Conoce si ha quedado alguna unidad en la municipalidad fortalecida para continuar promoviendo la inclusión e igualdad de género en la prestación de servicios municipales al terminar la colaboración con el MGP? Pregunta de sondeo: ¿Cuál sería? PE 2 2. (2.1 A-GESI): Se brindaron capacitaciones sobre inclusión e igualdad de género al personal municipal y lideres y lideresas de comités ciudadanos de servicios? Pregunta de sondeo: ¿Cuáles fueron los efectos de esa capacitación? 3. (2.1. B-GESI) ¿Se brindaron capacitaciones para personas vendedoras del mercado municipal? Pregunta de sondeo: ¿Cuáles fueron los efectos de esa capacitación en la atención a clientes del mercado? PE 4 4. (PE 4.2 GESI) ¿pudieron aplicar los conocimientos de Inclusión social e igualdad de género en su quehacer laboral? ¿Cómo? 5. (PE 5 ¿De qué manera ha integrado la igualdad de género y la inclusión de todos los grupos poblacionales en el trabajo que ha promovido MGP en su municipio? Preguntas de sondeo: o Por ejemplo, al personal del REF, ¿Se sensibilizó sobre el trato de personas trans hombres y mujeres en el tema de identidad? o En la luz pública, ¿se sensibilizó sobre la importancia para mejorar el sentido de seguridad de mujeres y niñas para evitar la violencia de género? 6. (PE5.1) En su percepción, ¿Cuál considera que es uno de los resultados importantes y/o evidentes de aplicar la inclusión e igualdad de género en el trabajo hecho con el MGP? Preguntas de sondeo: Si se formó un comité técnico de inclusión en su municipio (Santa Ana, San Salvador), o ¿De qué manera pudo incidir en las prácticas de inclusión en la municipalidad? o ¿Incidió en la contratación de personal para los diversos servicios, se sensibilizó sobre la Ley de Igualdad y Equidad y incidencia en mejorar el acceso de las mujeres a servicios no tradicionales como el manejo de desechos sólidos? o ¿Se sensibilizó sobre la importancia de hacer ajustes para asegurar el acceso a las instalaciones y servicios de personas con discapacidades? 7. (PE 5.3 GESI) De los aportes del MGP, ¿Cuáles resultaron en empoderar a las personas usuarias de los servicios? y, ¿de qué manera se manifestó ese empoderamiento? 103 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT USAID.GOV 8. (PE 5.4 GESI) Si su municipio ha utilizado la carta de derechos en la prestación de servicios, o Si se desarrollaron cartas de derechos, ¿cómo se da seguimiento al cumplimiento de estas cartas? o ¿Cuál ha sido el resultado de promover la carta de derechos en la entrega de servicios? 9. (PE 5.7) ¿Qué tipo de participación tuvieron miembros de la Unidad de la Mujer e Inclusión (si hay) en las actividades del MGP? ¿Se involucró a otras unidades en el tema de inclusión? 10. ¿Se identificó algún rol en particular para la UMM en el fortalecimiento de los servicios municipales con inclusión e igualdad de género? Pregunta de sondeo: ¿Tuvieron acceso a algún tipo de fortalecimiento? 11. ¿Hay algo que quisiera agregar antes de terminar la entrevista? Pregunta de sondeo: ¿Hay alguna lección aprendida o recomendación sobre cómo mejorar este tipo de experiencia en el futuro que quiera compartir? ¡MUCHAS GRACIAS! 104 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT USAID.GOV INSTRUMENTO 8. ENTREVISTA A PERSONAS REFERENTES DE LAS MUNICIPALIDADES, MANCOMUNIDADES Y OSC RESPONSALES DE IMPLEMENTAR PROCESOS DE RENOVACIÓN URBANA EN CENTROS HISTÓRICOS INSTRUCCIONES AL ENTREVISTADOR: ● LEA EL FORMATO DE CONSENTIMIENTO INFORMADO Y SIGA SUS INSTRUCCIONES. ● PROSIGA A LLENAR LOS DATOS DEL ENTREVISTADO EN LA TABLA DE DATOS Y GUARDELA EN UN LUGAR SEGURO. ES RECOMENDABLE TENER LOS DATOS POR ANTICIPADO Y SOLO VERIFICARLO CON EL ENTREVISTADO. ● PROSIGA CON LA ENTREVISTA. 1. ¿Cuándo iniciaron el trabajo con el proyecto MGP en la revitalización del centro histórico? 2. Desde su punto de vista ¿Cuál es la relevancia del trabajo que están realizando para el desarrollo local del municipio en su conjunto? PE 1 - Revitalización de centros históricos de Hub Urbanos 3. (1.1-2) En qué ha consistido lo que han hecho o están haciendo para la revitalización del centro histórico del municipio con la subvención recibida del MGP? ¿Cuáles son los actores involucrados? ¿En qué participó usted? Preguntas de sondeo: Puede contarnos más al detalle de las líneas en las que se ha trabajado ● Elaboración de un plan estratégico de revitalización. ● San Salvador: Regulación para el manejo adecuado de edificios dañados por terremotos. ● Actividades para la implementación de los planes estratégicos de revitalización en áreas como la movilidad, activación de espacios públicos, soluciones para vendedoras ambulantes, prevención de inseguridad y crimen, etc. ● Creación y fortalecimiento de mecanismos de participación público y privado para concertar y coordinar acciones, guiar y sostener los procesos de revitalización impulsados. Inclusión de actores claves para la toma de decisiones de alto nivel. 4. (1.1-2) Desde su perspectiva ¿Cuál ha sido el propósito de realizar estas actividades? Pregunta de sondeo: ● Relacione la pregunta con cada una de las actividades mencionadas en las respuestas a la primera pregunta. 5. (1.1-2) ¿Considera que se están logrando los resultados esperados? comente por favor, ¿Por qué sí o no? 6. (1.2.1) En su opinión, ¿qué factores del entorno territorial, nacional o internacional les ayudaron aprovechar la asistencia técnica y recursos que brindó el MGP para lograr los resultados esperados de las actividades de revitalización del centro histórico? 7. (1.2.1) ¿Hubo factores que dificultaron aprovechar esta asistencia técnica y los recursos recibidos para lograr sus resultados esperados? Pregunta de sondeo: ¿Cuáles y cómo? 8. (1.3.1) De los procesos en marcha para la revitalización del centro histórico del municipio, ¿cuáles considera que van a continuar funcionando al cierre de la cooperación con el MGP? Preguntas de sondeo: ● ¿Por qué considera que será así? 105 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT USAID.GOV ● ¿Cuáles considera que no van a continuar funcionando? Y ¿Por qué? PE 2 9. En su percepción, desde que colaboran con el MGP, ¿En qué grado considera que ha cambiado la forma en que la municipalidad y los demás actores involucrados logran facilitar la participación ciudadana en este proceso de revitalización? Preguntas de sondeo: ¿Cómo ha sido este involucramiento? ¿Cuáles han sido los resultados? PE 3 10. ¿Cuál es el tipo de asistencia técnica que considera que ha brindado resultados más eficaces (útiles) para la municipalidad? o Elaboración de un plan estratégico de revitalización o San Salvador: Regulación para el manejo adecuado de edificios dañados por terremotos o Implementación de actividades para la implementación de los planes estratégicos de revitalización en áreas como la movilidad, activación de espacios públicos, soluciones para vendedoras ambulantes, prevención de inseguridad y crimen, etc. o Creación y fortalecimiento de mecanismos de participación público y privado para concertar y coordinar acciones, guiar y sostener los procesos de revitalización impulsados. Inclusión de actores claves para la toma de decisiones de alto nivel. Preguntas de sondeo: ● ¿Está satisfecho/a con la asistencia técnica del proyecto? ● ¿Qué áreas de la asistencia técnica cambiaría o ajustaría? ● ¿Qué áreas de asistencia técnica agregaría? PE 5 11. ¿De qué manera ha integrado la igualdad de género y la inclusión de todos los grupos poblacionales en el trabajo que han promovido para la revitalización del centro histórico con el apoyo del MGP? 12. (5.1) En su percepción, ¿Cuál considera que es uno de los resultados importantes y evidentes de aplicar la inclusión e igualdad de género en este trabajo realizado con el apoyo del MGP? ● ¿En renovaciones arquitectónicas, se tomaron en consideración las necesidades de personas con discapacidad? Y ¿cuál fue el resultado de esas consideraciones? ● ¿Podríamos visitar un ejemplo de esas modificaciones? [Si fuera positivo, usar instrumento de observación directa] 13. (5.3 GESI). De las actividades realizadas con el apoyo del MGP, ¿Cuáles empoderó a las personas usuarias de los servicios que apoyó el MGP? Y, ¿De qué manera se manifestó ese empoderamiento? 14. (5.7) ¿Qué tipo de participación tuvieron miembros de la Unidades de la Mujer e Inclusión (si hay) en las actividades de revitalización del centro histórico con apoyo del MGP? Pregunta de sondeo: ¿Se identificó algún rol en particular para la UMM en este proceso? 19. ¿Hay algo que quisiera agregar antes de terminar la entrevista? Pregunta de sondeo: ● ¿Qué sugerencias brindaría para mejorar el abordaje de la revitalización de centros históricos? ¿qué componentes podrían ser incluidos en una iniciativa similar? ¡MUCHAS GRACIAS! 106 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT USAID.GOV INSTRUMENTO 9. ENTREVISTA INDIVIDUAL CON OSC RECEPTORAS DE SUBVENCIONES O SUB-CONTRATOS PARA BRINDAR SERVICIOS AL MGP. Las personas informantes podrán ser: ● OSC receptoras de subvenciones para acciones en la renovación de centros históricos de Urban Hubs INSTRUCCIONES AL ENTREVISTADOR: ● LEA EL FORMATO DE CONSENTIMIENTO INFORMADO Y SIGA SUS INSTRUCCIONES. ● PROSIGA A LLENAR LOS DATOS DEL ENCUESTADO EN LA TABLA DE DATOS Y GUARDELO EN UN LUGAR SEGURO. ES RECOMENDABLE TENER LOS DATOS POR ANTICIPADO Y SOLO VERIFICARLO CON EL ENTREVISTADO. ● PROSIGA CON LA ENTREVISTA. PE 1 - SERVICIOS MUNICIPALES 1. (1.1-2) En que ha consistido lo que han hecho o están haciendo con la subvención recibida del MGP en esta ciudad? 2. (1.1-2) De acuerdo a su opinión y conocimiento ¿Cuál es el propósito de realizar las actividades de la subvención? ¿Y cuál fue el resultado de lo que hicieron? 3. (1.1-2) ¿Considera que se está logrando/o se ha logrado el objetivo? ¿Qué les ha ayudado y/o desafiado para lograr el resultado esperado? ¿Qué se ha aprendido sobre poder mejorar los servicios municipales a través de acciones como la que hicieron? PE 2 4. (PE 2)- En su percepción, considera que, debido a la experiencia con la subvención, ¿Ha cambiado la forma en que la municipalidad con que trabaja aprovecha la participación ciudadana para mejorar la atención en los servicios a la población usuaria? PE 5 5. (PE 5.5 GESI) En su contrato para la subvención, ¿Qué se le ha pedido con respecto al cumplimiento de la política de inclusión social e igualdad de género del MGP y de USAID? 6. (PE 5.5 GESI) ¿Qué tipo de información o inducción les ha dado el MGP sobre esto para ayudarles? 7. (PE 5.5 GESI) al interior de su organización, ¿Tienen política con respecto a la inclusión social e igualdad de género? ¿En qué consiste si la tienen? 8. (PE 5.5 GESI) ¿Cómo lo están aplicando en sus actividades? 9. (PE 5. 6) ¿Recibieron alguno de los siguientes aportes para cumplir con las políticas del MGP? Y si los recibieron, ¿cuáles les ayudaron a fortalecer su capacidad de promover la igualdad de género y la equidad de grupos vulnerables para brindar su servicio? 10. ¿Cómo lo manifiestan al brindar el servicio? Por favor dar ejemplos para ayudar a Identificar lo que se hizo en su municipio (marcar los reconocidos), agregar si hubo otros: 107 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT USAID.GOV Lista de aportes del MGP que recibieron: # Insumos para inclusión social e igualdad de género Recibidos 1 Sensibilización y capacitaciones para conocer sobre inclusión e igualdad de género y mejoras en la prestación de servicios 2 Carta de derechos 3 Guías o protocolos para atender casos de violencia de género 4 Planes de igualdad de la mujeres y prevención de la violencia 5 Fortalecimiento de la unidad de la mujer 6 Apoyando programas con jóvenes de prevención de violencia y de migración 7 Campañas para cambiar actitudes y promover la igualdad y la inclusión 8 Promover la mejora y uso de espacios públicos para fomentar la cohesión social 9 Fortalecimiento de grupos locales de mujeres, jóvenes y grupos vulnerables 10 Promover la compra de emprendimientos locales y de mujeres y grupos vulnerables" 11. ¿Hay algo que quisiera agregar antes de terminar la entrevista? Pregunta de sondeo: ● ¿Hay alguna lección aprendida o recomendación sobre cómo mejorar este tipo de experiencia en el futuro que quiera compartir? ¡MUCHAS GRACIAS! 108 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT USAID.GOV INSTRUMENTO 10. GRUPO FOCAL CON COMITÉS DE CIUDADANOS Y VENDEDORES DE LOS MERCADOS MUNICIPALES INSTRUCCIONES AL FACILITADOR: ● LEA EL FORMATO DE CONSENTIMIENTO INFORMADO DE GRUPO FOCAL Y SIGA SUS INSTRUCCIONES. ● PROSIGA A LLENAR LOS DATOS DE LOS PARTICIPANTE EN LA TABLA DISEÑADA PARA ESTE CASO Y GUARDELO EN UN LUGAR SEGURO. ES RECOMENDABLE TENER LOS DATOS POR ANTICIPADO Y SOLO VERIFICARLO CON LOS PARTICIPANTES. ● PROSIGA CON LA GUÍA ESPECÍFICA Y LAS PREGUNTAS DE DISCUSIÓN. MUNICIPALIDAD: FECHA DE LA REUNIÓN: HORA: TIPO SERVICIO DEL COMITÉ CIUDADANO: NUMERO DE PARTICIPANTES: HOMBRES: MUJERES: INSTRUCCIÓN A LAS PERSONAS PARTICIPANTES: Cada persona tendrá la oportunidad de brindar aportes para cada pregunta, y tendrá la opción de no responder si no lo desea, cuando le llegue su turno. GUÍA DE DISCUSIÓN INTRODUCCIÓN: Explicar nuevamente: La discusión es sobre las acciones que el proyecto de MGP realizó en su municipio, para fortalecer el área de finanzas y alguno(s) servicios municipales, en los cuales ustedes han sido participantes de comités ciudadanos. Deseamos saber cómo participaron y cómo los resultados de la asistencia técnica y recursos que el proyecto brindó han resultado o no en cambios en la forma de trabajar de la municipalidad, y los posibles efectos positivos, neutros o negativos que ustedes hayan percibido en los servicios en los que ustedes han participado. PRESENTACIÓN 1. Pedir a cada participante que se presente y que diga desde cuando ha participado en el comité ciudadano y porqué lo hizo. TEMA 1: (PE 1) FORTALECIMIENTO DEL MANEJO DE FINANZAS MUNICIPALES 2. (1-1.3) ¿Qué cambios han notado en la atención, en las tasas cobradas, o en la forma de trabajar de la Unidad de Administración Tributaria Municipal? Preguntas de sondeo: ● ¿Llegan recordatorios de moras? ¿Han subido o bajado las tasas de los servicios? ¿Qué cambios han notado cuando van a pagar a la municipalidad? ej., la atención al contribuyente es más rápido, o menos rápido o permanece igual? ● ¿A qué creen que se debe eso? 3. ¿Cómo perciben esos cambios? ¿Consideran que los benefician a ustedes directamente o no? TEMA 2: (PE 2) PARTICIPACIÓN CIUDADANA EN EL SERVICIO QUE APOYA EL COMITÉ Para el servicio que apoya su comité, 109 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT USAID.GOV 4. (2.1 Aa-GESI) Cuando inició el comité, ¿Recibieron algún tipo de formación para preparar el trabajo del comité? ¿Cuáles fueron los temas más valiosos que se les brindaron como comité? 5. ¿Para cada una/ uno de ustedes, cuáles consideran han sido los mayores logros de su participación en estos comités? y ¿cuáles consideran han sido logros del comité como tal? 6. (1.1.-2) ¿Cuáles son los cambios que han visto como resultado de su trabajo con respecto a los beneficios a las personas usuarias de este servicio incluyendo a ustedes? Preguntas de sondeo: ● (1.2.-2A1) En su opinión ¿Qué ayudó a que ocurrieran esos cambios? ● (1.2.-2-A2) En su opinión, ¿Qué hizo más lento el poder hacer los cambios? 7. ¿Continúa trabajando el comité? 8. (1.3.-2) ¿Hay otras mejoras al servicio que están planeando lograr en el futuro como comité ciudadano? ¿Cuáles son los más prioritarios? 9. (1.3.-2-b) Consideran que el comité continuará funcionando en el futuro? O ¿solo está mientras dura el proyecto? 10. (PE 2-) ¿Consideran que la municipalidad mantendrá la práctica de formar y mantener comités ciudadanos para apoyar los servicios municipales? 11. (PE 2.2) ¿En esta municipalidad cuáles mecanismos conocen que tiene la municipalidad para facilitar la participación ciudadana en asuntos municipales? Por ejemplo: carta de derechos, comités de contraloría social, cabildos abiertos, ¿una política municipal de atención a la población usuaria? TEMA 3: AHORA VAMOS A COMENTAR SOBRE LOS EFECTOS DE LA ASISTENCIA TÉCNICA Y FORMACIÓN 12. (2.1.Ab-GESI) ¿De qué les ha servido la asesoría y formación que recibieron en el comité? 13. GESI ¿Se sienten más capaces de aportar sus ideas y tener influencia en las decisiones de la municipalidad con respecto al servicio que apoyan? ¿Cómo? TEMA 4: (PE 4) SOBRE EL APROVECHAMIENTO DEL APRENDIZAJE 14. (PE4.1a) ¿Han puesto en práctica las cosas que les enseñaron? ¿Pueden darnos ejemplos de cómo lo hicieron? (4.1b) ¿Hubo cosas que quisieron aplicar, pero no se pudo? ¿Cuáles serían? Y ¿Por qué piensa que no se pudo? 15. (4.2 GESI) ¿Aprendieron sobre convivencia con inclusión social y con igualdad de género en relación con el trabajo del comité y del servicio que apoyan? Cuéntenos ¿qué aprendieron y si les fue útil en el trabajo del comité. Preguntas de sondeo: ● Consideran que, en la atención al público, ¿hay ahora más, menos o igual tolerancia hacia personas que consideramos “diferentes”? ¿Ha cambiado la forma de brindar respeto al público usuario? ● ¿Ha aumentado la participación de mujeres, jóvenes, personas con discapacidad, ancianos, rurales, etc. en las actividades municipales? 110 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT USAID.GOV TEMA 5: (PE 5) INCLUSIÓN SOCIAL E IGUALDAD DE GÉNERO 16. (5.8) Saben si la Unidad de la Mujer estuvo involucrada en las actividades de apoyo a su comité ciudadano? ¿Con qué propósito? ¿Sigue apoyando al comité? 17. ¿Saben si otras unidades municipales también estuvieron involucradas en las actividades de apoyo a su comité? ¿Con qué propósito? ¿Siguen apoyando al comité? 18. (PE 5.9) Conocen la Ley de Protección Social? ¿La utilizan en el trabajo de su comité ciudadano con la municipalidad? 19. ¿Hay algo más que quisiera agregar? Pregunta de sondeo: ● ¿Hay alguna lección aprendida o recomendación sobre cómo mejorar este tipo de experiencia en el futuro que quiera compartir? ¡MUCHAS GRACIAS! 111 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT USAID.GOV INSTRUMENTO 11. GRUPO FOCAL CON TÉCNICOS DE LAS COMUNIDADES DE PRÁCTICA. MODO VIRTUAL Los informantes podrán ser: ● Técnicos municipales participantes en las diferentes comunidades de práctica relacionadas con el mejoramiento de las finanzas y servicios municipales de las municipalidades que recibieron apoyo pero no fueron seleccionadas en la muestra. INSTRUCCIONES AL FACILITADOR: ● ENVIE LA SECCION 1 DEL FORMATO DE CONSENTIMIENTO INFORMADO A LOS PARTICIPANTES INVITADOS POR CORREO ELECTRONICO O TELEFONO. ● LEA EL FORMATO DE CONSENTIMIENTO INFORMADO Y SIGA SUS INSTRUCCIONES. ● PROSIGA A LLENAR LOS DATOS DE LOS PARTICIPANTE EN LA TABLA DISEÑADA PARA ESTE CASO Y GUARDELO EN UN LUGAR SEGURO. ES RECOMENDABLE TENER LOS DATOS POR ANTICIPADO Y SOLO VERIFICARLO CON LOS PARTICIPANTES. ● PROSIGA CON LA DISCUSIÓN. TEMA 1: Comunidades de Práctica: 1. ¿De qué municipalidades provienen? 2. ¿Hace cuándo tiempo están participando en la comunidad de practica? 3. A nivel personal, ¿Qué les motivó a participar? Y ¿Han logrado lo que estaba buscando con su participación? 4. En sus comunidades de practica: ¿Cuáles han sido los temas y experiencias que han priorizado compartir? PE 4 5. ¿Cuáles han sido sus aprendizajes más significativos con respecto a los temas priorizados? 6. ¿Han podido aplicar sus aprendizajes para mejorar su desempeño laboral en sus municipalidades? ¿Cómo? PE 1 7. ¿Cuáles han sido los desafíos (si los hubiera) para participar regularmente en la comunidad de práctica? 8. ¿Consideran que van a seguir reuniéndose y teniendo este espacio colectivo al finalizar la facilitación de parte del Proyecto? ¿Por qué? Ahora quisiéramos aprovechar para comentar de forma general un poco sobre el proyecto MGP en sus municipalidades: PE 3 9. (3.2 y 3.3) ¿Cuál de las acciones de asistencia técnica, (acompañamiento, talleres y capacitaciones recibidas) del proyecto consideran que ha brindado resultados más eficaces (útiles) para fortalecer las capacidades para mejorar la calidad de los servicios municipales? Pregunta de sondeo: ● ¿por qué las consideran más útiles? 112 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT USAID.GOV PE 5 10. ¿Qué apoyos del MGP considera que ha fortalecido las capacidades de las municipalidades para promover la igualdad de género y la equidad de grupos vulnerables cuando brinda sus servicios? Ejemplos: ● Sensibilización y capacitaciones para conocer sobre inclusión e igualdad de género y mejoras en la prestación de servicios ● Carta de derechos ● Guías o protocolos para atender casos de violencia de género ● Planes de igualdad de la mujeres y prevención de la violencia ● Fortalecimiento de la unidad de la mujer ● Apoyando programas con jóvenes de prevención de violencia y de migración ● Campañas para cambiar actitudes y promover la igualdad y la inclusión ● Promover la mejora y uso de espacios públicos para fomentar la cohesión social ● Fortalecimiento de grupos locales de mujeres, jóvenes y grupos vulnerables ● Promover la compra de emprendimientos locales y de mujeres y grupos vulnerables 11. (4.2 GESI) Entre las capacitaciones o asistencia técnica recibida por parte del proyecto, ¿Fueron incluidos temas de Inclusión social e igualdad de género en su quehacer laboral? Preguntas de sondeo en caso de respuesta afirmativa: ● ¿Cuáles han sido los temas tratados? ● ¿Han podido aplicar los conocimientos adquiridos? ¿Por qué? ¿Cómo? 12. ¿Algo más que quieran comentar antes del cierre? Pregunta de sondeo: ● ¿Hay algún aprendizaje significativo o recomendación sobre cómo mejorar este tipo de experiencia en el futuro que quiera compartir? ¡MUCHAS GRACIAS! 113 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT USAID.GOV INSTRUMENTO 12. ENCUESTA PARA ACTORES MUNICIPALES Y DE CSO LOS INVOLUCRADOS SON LOS GRUPOS DE POBLACIÓN QUE SON BENEFICIARIOS INTERMEDIOS O FINALES DEL PROYECTO, COMO ALCALDES, FUNCIONARIOS MUNICIPALES EN LAS ÁREAS QUE APOYO EL ROYECTO, CIUDADANÍA ORGANIZADA EN COMITÉS, CSO Y SECTOR PRIVADO QUE PARTICIPÓ EN LA RENOVACIÓN DE LOS CENTROS HISTÓRICOS LA ENCUESTA ESTA ESTRUCTURADA PARA ATENDER LAS RESPUESTAS DE LOS DIFERENTES GRUPOS. Introducción Confidencialidad: Esta encuesta es anónima y confidencial, no le solicitará su nombre, teléfono o correo electrónico, y las respuestas que se obtengan no se compartirán en ninguna forma fuera del equipo de evaluación de EnCompass. Indicaciones: Tiempo estimado para responder encuesta: 10 minutos. Si tiene dudas o problemas al llenar el cuestionario, puede escribir a wmejia@encompassworld.com para recibir asistencia. Su opinión es muy importante y agradecemos de antemano por su atenta colaboración, Equipo evaluador * 1. ¿Está de acuerdo en responder la encuesta? Si_ No_ Pregunta Opciones de respuesta DATOS GENERALES Nombre: Texto libre Sexo: 1. Mujer 2. Hombre 3. Prefiero no responder 4. Prefiero autodescribirme: Municipio donde trabaja o trabajaba (centro laboral): Texto libre Fecha: Automática Tipo de participante: 1. Funcionarios omplete s de elección Popular 2. Empleados públicos omplete s 3. Participante de comité ciudadano, o vendedores de mercado (Si responde 1 o 2, seguir a la sección A. Si responde 4, saltar a sección B). A. FUNCIONARIOS / EMPLEADOS MUNICIPALES Sección 1: Gestión financiera * 6. ¿Su municipalidad ha recibido apoyo para fortalecer el área de Finanzas? No Si * 7. Si su municipalidad ha recibido apoyo en el área de finanzas, ¿en qué grado está satisfecho/a? 1. Nada 2. Poco 3. Suficiente 4. Muy 5. Sin omplet * 8. ¿Su municipalidad recibió y está usando el software tributario promovido por el Proyecto USAID Gobernabilidad Municipal? 1. Sí, lo está usando totalmente 2. Sí, lo está usando parcialmente 114 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT USAID.GOV 3. Si lo recibió, pero no lo está usando Municipalidad no recibió software tributario 4. No lo sé * 9. ¿Cuáles han sido los beneficios más importantes que tiene su municipalidad al usar el software tributario promovido por el proyecto? (Puede marcar hasta 3 respuestas) 1. Tener digitalizada toda la información de contribuyentes y evitar papeles 2. Permitir tener caja única para el pago de varios servicios 3. Mantener actualizado el número de contribuyentes 4. Reducir el tiempo de espera de los contribuyentes que vienen a consultar o pagar a las oficinas 5. Otros (especifique) * 10. ¿Cuáles son las limitaciones que han encontrado en el funcionamiento y gestión del software promovido por el proyecto? (Puede marcar hasta 3 respuestas) 1. Software no tiene todos los módulos o están incompletos 2. Software produce balances incorrectos de una cuenta corriente 3. Software imprime resultados diferentes al obtenido en pantalla 4. Software no emite un histórico de las deudas de contribuyentes 5. Software no permite dividir inmuebles en el módulo de catastro para generar cuenta corriente adicional 6. Otros (especifique) 7. No se * 11. ¿Cuáles son las razones más importantes por las que no están usando el software promovido por el proyecto? (Puede marcar hasta 3 respuestas) 1. No lo necesitamos 2. Tiene problemas de funcionamiento 3. Todavía estamos migrando información al sistema 4. No tenemos suficiente soporte técnico a pesar de tener contrato con empresa de soporte 5. No hemos renovado contrato de soporte técnico con empresa de soporte 6. Otros (especifique) 7. No sé Sección 1: Gestión financiera y servicios A1.1. ¿Qué tipo de servicio o servicios municipales y en qué grado han sido fortalecidos por el proyecto de Gobernabilidad Municipal? Vacío Tipo de servicios No fue fortalecido Poco Suficiente Bastante No aplica a. Registro Familiar (REF) b. Recolección de desechos sólidos c. Mercados d. Alumbrado público 115 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT USAID.GOV e. Cementerios f. Revitalización de centros históricos y espacios públicos A1.2. ¿Existe una unidad en la municipalidad que promueva la inclusión e igualdad de género en la prestación de servicios municipales? 1. No 2. Si 3. No sabe * 14. ¿Cuál es el nombre de la unidad en la municipalidad que promueve la inclusión e igualdad de género en la prestación de servicios municipales? Texto libre Sección 2: Participación ciudadana A2.1. Tras la asistencia técnica del proyecto de Gobernabilidad Municipal, ¿Ha cambiado la forma en que la municipalidad aprovecha la participación ciudadana para mejorar la atención en los servicios a la población usuaria? 1. No 2. Sí, la municipalidad informa a la ciudadanía sobre los servicios 3. Sí, consulta a la ciudadanía sobre la cobertura y calidad del servicio 4. No sé A2.2. ¿Hay una política /manual de la municipalidad con respecto a cómo el personal debe tratar a la población usuaria que llega en busca de sus servicios? 1. No 2. Sí, pero no está escrita 3. Sí, está escrita 4. Sí, está escrita y se divulga Sección 3: Percepción de la asistencia técnica A3.1. ¿Están satisfechos con la calidad de la asistencia técnica recibida por la municipalidad del proyecto de Gobernabilidad Municipal? 1. No 2. Sí, pero no es muy útil 3. Sí, es útil 4. Sí, es útil y permite aplicar lo que han apoyado * 17. En las áreas en las cuales su municipalidad recibió asistencia técnica o donaciones, ¿cuál es su grado de satisfacción? 1. Fortalecimiento técnico del personal 2. Estudios, diseño de guías y normatividad 3. Computadoras y otros recursos informáticos 4. Equipos (básculas, miniexcavadoras, lavadoras, etc.) Herramientas y utensilios 5. Materiales de construcción y equipamiento urbano Mobiliario [Each question will be have the five options] No se recibió Poco satisfecho Suficientemente satisfecho Bastante satisfecho No tengo opinión A3.3. Entre las diferentes formas de fortalecimiento del personal, ¿Cuál o cuáles han sido las de más fácil aprendizaje? Marque hasta tres opciones 1. Asesoría técnica como acompañamiento 2. Talleres 3. Cursos 4. Diplomados 5. Material didáctico (Folletos, infografías, guías) 6. Otros (especifique): Sección 4: Conocimientos recibidos A4.1.1 Lo que aprendió en esas diversas capacitaciones, ¿Lo ha podido poner en práctica? 1. No 2. Sí 116 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT USAID.GOV A4.1.2 ¿Hay algo que haya hecho difícil aplicar en su trabajo lo que aprendió? 1. No 2. Sí Por favor explique brevemente: Texto libre A4.2. ¿Es miembro de comunidades de práctica promovidas por el proyecto de Gobernabilidad Municipal? 1. No (Pasar a 5.2) 2. Finanzas 3. Registro familiar 4. Mercados 5. Recolección de desechos sólidos 6. Revitalización de centros históricos A4.2.1 ¿De qué manera les es útil tener una comunidad de práctica? Explique brevemente Texto libre A4.2.2 ¿Cuáles son los temas en los cuales necesitan compartir conocimientos y experiencias? Texto libre Sección 5: Igualdad de género e inclusión A5.1. En las capacitaciones, talleres, cursos o diplomados en los que participó, ¿Se abordó el tema de inclusión social y género? 1. No (Pasar a 5.5) 2. Sí, de manera teórica 3. Sí, de manera teórica-práctica A5.2. ¿Se han aplicado los conocimientos de inclusión social e igualdad de género en su quehacer laboral? 1. No 2. Sí, de manera parcial 3. Sí, de manera omplete A5.3. ¿Ha integrado la igualdad de género y la inclusión de todos los grupos poblacionales en el trabajo que ha promovido el proyecto de Gobernabilidad Municipal en su municipio? 1. No 2. Sí, de algunos 3. Sí, de todos A5.4. ¿Hay resultados evidentes de aplicar la inclusión e igualdad de género en el trabajo hecho con el proyecto de Gobernabilidad Municipal? 1. No 2. Sí, algunos 3. Sí, muchos A5.5. ¿En su municipio han utilizado carta de derechos en la prestación de servicios? 1. No 2. Sí, de manera parcial 3. Sí, de manera omplete A5.6. ¿Hubo participación de miembros de la Unidades de la Mujer e Inclusión (si hay) en las actividades del proyecto de Gobernabilidad Municipal? 1. No 2. Sí, como participantes 3. Si, como contraparte del equipo organizador B. PARTICIPANTES DE COMITES CIUDADANOS Sección 1: Gestión financiera y servicios B1.1. ¿A qué comité pertenece? 1. Finanzas 2. Registro familiar 3. Mercados 4. Recolección de desechos sólidos 5. Alumbrado público 6. Cementerios B1.2. A partir de su participación en un comité ciudadano, ¿Ha notado cambios en la atención y en la forma de trabajar de la Unidad de Administración Tributaria Municipal? 1. No 2. Sí, hay más información 3. Sí, nos informan y escuchan 4. Sí, nos informan, escuchan y atienden nuestras demandas 117 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT USAID.GOV B1.3. ¿Ha visto cambios en el desempeño de los servicios desde que empezaron a participar en el comité ciudadano? 1. No 2. Sí, hay comunicación 3. Sí, hay comunicación y escuchan nuestras necesidades 4. Sí, hay comunicación, escuchan nuestras necesidades y dan soluciones B1.4. ¿Consideran que el comité continuará funcionando en el futuro después de finalizado el proyecto? 1. No 2. Sí, pero depende de la municipalidad 3. Sí, independientemente de la municipalidad Sección 2: Participación ciudadana B2.1. ¿Tiene la municipalidad mecanismos para facilitar la participación ciudadana en asuntos municipales? 1. No 2. Sí, pero no hay ordenanza 3. Sí, hay ordenanza o política de participación, pero no se aplica 4. Sí, hay una ordenanza o política de participación y se aplica Sección 3: Percepción de la asistencia técnica y capacitación B3.1. ¿Ha recibido asesoría y capacitación para poder cumplir con el propósito de este comité? 1. No 2. Sí B3.1.1. ¿En qué temas? Texto libre B3.1.2. ¿Cuál es su nivel de satisfacción con la asesoría y capacitación? 1. Nada Satisfecho 2. Insatisfecho 3. Satisfecho 4. Muy Satisfecho 5. Totalmente Satisfecho Sección 4: Barreras para aplicar conocimientos recibidos B4.1. ¿En qué grado le ha servido la asesoría y formación? 1. No me ha servido 2. Sí, me ha servido en algo, no se puede aplicar fácilmente 3. Sí, me ha servido y son aplicables Sección 5: Igualdad de género e inclusión B5.1. ¿Aprendió sobre convivencia con inclusión social y con igualdad de género en relación con el trabajo del comité y del servicio que apoyan? 1. No 2. Sí, pero no se pueden aplicar 3. Sí, son aplicables B5.2. Considera que, en la atención al público, ¿Hay ahora más, menos o igual tolerancia hacia personas que consideramos “diferentes”? 1. Más 2. Menos 3. Igual B5.5. ¿Conoce la Ley de Protección Social? 1. No (Finalizar encuesta) 2. Sí B5.5.1. ¿La utilizan en el trabajo de su comité ciudadano? 1. No 2. Sí 118 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT USAID.GOV INSTRUMENTO 13. GUÍA DE OBSERVACION DIRECTA A INFRAESTRUCTURA Y EQUIPAMIENTO ADMINISTRATIVO Y DE OPERACIONES DE LOS SERVICIOS MUNICIPALES INSTRUCCIONES AL FACILITADOR: 1. PIDA PERMISO SI PUEDE TOMAR FOTOS DEL ÁREA. 2. PREGUNTE O SOLICITE COMPAÑÍA DE UNO DE LOS ESPECIALISTAS DEL SERVICIO, SI ESTO PROCEDE, APROVECHE EN HACER LAS PREGUNTAS EN RELACIÓN CON LO QUE OBSERVA. 3. LOS PUNTOS DE OBSERVACIÓN PODRIAN SER LA PLANTA DE GUARDIANIA Y MANTENIMIENTO DE CAMIONES COMPACTADORES, MAQUINARIA DE REMOCION DE DESECHOS ACUMULADOS, HERRAMIENTAS, BASCULAS PARA PESAR LOS DESECHOS SOLIDOS RECOGIDOS Y LLEVADOS A LA PLANTA DE TRANSFERENCIA O RELLENO SANITARIO. 4. REVISE CON ANTICIPACIÓN LA INFORMACIÓN REPORTADA POR EL PROYECTO EN RELACIÓN CON LA INFRAESTRUCTURA O EQUIPAMIENTO A OBSERVAR. 5. ENFOQUE SU OBSERVACIÓN EN LOS ELEMENTOS PRODUCTO DE LA ASISTENCIA TÉCNICA DEL MGP, MANTENIENDO SU CURIOSIDAD DE LOS ELEMENTOS QUE LO RODEAN. 6. TOME NOTA POR ESCRITO; SI TIENE PRIVACIDAD Y HACE LA OBSERVACIÓN SIN ACOMPAÑAMIENTO, GRABE SUS OBSERVACIONES. 7. AL TERMINAR SU OBSERVACIÓN-TAN PRONTO PUEDA PROSIGA CON HACER SU REPORTE BREVE DE LOS OBSERVADO AL FINAL DE ESTA GUÍA. GUÍA AL OBSERVADOR El objetivo de la observación es conocer el uso, funcionamiento, uso y estado de la infraestructura y equipamiento para informar sobre la sostenibilidad de las intervenciones del proyecto. 119 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT USAID.GOV DESECHOS SÓLIDOS Equipo pesado Elementos donados por USAID proyecto gobernabilidad ¿sigue en funcionamiento? Sigue en funcionamiento NO SI ¿En qué año? Sí No ¿recibe mantenimiento de la municipalidad? No recibe mantenimiento, ¿por qué? Basculas Cargadores / mini Excavadoras / mini Otro: Materiales de construcción para: Elementos donados por USAID proyecto gobernabilidad ¿Áreas construidas son utilizadas? Si las áreas construidas se utilizan NO SI ¿En qué año? Sí No ¿recibe mantenimiento de la municipalidad? No recibe mantenimiento, ¿por qué? Baños y área de aseo para personal operativo Zona de mantenimiento Depósitos Otros: Herramientas y equipo pequeños Elementos donados por USAID proyecto gobernabilidad ¿Lo siguen utilizando? No Si ¿En qué año? Sí Sí, junto con lo entregado o renovado por la municipalidad No utilizan ¿porqué? (municipalidad no los renovó, se perdieron, otros). Comentarios Herramientas de mantenimiento de vehículos y equipo pesado Herramientas de limpieza 120 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT USAID.GOV Uniformes para trabajadores operativos Elementos de seguridad (sanitarias y por riesgo laboral) Otros: CEMENTERIO Equipos y tecnología Elementos donados por USAID proyecto gobernabilidad ¿sigue en funcionamiento? Sigue en funcionamiento No Sí ¿En qué año? Sí No ¿recibe mantenimiento de la municipalidad (incluye proveedor)? No recibe mantenimiento y existe riesgo de no poder reemplazarse o mejorarse Módulo de cementerio en software tributario Máquina - pantalla con localización de nichos Computadoras   Impresoras Otros: Materiales de construcción para: Elementos donados por USAID proyecto gobernabilidad ¿áreas construidas son utilizadas? Si las áreas construidas se utilizan   No Sí ¿En qué año? Sí No ¿recibe mantenimiento de la municipalidad u otros? No recibe mantenimiento ¿por qué? Baños y área de aseo para visitantes Veredas Rampas de acceso Bancas 121 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT USAID.GOV Otros:    Equipos y vestuario adecuado al servicio Elementos donados por USAID proyecto gobernabilidad ¿lo siguen utilizando? No Si ¿en qué año? Si Si, junto con lo entregado o renovado por la municipalidad No utilizan   ¿porqué? (municipalidad no los renovó, se perdieron, otros). Comentarios Herramientas de mantenimiento   Herramientas de limpieza Uniformes para trabajadores operativos Elementos de seguridad (sanitarias y por riesgo laboral) Otros: MERCADOS Estado de la infraestructura Ver a continuación, la descripción de las opciones de respuesta: 1. Se ve bien y la están usando. 2. Se ve deteriorada, pero la siguen usando. 3. Se ve deteriorada y nadie la usa. 1 2 3 4 Comentarios Techo Zonas de venta Elementos sanitarios Señalización Accesibilidad Ruta de escape 122 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT USAID.GOV Otros:   MANTENIMIENTO   PREGUNTAR A LA PERSONA DE LA MUNICIPALIDAD QUE LE ACOMPAÑA: En su opinión: ¿Será posible para (actor responsable) mantener las mejoras de infraestructura realizadas posterior al cierre de la cooperación con el MGP? Explicar ¿Por qué? PREGUNTAR A LA PERSONA DE LA MUNICIPALIDAD QUE LE ACOMPAÑA: Las opciones de respuesta deberán incluirse en el recuadro que se muestra a continuación. 1. ¿Se puede observar que ha recibido mantenimiento? 1-No 2-Sí 2. ¿En qué año fue la construcción o adquisición? 3. ¿Quién es la entidad responsable del mantenimiento? 4. ¿La municipalidad u otro responsable ha presupuestado para el mantenimiento de la infraestructura y/o equipamiento que tuvo apoyo del proyecto? ¿Cuánto? En su opinión: ¿Será posible para (actor responsable) mantener las mejoras de infraestructura realizadas posterior al cierre de la cooperación con el MGP? Explicar ¿Por qué? 1 (Sí/No) 2 (Año) 3 Responsable 4 (Sí/No) 4.1 ¿Cuánto? (USD) 5 (Sí/No) Techo Zonas de venta Elementos sanitarios Señalización Accesibilidad Ruta de escape Otros: USO Y ALREDEDORES COMPLETE LA SIGUIENTE INFORMACIÓN SEGÚN LO QUE OBSERVE.   Las opciones de respuesta deberán incluirse en el recuadro que se muestra a continuación 1. ¿Puede observar quienes usan la infraestructura? 1-No 2-Sí 2. ¿Quienes? 1. Mujeres, 2. hombres, 3. niños, 4. Personas de todas las edades 3. ¿Da la impresión de que es seguro para todas las personas? 123 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT USAID.GOV 4. En los alrededores a la inversión, puede observar que (incluya todas las opciones que apliquen): a. Se ve ordenado y seguro; b. Se ve que hay basura acumulada producida en el mercado; c. Se ve facilidad para estacionar vehículos o bicicletas; d. Pasamanos o rampas para el acceso de personas con discapacidad; y e. Las viviendas cercanas no se encuentran perjudicadas por la inversión. 1 (Sí/No) 2 (1, 2, 3, 4) 3 (Sí/No) 4 ACTIVIDAD y SEGURIDAD (a, b, c, d, e) Comentarios Vías Techo Zonas de venta Elementos sanitarios Señalización Accesibilidad Ruta de escape Otros: Alrededores CENTRO HISTÓRICO   ASPECTO Y MEJORAS ¿Qué tipo de mejoras observa? Text libre ¿En qué estado se encuentra la inversión en infraestructura y equipamiento? Ver a continuación, la descripción de las opciones de respuesta: 1. Se ve excelente (parece nueva/o) y la están usando. 2. Se ve bien y la están usando. 3. Se ve deteriorada, pero la siguen usando. 4. Se ve deteriorada y nadie la usa. 124 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT USAID.GOV 1 2 3 4 Comentarios Vías Parques Señalización Accesibilidad Ornamentación Ruta de escape Otros: MANTENIMIENTO   PREGUNTAR A LA PERSONA DE LA MUNICIPALIDAD QUE LE ACOMPAÑA: En su opinión: ¿Será posible para (actor responsable) mantener las mejoras de infraestructura realizadas posterior al cierre de la cooperación con el MGP? Explicar ¿Por qué?    PREGUNTAR A LA PERSONA DE LA MUNICIPALIDAD QUE LE ACOMPAÑA: Las opciones de respuesta deberán incluirse en el recuadro que se muestra a continuación. 1. ¿Se puede observar que ha recibido mantenimiento? 1-No 2-Sí 2. ¿En qué año fue la construcción o adquisición? 3. ¿Quién es la entidad responsable del mantenimiento? 4. ¿La municipalidad u otro responsable ha presupuestado para el mantenimiento de la infraestructura y/o equipamiento que tuvo apoyo del proyecto? ¿Cuánto? 5. En su opinión: ¿Será posible para (actor responsable) mantener las mejoras de infraestructura realizadas posterior al cierre de la cooperación con el MGP? Explicar ¿Por qué? 1 (Sí/No) 2 (Año) 3 Responsable 4 (Sí/No) 4.1 ¿Cuánto? (USD) 5 (Sí/No) Vías Parques Señalización Accesibilidad Ornamentación Ruta de escape Otros: 125 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT USAID.GOV USO Y ACTIVIDAD 1. ¿Puede observar quienes usan la infraestructura? 1-No 2-Sí 2. ¿Quienes? 1. Mujeres, 2. hombres, 3. niños, 4. Personas de todas las edades 3. ¿Da la impresión de que es seguro para todas las personas? En los alrededores a la inversión, puede observar que (incluya todas las opciones que apliquen): a. Bastante actividad incluyendo tiendas formales y turismo y con seguridad; b. Actividad incluyendo tiendas formales y turismo y seguridad; y c. Sin actividad y desierto en tiendas formales o en turismo. 1 (Sí/No) 2 (1, 2, 3, 4) 3 (Sí/No) 4 ACTIVIDAD y SEGURIDAD   (a, b, c) Comentarios Vías Parques Señalización Accesibilidad Ornamentación Ruta de escape Otros: 126 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT USAID.GOV ANNEX E: MUNICIPALITIES SUPPORTED BY MGP a. MUNICIPALITIES BENEFICIARIES OF MGP BY COHORT AND PER CAPITA CURRENT INCOME 2021 COHOR T DEPARTME NT MUNICIPALI TY POPULATI ON (8) CURRE NT INCOM E MM US $ 2021(**) PER CAPITA CURRE NT INCOM E US $ 2021(***) RAN GE (****) SELECTE D SERVICE PORTFOLIO (*****) 1 Sonsonate Sonsonate 80998 8.42 $103.95 1 No Financial management, Municipal Markets, Communication, 1 San Miguel San Miguel 214621 20.1 $93.65 1 Yes Financial management, Municipal Markets, REF, HUB, Communication, 1 La Paz Zacatecoluca 83004 5.59 $67.35 1 No Financial management, Solid Waste, REF, 1 La Paz Olocuilta 32557 1.69 $51.91 1 No Financial management, Solid Waste, REF, 1 San Salvador Panchimalco 53335 1.48 $27.75 2 Yes Financial management, Municipal Markets, REF, Public Lighting, Communication, 1 La Libertad Zaragoza 29924 0.71 $23.73 2 No Financial management, Municipal Markets, 1 San Salvador Guazapa 29328 0.65 $22.16 2 No Financial management, Public Lighting, 1 Cuscatlán Cojutepeque 54907 1.11 $20.22 2 No Financial management, Municipal Markets, 1 Cuscatlán San Pedro Perulapán 56727 0.79 $13.93 3 Yes Financial management, REF, Public Lighting, Communication, 127 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT USAID.GOV 1 Sonsonate Armenia 41681 0.53 $12.72 3 No Financial management, Municipal Markets, REF, Communication, 1 San Salvador Santo Tomás 31044 0.14 $4.51 3 No Financial management, Solid Waste, Public Lighting, Communication, 2 San Salvador San Salvador 335097 226.83 $676.91 1 Yes Financial management, REF, HUB, Communication, Innovation and Technology 2 La Libertad Santa Tecla 127278 31.43 $246.94 1 No Financial management, Municipal Markets, Communication, 2 San Salvador Nejapa 36502 3.3 $90.41 1 Yes Financial management, Public Cemetery, Communication, 2 Usuluán Usuluán 71255 5.47 $76.77 1 No Financial management, Municipal Markets, Communication, 2 San Salvador Ilopango 119555 6.99 $58.47 1 No Financial management, Solid waste, Communication, 2 San Salvador Soyapango 258449 14.29 $55.29 1 No Financial management, REF, Communication, Innovation and Technology 2 San Salvador Ayutuxtepeque 36664 1.96 $53.46 1 No Financial management, public cemeteries, Communication, Innovation and Technology 2 San Salvador Mejicanos 134866 6.89 $51.09 2 No Financial management, Solid waste, Communication, 128 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT USAID.GOV Innovation and Technology 2 Santa Ana Santa Ana 250318 12.73 $50.86 2 Yes Financial management, Municipal Markets, HUB, Communication, Innovation and Technology 2 San Vicente San Vicente 56665 2.61 $46.06 2 No Financial management, REF, Communication, Innovation and Technology 2 La Libertad Quezaltepeque 65603 2.47 $37.65 2 No Financial management, Municipal Markets, Communication, 2 San Salvador San Marcos 59963 2.23 $37.19 2 No Financial management, Municipal Markets, Communication, 2 Cabañas Ilobasco 69350 2.5 $36.05 2 No Financial management, REF, Communication, Innovation and Technology 2 San Salvador Apopa 155228 5.48 $35.30 3 Yes Financial management, Solid waste, Communication, Innovation and Technology 2 Ahuachapán. Ahuachapán 126730 4.2 $33.14 3 No Financial management, Municipal Markets, Communication, 2 San Salvador Cuscatancingo 75757 2.3 $30.36 3 No Financial management, public lighting, Communication, 2 San Salvador Tonacatepeque 103200 2.22 $21.51 3 No Financial management, Municipal Markets, Communication, 129 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT USAID.GOV 2 San Salvador Ciudad Delgado* 123424 1.98 $16.04 3 No Financial management, Solid waste, Communication, Innovation and Technology 2 San Salvador San Martin* 92656 1.15 $12.41 3 No Financial management, REF, Communication, 2 San Vicente Tecoluca 28088 0.26 $9.26 3 No Financial management, Solid waste, Communication, (*) DIGESTYC, Proyecciones de población 2023. (**) Transparencia fiscal. Except for Apopa, the financial information corresponds to the year 2021. Transparencia fiscal. https://www.transparenciafiscal.gob.sv/ptf/es/PTF2-Index.html. Visit on August 8, 2023. (***) Op. cit. (****) Each Cohort was divided into three ranges of per capita current income. (*****) WSP Presentation. Kick-off meeting Encompass – WSP on July 31, 2023. Excel: Technical Assistance Delivered. 130 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT USAID.GOV b. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE IMPLEMENTED BY MGP PER MUNICIPALITY DEPARTAM ENT MUNICIPAL ITY FINANCE* RE F SOLID WASTE COLLECT ION MUNICI PAL MARKE TS PUBLI C LIGHTI NG SERVI CE PUBLIC CEMETE RIES HU B COMMUNICA TION INNOVATI ON AND TECHNOL OGY FI IR TS TC SF TA UMPB Sonsonate   Sonsonate   X O O O       X         X San Miguel   San Miguel   X O O O O O O O X      X         X X La Paz   Zacatecoluca   X O O O X   X            La Paz   Olocuilta   X O O O O O X   X            San Salvador   Panchimalco   X O O O X      X   X      X La Libertad   Zaragoza   X O O O       X         San Salvador   Guazapa   X O O          X      Cuscatlán   Cojutepeque   X O O O       X         Cuscatlán   San Pedro Perulapán   X O O O X         X      X Sonsonate   Armenia   X O O O O X      X         X San Salvador   Santo Tomás   X O O O O O    X      X      X San Salvador   San Salvador*   X O O O O O X               X X X La Libertad   Santa Tecla*   X O O O O       X         X San Salvador   Nejapa*   X O O O O O O O             X   X Usuluán   Usuluán   X O O O O O O       X         X San Salvador   Ilopango*   X O O O O    X            X San Salvador   Soyapango*   X O O O O O X               X X San Salvador   Ayutuxtepeque *   X O O O O             X   X X San Salvador   Mejicanos*   X O O O O O    X            X X Santa Ana   Santa Ana   X O O O O O       X         X X X San Vicente   San Vicente   X O O O O O O X               X X La Libertad   Quezaltepeque    X O O O O O O O       X         X San Salvador   San Marcos   X O O O O O       X         X Cabañas   Ilobasco   X O O O O O X               X X 131 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT USAID.GOV San Salvador   Apopa*   X O O O O O    X            X X Ahuachapán   Ahuachapán   X O O O O O O       X         X San Salvador   Cuscatancingo *   X O O O O          X      X San Salvador   Tonacatepeque *   X O O O O       X         X San Salvador   Delgado*   X O O O    X            X X San Salvador   San Martin*   X O O O O O X               X San Vicente   Tecoluca   X O O O O O    X            X *FI: Finance; IR: Increase revenues; TS: Tax software; TC: Update the municipal tax cadaster; SF: Services Fee Regulatory Ordinances; TA: Tax Arrears Recovery Plans; UM: Strengthen institutional capabilities of UATMs. PB: Improve the efficient allocation of resources in municipal planning and budgeting. Source: WSP 132 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT USAID.GOV ANNEX F: DATA COLLECTION TOOLS ADMINISTRATED A. DATA COLLECTION TECHNIQUES 8 USAID 2 MGP 7 MUNICIPALITIES SAMPLED BASED ON PER CAPITA INCOME LEVEL 2 small 2 mediums 2 larger 1 champion SURVEY 128 Informants 48% 52% 75% Municipal staff 25% Users and vendors committees 6 Focus Group Discussions 4 1 Solid waste management 1 Cemetery Committees: 1 REF 1 Vendor 18% 72% 2 Communities of Practices (8 Informants) 75% 25% Direct Observations collected in administrative offices (Finance, REF, CIAM), cemetery, solid waste management warehouse, market, and historic centers. Workplans and progress reports, queue surveys, other studies, legal documentation 8 DOCUMENT REVIEW Locations DIRECT OBSERVATIONS 46 Interviews Interviews with mayors, project coordinators, finance and service managers, IT staff and other analysts. HIGH LEVEL INTERVIEWS KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWS 133 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT USAID.GOV B. informants reached per municipality and sex Municipality Municipal staff CSOs User and vendors committees Communitie s of practice Municipal authorities, staff and committees Total Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Total San Pedro Perulapan 5 4 0 0 0 0 5 4 9 San Miguel 4 2 3 1 2 2 9 5 14 Panchimalco 5 1 0 0 0 0 5 1 6 Santa Ana 3 6 0 1 7 3 10 10 20 Apopa 4 2 0 0 6 2 10 4 14 Nejapa 1 1 0 0 3 0 4 1 5 San Salvador 5 6 0 0 0 0 5 6 11 Other municipalities of sample 2 6 2 6 8 Survey / 31 municipalities 62 66 n.a* Total 27 22 3 2 18 7 2 6 62 66 50 (57%) 37 (43%) 87 (*) To avoid doble counting, the survey respondents were not included. 134 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT USAID.GOV C. fieldwork NO COHOR T DATE LOCATION INFORMANT INSTRUMEN T Sept 25 Olocuilta Pilot (different stakeholders) KII Sept 25 Olocuilta Pilot FGD 01 Sept 27-28 MGP-WSP M&E Specialist KII GRUPAL 02 Sept 27-28 MGP-WSP Historic Center Specialist KII 03 Sept 27-28 MGP-WSP Finance Specialist KII 04 Sept 27-28 MGP-WSP COP; DCOP Directors KII GRUPAL 05 Sept 27-28 MGP-WSP Solid Waste and Cemetery Specialist KII 06 Sept 28 USAID USAID Specialist KII 07 Oct 6 USAID USAID Specialist KII 08 Sept 27-28 MGP-WSP GESI Specialist KII 09 Sept 27-28 MGP-WSP Market, REF, Public Lighting Specialist KII 10 1 Sept 29 San Pedro Perulapan Mayor KII 11 1 Sept 29 San Pedro Perulapan Finance team KII GRUPAL 12 1 Sept 29 San Pedro Perulapan REF Coordinator KII 13 1 Sept 29 San Pedro Perulapan Public Lighting Specialist KII 14 1 Sept 29 San Pedro Perulapan Public Lighting Specialist DO 15 1 Sept 29 San Pedro Perulapan Women’s Unit Reference KII 16 1 Oct 2 San Miguel Finance team KII GRUPAL 17 1 Oct 2 San Miguel Head of International Cooperation Unit KII 18 1 Oct 2 San Miguel Historic Center Specialist KII 19 1 Oct 2 San Miguel Manager, Women’s Unit KII 20 1 Oct 2 San Miguel Manager, Markets KII 21 1 Oct 2 San Miguel Manager, Social Projects KII 135 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT USAID.GOV 22 1 Oct 2 San Miguel Manager, REF KII 23 1 Oct 3 San Miguel OSC FGD 24 1 Oct 3 San Miguel Market DO 25 1 Oct 12 San Miguel OSC, Universidad Gerardo Barrios KII GRUPAL - virtual 26 1 Oct 6 San Miguel OSC, MIACCIÓN KII - virtual 27 2 Oct 4 Pachimalco Coordinator Mayor’s assistant KII 28 2 Oct 4 Pachimalco Finance team and Cadaster Specialist KII GRUPAL 29 2 Oct 4 Pachimalco REF Specialist KII 30 2 Oct 4 Pachimalco Public Lighting team; Market KII GRUPAL 31 2 Oct 4 Pachimalco Coordinator, Women’s Unit KII 32 2 Oct 5 Santa Ana Manager, HUB KII 33 2 Oct 5 Santa Ana Manager and Coordinator, Services Market N° 3 KII GRUPAL 34 2 Oct 5 Santa Ana Coordinator, Women’s Unit KII 35 2 Oct 5 Santa Ana Finance team KII GRUPAL 36 2 Oct 5 Santa Ana CSO Committee Market N° 3 FGD 37 2 Oct 5 Santa Ana Markets DO 38 2 Oct 5 Santa Ana CEO, FBA KII 39 2 Oct 5 Santa Ana Major KII 40 2 Oct 5 Santa Ana GESI Coordinator, Planning Unit KII 41 2 Oct 8 Apopa CSO Committee, Solid waste FGD 42 2 Oct 9 Apopa Finance Manager KII 43 2 Oct 9 Apopa Coordinator, Planning, Communications Unit KII 44 2 Oct 9 Apopa Major KII 136 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT USAID.GOV 45 2 Oct 9 Apopa Manager Solid Waste, Environment KII 46 2 Oct 9 Apopa Solid Waste Warehouse DO 46 2 Oct 11 Nejapa Cemetery DO 48 2 Oct 11 Nejapa CSO Committee, Cemetery FGD 49 2 Oct 11 Nejapa Coordinator, Urban and Land Development KII 50 2 Oct 11 Nejapa Specialist, Cemetery KII 2 Oct 11 Santa Ana Major KII - virtual 51 2 Oct 10 San Salvador Coordinator, Manager and supporting team Task force KII GRUPAL 52 2 Oct 10 San Salvador Finance team KII GRUPAL 53 2 Oct 10 San Salvador REF team KII GRUPAL 54 2 Oct 10 San Salvador Head of Historic Center Revitalization KII 55 2 Oct 10 San Salvador Chief of district Zone II KII 56 2 Oct 10 San Salvador Historic Center DO 57 Oct 24 Office EnCompass Communities of Practice FGD - virtual 58 Oct 24 Office Encompass Communities of practice Virtual FGD - virtual 59 2 Oct 5 Santa Ana Historic Center DO 60 2 Oct 9 Apopa CIAM: Information and Administration Municipal Center DO 137 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT USAID.GOV ANNEX G: DATA ANALYSIS A. FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT MGP TA aimed to support municipalities to generate own-source revenues; and to enable financial health. The summary below shows the elements found in the MGP strategy: ELEMENTS EXPECTED RESULTS OBJECTIVE: Setting and collecting revenues to finance services. ● Service fees based on costing methodology. ● Taxes legal and fair. ● Arrears categorized and recovered. TOOLS: Tax software, cadastre, and applications ● Taxpayers identified 100%. ● Comprehensive information of taxpayers, home, and business units available. ● Credit wordiness reports and balance due available. PHASES: Assessment, production, dissemination, legality ● Assessment studies of health finance supported the plan of collection. ● Socioeconomic studies to set tax levels, produced ordinances, and disseminate to community. Council approval to submit to Legislative Assembly. ● Cost studies to set appropriate fee levels, produce ordinances, disseminate to community, Council approval. Source: MGP performance reports. Elaborated by ET. The following paragraphs present the trend and levels of municipal collection of current revenues (taxes and service fees) during 2017-2022, using open data from the Transparency Fiscal Portal. Cohort I (without San Miguel) experimented higher rates of growth on average from 2019 to 2020, which would reflect MGP TA to improve the collection. However, the team cannot isolate this effect from the effect caused by reduction of the FODES transfers (increase of fiscal effort) in this type of evaluation, The latter is supported by the trend of the rest of municipalities that did not participate in the project, which had a similar trend. Cohort II (without Santa Ana and San Salvador), maintained on average a constant level of collection after beginning to work with MGP project. See Exhibit a. Additionally, in the case of the three hub municipalities (Exhibit b), San Miguel from Cohort 1 experimented with growth in its revenue collections in 2020, during MGP TA, after having negative results in 2019. San Salvador, the capital city, part of Cohort II, had a significant growth in 2021, also after MGP support. Santa Ana had a growth in 2019 and 2020, years before working with MGP. However, it is not possible to differentiate the net effect of MGP from FODES. 138 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT USAID.GOV Source: Fiscal Transparency Portal, elaborated by ET. Source: Fiscal Transparency Portal, elaborated by ET. Exhibits c presents the per capita current revenue collection of Cohort 1. The exhibit has been organized from small (Guazapa) to larger municipalities (San Miguel) from 2018 to 2021. In the case of cohort 1 municipalities, independently of the size of the municipality, the histogram shows that most of the municipalities raised their level of per capita revenue collection, but also shows that after the highest reached level, the per capita value decreased, suggesting that after the strategy focusing on arrears, municipalities need to continue working in the setting of appropriate fees and taxes. -60.00 -40.00 -20.00 0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00 120.00 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 PERCENTAGE CHANGE YEAR Exhibit a. Rate change of Collection Current Revenue Municipalities Vs. Other Municipalities 2016-2022 Cohort 1 Cohort 2 Other mun -100.00 -50.00 0.00 50.00 100.00 150.00 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 PERCENTAGE CHANGE Exhibit b. Rate change of Collection Current Revenue of three Hub Municipalities 2016 - 2022 San Miguel Santa Ana San Salvador 139 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT USAID.GOV Source: Fiscal Transparency Portal, elaborated by ET Source: Fiscal Transparency Portal, elaborated by ET. Municipalities without data were not included such as Cuscatancingo, San Martín, Ciudad Delgado, Tonacatepeque, Apopa, Ayutuxtepeque, and Quezaltepeque. Guazap a Zarago za Santo Tomás Olocuil ta Armeni a Panchi malco Cojute peque San Pedro Perulap án Sonson ate Zacate coluca San Miguel 2018 24.51 49.08 47.50 48.58 32.64 32.98 64.73 17.42 100.42 56.65 97.93 2019 28.96 48.33 46.57 51.26 34.14 38.39 67.65 19.09 106.45 65.77 81.57 2020 40.21 51.41 59.55 61.67 45.65 50.55 76.20 27.26 108.93 59.67 98.58 2021 22.09 24.22 4.51 52.25 15.17 27.97 20.49 14.21 104.57 68.53 92.72 0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00 120.00 US DOLLARS Exhibit c. Per Capita Collection of Current Revenues Municipalities Cohort I Tecoluc a Nejapa San Vicente San Marcos Ilobasc o Usulutá n Ilopang o Ahuach apán Santa Tecla Mejican os Santa Ana Soyapan go 2019 80.83 97.65 54.28 95.10 39.99 73.71 51.73 42.33 208.00 51.28 57.32 66.92 2020 65.72 93.90 63.06 88.88 38.76 87.39 57.61 38.00 207.87 50.81 72.55 97.09 2021 9.38 90.70 46.06 36.62 36.27 76.68 58.68 34.12 247.14 50.53 50.53 56.45 2022 0.00 94.39 18.31 0.00 53.36 100.67 16.10 22.33 182.94 47.66 47.67 48.32 0.00 50.00 100.00 150.00 200.00 250.00 300.00 US DOLLARS Exhibit d. Per Capita Collection of Current Revenue Municipalities Cohort 2 140 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT USAID.GOV Exhibit d was also organized from small municipality (Tecoluca) to a larger municipality (Soyapango) from Cohort 2. San Salvador is presented separately. The histogram shows a great variety of per capita value collection and trends; it is not possible to see in all municipalities an increase in revenue collection after MGP TA, nor the separate effects of the FODES reduction. As the exhibit notes indicate, not all municipalities were included because they did not have complete information in the open data portal. The city of San Salvador is a particular case due to the value level of its per capita collection. The revenue collection rose twice from 2020 to 2021, with values from 300 US dollars in 2020 to more than 600 US dollars in 2022 such as other cases, the value decreased drastically in 2022, after the peak in 2021. Source: Fiscal Transparency Portal, elaborated by ET. 305.72 314.06 673.16 147.48 0.00 100.00 200.00 300.00 400.00 500.00 600.00 700.00 800.00 San Salvador US DOLLARS Exhibit e. Per Capita Collection of Current Revenue San Salvador Municipality Cohort 2 2019 2020 2021 2022 141 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT USAID.GOV B. CHANGES IN THE QUALITY-OF-SERVICE DELIVERY AND HUBS i. CHANGES IN SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSITION SERVICES Solid waste management was made more efficient in Apopa opening new areas of coverage, redesigning and planning collection schedules communicated effectively to users, procurement of specialized equipment and municipal worker training and interactive learning in communities of practice and an international experience exchange. Members of the community committee on solid waste collection and recycling identified changes related to improved health conditions, the creation of new public spaces being used for multiple purposes by residents and the overall appearance of their neighborhood, which might improve their property values. ● In Apopa, the multidisciplinary team formed was able to take advantage of the MGP support to resolve the crisis of deficient trash collection and open-air dumps that was generating significant negative public opinion. ● The initiative to form one citizen committee to jointly work to close open air trash dumps, improve the efficiency of trash collection and begin at source separation and recycling efforts, has been scaled up through the efforts of the municipal “environmental delegates” to create a network of more than 25 such committees. With recycling, there is a potential for reducing costs, depositing less waste in the landfill. ● The innovative improvement of municipal waste collection in Apopa is gaining recognition from the OPAMSS and the national government, as well as other municipalities. These tangible benefits created a political will favorable for guaranteeing the resources necessary for scaling up the pilot experience of new route design and the creation of citizen committees to support the effort on a community level, investing in creating a more robust team of “environmental delegates”, etc. to enable this. ● The inventory of equipment and spare parts for the maintenance of the vehicles used in the municipal trash collection service in Apopa, was recognized as important to guaranteeing the adequate administration; also, the fact that the inventory could be managed in Excel for ease of use by municipal workers. Having the mobile scale to weigh the solid waste collection truck has enabled the municipality to demonstrate to several businesses the exact weight of what they are generating, and thus the objective conditions on which to establish dialogue and come to agreements as to current payments and past debt for services rendered. The users surveyed slightly improved evaluation of these services in the different municipalities where the MGP supported changes, as compared to the baseline from 3.91 to 4.01 (2.6% increase)..17 With respect to the institutionalization of the practice for the optimization of the routes: Optimizing the routes…we began working in 2021, we found 14 routes, now we have 24…we have tried to optimize with different studies, in order to save money in gas, using adequately the trucks. Likewise, we initiated the service to new communities…before the truck collected the waste very twenty days, now the truck collects three times a week --Male, KII, cohort 218 142 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT USAID.GOV With respect to the importance of the work with the citizen service committees in each neighborhood to educate the service users to begin to separate their solid waste: My biggest accomplishment was incentivize people to separate the solid waste, get the items to recycle, , and also make people aware that they have to be organized, maybe not one hundred percent, but we have obtained huge results __Male, KII 19 ii. CHANGES IN PUBLIC LIGHTING Members of service support committees, municipal technical staff and MGP semiannual reporting identified key changes to increase access to public lighting in neighborhoods previously underserved, through the installation of LED lamps to replace less energy efficient lamps, generating budget savings. Service efficiency was reportedly improved through the creation of georeferenced maps, allowing municipalities to better manage maintenance and fee collection. Positive indirect socio-economic effects identified were longer functioning of local businesses and creation of new entrepreneurial ventures to take advantage of greater nocturnal activity, as well as reduced incidents of insecurity in newly lighted isolated areas. iii. CHANGES IN MUNICIPAL MARKET SERVICES Members of service support committees, municipal technical staff, MGP semiannual reporting indicate that the key changes achieved in municipal markets services were to provide a better and more productive environment for municipal market employees, venders, and customers through investing grant funding to renovate deteriorated infrastructure and equipment. Market management was made more efficient and transparent through the installation of software for the collecting of fees using POS equipment; also reducing the risk of theft of cash for those involved. The provision of improved quality services was supported through training of municipal market personal and organized vendors. ● In Santa Ana, the existing market ordinance was applied in a more rigorous way by the municipal technical team with the support of the vendor committee. They measured each vendor´s stall to include size and location in the new georeferenced software to charge more exact fees, applying the knowledge acquired through trainings and sensibilization as to the need to maintain the positive changes being made. The positive results reportedly have generated motivation to take on the “great challenges” for further improving the municipal markets. The registry of who was charged, at what time and by whom, to monitor the performance of municipal workers involved, generated greater transparency and security using POS to register the amount charged to each vender. The MGP considers the installation and functioning of this system to be a “significant innovation in the form of doing market management”. Not all experiences were as positive, however. In San Miguel, the municipal staff person interviewed stated that even though infrastructure is not good she did recognize that the equipment, furniture, computer equipment and system for charging the vendor fees were positive contributions, as it enables a timely review of each person’s payment history and reduced the cash flow and risk of theft. Users of the municipal market services improved their evaluation with respect to the baseline study from 3.76 to 3.99 (6.3% increase).21 CHANGES IN MUNICIPAL CEMETERY SERVICES. Members of service support committees, municipal technical staff, and MGP semiannual reporting identified key changes made to municipal cemetery that improved the quality of the experience, safety, 143 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT USAID.GOV accessibility and comfort of cemetery users and workers in Nejapa through cemetery infrastructure renovation. Municipal employees and the citizen support committee advocated to gain municipal council approval for implementation of a new cemetery ordinance to increase fees for the maintenance and upgrading of the service, implementing a new manual for cemetery management procedures. ● The improvement of the infrastructure considered walkways and entrance ramps to make facilities accessible for people living with disabilities, adding clear signage by zones, sanitary services, water fountains and adequate waiting areas to improve comfort. The cemetery also included a perimeter wall and lighting to create a safer environment. ● An innovative georeferenced cadastral map was created with coded plaques at each gravesite and interactive application at the entrance office that allows citizens to locate their deceased relatives, the amount of fees due and to print a receipt using a touchscreen; and equipped administrative office to pay in the same location. ● Citizen committee members are satisfied that cemetery conditions in Nejapa are no longer deteriorating, and the space is orderly. ● Initially in Nejapa, it was reported by municipal employees interviewed that the proposal for a general change in the municipal service regulation was not accepted, for fear of negative public reaction, however the citizen committee made a specific proposal for change in the cemetery regulation and presented this to the municipal council and was successful in advocating to get it approved. ● Cemetery management is also improved through the active role of the Citizen Service Committee created and strengthened by the Project. It advocated for better regulation of the cemetery service with the municipal council and continues to communicate to citizens the need for increased fees to pay for improved services. iv. CHANGES IN MUNICIPAL FAMILY REGISTRY SERVICES. Members of service support committees, municipal technical staff, and MGP semiannual reporting identified key changes in REF services to improve citizen experiences, benefiting from shorter times in processing services, more comfortable surroundings areas, and respectful attitudes by service providers. However, due to changes in the procedure for registry and the emission of REF documents to comply with RPN requirements, the waiting time increased in some cases due to insufficient equipment and REF software to carry out the processes required in an efficient manner. ● Preexisting technological capacity in San Salvador enabled a pilot project to develop and install a platform to allow birth and death certificates to be requested and paid securely online, which citizens can pick up later once issued. MGP was active supporting the development of digital literacy and e-ID (digital signature), which facilitated the delivery of services online. When MGP supported the creation of decentralized offices, MGP realized the office would need digital signatures to avoid going to the main office of the municipality. According to the assessment report of USAID, obtaining e signature is still costly for municipalities.23 MGP has supported the participation of authorities and REF staff in a workshop to Development of a roadmap for the implementation of procedures offered by the REF online. 144 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT USAID.GOV ● This increase in time in some cases, is consistent with MGP survey results showing an average increased of waiting times from 9.3 to 10.4 minutes, comparing baseline with endline, and an overall reduction in citizen satisfaction from 4.40 to 4.28 (a 2.7% decrease). In Cohort 1, before this change was implemented, the user satisfaction survey reported a slight increase of 0.7% (from 4.28 to 4.31) as compared to the 2.8% reduction in Cohort 2 (from 4.54 to 4.41).24. ● In San Salvador the creation of a digitalized process to add addenda (marginalizaciones) to REF documentation, as well as adding a dedicated server and terminals with greater capacity thus enabling the networking and online access to REF systems, are cited as key technological innovations that improved the efficiency of this service. With respect to the changes in the REF system, there was resistance from staff accustomed to the previous system and way of working. However, this resistance reportedly dissipated as the staff was able to the perceive the positive results in the efficiency of their service and the reaction of the users. v. CHANGES IN MUNICIPAL HISTORIC CENTERS. Municipal and MGP representatives, and MGP documentation indicate that the key changes the municipalities made to revitalize the historical urban centers were the preparation or strengthening of Strategic Plans for historic center revitalization which articulated long-term visions for urban revitalization and oriented the prioritization demonstration initiatives in urban upgrading in public spaces. Local CSOs were strengthened and animated economic and cultural dynamization of renovated public spaces. Revitalization actions enabled walking and socializing, using new urban furniture in pedestrian promenades, and enjoying embellished landscapes. ● Although the new municipal authorities elected in 2021 in San Salvador, Santa Ana and San Miguel reoriented MGP investment priorities, the strategic plan maintained their relevance as an articulation of strategic vision to guide these new authorities. In San Salvador, the CHSS revitalization team eliminated actions they felt were not directly relevant to their larger effort to position the Historic Center. They however took up key elements from the first revitalization project, first phase (2015-2017). The urban furniture provided by MGP is a valued, although limited, contribution to a much larger multi – million-dollar project of urban revitalization that the municipality is coordinating with the GOES, including significant investments by the newly created DOM. ● A member of the Santa Ana revitalization team considers the most important project implemented with MGP support was painting of the Arts Center, as this is used for different types of artistic training, a library, the tourism office, as well as the establishment of the pedestrian promenade to complement tactical urban architecture interventions, now used by citizens as a place to rest, relax and socialize in the shade. These priorities were established in the Strategic Plan and carried through to completion by the new municipal authorities. Scaling up the pilot initiatives to no longer allowing parking on streets now used exclusively by pedestrians is a challenging complex issue. In Santa Ana, the historical center revitalization office is supporting the creation of private parking lots in the historical center, facilitating communication with the Ministry of Culture to get the necessary permissions. The new market under construction will also have a parking lot. They are working to resolve the parking issue so as not to limit creating additional pedestrian promenades. 145 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT USAID.GOV ● The different ICT web based technological innovations supported were potentially impactful instruments to dynamize revitalization, communicating key information to motivate investors and tourists. In San Salvador, the OPAMSS developed a Geoportal with strategic information for real estate investors and a manual for properly dealing with structurally damaged buildings. In San Miguel, the UGB developed a similar data base and web platform to provide useful information to investors. These knowledge products were publicly presented as the MGP was ending. In San Salvador, a new webpage and application designed to position the historical center as a tourist destination, were valued but still unfinished contributions with final details of updated imagery, solving technical problems and ensuring full administrative privileges for municipal technical team pending. ● The strategy of establishing roundtable mechanisms designed stimulate active participation of relevant central government, business and civil society actors did not generate the expected results dynamize the historic center revitalization efforts. Limited advances were made in Santa Ana and San Miguel, but with limited functioning at the end of project implementation. In San Salvador the municipality had well established mechanisms for direct communication with the central governmental and other relevant actors “involved in the development of the CHSS”, and thus no felt need for such a roundtable. ● The relation between the municipal historical center revitalization teams, and the CSO contracted by the MGP to dynamize revitalized public spaces and generate new cultural tourism circuits (San Miguel) is limited and difficult to describe as strategic. Santa Ana the only evidence of a direct relation was the municipal invitation for the FBA to mobilize people with artistic talent to participate in the inauguration of the revitalization project, and then participation together in the community of practice. A municipal reference person said they were thinking about future events involving both the Arts and Culture unit of the municipality and FBA. An FBA representative said they have not been included in any future municipal plans, similar to the MGP. 146 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT USAID.GOV C. KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT COMMUNITIES OF PRACTICE We were leading two sessions, we had the experience and saw many municipalities that after two years of having the problem, they wanted to solve it later, we already had that initiative a long time ago and we were able to solve it. That allowed to compare us with them and be an example and be able to recommend them how was the route to reach the solution in a short time. __Male, Financial Manager Community of Practice for mi is one of those things that you do not know you have a need for it, but when you find it, you cannot leave it. - Municipal staff, Service delivery Participants in the different communities of practice perceive the mechanism’ important as key interactive learning spaces, for sharing experiences and learning practical lessons from knowledgeable colleagues, strengthening capabilities to solve specific routine work related problems in innovative ways. Access and networking opportunities with representatives from national institutions to discuss challenges faced applying new legal / regulatory frameworks was especially valued. The different communities of practice were facilitated by an expert consultant and a member of the MGP technical team. The communities of practice were formed so that people working in similar municipal services (REF, solid waste management), municipal finances and historical center revitalization con discuss key themes related to the work and learn from each other´s experiences. They served as interactive learning spaces that were highly valued by different municipal participants as ideal for sharing experiences and practical learning about how to solve specific routine problems they were facing at work. This was reflected in the answers of the 28% of municipal employees that answered the evaluation survey. From what they learning they were also able to solve their problems in applying new national laws and creating new municipal service ordinances, in innovative ways. The participants were motivated by their recognized need to always learn something new in relation to the dynamically changing circumstances in which they are working. Their expectations were met without notable exceptions as they perceived significant benefits from participation, both on a personal and institutional basis. Even though they are all very busy in their work, they made the effort to create space to participate in the in-person meetings. They were able to unify criteria in relation to their work, learn from sharing their knowledge and meet new people dedicated to the same tasks in different municipal contexts. The participants were able to find value in discussing similar problems and alternatives to solve them, even though the municipalities were quite different between them in relation to the services they provide (e.g., Tecoluca vs Mejicanos). The participants could also network with others through communication outside of the meetings to look for solutions to problems through their WhatsApp groups or directly, and formed a sense of community, confidence, and common purpose between them. The convening of experts and focusing on practical concrete issues such the discussion about the use of digital signatures with an expert from CNR was positively valued by a participant in the REF community of practice, according to a MGP expert. Recognition of the importance of understanding the legal frameworks, like the Law of Administrative Procedures, and their implications for the municipal administrative procedures related in different ways to service provision to make necessary adjustments. In the case of the REF community of practice they were able to create a list of perceived weaknesses in the RPN systems they were implementing, discuss these with the institutional representatives. This 147 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT USAID.GOV advocacy effort would not have been possibly on an individual municipal basis. Although the end results were not what were expected, as not all the changes were made, but as a network they were able to identify them collectively and implemented them. In the case of the community of practice for historical center revitalization, this role of convening external actors was also played by the municipality of San Salvador given their level of political connectedness. The community of practice established between members of the municipal historical centers was revitalization teams was especially relevant for members from Santa Ana and San Miguel who could learn from the more experienced team from San Salvador in establishing their strategic revitalization effort, how to deal with contractors, specialized service providers, the political agenda of the central government, how to navigate specific regulatory processes in Ministry of Culture and the VMT, etc. MIACCION also shared what they had learned from their experience with animation of cultural tourism in San Miguel. Participants considered these mechanisms key to resolving many “headaches” and was positively valued as something that “you initially don´t have the identifiable need for, but when you encounter it, you can leave it. You don´t know that you need it, until you see it in implementation”. The networking connections made were maintained outside the specific meetings and would have been difficult to make on a case-by-case municipal basis. Municipal technical staff and MGP experts argued that the demonstrated cohesion and the recent dynamics of the community of practice for historical center revitalization suggest that it could be sustainable, as a valued interactive learning space. However, there is significantly less potential for the sustainability of the communities of practice related to municipal finances and service provision. In each community of practice, a small coordinating group was formed, with the objective of being able to continue to convene and facilitate the meetings after the expert facilitators supported by the MGP were no longer available. However, in all registered cases, discussed in the two focus groups and interviews, there have been difficulties to continue meeting on a regular basis, although there is also a manifest motivation to continue to do so. A significant challenge is for the municipalities to provide support to grant time off or leave of absence time for training, as well as a means of transport to participate in the meetings if they are in person, and municipal representatives said this would be difficult or impossible. The project also covered expenses related to food for participants. 148 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT USAID.GOV EVALUATION TOOLKIT ANNEX H: CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURES This document includes a template for disclosure of real or potential conflict of interest for USAID external evaluations and instructions. Instructions Evaluations of USAID activities will be undertaken so that they are not subject to the perception or reality of biased measurement or reporting due to conflict of interest.1 For external evaluations, all external evaluation team leaders and team members will provide a signed statement attesting to a lack of conflict of interest or describing an existing conflict of interest relative to the activity being evaluated.2 USAID employees who participate as a team member on an external evaluation should not complete this form. Evaluators of USAID activities have a responsibility to maintain independence so that opinions, conclusions, judgments, and recommendations will be impartial and will be viewed as impartial by third parties. External evaluators and evaluation team members are to disclose all relevant facts regarding real or potential conflicts of interest that could lead reasonable third parties with knowledge of the relevant facts and circumstances to conclude that the evaluator or evaluation team member is not able to maintain independence and, thus, is not capable of exercising objective and impartial judgment on all issues associated with conducting and reporting the work. Operating Unit leadership, in close consultation with the Contracting Officer, will determine whether the real or potential conflict of interest is one that should disqualify an individual from the evaluation team or require recusal by that individual from evaluating certain aspects of the activity(s). In addition, if evaluation team members gain access to proprietary information of other companies in the process of conducting the evaluation, then they must agree with the other companies to protect their information from unauthorized use or disclosure for as long as it remains proprietary and refrain from using the information for any purpose other than that for which it was furnished. REAL OR POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST MAY INCLUDE, BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO: 1. Immediate family or close family member who is an employee of the USAID operating unit managing the activity(s) being evaluated or the implementing organization(s) whose activity(s) are being evaluated. 2. Financial interest that is direct, or is significant/material though indirect, in the implementing organization(s) whose activities are being evaluated or in the outcome of the evaluation. 3. Current or previous direct or significant/material though indirect experience with the activities being evaluated, including involvement in the activity design or previous iterations. 4. Current or previous work experience or seeking employment with the USAID operating unit managing the evaluation or the implementing organization(s) whose activity(s) are being evaluated. 5. Current or previous work experience with an organization that may be seen as an industry competitor with the implementing organization(s) whose activity(s) are being evaluated. 6. Preconceived ideas toward individuals, groups, organizations, or objectives of the particular activities and organizations being evaluated that could bias the evaluation. 149 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT USAID.GOV Name Betty Margot Lozan Title Team Leader, Municipal Governance Project Organization EnCompass LLC Evaluation Position X Team Leader Team member Evaluation Award Number (contract or other instrument) 72051922F00003 USAID Activity(s) Evaluated (Include activity name(s), implementer name(s) and award number(s), if applicable) Final evaluation of Municipal Governance Project, El Salvador I have real or potential conflicts of interest to disclose. Yes X No If yes answered above, I disclose the following facts: Real or potential conflicts of interest may include, but are not limited to: 1. Close family member who is an employee of the USAID operating unit managing the activity(s) being evaluated or the implementing organization(s) whose activity(s) are being evaluated. 2. Financial interest that is direct, or is significant though indirect, in the implementing organization(s) whose activities are being evaluated or in the outcome of the evaluation. 3. Current or previous direct or significant though indirect experience with the activity(s) being evaluated, including involvement in the activity design or previous iterations of the activity. 150 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT USAID.GOV CONTINUED If yes answered above, I disclose the following facts: Real or potential conflicts of interest may include, but are not limited to: 4. Current or previous work experience or seeking employment with the USAID operating unit managing the evaluation or the implementing organization(s) whose activity(s) are being evaluated. 5. Current or previous work experience with an organization that may be seen as an industry competitor with the implementing organization(s) whose activity(s) are being evaluated. 6. Preconceived ideas toward individuals, groups, organizations, or objectives of the particular activities and organizations being evaluated that could bias the evaluation. I certify (1) that I have completed this disclosure form fully and to the best of my ability and (2) that I will update this disclosure form promptly if relevant circumstances change. If I gain access to proprietary information of other companies, then I agree to protect their information from unauthorized use or disclosure for as long as it remains proprietary and refrain from using the information for any purpose other than that for which it was furnished. Date July 26, 2023 Signature 151 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT USAID.GOV Name Andrew Roberts Cummings Title Municipal Administration Specialist Organization EnCompass LLC Evaluation Position Team Leader X Team member Evaluation Award Number (contract or other instrument) 72051922F00003 USAID Activity(s) Evaluated (Include activity name(s), implementer name(s) and award number(s), if applicable) Final evaluation of Municipal Governance Project, El Salvador I have real or potential conflicts of interest to disclose. Yes X No If yes answered above, I disclose the following facts: Real or potential conflicts of interest may include, but are not limited to: 1. Close family member who is an employee of the USAID operating unit managing the activity(s) being evaluated or the implementing organization(s) whose activity(s) are being evaluated. 2. Financial interest that is direct, or is significant though indirect, in the implementing organization(s) whose activities are being evaluated or in the outcome of the evaluation. 3. Current or previous direct or significant though indirect experience with the activity(s) being evaluated, including involvement in the activity design or previous iterations of the activity. 152 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT USAID.GOV CONTINUED If yes answered above, I disclose the following facts: Real or potential conflicts of interest may include, but are not limited to: 4. Current or previous work experience or seeking employment with the USAID operating unit managing the evaluation or the implementing organization(s) whose activity(s) are being evaluated. 5. Current or previous work experience with an organization that may be seen as an industry competitor with the implementing organization(s) whose activity(s) are being evaluated. 6. Preconceived ideas toward individuals, groups, organizations, or objectives of the particular activities and organizations being evaluated that could bias the evaluation. I certify (1) that I have completed this disclosure form fully and to the best of my ability and (2) that I will update this disclosure form promptly if relevant circumstances change. If I gain access to proprietary information of other companies, then I agree to protect their information from unauthorized use or disclosure for as long as it remains proprietary and refrain from using the information for any purpose other than that for which it was furnished. Date July 28, 2023 Signature 153 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT USAID.GOV Name MARGARITA SANCHEZ VALENCA Title CSO/ COMMUNITIES SEPCIALIST Organization EnCompass Worldwide Evaluation Position Team Leader Team member Evaluation Award Number (contract or other instrument) 72051922F00003 USAID Activity(s) Evaluated (Include activity name(s), implementer name(s) and award number(s), if applicable) Final evaluation of Municipal Governance Project, El Salvador I have real or potential conflicts of interest to disclose. Yes X No If yes answered above, I disclose the following facts: Real or potential conflicts of interest may include, but are not limited to: 1. Close family member who is an employee of the USAID operating unit managing the activity(s) being evaluated or the implementing organization(s) whose activity(s) are being evaluated. 2. Financial interest that is direct, or is significant though indirect, in the implementing organization(s) whose activities are being evaluated or in the outcome of the evaluation. 3. Current or previous direct or significant though indirect experience with the activity(s) being evaluated, including involvement in the activity design or previous iterations of the activity. 154 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT USAID.GOV CONTINUED If yes answered above, I disclose the following facts: Real or potential conflicts of interest may include, but are not limited to: 4. Current or previous work experience or seeking employment with the USAID operating unit managing the evaluation or the implementing organization(s) whose activity(s) are being evaluated. 5. Current or previous work experience with an organization that may be seen as an industry competitor with the implementing organization(s) whose activity(s) are being evaluated. 6. Preconceived ideas toward individuals, groups, organizations, or objectives of the particular activities and organizations being evaluated that could bias the evaluation. I certify (1) that I have completed this disclosure form fully and to the best of my ability and (2) that I will update this disclosure form promptly if relevant circumstances change. If I gain access to proprietary information of other companies, then I agree to protect their information from unauthorized use or disclosure for as long as it remains proprietary and refrain from using the information for any purpose other than that for which it was furnished. Date 23 August 2023 Signature 155 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT USAID.GOV Name Walter Mejía Title Statistician/Data Collector, Municipal Governance Evaluation Organization Encompass LLC Evaluation Position Team Leader Team member Evaluation Award Number (contract or other instrument) 72051922F00003 USAID Activity(s) Evaluated (Include activity name(s), implementer name(s) and award number(s), if applicable) Final evaluation of Municipal Governance Project, El Salvador I have real or potential conflicts of interest to disclose. Yes No If yes answered above, I disclose the following facts: Real or potential conflicts of interest may include, but are not limited to: 1. Close family member who is an employee of the USAID operating unit managing the activity(s) being evaluated or the implementing organization(s) whose activity(s) are being evaluated. 2. Financial interest that is direct, or is significant though indirect, in the implementing organization(s) whose activities are being evaluated or in the outcome of the evaluation. 3. Current or previous direct or significant though indirect experience with the activity(s) being evaluated, including involvement in the activity design or previous iterations of the activity. 156 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT USAID.GOV CONTINUED If yes answered above, I disclose the following facts: Real or potential conflicts of interest may include, but are not limited to: 4. Current or previous work experience or seeking employment with the USAID operating unit managing the evaluation or the implementing organization(s) whose activity(s) are being evaluated. 5. Current or previous work experience with an organization that may be seen as an industry competitor with the implementing organization(s) whose activity(s) are being evaluated. 6. Preconceived ideas toward individuals, groups, organizations, or objectives of the particular activities and organizations being evaluated that could bias the evaluation. I certify (1) that I have completed this disclosure form fully and to the best of my ability and (2) that I will update this disclosure form promptly if relevant circumstances change. If I gain access to proprietary information of other companies, then I agree to protect their information from unauthorized use or disclosure for as long as it remains proprietary and refrain from using the information for any purpose other than that for which it was furnished. Date 07/26/2023 Signature 157 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT USAID.GOV Name Marvin Josué Flamenco Cortez Title Data Collector Organization EnCompass LLC Evaluation Position Team Leader Team member Evaluation Award Number (contract or other instrument) 72051922F00003 USAID Activity(s) Evaluated (Include activity name(s), implementer name(s) and award number(s), if applicable) Final evaluation of Municipal Governance Project, El Salvador I have real or potential conflicts of interest to disclose. Yes No If yes answered above, I disclose the following facts: Real or potential conflicts of interest may include, but are not limited to: 1. Close family member who is an employee of the USAID operating unit managing the activity(s) being evaluated or the implementing organization(s) whose activity(s) are being evaluated. 2. Financial interest that is direct, or is significant though indirect, in the implementing organization(s) whose activities are being evaluated or in the outcome of the evaluation. 3. Current or previous direct or significant though indirect experience with the activity(s) being evaluated, including involvement in the activity design or previous iterations of the activity. 158 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT USAID.GOV CONTINUED If yes answered above, I disclose the following facts: Real or potential conflicts of interest may include, but are not limited to: 4. Current or previous work experience or seeking employment with the USAID operating unit managing the evaluation or the implementing organization(s) whose activity(s) are being evaluated. 5. Current or previous work experience with an organization that may be seen as an industry competitor with the implementing organization(s) whose activity(s) are being evaluated. 6. Preconceived ideas toward individuals, groups, organizations, or objectives of the particular activities and organizations being evaluated that could bias the evaluation. I certify (1) that I have completed this disclosure form fully and to the best of my ability and (2) that I will update this disclosure form promptly if relevant circumstances change. If I gain access to proprietary information of other companies, then I agree to protect their information from unauthorized use or disclosure for as long as it remains proprietary and refrain from using the information for any purpose other than that for which it was furnished. Date Aug 22, 2023 Signature 159 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT USAID.GOV Name Johanna Ercilia Constanza Santamaría Title Task Manager Organization EnCompass LLC Evaluation Position Team Leader Team member Task Manager Evaluation Award Number (contract or other instrument) 72051922F00003 USAID Activity(s) Evaluated (Include activity name(s), implementer name(s) and award number(s), if applicable) Final evaluation of Municipal Governance Project, El Salvador I have real or potential conflicts of interest to disclose. Yes No If yes answered above, I disclose the following facts: Real or potential conflicts of interest may include, but are not limited to: 4. Close family member who is an employee of the USAID operating unit managing the activity(s) being evaluated or the implementing organization(s) whose activity(s) are being evaluated. 5. Financial interest that is direct, or is significant though indirect, in the implementing organization(s) whose activities are being evaluated or in the outcome of the evaluation. 6. Current or previous direct or significant though indirect experience with the activity(s) being evaluated, including involvement in the activity design or previous iterations of the activity. 160 | FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF THE USAID MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE PROJECT USAID.GOV CONTINUED If yes answered above, I disclose the following facts: Real or potential conflicts of interest may include, but are not limited to: 4. Current or previous work experience or seeking employment with the USAID operating unit managing the evaluation or the implementing organization(s) whose activity(s) are being evaluated. 5. Current or previous work experience with an organization that may be seen as an industry competitor with the implementing organization(s) whose activity(s) are being evaluated. 6. Preconceived ideas toward individuals, groups, organizations, or objectives of the particular activities and organizations being evaluated that could bias the evaluation. I certify (1) that I have completed this disclosure form fully and to the best of my ability and (2) that I will update this disclosure form promptly if relevant circumstances change. If I gain access to proprietary information of other companies, then I agree to protect their information from unauthorized use or disclosure for as long as it remains proprietary and refrain from using the information for any purpose other than that for which it was furnished. Date Aug 22, 2023 Signature