mid-term performance evaluation legislative …

MAY 2017 This publication was produced at the request of the United States Agency for International Development. It was prepared independently by Democracy International, Inc. under Order No. AID-624-TO-17-00001, Contract No. AID-OAA-I-15-00017

MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION LEGISLATIVE STRENGTHENING PROGRAM FINAL EVALUATION REPORT

DISCLAIMER This is an external report. The views expressed in this document are the authors' and do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for International Development or the United States Government. Submitted to: USAID/Côte d’Ivoire Prepared by: Frank Hawes, Team Leader John Bosley, Subject Matter Expert Dr. Assi Jose Carlos Kimou, Locally-based Expert Yapi Sostene, Logistics and interview reporting assistant Contractor: Democracy International, Inc. 7600 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 1010 Bethesda, MD 20814 Tel: 301-961-1660 www.democracyinternational.com

MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION LEGISLATIVE STRENGTHENING PROGRAM FINAL EVALUATION REPORT

MAY 2017

TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF ACRONYMS ................................................................................................................................ VII

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .......................................................................................................................... IX

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................................. 1

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ................................................................................................ 65

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................................................ 65 BACKGROUND ON THE LSP PROJECT ........................................................................................................................................... 65 PROJECT “COLLECTIVE” APPROACH ............................................................................................................................................. 98 SUMMARY PROFILE OF PROJECT ACTIVITIES .................................................................................................................................. 98

EVALUATION METHODOLOGY .......................................................................................................... 109

EVALUATION QUESTIONS AND METHODOLOGICAL APPROACHES ....................................................................................... 1110 INTERVIEWS AND FOCUS GROUPS ............................................................................................................................................ 1211 CITIZEN PERCEPTION SURVEY ................................................................................................................................................... 1211 DATA AND ANALYSIS LIMITATIONS .......................................................................................................................................... 1312

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................................ 1413

EVALUATION QUESTION #1 ..................................................................................................................................................... 1413 EVALUATION QUESTION #2 ..................................................................................................................................................... 2019 EVALUATION QUESTION #3 ..................................................................................................................................................... 2625 EVALUATION QUESTION #4 ..................................................................................................................................................... 2928

CONCLUSIONS ...................................................................................................................................... 3230

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF KEY PROJECT PERFORMANCE INDICATORS .............................................................................. 3230 EFFECTIVENESS AND RELEVANCY OF THE PROJECT APPROACH .............................................................................................. 3331 PROJECT MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................................................ 3533 LESSONS LEARNED ..................................................................................................................................................................... 3533

ANNEX A: STATEMENT OF WORK ..................................................................................................... A-1

ANNEX B: KEY INFORMANTS .............................................................................................................. B-1

ANNEX C: INTERVIEW PROTOCOL ................................................................................................... C-1

ANNEX D: CITIZEN SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE ............................................................................... D-1

LEGISLATIVE STRENGTHENING PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE .............................................. D-1

ANNEX E: SURVEY RESULTS ................................................................................................................. E-1

EVALUATION QUESTION 1 ........................................................................................................................................................... E-3 EVALUATION QUESTION 2 ........................................................................................................................................................... E-5 EVALUATION QUESTION 2A ......................................................................................................................................................... E-9 EVALUATION QUESTION 2B ....................................................................................................................................................... E-12 EVALUATION QUESTION 3 ......................................................................................................................................................... E-16 EVALUATION QUESTION 4 ......................................................................................................................................................... E-18

ANNEX F: LIST OF DOCUMENTS REVIEWED .................................................................................... F-1

ANNEX G: PLATFORM CASE STUDY – ABENGOUROU ................................................................. G-1

ANNEX H: LSP “COLLECTIVE” PARTNERS ....................................................................................... H-1

ANNEX I: PROJECT PERFORMANCE RELATIVE TO PSAN AND EVALUATION QUESTIONS. I-1

ANALYSIS BY STRATEGIC PLAN ...................................................................................................................................................... I-1 ANALYSIS OF PERFORMANCE BY EVALUATION QUESTION .......................................................................................................... I-5

ANNEX J: RATING SCALE SCORES........................................................................................................ J-1

ANNEX K: COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF LSP PERFORMANCE INDICATORS ......................... K-1

ANNEX L: TABLES OF LSP ACTIVITIES DELIVERED ........................................................................ L-1

TABLE L#1: COMPONENT 1 ACTIVITIES DELIVERED .................................................................................................................... L-1 TABLE L#2: COMPONENT 2 ACTIVITIES DELIVERED .................................................................................................................. L-98

ANNEX M: LSP PERFORMANCE INDICATORS ................................................................................. M-1

LIST OF ACRONYMS ANCI National Assembly of Côte d'Ivoire

ANQ National Assembly of Quebec

ANRMP National Public Procurement Regulatory Authority

APF Parliamentary Assembly of the Francophonie

APNAC African Parliamentarian Network against Corruption

CAEF Commission on Economic and Financial Affairs

CAPEC Economic Policy Analysis Cell of CIRES

CASC Social and Cultural Affairs Commission

CEI Electoral Commission Bureau

CICAN National Assembly Communications Unit

CIE Ivorian Electricity Company

CITI2 Côte d’Ivoire Transition Initiative2

CIRES Centre Ivoirien de Recherches Economiques et Sociales

CNC National Coalition for Change

C1 LSP Component 1

C2 LSP Component 2

CO Contracting Officer

COP Chief of Party

COR Cognizant Officer Representative

CRSTE Commission of Research, Science, Technology and Environment

CSC Citizen Scorecard

CSO Civil Society Organization

CSR Corporate Social Responsibility

DGDDL Directorate-General of Decentralization and Local Development

DSL Director of Legislative Services

FEMPACI Constitutive General Assembly of the Women Caucus

GoCI Government of Côte d'Ivoire

GOPAC Global Organization of Parliamentarians against Corruption

HABG High Authority for Good Governance

HR Human Resources

ICT Information and Communications Technology

IFES International Foundation for Electoral Systems

IGF Inspector General of Finance

ISTC Communication Sciences and Technology Institute

LSP Legislative Strengthening Program

LTTA Long Term Technical Assistance

M&E Monitoring and Evaluation

MACA Abidjan Remand and Reformatory Home

MOU Memorandum of Understanding

MP Member of Parliament

NDI National Democratic Institute

NGO Non-Governmental Organization

ONUCI United Nations Organizations in Côte d'Ivoire

PAC Program Advisory Committee

PNCS National Program on Social Cohesion

PSAN National Assembly Strategic Plan

PTAN National Assembly Work Plan

ROSCI-CCAP Network of Ivorian Civil Society Organizations on Citizen Oversight of Public Actions

SDA Documentation and Archive Service

SEAP Education and Parliamentary Assistance Service

SG Secretary General, National Assembly

SNRC Capacity Building National Secretariat

SUNY/CID State University of New York / Center for International Development

UNCAC UN Convention Against Corruption

UNDP United Nations Development Program

USAID United States Agency for International Development

WANEP West Africa Network for Peace-Building

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Democracy International is thankful to USAID and SUNY/CID for their effort during this process. We are also grateful to the National Assembly and its leadership, deputies, their supplicants, local governments, community leaders and civil society organizations of the different cities visited. We highly appreciate their support and availability during the field data collection and their participation in the learning workshop.

MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF LSP – FINAL REPORT 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of the evaluation is to assess and document the extent to which the LSP project is achieving its objectives and to make recommendations to improve the project during its concluding six months of operations.

LSP supports the USG global vision of strengthening democratic institutions and promoting accountable governance. The project started in January 2013, was officially launched May 16th, 2013 and will end in December 2017. Its budget is $10.9 million. State University of New York/Center for International Development (SUNY/CID) is the project implementing partner. Its main host partner is the National Assembly of Côte d’Ivoire, which had been nearly decimated as an institution during the 10-year civil war. The thrust of project activities are parallel to the objectives of the National Assembly Strategic Plan (PSAN). In addition, the project implementation strategy was based on a “collective” approach involving 18 implementing partners, also by way of the structure of the PSAN, delivering training, financing activities or providing technical assistance.

LSP PROJECT OBJECTIVES 1. COMPONENT 1. Improve the Government of Côte d’Ivoire’s National Assembly as an institution,

thereby enabling it to better fulfill its legislative, oversight, and representational functions;

2. COMPONENT 2. Improve representation by the National Assembly Deputies in a selected number of communes (constituencies).

Component 1 has a traditional institutional capacity building focus to improve the performance of the legislature’s functions, while Component 2 is unusual in its effort to improve representation, possibly unique in its approach. Twenty-Four Communes (constituencies) were selected, along with the MPs representing these communes, to participate in a “Community Pilot Platform” having the dual objectives to increase MP representation and improve public service delivery in the pilot communes. “Platforms” were comprised of 20-30 designated members from local government and civil society, who together with the MP, would work with local municipal or regional authorities to identify and target three public service priorities. Platforms did not have any financial resources to invest or fix public services; hence, Platforms were advocacy organizations. Platform members also benefitted from capacity building activities.

The evaluation was required to respond to four somewhat overlapping questions:

1. Which of the collective approaches promoted by LSP were effective in building the management capacity of the administration of the National Assembly? What gaps remain?

2. To what extent did LSP interventions promote the representational function of MPs in the 24 targeted constituencies? How were oversight functions improved? What change if any was noted in increased capacity of Deputies to perform their legislative functions?

3. How are LSP activities changing the perception of constituents of MPs and the National Assembly? 4. How did the creation of collaborative platforms in each pilot commune change the understanding of

deputy’s role and help to improve the delivery of the basic services at grassroots? What are the key barriers that need to be addressed?

Evaluation field work was conducted in Côte d’Ivoire by a team of four consultants during a four-week period – February 25 to March 24, 2017. Some 150 persons were interviewed or participated in focus group discussions. Field work took place in Abidjan, primarily within the National Assembly, and in eight of the 24 communes where Pilot Platforms were established. The 150 subjects were also administered a brief rating scale questionnaire to quantify their opinions on changes in the National Assembly, MPs performance, and extent of improvements to public services. In addition, a statistically representative citizen perception survey


was independently conducted in a sample of communes where the project has intervened (treatment group) and communes where the project has not intervened (control group). This survey of 2,400 randomly selected persons asked respondents questions relevant to the evaluation. At the conclusion of field work, a “Learning Workshop” was organized by DI to present interim findings to stakeholders and to gather feedback.

The evaluation Statement of Work called for findings, conclusions and recommendations to be linked directly to each of the four evaluation questions. This procedure has been followed in the main body of the report, although, as noted, questions have similarities resulting in some repetition of findings.

The report also addresses a wider project performance question, namely the extent to which the National Assembly has changed and been strengthened as a result of the project. This question, raised during the Learning Workshop, is addressed by comparing the profiles of the National Assembly before 2013 and today, using PSAN strategic objectives as an assessment framework.

KEY FINDINGS Question 1. Which of the collective approaches promoted by LSP were effective in building the management capacity of the administration of the National Assembly? What gaps are there that still need to be addressed?

1. The most effective “collective” approach by LSP began with the recognition, as articulated by the Senior Advisor to the Speaker of the National Assembly, of the importance to the National Assembly that they were the ‘owners’ of all of the ‘reforms’.1 First LSP helped the National Assembly to develop/elaborate the National Assembly’s Strategic Plan (PSAN). It was then adopted by the National Assembly. Then LSP made the PSAN the operational basis for the LSP.

2. The quality of this strategy was evidenced by the decision by all the other donors and partners to adopt the National Assembly Strategic Plan and the National Assembly Work Plan (“PTAN”) as the overarching framework for all their technical inputs and contributions. This was extremely effective. It mobilized additional resources, specialized technical assistance and added value through other donors. A total of 18 partners delivered or funded PSAN-defined activities, comprising about half of LSP’s work plans, estimated to be worth 25 percent of programming costs. Management capacity was developed through many capacity building activities delivered by the partners or LSP. (see list of partners and activities delivered in Annex H)

3. Relative to standards of effective African parliaments, gaps are nevertheless significant. A strong, independent institution having adequate powers for oversight, legislation and internal budgeting remains a distant goal. These gaps were mainly covered by PSAN objectives, but not implemented. They include budget management capacity, reform of rules, establishing a Gender Committee, strengthening parliamentary research services, and human resources management, including an HR Plan and staffing plans (such as replacing the 15 project-funded staff).

4. The thrust of PSAN is clearly to build a parliament headed towards the above standards. LSP, however, was not so ambitious. Its first objective to “improve” the National Assembly as an institution, does not explicitly state LSP is supporting the creation of an independent parliament. The LSP development hypothesis, however,, implies building or strengthening an independent institution, since “significant increase in the accountability of the state” cannot otherwise take place.

1 The Senior Advisor to the Speaker corrected the consultants when they referred to the LSP as a USAID project; he stressed it was a National Assembly project. It was clear that the project mattered to the National Assembly precisely because it was ‘theirs’.


Question 2. To what extent did LSP interventions promote the representational function of MPs in the 24 targeted constituencies? How were oversight functions improved? What change if any was noted in increased capacity of Deputies to perform their legislative functions?

1. Representation was effectively promoted by the Platform intervention concept, as found in both interviews and the citizen survey. Representation at the commune level was found to be effective when there was Platform leadership, and especially when an office facility was available. The case study of Abengourou (see Annex G) captures a convincing picture of why strong, participatory leadership combined with office staff and facilities leads to good results.

2. The oversight and legislative functions of the National Assembly were somewhat strengthened by the project. As a result of the 11 oversight missions and the Guide funded by LSP, the Commissions of the Assembly have learned how to do “fact-finding” very well. On the other hand, LSP contemplated that the powers of the Commissions’ would be strengthened through changes in the rules (Standing Orders). Similarly, the capacity to review and to write comprehensible and effective legislation (particularly amendments) was improved through training and the provision of expert assistants. In addition, LSP had targeted support for private members’ Bills as a key reform issue (the Baseline Needs Assessment stressed this point, was endorsed by the National Assembly in 2013, and was defined in PSAN Axis 2, Capacity to Initiate Laws). Today, there are still no private member Bills, nor did the project undertake any activities to support this reform. Activities at the Platform level were not directed to legislation – but they did help the members of the Platforms perform an oversight role – by improving the performance of local governments.

Question 3. How are LSP activities changing the perception of constituents of MPs and the National Assembly?

1. Based on interview and focus group findings, the project has contributed to changing perceptions of constituents towards MPs. However, these changing perceptions may be limited to persons involved with LSP, since the broader citizen survey findings only partially support change in perceptions in the general population. While 70 percent of the 150 people interviewed for this evaluation said their perception towards the National Assembly was more positive than three years ago, and 67 percent had positive perceptions of their MPs, results of the citizen perception survey show more mixed, and less positive results. Overall, approval ratings of MPs are quite modest: just under one third of respondents in both LSP communes and control communes agree their MPs are “generally good” at their jobs today. However, statistically and substantively fewer respondents in LSP communes (57 percent) than control communes (63 percent) believe their MPs are doing a bad job.

Perceptions towards the National Assembly are similarly less positive than interview and focus groups respondents suggest. 48 percent of citizens in pilot communes saw no changes at all in the National Assembly during the past years compared to 58 percent in control communes, and a higher percentage of pilot commune respondents identify negative changes (21 percent) than respondents in control communes (16 percent). If nothing else, this suggests LSP raised awareness enough to enable people to make an informed opinion.

Question 4. How did the creation of collaborative platforms in each pilot commune change the understanding of deputy’s role and help to improve the delivery of the basic services at grassroots? What are the key barriers that need to be addressed?

1. Interviews found that the Platform concept has contributed to changing understanding of the MPs role, towards stronger representation and a ‘service attitude,’ a role of helping citizens with public service delivery problems. It may be that MP constituency offices, supported by a committed and available MP, outreach to citizen groups and formulating development goals,


would achieve the same changed understanding. Improvements in public service delivery (the other aspect target to Platforms) took place in some communes where Platforms were active, on a modest scale, nevertheless motivating to those who witnessed the potential for influence on the local environment through advocacy. In this aspect, Platforms could also be effective with leadership from local government who hold the necessary resources.

CONCLUSIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED The project has been successful at working in a complex, political environment, and delivering much training and capacity building. A very significant number of activities have been delivered, as seen in the activity tables in Annex I, and judging by responses to the rating scales capturing their opinions, beneficiaries were very satisfied with them.2

That there are gaps and that activities planned by LSP did not materialize comes as no surprise. Supporting parliamentary institutions is one of the most difficult of development undertakings. Thomas Carothers, in his 1999 book, Aiding Democracy Abroad: The Learning Curve (Carnegie Endowment for International Peace), wrote:

If asked to name the area of democracy assistance that most often falls short of its goals, I would have to point to legislative assistance. Its record is riddled with disappointment and failure. (Pages 181-182)

Parliaments are political institutions, whereas development projects target technical and institutional dimensions. It is very unrealistic to expect significant institutional change in a few years even in the best of cases. Having only recently ended 10 years of civil war, the National Assembly faces greater challenges than most Parliaments In these circumstances the LSP has performed well. The slow and difficult start combined with national elections meant that some activities began as little as one year ago (the implementation of Platforms, for example). Although this is a performance, not an impact evaluation, it nevertheless can be premature to assess if LSP successfully accomplished its outcomes, given that it takes time for changes of this magnitude to take hold. Although the National Assembly was not willing to proceed with the more significant reforms defined in its strategic plan– such as beginning the process to reform Standing Orders (internal rules), and oversight of budgets (national and internal) – the project made considerable progress in “improving” the National Assembly and as a ‘trusted companion.’ Because of these gains, as we argue in the recommendations section, the evaluation team believes that LSP has a real opportunity for supporting significant reforms, should the project continue over the coming years.

RECOMMENDATIONS An exit strategy should be prepared by LSP and formally discussed with National Assembly. USAID as the departing donor should play an active role in finding a transition allowing the potential for achievements to be sustained.

The exit strategy should include:

analysis of costs and benefits of the existing program components funded by LSP;

a map of the regulatory environment, the rules and constitutional provisions that give and restrict powers. This will enable those preparing reforms to identify both the regulatory gaps, and where powers exist on paper but are not made use of in practice.

Ideally, resources permitting, USAID should extend the project for three additional years.

This report contains a number of specific recommendations by evaluation question treated.

2 The rating scale administered to 156 LSP participants had eight questions asking for extent of negative-positive views on a five-point scale. Out of 156 persons, 64 or 41% scored a combined ‘4’ or ‘5’ indicating satisfied or very satisfied.


INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND INTRODUCTION Democracy International (DI) hereby presents its draft report of the mid-term performance evaluation of USAID/Côte d’Ivoire’s Legislative Strengthening Program. The National Assembly Legislative Strengthening Program (LSP) is a five (2013-2017), $10.9 million-dollar activity managed by the State University of New York (SUNY). It has two objectives: (1) to improve the Government of Côte d’Ivoire’s (GoCI) National Assembly as an institution, thereby enabling it to better fulfil its legislative, oversight, and representational functions; and (2) to improve representation by the National Assembly Deputies in a selected number of communes (constituencies).

PURPOSE AND CONDUCT OF EVALUATION The primary purposes of the present evaluation are (1) to assess and to document the extent to which the project is achieving its objectives; and (2) to make justified recommendations to improve the efficacy of the project, thereby contributing to the ambitious but vital goal of state accountability to its citizens.

BACKGROUND ON THE LSP PROJECT The LSP started in January 2013, was officially launched May 16th, 2013 and will end in December 2017. Its budget is $10.9 million. State University of New York/Center for International Development (SUNY/CID) is the project implementing partner.

A strong legislature should in principle contribute to promote citizens’ representation and increase government’s accountability. As articulated by USAID, the development hypothesis underlying this project is:

IF the ability of the National Assembly to better fulfill its constitutional mandate and its oversight functions improves, THEN there will be a significant increase in the accountability of the state through the legislative branch.

By international standards, African parliaments have been relatively weak in their three functions (legislative, oversight and representation). Therefore, it is logical that support to legislatures should be legitimate in promoting democratic governance, and the development hypothesis should be a reasonable assumption.

However, donor-funded programming results working with developing country Parliaments have been disappointing compared to other sectors. Thomas Carothers, in his 1999 book, Aiding Democracy Abroad: The Learning Curve (Carnegie Endowment for International Peace), wrote:


In the case of Côte d’Ivoire, the development hypothesis articulated for this project is ambitious by any standard and may be unrealistic. The National Assembly collapsed during Côte d’Ivoire’s civil war, both in its capacity and its physical infrastructure. Between 2002 and 2010, although Parliament continued to sit, in reality hardly any legislative activities took place. From 2006 to 2010, the budget was regularly passed by ordinance. The parliamentary function of oversight also diminished considerably. Excessive use of the "power of decree" by the President of the Republic was typical during this time. As a consequence, the army and the police lost their republican character and escaped control by the legislative and judicial powers, reporting only to the President of the Republic (Kimou, Silué, and Kobi, 2011).


In 2013 SUNY contracted a needs and priorities assessment study of the National Assembly.3 It referenced many capacity issues: inadequacy of MPs' legislative capacities given the inadequacy of staff, financial constraints and inadequate drafting capacities. Like many administrative buildings, the property of the National Assembly had been looted, rendering the institution non-operational in the aftermath of the legislative elections held in February 2013. Many of these were issues of recovery rather than institutional evolution.4

By what standards does one assess or compare the capacity of a National Assembly? Research on African legislatures conducted by Barkan and associates provides a framework for comparison:5

We array the four legislatures [Benin, Ghana, Kenya and Senegal] on an ordinal basis in respect to three measures of legislative authority. (1) …independence and strength of the legislature vis-à-vis the executive branch; (2) formal powers accorded to the legislature by the country’s constitution, and (3) …the extent to which the legislature as a corporate body impacts on the policy-making process and on the budgetary process.

The study concluded more than 10 years ago, that legislatures vary considerably along these dimensions from one country to the next.

In some countries, the legislature remains very weak despite the return to multiparty politics, and the regular holding of legislative elections. In others the legislature has asserted itself forcefully, both as a check on the executive branch, and as a player in the making of public policy and policy implementation. In still others, the reality lies somewhere in between—the legislature remains weak, but has begun to aspire to a more significant role.

Of all countries analyzed, Kenya was found to have the strongest, moderately independent legislature with a fully defined Constitutional role, and occasionally able to modify budgets. In Côte d’Ivoire the National Assembly is particularly weak on all three of these dimensions. The LSP, however, did not target parliamentary independence, changing constitutional roles or modifying budgets. The focus and choice of LSP project objectives can be justified by the context, as seen later. However, LSP project objectives as defined also imply a weak link between the “development hypothesis”(good governance and accountability) and project objectives. Effective parliamentary oversight ultimately requires institutional independence, an appropriate constitutional role, and ability to modify budgets, as defined by Barkan.

LSP PROJECT OBJECTIVES Two main objectives of the LSP are:

COMPONENT 1. Improve the Government of Côte d’Ivoire’s National Assembly as an institution, thereby enabling it to better fulfill its legislative, oversight, and representational functions;

COMPONENT 2. Improve representation by the National Assembly Deputies in a selected number of communes (constituencies).

Component 1 is a traditional institutional capacity building activity, focusing on individual capacities, as well as some institutions systems, such as communications, e-voting and documentation services.

3 Evaluation des Besoins et Priorités de l’Assemblée Nationale de Côte d’Ivoire, SUNY, Février 2014. David Payne, Assessment Team Leader, Andrea Wolfe, SUNY Center for International Development, Maxime Carrier-Legaré, Assemblée parlementaire de la Francophonie (APF) 4 Repairs to the physical buildings were funded by OTI/USAID 5 Emerging Legislatures in Emerging African Democracies, Joel D. Barkan, University of Iowa. Ladipo Ademolekun and Yongmei Zhou, The World Bank with Mouftayou Laleye, Development Policy Analysis Unit, National Assembly, Republic of Benin and Njuguna Ng’ethe, The University of Nairobi, 2003


Component 2 is an original activity. The objective was to create ‘Platforms” in a select number of communes (constituencies) as a way to improve representation by the National Assembly Deputies. These were committees comprised of local government administrators in priority sectors and civil society representatives, totaling about 30 members. MPs were invited to submit applications to participate in the pilot Platforms. Leadership was mixed: sometimes chaired by the MP, sometimes by a local government authority, sometimes by both. The objective of the Platforms was also to improve public service delivery in three priority sectors selected by each platform during a needs assessment. Component 2 also included “civic education’ town hall meetings to inform about the concept of Platforms and to expose the MP to citizens. Public services were the objective, but the Platforms themselves had no resources nor powers. Platform members representing target sectors were to be the agents by which change to a public service was initiated.

The guiding strategy for the LSP was the National Assembly Strategic Plan (PSAN). The Plan was drafted before LSP started – but refined during a number of LSP planning workshops (some technical advice was provided by the UNDP as well).It was adopted by the Bureau of the National Assembly on February of 2013 and became the basis of the National Assembly Annual Work Plans (PTAN).6 PSAN later became the guiding document for all activities delivered by co-funding partners or implementing partners, which by end 2016 numbered 18 organizations (see “Project Collective Approach” in Annex H).

The PSAN was a comprehensive guide for most of the reforms needed to bring the National assembly to international standards. It recognized, however, that capacity building was a first stage towards longer term reform. Key reforms needed to strengthen independence were included in the strategic objectives, for example, reform of rules and procedures, development of the capacity to analyze budgets – and the adoption by the National Assembly of its own budget. In the case of parliaments, institutional rules are essential to establish real powers. Parliamentary powers are generally based on either constitutional articles or institutional “standing orders.” These articles and rules determine, for example, whether the parliament can independently create standing or ad hoc committees, conduct commissions of enquiry or investigations, propose and make laws, change the government budget, determine their own budget, vet or reject presidential nominations.

Judging by the standards discussed by Barkan, implementing changes to these rules can be a good measure of political will for reform. Such changes achieve greater sharing of power within an institution or in the political governance context, which is a significant democratic advance. The Barkan study above makes repeated references to powers in the Constitution and Standing Orders as indicators of the degree of independence and capacity for oversight. For example, the formal powers of the Ghanaian parliament include: “the power to compel witnesses to come before it and testify under oath, and to compel the provision of documents required for its scrutiny (Art. 103.6). (Barkan, p. 29).

PROJECT COMMITTEES LSP is ‘managed’ by a Program Committee – which includes a Steering Committee and an Executive Committee. The Steering Committee is composed of several MPs – plus the Chief of Party (COP) of SUNY. Others may and do attend (donors, etc.) – but even USAID is present only as an Observer.

The Executive Committee members are all staff of the ANCI; it is chaired by the Secretary General.

The Committees typically meet twice a year. The Report from the previous Year and the Work Plan for the next are reviewed by the Executive Committee – who forward their comments to the Secretary general of the ANCI, and who in turn decides on matters discussed or plans proposed.

6 LSP first funded a workshop from 28 to 30 June 2013 in Bassam, then a mid-term reflection workshop on PTAN implementation in January 2014. A total of 19 MPs, 23 ANCI staff, and 4 LSP-CI staff attended the workshop.


PROJECT “COLLECTIVE” APPROACH As we discuss below, the first of four evaluation questions for this study references “collective approaches” to LSP implementation. This refers to the involvement of several implementing and financing partners. These partnerships began in the second year of the project. The first partner was APF (Francophone parliamentary association) who had worked with the National Assembly in the past. The first joint activity was the Human Resources assessment). As these partnerships developed, one principle was followed: all partners used the PSAN as the guide to activities. Partners never formed a committee; rather they worked individually with LSP and the ANCI. Some activities were fully financed by the partner. The eventual 18 partners include:

National Assembly Association of Francophone Parliaments, (APF) UNDP Other International Parliamentary Organizations: Inter Parliamentary Union, National Assembly of

Quebec Other United Nations: UNWOMEN, UNOCI, ILO The World Bank NDI Tetra Tech DPK Catholic Relief Services and Caritas Local NGOs/CSOs: CAPEC, ROSCI-CCAP, CAPAC, Federation of Community Radio Stations Government of Côte d’Ivoire : DGDDL (Direction General de la Décentralisation et du

Développement Local)

A complete table of LSP partners and the LSP activities they delivered is found in Annex H.

SUMMARY PROFILE OF PROJECT ACTIVITIES The LSP has overseen or delivered over 100 activities. These activities have been compiled from LSP project reports into two tables, by date of activity and referencing the PSAN strategic objective number targeted by the activity. Detailed lists of activities delivered in each the two components are found in two tables in Annex L. In summary:

COMPONENT 1 (C1) The majority of activities are some form of capacity building for personnel or MPs, including seminars and training workshops. International Technical assistance was provided for Needs Assessments of departments of ANCI (ITC, Human Resources, Communications and Archives/document classification). From 2016 LSP funded 10 interns and 6 consultants in legislative drafting. LSP gave the funding for oversight missions by Parliamentary committees (total of 12 between 2013 and end of 2016). Consultants prepared guides and manuals for procedures.

COMPONENT 2 (C2) Local community development was combined with the National Assembly, intending to increase MP representation while improving public services at the local level. The main activities were also training and workshops. Training included advocacy and fund raising, so that Platform members could influence changes to services (as they had no resources). The design and set up of 24 Collaborative Community Platforms involved: 1) Competitive process to select 24 Communes and 42 MPs from among the 150 MPs who submitted proposals; 2) Testing of Platform and commune needs assessment methodology with the Directorate-General of Decentralization and Local Development DGDDL; 3) an MOU established with 23 community radio stations for media coverage; 4) Civic Education: Public information town hall meetings and 5) Implementation of 24 Platforms in 24 Communes. Platform membership was specified in terms of category of member, while each Platform chose the individuals. LSP developed a Platform terms of reference defining how each Platform had to nominate representatives covering various functions -- from provincial and


municipal sector ministries (generally, health, education, water, electricity, local infrastructure), civil society organizations and village-level representatives. Each Platform then selected individuals qualified for each designated function. Each Platform conducted a needs assessment and developed Action Plans based on three social service sector priority needs. Plans included how often each Platform met and how they reported. M&E follow up by SUNY was also planned. BASELINE SURVEYS ON PERCEPTION OF NATIONAL ASSEMBLY Two public opinion surveys have been conducted for this project: OTI funded survey conducted by AECOM with a local partner in 2013 prior to LSP start up7; and the “Citizen Score Card” (CSC) survey conducted by SUNY in 2015.8 The OTI survey is significant in that it establishes baseline attitudes of citizens towards the National Assembly. The survey had a sample size of 2,660 persons, interviewed and surveyed in 32 locations, including 14 communes. Overall, findings presented a negative perception of the National Assembly. For example, only 23 percent agreed the National Assembly met expectations of citizens, and 27 percent that it is close to the people. (See Table 11, Page 48). The CSC surveyed 1,700 persons including 500 as a control group. CSC gave a much more positive result in regards to perceptions of the National Assembly and MPs, data which was presented in LSP Project Management Plan reports (the survey data comprised the first five project performance indicators). For example, on C-indicator 7 “The National Assembly is better exercising its constitutional functions than the preceding year in the best interest of the citizen,” 51 percent of respondents agreed with this statement.

EVALUATION METHODOLOGY The midterm performance evaluation employed a mixed-methods approach using qualitative and quantitative data collection methodologies including: a desk review of program documents and other secondary sources of information; personal in-depth interviews with key informants (KII); focus group discussions (FGD) with key stakeholders; rating scales completed by KII and FGD ; site visits to specific SUNY intervention communes; and a citizen opinion survey conducted by the Centre de Recherche et de Formation sur le Développement Intégré (CREFDI). The citizen perception survey was conducted in a sample of communes where the project intervened (treatment group) and communes where the project has not intervened (control group).9 This survey of 2,400 randomly selected persons asked respondents questions relevant to the evaluation. These findings are integrated into and merged with this report.

The evaluation design matrix presented in the Inception Report, including data collection tools, data synthesis and data analysis methodologies, was extensively used to guide this evaluation and to analyze, compare, and triangulate the data collected through different data collection methodologies.

The evaluation team conducted fieldwork in Côte d’Ivoire during a four-week period – February 25 to March 24, 2017 – to collect primary data from USAID staff, project implementers, beneficiaries and other key stakeholders to assess the performance of this project and to contrast and compare this information with the projects’ indicator data. The evaluation concluded its field work by analysis and triangulation of data, then by

7 Perception De L’assemblée Nationale, Attitudes Et Attentes A Son Égard Etude Qualitative Et Quantitative Auprès Des Leaders D’opinions Et De La Population Âgée De 18ans Et Plus. Research International/ Aecom. April 2013. 8 SUNY, CITIZEN SCORE CARD, BASELINE EVALUATION REPORT. April– June 2015. State University of New York, November 2015 9 These terms do not denote impact evaluation. Treatment and control are common analytical shorthand for comparison groups that differ in whether or how they received a development activity.


hosting a learning workshop to present findings and discuss them with project stakeholders. The preliminary analysis conducted in the field and delivered in the workshop was further informed by deeper analysis following return to home base, complemented by findings from the citizen survey, which were not yet available during the initial analyses in the field.

The evaluation team, in consultation with USAID, selected eight communes to visit. Selection criteria were:

1. Regional consideration: this criterion is used to cover a national representation of the 24 communes where the project operated. The eight cities visited covered south (Bingerville, Anyama, Koumassi), east (Abengourou), central, (Bouake) south-west (San-Pedro), and north (Ferkesedougou. This approach helped to have a broad picture of perception of the ANCI and MPs at the different local perspective nationally.

2. Gender: the evaluation team included constituencies lead by women to capture as much as possible gender-related performance of the platform and MP’s leadership to implement the oversight, representation and law-making functions

3. MP Belongs to municipal of regional council: the evaluation team wanted to assess whether this factor increased MP effectiveness in improving the quality of public service delivery. This is also an assumption that drove to include this criterion.

4. Political consideration: to account for both the role played by each party in the coalition dominating (PDCI and RDR) the National Assembly as well as independent MPs. The evaluation team also included the constituency of the speaker to check appropriation of the project at the top leadership of the National Assembly.

5. Performance: After the desk review and orientation discussions with the LSP staff, the evaluation team wanted to select cases known as success stories and cases recognized for being a failure.

EVALUATION QUESTIONS AND METHODOLOGICAL APPROACHES The following table presents the four questions and methods used to establish findings:

Table 1. Evaluation Questions and Methodological Approaches

Code Evaluation Question Methodological Approaches

EQ1 Which of the collective approaches promoted by LSP were effective in building the management capacity of the administration of the National Assembly? What gaps are there that still need to be addressed?

Question primarily targets C1 (NA institution). Data sources and analysis methods are: Analysis of LSP activities by Strategic Plan KII/FGD interview analysis

EQ2 To what extent did LSP interventions promote the representational function of MPs in the 24 targeted constituencies? How were oversight functions improved? What change if any was noted in increased capacity of Deputies to perform their legislative functions?

Question primarily targets C2 (Platforms in communes and MP representation). Data sources and analysis methods are: KII and FGD interview analysis Rating Scale scores Analysis of LSP activities by Strategic Plan Analysis of CSC survey data

EQ3 How are LSP activities changing the perception of constituents of MPs and the National Assembly?

Question targets both C1 and C2. Data sources and analysis methods are: Analysis of citizen survey data KII and FGD interview analysis Rating Scale scores

EQ4 How did the creation of collaborative platforms in each pilot commune change the understanding of deputy’s role and help to improve the delivery of

Question primarily targets C2 (Platforms in communes and representation). Data sources and analysis methods are:


Code Evaluation Question Methodological Approaches

the basic services at grassroots? What are the key barriers that need to be addressed?

KII and FGD interview analysis Case Study

INTERVIEWS AND FOCUS GROUPS The team conducted interviews and focus groups meetings with 150 persons in Abidjan and eight communes (see Interview protocol guide in Annex C) with the following groups. During the interview process, the team administered a five-point rating scale addressing seven questions in the interview protocol. The main objective of this rating scale was to obtain standardized data to assess overall responses and compare with individual responses obtained during qualitative interviews. The sample used however, is not statistically representative – rather this is a purposeful survey -- and therefore, the findings from analysis of the scores must be treated carefully without drawing conclusions on the basis of these ratings alone.10 Data are presented in the section on findings by evaluation question. The average scores of all respondents on the seven questions is found in Annex J.

Persons selected for interviews or focus groups were taken from project stakeholders:

COMPONENT 1: National Assembly, USAID, NGOs/CSOs, CAPEC, NDI, ROSCI-CCAP, UNDP, SUNY/CID, and UNWOMEN

COMPONENT 2: Eight Communes were selected From 24 Pilot Communes: Anyama, Abengourou, Bingerville, Bouake, Daloa, Ferke, Koumassi, San Pedro.

The 24 platforms were not selected randomly. Several criteria directed the choice including accessibility, politics, regional focus, etc. There is need to be cautious in term of generalization. However, the results provide a picture of what works and what does not.

To assist in the analysis of data collection during the desk review and field work, the evaluation team classified all LSP activities (as reported by SUNY) using the 20 Strategic Objectives of the National Assembly Strategic Plan, and results defined by the PSAN. These data were then analyzed by each of the four evaluation questions. Details of these analyses are found in Annex I, Project Performance Relative to PSAN and Evaluation Questions.

CITIZEN PERCEPTION SURVEY DI conducted a population-based survey to validate and expand findings of the Citizen Score Card (CSC) survey and provide additional data to inform evaluation questions. CREFDI supplied the sampling frame based on the pilot platform (i.e. “treatment”) and “control” communes included in the CSC baseline survey. The survey examines whether citizens’ attitudes differ in those communes where the project operates and in those communes where it does not. While we cannot attribute these differences to the project, by comparing and contrasting survey information with data collected during field work, we can make some inferences to explain citizens’ perceptions and any differences that may exist between treatment and control groups.

10 The respondents from the rating scale were not from a representative random sampling process. Rather, participants to focus group discussions and key informant interview were asked to fill the questionnaire. This was used to further probe perceptions regarding changes associated with the project. These results are intended to corroborate content analysis.


DATA AND ANALYSIS LIMITATIONS The qualitative approach combined rating scores, key information interviews and focus group discussions. Qualitative methodologies suffer from several potential biases and limitations:

1. Selection bias. Informants for KIIs and FGDs were selected purposefully, not randomly, and therefore, evaluation findings based on this qualitative methodology are not generalizable across the population. People selected for interviews may have preconceived information about the project being evaluated. The evaluation team mitigated this by stressing the independence of the evaluation process, explaining the purpose of the evaluation, and ensuring confidentiality. The team also triangulated qualitative information with results of the citizen survey, which is representative of the country at large.

2. Timeframe. The timeframe of this evaluation required a narrow, focused approach. Given the limited site selection, results of site visits cannot be generalized across the entire population of beneficiaries reached by the project. Nevertheless, the evaluation’s mixed-methods approach and meetings with a diverse and purposively selected sample of beneficiaries, helped mitigate the effects of this limitation.

3. Comparison between SUNY and DI surveys. Clear comparisons between survey responses are impeded by differences in questionnaire construction, sampling strategy, and data collection method. DI limited the former by including questions in its survey that are identical to questions in SUNY’s CSC survey. However, SUNY employed a “convenience sample”; they surveyed whomever they could find during site visits. A “random sample” wherein each respondent has a known and equal probability of inclusion in the survey is necessary to ensure that statistical results found for that sample are what we should expect for the population of Côte d’Ivoire at large. SUNY also did not standardize its data collection methods – some respondents provided written answers to the survey, others were interviewed face to face; some respondents provided responses in groups, others privately. Without control over this variation, we cannot know what biases have been introduced into SUNY’s survey responses and we cannot control for them. DI did not replicate this approach because there is no statistical or substantive defense for doing so. Instead, DI’s survey is both statistically viable and representative of the population at large, and its uniform data collection method will reduce bias. Comparisons between DI’s findings and SUNY’s findings must be understood with the caveat that SUNY’s data collection approach fundamentally hamstrings quality comparison.11

11 According to LSP managers, the CSC survey did not standardized the method of data collection due to difficulties caused by the diversity of languages used and problems with literacy (leading to situations in which some could respond in writing to questions in French while in other cases, the questions had to be orally translated into the local language and recorded by the interviewer.) This was made particularly challenging as SUNY conducted the survey in all 24 platform constituencies. DI confronted identical challenges with language and literacy but overcame them by adhering to established survey protocol: enumerators conducted identical face-to-face oral interviews with respondents in respondents’ own language. Even if one can defend the reasons why LSP managers elected to use a convenience sample and unstandardized data collection methods, these decisions ultimately render comparison with other samples imprecise and untrustworthy. It is nearly impossible to replicate convenience samples and results based on them; sample size and margin of error of a convenience sample are immaterial to its replicability or generalizability. Random samples, by contrast, should yield similar results over all possible samples and generalize to the population at large.


FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS EVALUATION QUESTION #1 Which of the collective approaches promoted by LSP were effective in building the management capacity of the administration of the National Assembly?

The most effective approach by LSP was using the National Assembly Strategic Plan (PSAN) as the framework for all activities. LSP was also responsible for persuading the collaborating partners to use the PSAN as a basis for their programming, and as a means of assuring collaboration, coordination, and creating a synergy of effort. .Table 2 presents the objectives of the PSAN in 4 “Axes” which guided all collective inputs.

Table 2. Strategic Objectives of PSAN Axis 1: Institutional development

Axis 2: Improving the legislative function

Axis 3: Improvement of the control of government action

Axis 4: Improvement of the representation of the people

1.2 Capacity building of MPs and staff

2.1 Build the capacity of MPs and staff to support the legislative process

3.1 Strengthen capacity of MPs and staff to support oversight of government action

4.1 Strengthen relationship between elected officials and the people

1.3 Parliament can develop its own budget

2.2 Improve the process of review and adoption of the Finance Act and other bills

3.2 Improve oversight procedures of governmental action by NA

4.2 Improve delivery of services to local communities

1.4 Provide infrastructure and adequate equipment to Parliament

2.3 Improve participation of external partners (civil society and others)

3.3 Strengthen monitoring of laws promulgated

4.3 Strengthen capacity of standing committees to initiate thematic consultations

1.5 Improve functioning of the Secretariat – General and Human Resources Systems

2.4 Enhance capacity of NA to initiate its own laws

3.9 Strengthen NA capacity to contribute to good governance and the fight against Corruption

4.4 Educate the public about the role of members

1.6 Strengthen capacity of Parliament to communicate with voters, civil society and public

2.5 Modernize the NA voting system

3.10 Enhance capacity of MPs for good governance and fight against Corruption

1.7 Strengthen internal provisions to enable Parliament to effectively fulfil three essential missions

LSP helped to refine and implement the Strategic Plan (PSAN) through a series of workshops to review the annual works plans (PTAN) to execute the PSAN. The PSAN was also, equally importantly, adopted by all donors or implementing partners as the framework for all their technical inputs and contributions.

LSP was not involved in the creation of the original PSAN, which as reported to LSP, was developed with the support of UNDP, who provided experts to assist in this process. In all PTAN workshops, the National Assembly was given leadership in the planning and determination of priorities and areas of focus; LSP provided advice and facilitated the discussion. This approach was instrumental in allowing the National Assembly to develop ownership over the project’s overall objectives. As we note below, given the post-conflict situation in the country, one of LSP primary concerns was to build a strong collaborative working partnership with the National Assembly. Thus, while LSP could advocate for activities to advance the


objectives of the PSAN, where there was profound resistance due to concerns of generating potentially dangerous levels of friction (such as the rules of procedure or the budget), LSP sought to promote work-arounds to achieve the same objective. For example, rather than demanding direct budget review, LSP provided training on gender budgeting and training on the budget process, while at the same time, during the course of oversight missions raising questions with the MPs about the impact of budget on the issues being studied. This positive working relationship, has led to the National Assembly now starting to undertake a review and revision of the rules of procedure starting with a workshop in April 2017.

Using the PSAN as the framework for working with the National Assembly was effective because it mobilized additional resources, specialized technical assistance and added value through other donors.

The table of shared delivery of project activities (Annex H) lists all activities in which partners delivered or funded LSP activities. Altogether, about half of project activities involved other donors. Some, such as the World Bank, UNDP and APF fully funded the activities they supported. No exact record or analysis of these shared costs was found; however, a partner contribution of 25percent of real programming costs is a reasonable estimate. Also these organizations offered specialized expertise that might otherwise be unavailable. For example, APF managed and conducted all the specialized parliamentary human resources needs assessments and capacity building activities. The added value of “credibility” of these partners cannot be under-estimated. How does one measure the value added when the World Bank fully funds and hosts a widely-inclusive seminar on strategic planning for the National Assembly?

The PSAN became the overarching plan for National Assembly capacity building. The PSAN was relatively thorough in its coverage of themes to strengthen management capacity. These themes extended beyond management and administration, however, to institutional development overall.

“Management capacity of the administration” is difficult to separate from functions of oversight, legislation and representation, since these functions also depend on internal support services from the administration. Through LSP a significant number of training events took place. One of the more popular activities was the “Administrative Acts” seminar which trained legislative staff whose work is essential in moving legislation forward. According to interviews, the human resources training for staff was among the most appreciated training activities. A number of workshops were delivered to the project committees on strategic and operational programming (i.e., developing the strategic and work plans). The latter seminars focused on planning, monitoring and evaluation skills for both staff and MPs. These skills are related to effective administration. Interviewees who were acting or former MPs reported to the evaluators that staff had a much more positive attitude about their work, and were more helpful than in 2012, right after the elections.

This collective approach began in early 2014. Project reports are frank in describing the difficult situation encountered by SUNY when the project started in 2013. According to some interviewees, SUNY was very close to being expelled from Côte d’Ivoire. A new Chief of Party organized the first collaboration with APF (Association of Francophone Parliamentarians) which organized and conducted a Needs Assessment of the HR services of the National Assembly (delivered by the Quebec National Assembly). This was the first of 23 collaborations with 18 organizations (see Annex H “List of LSP Partners by Time Frame and Activities Delivered”).

Not all activities were collaborative, about 50 percent were managed and delivered entirely by SUNY. All activities, however, were based on the strategic plan objectives. SUNY has successfully been able to engage other donors to use the PSAN as reference for support to the National Assembly. In that line, several activities have been funded or implemented by other donors that have likely contributed to improve capacity of the ANCI. Annex I presents all LSP activities and their correspondence to PSAN objectives. Objective 1.2 Capacity building and training was one of the more frequent activities. Annex L lists all activities delivered by date and the corresponding PSAN objective.

Based on interviews and focus groups, perceptions are that parliament’s administration has improved significantly. Several interviewees commented that administration was much more helpful and positive compared to 2013 and earlier. A content analysis of 150 interviews and focus group found this statement to


recur among the most frequent of all comments: “Parliament is more effective now in administration and its staff more committed and effective.”

Following interviews the evaluators administered a five-point rating scale. The question, “On a scale of 1-5, how effective is the parliament in administration and management now compared to 3 years ago?Among 150 respondents completing the rating scale, the average score was 3.5, indicating that respondents perceived Parliament as more effective now than compared to three years ago. In other words, 77 percent of all respondents gave a rating of 4 and 5 in response to this question. It is important to note, however, as discussed in the Methodology/Limitation section, that these responses were collected from project participants and stakeholders, therefore does not reflect opinions of citizens at large.)

Some individual comments illustrate a generalized positive perception heard during fieldwork. For example, one interviewee commented to the evaluators, “Staff and MPs are much more pro-active now that they feel more able and trained.” Another reported, “The conditions of work and the salaries have improved – but we still do not have a Manual or a full job description. The various trainings have been excellent.”

Another senior staff reported, “The interns have been great – and we need them (along with other new staff). We are faster now (and more accurate) because of the training but the work load grows even faster.” Finally, another said, “The performance of the staff generally has improved dramatically – both in the speed and the accuracy and the volume of work accomplished.”

Findings from the citizen opinion survey do not entirely support or clarify these findings obtained from interviews and focus groups with project stakeholders and participants. Still, PSAN Axis 4 activities, including educating the public about MPs’ roles and improving their relationship with the people appears to have only modest influence on general public opinion about the National Assembly.

Survey findings suggest only modest gains following LSP implementation. In communes with LSP programming, just under half the population (49 percent) reports little to no familiarity at all with the activities of the National Assembly. While this compares favorably to the 59 percent of control commune respondents who do not know their parliament’s activities, the pattern does not support SUNY’s original claim of very large positive gains in LSP communes relative to control communes (16 percent of treatment group in the Citizen Score Card reports not knowing about the National Assembly activities compared to 23 percent of the control groups). Moreover, we found that only 32 percent of people living in treatment communes consider the National Assembly as “close” to the people, which is statistically comparable to control commune respondents’ opinion (29 percent).

DI’s survey results suggest LSP did not contribute to increase positive views. Instead, LSP programming appears to have reduced negative views. This is an important change and one that is more realistic than SUNY’s findings given the short duration of LSP programming to date.


What gaps are there that still need to be addressed?

The gaps remaining are mainly included in the PSAN objectives, but were not implemented or fully implemented. The gaps include:

Capacity Building in National Assembly Human Resources. LSP acknowledges that the development in the HR department has been slow. These activities have been primarily dependent on technical assistance from the Quebec National Assembly, (via APF) and have taken place once per year (during Canadian vacation periods), with little follow up, mentoring or re-training between these annual events. In part this slow pace is because making changes in staffing and job definitions has certain political costs that the ANCI resisted incurring. As noted in the earlier commentary on the PSAN, while the PSAN identified a range of goals that conform to the general outline of an effective functional parliament, an overarching concern in Côte d’Ivoire’s post conflict status was to build a collegial relationship among the sometimes contentious forces within the ANCI. Accordingly, there was a degree of moving slowly on these issues so as to avoid irritating these competing interests. Second, in addition to the two formal activities in support of HR identified in the report, LSP staff regularly interacted with the HR staff and advocated for the implementation of the staffing and HR planning strategy developed by the APF advisor. This may not have been adequately documented in the projects reports. Finally, HR capacity was one of many goals, and the number of specific HR was limited by budget constraints (particularly with respect to limitations on travel costs. The Gender and Youth Committee of Parliament. While the creation of the Gender and Youth Committee had been an objective of USAID from the outset and LSP worked tirelessly over the course of the project to persuade the ANCI to agree to create such a committee, the establishment of a Gender and Youth Committee had never been incorporated in the PSAN. Moreover, in repeated meetings, the ANCI explicitly rejected the idea of creating a gender committee – instead, in response to LSP’s persistent advocacy, agreeing to undertake an alternate approach to addressing gender concerns of designating a gender advocate on each of the permanent committees and creating an ad hoc gender committee as and when needed. Budget Training. Little budget management training has taken place, neither in regards to oversight of the National Budget, nor internal National Assembly budget management. Issues surrounding the budget (both the National Budget and the internal parliamentary budget) are considered highly sensitive by various factions within the parliament (including the Secretary General and the President) and with the Executive – and an area in which they are extremely sensitive to foreign interference. In particular, the President of the National Assembly refuses to share the budget with the MPs. That said, LSP has provided some training and support on budget


issues including a workshop on gender sensitive budgeting and a manual on the budget process that was presented at the new member’s orientation in February 2017.

Implementation Plans are not completed. Human Resources Plan has not been adopted and the Communications and Information Plan has not been fully implemented. Parliamentary Research Services have not been fully improved or institutionalized. Parliamentary Staff. Parliamentary staff have not been increased to replace the support given by the 10 interns working in the ANCI and by the 3 committee support specialists and 2 research analysts who are LSP project staff and provide legislative analysis as well as training, mentoring and advice to their ANCI staff counterparts. This support will be discontinued when the project ends in December 2017, and who have contributed significantly to achieve project results12.

LSP Performance Indicators

According to the project’s indicator data, LSP has closely met its established targets; however, the targets were significantly reduced after 2014.13 Three indicators are related to administration:

Number of ANCI documents made available to the Public: The total reported in the PMP report is 19, or 93percent of target. (However, in the 2014 PMP, the target was 150).

Number of LSP-CI technical deliverable appropriated by ANCI: The total reported in the PMP report is 26, or 90percent of target. (However, in the 2014 PMP, the target was 66).

Number of participation into LSP-CI activities: The total reported in the PMP report is 29, or 94percent of target. (However, in the 2014 PMP, the target was 90).

CONCLUSION

The LSP has contributed to significantly improved capacity of MPs and staff, improved infrastructure of the National Assembly, improved ANCI administration/management and human resources systems, and has made significant progress in modernizing the voting systems. The “collective” approach accounts for a significant portion of activities. Perceptions among LSP participants regarding the National Assembly and MPs are relatively positive. Based on the DI citizen survey, however, perceptions among the general population are not nearly as positive. “The National Assembly as an institution is close to its citizens” scores only 32percent agreement (control 29percent). The latter somewhat resembles the OTI 2013 findings, rather than the more positive SUNY findings in 2015. The fact that project insiders are more positive may suggest a communication gap that the general population may not be aware of the successes achieved by some Platforms. It may be that the radio component has limited reach to audiences.

12 In terms of ANCI plans to expand its staff to absorb these positions, first, LSP is working with the ANCI to persuade them to incorporate the internship as a permanent program of the ANCI. LSP is preparing a program evaluation which will be presented to the Steering and Executive committees (along with a report on the costs of the program) with the hope that they will agree to maintain the program. The five staff positions are not embedded or delegated staff. They are providing training, mentorship and advice to their ANCI staff counterparts. The only direct service they are providing is the legislative analysis for selected draft legislation – and they are doing so with the goal of convincing the ANCI and MPs of the value of this service. LSP hopes that, as has been the case in some other projects that demand for this type of support by the MPs will lead to support for the adoption of legislative analysis as a standard practice by support staff. 13 USAID noted that change in targets (either increase or decrease) is often the result of implementation, as managers learn more and are better able to set targets that are appropriately ambitious and achievable. Still, the evaluation team did not hear why these targets were as high as they were during the first stages of implementation.


Despite these achievements, however, Parliament is still far from achieving international standards of effective parliamentary institutions. Management of its own budget is judged as one key dimension of maturity, according to experts in African parliaments (Barkan et al., as referenced in the Background section). Independence of the institution, necessary for strong oversight, also should include reforms of rules and procedures (Standing Orders) or even Constitutional Articles.14 These rules establish for example, the power of committees to independently call witnesses, to investigate, and establish the rules and powers for questioning Ministers. It is noted that these issues are addressed by many of the PSAN strategic objectives (for example objectives 1.3, 1.7, 2.2 2.4, and 3.1). As noted in the table in the Annexes, these objectives had few or no activity inputs. Plan for budget training, for example, were halted by the National Assembly. Nevertheless, it is a fact that LSP did not target the objective of achieving international standards of effective parliaments (despite PSAN objectives such as 1.3 (manage own budget) or 3.1 (strengthened capacity for oversight)). Rather the two LSP objectives are simply to “improve” the institution and its representation.

The LSP performance indicators are not particularly helpful to assess performance, nor clearly understandable. It is not known why the performance targets changed between 2014 and 201. (see footnote 13). Indicators are further discussed in the conclusion chapter.

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. To increase citizens’ knowledge on the activities of the National Assembly and improve ANCI’s communications strategy, LSP and CICAN, the Communication and Information Center of the National Assembly, should look at the Radio Program “This Week in the National Assembly” that Radio Bingerville produces – and consider networking that program across all 24 stations. That could be the first step towards filling time across the 24 stations with programming created at the ANCI – and eventually, the creation of Radio National Assembly – which is one of the results envisaged in the Departmental Plan prepared with the help of LSP and adopted by the National Assembly.

2. While working towards a Parliamentary Broadcast, the National Assembly could enhance its partnership with the national association of community radios to improve communication at the local level. LSP has been supporting ANCI’s Communication Unit to develop and implement its goals and plans. The development of a Parliamentary Radio/TV broadcast has been considered as one of the activities. The Unit had discussions with several community radio stations about a start-up network as a first step.

3. LSP should formally assess the benefits and costs of key LSP inputs, and the implications of contributions ending. For example, what are the benefits and costs associated with interns and expert staff who support the work of the Commissions? What will be the financial costs to the ANCI budget to maintain support of each of the different priority components?

4. Accelerate the process of making the website interactive, then begin converting the legislative process – from start in a Ministry to promulgation – to an electronic process. That will save both time and money and demonstrate to voters that the ANCI is modern and an open institution.

5. Start the process of reviewing the Internal Rules – and make that review annual and automatic.

14 According to LSP, since 2013 (when current home office leadership took over the project) the Secretary General and related leadership have refused repeated requests by LSP to help them review and revise the rules of procedure. They explicitly asserted that many procedures were adopted as a means of balancing the interests of competing factions within the parliament and representing conflicting power centers from the prior conflict. They were concerned that opening the conversation on the rules of procedure threated the uneasy peace among these groups. That said, in 2017 the ANCI finally agreed to start the process of revising the rules of procedure and, with LSP support, held a review workshop in April 2017.


6. Begin steps towards the creation of a Budget Analysis Unit in the Research Department - If thought necessary or appropriate, build an interest and maybe a demand for such a unit by proposing that members of the Commission on Economic Affairs should be taken to other Parliaments in the region to see what dedicated assistance is given to their counterparts – and work to include Ghana and Benin.15

7. Prepare now to make Propositions de loi possible – (the new Budget Analyst should be able to prepare the attachments necessary for them to be considered) – hold a small workshop on how one is designed and written

8. Re-start the process of developing the capacity to prepare its own budget – beginning with an assessment of what needs to be improved or changed.

9. Create a line in the ANCI budget (to be published on the newly updated Web site for public scrutiny and comment) – called ‘REFORM OF THE ANCI– and provide funding for that line. The ANCI can then use than budget line to partner with those donors who are prepared to invest.

EVALUATION QUESTION #2 To what extent did LSP interventions promote the representational function of MPs in the 24 targeted constituencies?

The evaluation found that the Platform intervention promoted representation. Representation refers to an MP reaching out to, being visible and serving the interests of his or her constituents. LSP promoted representation more than other functions, also within the PSAN framework. Representation was most effective when there was MP Platform leadership, and especially when an office facility was available. One staff person from the National Assembly told the evaluators, “The presence of an MP in the community is now mandatory.” Representation was, in fact, an ANCI institutional goal; it is one of the four PSAN “axes” and has three objectives:

AXIS 4: IMPROVEMENT OF THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE 4.1 Strengthen the relationship between elected officials and the people 4.2 Improve delivery of services to local communities 4.4 Educate public about the role of members Platforms strived to facilitate outreach and representation by the MP representing the selected commune and to improve delivery of services in the commune (which as noted above was also a PSAN objective, #4.2, although not an obvious function of parliaments). Unlike most other categories of activities, SUNY managed and delivered the Platforms directly with its own personnel. The largest number of activities delivered served to improve representation (See Annex I). The activities were implemented in 24 communes, which were spread throughout Côte d’Ivoire. Each commune held a civic education (community town hall) event to launch the Platform, and each Platform received training, workshops, technical and equipment support. Each commune also signed an MOU with a community radio station. After budget cuts, SUNY stopped providing site monitoring visits. This was detrimental to the performance of Platforms, but not necessarily to the performance of the MP in outreach.

The Platform concept called for an MP to connect with citizens first during the civic education event, then by working with the Platform to develop an Action Plan and to advocate for reforms of the target services with local government (who had the resources and responsibility for services).

15 LSP has argued that while highly desirable, at present there is no political will to support such an effort. LSP is instead promoting enhanced review of the budget through its project support for the new Audit Court.


Based on interviews and focus groups, the Platform concept was effective in promoting representation, conditional upon MP presence. That is, effectiveness increased when the Platform MP was active and present in the community. If the MP was not present, Platforms were sometimes able to operate, provided local administrators played a leadership role. In other cases, they appeared to be floundering. Informants in communes and at parliament perceived the function of representation to be much improved compared to the past. One of the complaints about MPs in previous parliaments was that they were invisible, never present in the community or hard to find. An absent MP was a typical criticism in 2013, as found in the OTI/AECOM survey described in Background section. There is evidence that this perception is changing, at least in communes where Platforms were effective. A content analysis of interview notes found these two comments as the most repeated:

Rank KII/FGD Comment

1 MP is more effective than previously: in terms of representation, oversight, availability, communicating law related issues, and visibility in communes

2 Platforms are effective for improving MP representation, resolving community conflicts, networking, interaction between local government and citizens, and informing about gender-related legal issues

If MPs are more present it may be because Platforms provide them the opportunity to be present. The Platform offers a common objective: improving public services, while allowing the MP to act on behalf of citizens. The five-point rating scale evaluators administered to interviewees included this question: On a scale of 1-5, how effective is the parliament in representation now compared to 3 years ago? Respondents gave an average rating of 3.8, which suggests MPs were perceived to be more effective than three years ago. Some 72 percent of respondents agreed Parliament was more effective or much more effective in representation. These values, however, are based on a limited and possibly biased sample because it only included project stakeholders. Assuming Platforms increased effective representation over three years, the change is modest.

Nevertheless, the citizen survey results appear to corroborate this conclusion. Respondents living in pilot communes perceive MPs as generally more available to the constituency than respondents living in control communes without LSP activities; however, in both cases and overall in Côte d’Ivoire, citizens perceive their MPs as relatively absent. Only 32 percent and 34 percent of control and pilot commune respondents, respectively, maintain that MPs that represent them are available in their constituencies, plus or minus 3 percent margin of error. The 2 percent more positive impression reflects a statistically significant mean difference of 0.261 (p≤0.001) on the Likert scaled question (Mean = 1.56, SE = 0.97) between pilot commune respondents (N=1,198, Mean = 1.69, SD = 1.12) and control commune respondents (N=1,197, Mean= 1.43, SD = 0.76).

Still, high dispersion around the mean suggests these differences vary considerably across respondents The major difference appears to be that respondents in pilot Platform communes have a far less negative view of MPs than their control commune counterparts, (i.e. only 57 percent disagree that MPs are available compared to 66 percent in non-LSP communes). Similarly, respondents in pilot and control communes do not differ in agreement that MPs take what citizens have to say into account – they overwhelmingly agree that MPs do not. Again, LSP commune respondents are significantly less pessimistic – only 64 percent disagree compared to 71 percent in control communes. These differences are significant at the p≤0.10 level, even when controlling for various characteristics of respondents that could drive perceptions of citizen influence like age, gender, political party affiliation, and employment status.



The LSP indicator data demonstrates that the project was highly successful in increasing representation of the ANCI. The indicator used to measure this result is:

Number of Public Forums in which Members of Parliament and Members of the Public Interact with USG assistance: The total number reported in the PMP report is 96, or 160 percent of target. (However, in the 2014 PMP, the target was 126). This compares to a pre-program baseline value of zero. The baseline may not be an appropriate referent for comparison because the PMP only captures data on Public Forums in which MPs and members of the public interact with USG assistance. DI is unaware of other data sources on public forums before the LSP program provided assistance for them.

CONCLUSIONS Representation is stronger and more effective when the MP is effective as a leader. Leadership in this context refers to the MP being present with the Platform, taking actions as advised by the Platform, acting as the public face of Platforms to provide credibility for outsiders, and motivating the Platform members. It may be that the concept of Platforms will work (i.e., help to improve services) when leadership comes from a local government official. Furthermore, having an office is very important for an effective platform – either the office of an MP or some other facility (Platforms do not have their own offices). In the case of Abengourou, the MP funded her own office, and had five staff supporting her, who also served to assist the Platform activities. The presence of an office is also needed to house the computer equipment provided by the project for reporting. In some cases, there was conflict about leadership of the Platform, as discussed later in the report.

The evaluation found that a successful Platform (i.e., one that held regular meetings, had active and committed members, and achieved changes to the targeted public services as defined in the Action plan) depended to a great degree on MP leadership. The MP had to be engaged, in effect performing the representation function. Still, the apparent effects on public opinion are small – far smaller than those estimated by SUNY in its CSC.

Of the eight Platforms visited in this study, 2-3 were not functioning well (Bouake, Ferke and Daloa). The concept was effective, but implementation was not necessarily effective. Platforms are also the subject of evaluation question #4 and will be further discussed in that section.

RECOMMMENDATIONS

1. LSP should formally assess the benefits and costs of key LSP inputs to Platforms, and the implications of contributions ending. What will be the financial costs to the ANCI budget to maintain support to the Platform concept or other concept that achieves Platform objectives?


2A. HOW WERE OVERSIGHT FUNCTIONS IMPROVED? Findings are mixed. Compared to representation, oversight improvement was not so obvious. It is unclear whether this question refers to oversight as regards to Platform activities (since it is a sub-question of #2) or oversight in the national sense. The evaluation found that some MPs work to solve the problems of constituents, which may call for advocacy or representing the citizen in interaction with government. This finding was supported during the Learning Workshop by the representative from Abengourou, who observed “the goal is more than representation, but to improve the quality of life of citizens.” Improving service delivery is also improving lives, which overlaps to some degree with oversight at the National level – since effective oversight of the executive leads to reforms by the executive.

Interviewees told the evaluators that the LSP workshops on advocacy and fundraising (for Platform Focal Persons) were very helpful in knowing how to influence local government to take action to improve specific targeted services. This is consistent with the above finding.

Respondents to the citizen survey see virtually no change in how effective the National Assembly is at monitoring the executive branch over time – the modal response category is “no change” – and no substantive or statistical differences are apparent between treatment communes and control communes.

Regarding oversight at the national level, there was anecdotal evidence of results achieved following an oversight visit by a parliamentary committee, funded by the project. A fact-finding oversight mission regarding drugs and drug-pricing took place in April 2016. The Report was not yet presented – when the Minister immediately visited the same area and started making more drugs available for free. Was this a coincidence? Another interviewee from parliament told the evaluators, “Questions to the Ministers have become part of the institutional practices and MPs are much more visible.”

Five LSP funded oversight missions were undertaken and six missions relating to gender issues took place (see Annex L, tables of LSP activities). A chapter of the African Parliamentarian Network Against Corruption was established. The Project Reports say that PSAN objective “3.2 Improve oversight procedures of governmental action by ANCI” had only two activities funded directly. LSP says that activities related to oversight were also funded in several other areas of LSP; that is not clear in the Reports. 16 (See Annex I, Project Activities and PSAN).

Overall, the activities delivered support the finding that oversight was likely improved to some degree, at both the National and the commune level. This is supported by the rating scale. Respondents were administered the rating scale question: “On a scale of 1-5, how effective is the parliament in oversight of the Executive now compared to 3 years ago?” The average score of 3.5, meaning respondents perceived an improvement compared to 3 years ago. In terms of percentages, of the 150 respondents, nearly 60percent of the total respondents saw an improvement compared to three years ago. It is not known if this was understood to mean national level or local oversight. In addition, the number of activities supported to promote oversight is small. However, oversight powers were not increased through LSP, since the necessary reforms of Standing Orders was not implemented.


According to project data, LSP was successful in improving the oversight function of the legislature. The indicator used to measure performance was:

16 LSP points out that other LSP activity channels also supported oversight, including tasks 1.3.3.1 providing training on commission operations and oversight and 1.3.3.2 providing technical assistance in conducting commission hearing; 1.4.1 Provide Technical Assistance to Commissions and Deputies on Oversight Tools, with sub activities 1.4.3 Review Institutions Roles in the Budget Cycle, and 1.4.1.3 support Commission oversight visits.


Number of executive oversight actions taken by the legislature with USG assistance. The total number reported in the PMP report is 29, or 94 percent of target. (In the 2014 PMP, the target was 90. The LSP reports say the number was reduced because LSP received cuts in funding in 2015). This number is not consistent with the project reports which identify 11 oversight actions by committees – principally the fact-finding missions. LSP says that the missions often studied more than one ‘theme’ and that each ‘theme’ was counted as one oversight action. This distinction is not explained in the Reports.

CONCLUSIONS It is generally understood that oversight means legislative control at the national level – i.e., national executive government performance, and the national budget. Legislative oversight, however, can also be defined as the monitoring of public service delivery at the community level. In this sense, the fact that Platforms established three priority service sectors for targeting can be regarded as an oversight act. Oversight was effective in the sense that some improvements to public service delivery were achieved. However, this ‘oversight’ is different from National level oversight by Parliament, since Platforms are not an independent branch of government. Rather, they are an advisory body to local government.

This result was also due to the structure of Platforms, in which members included representatives of public service delivery entities, agencies, and departments. As members of the Platforms, they played a dual role, as advocates and as informants or agents of change. The evaluation found that a good number of interviewees described public services had improved. (However the citizen survey findings did not support this, suggesting that project insiders had information on successes that were not widely known). Many of these are reported in the project reports. The MP could also advocate for changes at a higher level of local government, also an oversight activity.

The fact that a community group could collectively bring about change that benefitted citizens may have contributed to an attitude change, namely, that a citizen can take an active approach to local issues.

When an MP is active in the Platform, he or she was more engaged in oversight, and more effective as a result. Oversight therefore, depends first and foremost, on an active presence in the community. The Platform mechanism was then effective in supporting this oversight function: because it provided targets for public service reform, and a support group of Platform members to help with initiatives to influence changes.

From the perspective of National Assembly reform, the oversight function still has many steps to take before achieving African standards. Reforms of Standing Orders (included in the PSAN but not implemented) will be necessary to give more oversight powers to committees and the Assembly. For example some African legislatures have powers to approve or reject presidential appointments, to propose private member laws, to conduct investigations, to amend national budget legislation or to develop and approve their internal budgets. All these powers, absent in Côte d’Ivoire, give more capacity for oversight.

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. In order to strengthen oversight capacity, LSP should formally prepare the benefits and costs of key reforms to rules of the National Assembly.

2B. HOW WERE LEGISLATIVE FUNCTIONS IMPROVED? The evaluation team found that most informants perceived an improvement in Parliament’s legislative functions. This question is also a sub-question in reference to the 24 communes and the Pilot Platforms. The legislative function is understood primarily to be a national-level activity – amending and approving laws from the Executive (MPs drafting private member laws has not taken place). Informants were aware that at the National level, Parliament has not proposed any new laws, but that it has amended a number of laws from the Executive, more than in the past. Recently, the debate of the Family Law attracted much attention, and has probably led to the opinions observed by the evaluation team, namely that Parliament is improving its legislative function.


A senior member of legislative services in the ANCI told the evaluators, “When the ANCI started in 2013, fewer than 10percent of the staff after the war were school trained for their work here (legislative drafting) – it is now 40percent. Many of the older staff have been upgraded by the SUNY training.”

At the commune level, findings are that MPs contribute to informing citizens of legislative issues upcoming: for example, by discussing upcoming legislation on community radio, by informing about or obtaining feedback from local citizens regarding new or amended laws.

The rating scale question, “On a scale of 1-5, how effective is the parliament in lawmaking now compared to 3 years ago?” gave a comparatively high average score (compared to other questions) of 3.7. Some 68percent of 150 persons scored Parliament as more effective compared to three years ago. In other words, this finding suggests perception of law making was quite positive

From a national perspective, LSP activities were concentrated in Strategic Objective 1.5 (Human Resources). Starting in 2016, LSP funded 5 staff and 10 interns to work with Legislative Services, supporting the legislative functions, including legal texts, contributing significantly to legislative outputs (draft Bills). The other strategic objectives relating to legislation had few or no activities delivered by LSP. No private member Bills were developed, as planned in PSAN (i.e., objective 2.4 Enhance capacity of ANCI to initiate its own laws).


According to project data, LSP was successful in improving the legislative function of the National Assembly. The indicator used to measure this result was:

Number of draft laws subject to substantive amendment & final vote that benefitted from USG assistance. The total number reported in the PMP report is 19, or 90 percent of target. (However, in the 2014 PMP, the target was 66).

CONCLUSIONS Although the law-making function was neither given much focus in the LSP activities nor at the Platform level, there were examples of legislation being discussed at the community level by the local MP. Community radio (component of Platforms) contributed to dialogue on upcoming laws. According to the Mayor of Anyama: “along with other members of the platform, I would spend over 40 minutes in radio shows to explain newly enacted laws or laws subject to be debated at the National Assembly.”

From a national perspective, LSP activities were concentrated in Strategic Objective 1.5 (Human Resources). Starting in 2016, LSP funded 5 staff and 10 interns to work with Legislative Services, supporting the legislative functions, including legal texts, contributing significantly to legislative outputs. The other strategic objectives relating to legislation had few or no activities delivered by LSP.

In particular, no training or other support was provided to help MPs draft and present private member’s Bills, although both the PSAN and LSP had the development of such capacity as a target. The evaluation team was told that a Constitutional provision requires that the MP proposing the law must include how the Act will be financed.

Overall, the National Assembly of Côte d’Ivoire remains less evolved than other African countries in terms of the private member bills. A Constitutional provision requires that the MP proposing the law must include how the Act will be financed.17

17 Art 107 of legislative procedure of the constitution states that amendment and/or provision of new law parliament members are not receivables if these provisions lead to decrease in public resources or increase in public spending unless they are associated with proposal of new revenue or saving in public resources.


RECOMMENDATIONS

1. LSP should formally prepare the benefits and costs of key reforms to rules of the National Assembly, to strengthen legislative capacity.

2. LSP should assess the benefits and costs associated with the 15 staff provided through the project and report findings to the Program committee.

EVALUATION QUESTION #3 How are LSP activities changing the perception of constituents of MPs and the National Assembly?

The extent to which LSP has contributed to changing perceptions of constituents towards MPs and the National Assembly depends upon which data you use to tell the story. For instance, when presented with the rating scale question “To what extent has your perception of the National Assembly changed in the past 3 years?” 70 percent of 150 respondents responded that their perception was more positive. Respondents, however, gave an average score of 3.4, suggesting only a slight improvement in perceptions about the National Assembly over time. KIIs and FGDs, on the other hand, suggest citizen perceptions have changed more positively since the OTI 2013 survey. On the rating scale question, “To what extent has your perception of your MP changed in the past 3 years?” 67 percent stated more positive than three years ago. As described under Evaluation Question #1, the most frequently mentioned comment by informants was “MP is more effective than previously: in terms of representation, oversight, availability, communicating law related issues, and visibility in communes.” This was not the case when OTI/AECOM did a survey of citizens in 2013. A content analysis of interviews and focus group discussions found these four opinions expressed more frequently (ranked in order of frequency):

Table 3. Most Frequently Expressed Opinions in KII and FGDs

Rank Opinion Expressed

1 MP is more effective than previously: in terms of representation, oversight, availability, communicating law related issues, and visibility in communes

2 Platforms are effective for improving MP representation, resolving community conflicts, networking, interaction between local government and citizens, and informing about gender-related legal issues

3 Parliament is more effective now in administration and staff more committed and effective

4 Platform leadership is essential in order for Platform to be effective

Responses to the representative citizen survey point to mixed perceptions about their MPs and the work the MPs do in their communities and in the National Assembly. Overall, approval ratings are quite modest: just under one third of respondents in both LSP communes and control communes agree their MPs are “generally good” at their jobs today. Statistically and substantively fewer respondents in LSP communes than control communes – 57 and 63 percent, respectively


– believe their MPs are doing a bad job, however.

These results are consistent with two questions DI asked in its citizen survey, where respondents first identified what they believed is the most important role their MP could play in the National Assembly, and then evaluated their MP(s) on their performance in that area. Similar approval and disapproval ratings are apparent. However, the pattern is reversed – that is, respondents in LSP intervention communes are less likely to support their MP(s) highly and, in fact, rate them more negatively than respondents in control communes. This is not necessarily an indictment of the program; indeed, citizens in pilot communes may only be able to give more critical evaluations because they have learned through LSP just what they are entitled to as citizens who are represented in parliament.

Pilot commune respondents are even more likely to think MPs “rarely” or “never” try their best to listen to what ordinary people have to say (83 percent) than control commune respondents (79 percent), although the overall average of 81 percent suggests a populace that is very cynical about its deputies. At the same time, overall opinions of the National Assembly have changed for the better. In LSP pilot communes, 31 percent of respondents identify positive changes in the National Assembly compared to the past, whereas only 26 percent of control commune respondents feel the same way. Pilot commune citizens are also less likely to see no changes at all (48 percent relative to 58 percent in the control communes), and a higher percentage of pilot commune respondents identify negative changes (21 percent) than respondents in the control communes (16 percent). If nothing else, this suggests LSP raised awareness enough to enable people to make an informed opinion. Citizens hold more charitable views of their MPs’ contribution to public services, which was a target outcome under PSAN Axis 4. Survey data can help us understand to what extent individuals are satisfied with the quality of different services in their constituencies, how they rate overall service quality this year compared to last, and the degree to which they attribute any improvement to their MPs. Most citizens believe service delivery is deficient in their communities. Among all respondents, satisfaction in service delivery hovers around 30 percent in both DI’s survey and the CSC (with education the obvious outlier).

At the same time, citizens are disinclined to criticize too much. Most respondents rank the overall quality of their services as “average” and that service quality has not changed much and is “about the same” as last year.


We notice, again, the unusual finding that LSP communes are more likely than control communes to rate service delivery as “poor,” but they are also more likely to describe services as “good.” Over time, too, LSP treatment communes are more likely to note change – better or worse – than control communes. This is significant at least insofar as it points to LSP program recipients’ greater exposure to information that allows them to form an opinion.

The connection to LSP and MPs is apparent when we examine only those respondents in treatment and control communes who claimed service quality had improved over the past year. Compared to respondents living in control communes, those respondents in LSP communes are far more likely – 13 percent more likely – to attribute “a fair amount” of the improvement in public services to their MP, and they are fully 8 percent less likely to believe their MPs “contributed nothing at all” to changes in services.

Taken as a whole, the majority of respondents in pilot communes attribute some responsibility for service delivery improvements to their MP, whereas a majority in control communes give their MPs no credit at all. These findings are statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS It is perhaps too early to conclude the extent to which LSP has contributed to an improved image of the ANCI. Although LSP began in 2013, Platforms were fully implemented only about 18 months ago (due to slow start up of the project and a pause during a six-month pre-election period). The perceptions of informants may be influenced by public activities of the National Assembly at the National and International levels, by its web site and its communications activities. The President of the National Assembly is visible on TV and hosts a number of international visitors, which also contributes to an improved image. Meanwhile, survey data suggest a fairly stable favorability rating hovering near 33 percent approval on most measures.

Regretfully, it is not possible to measure change over time directly due to incompatible sampling structures between the CSC, which employed a questionable “convenience sample” and the DI survey, which relied on a generalizable “random sample.” However, important trends are apparent. As we have seen before, LSP seems to be making most improvement on reducing negative opinions of MPs and the National Assembly, rather than increasing positive opinions. These are not the same thing.

Positive attitudes will result after many iterations of successful experiences with MPs and the National Assembly, and visible improvements in matters that citizens hold dear. By contrast, the short-term boosts in knowledge about and exposure to MPs and the National Assembly are likely to mitigate knee-jerk negativity


which characterizes most publics toward their legislatures. This suggests that LSP is very much putting public opinion onto the right track. In the long-run, however, MPs and Parliament itself will be responsible for their own success with the people.

EVALUATION QUESTION #4 How did the creation of collaborative platforms in each pilot commune change the understanding of deputy’s role and help to improve the delivery of the basic services at grassroots?

As noted in the last paragraph, Platforms have been operational for only about 18 months, making an evaluation of outcomes premature. Nevertheless, there is some evidence Platforms are effective instruments for refining the understanding of government roles, including the roles of MP and local governments. They did this through the briefing and training workshops, and the town halls civic education meetings in the 24 selected communes. The Evaluation Team’s interviews provided anecdotal evidence that citizens have learned to distinguish the role of MP from that of the local government. The case study of Abengourou (see Annex G) supports this finding. The MP in this commune used visits to her office by constituents to educate people on the role of an MP (there were 70 visits per month recorded). Many interviewees explained they had learned the difference between advocacy and problem resolution: one thing is advocating for fixing a service problem and another one is fixing the service problem itself. Interviewees also learned who is responsible for each.

Evidence from interviews supports the findings that the design/technical approach to Platforms was valid, including membership, types of training and processes. For example, Platform members who were employees of the water services department helped resolve a waste water issue identified in their Platform – by contacting and advocating with colleagues and persons of authority who worked in the same department. Several anecdotal examples of improved public services were provided in the communes of Abengourou, Anyama and Bingerville. Paradoxically, there is evidence that in those communes where the MP was engaged with Platforms, the role of MP was falsely understood as being responsible for service provision.

The conceptual design of “Collaborative Platforms” was validated during a number of comments and discussions. The Secretary General of the National Assembly noted that Platforms are “a vital interface between citizens, civil society and administrative authorities, help to mobilize people for common aim, and make the National Assembly a stronger institution.” The structure of Platforms, involving representatives from administrative powers working around a table with citizen representatives, was effective at improving some local services, resolving services-related problems, or informing citizens of the issues, and thereby helping to avoid conflict. It is an effective instrument for citizen engagement with local authorities, and also increases visibility of the participating MP. The Action Planning process ensures that needs are captured and targeted. Collaboration among different stakeholders was an important factor needed for a successful Platform, as well as an active leadership.

Overall, Platforms are relevant and useful in a number of ways, including visibility of MP, influencing or improving public services, engaging citizens and civil society in community issues.

What are the key barriers that need to be addressed?

Issues identified by the evaluation included:

Leadership of Platforms was unclear to a number of Platform members and MPs: o Some, including some MPs believed that the MP alone should be the leader; the MP is

perceived as the representative of a “mini commune-based National Assembly;” and the MP is external to executive local government.

o Others, including leaders in the National Assembly believed that administrative authorities should lead the Platform, since they have access to facilities for meetings and logistics, and


since they manage public service delivery. This will be more effective in improving public services.

o The issue of unclear leadership was also an evaluation finding; namely that leadership (or lack of leadership) varied considerably in the eight Communes visited by the evaluation team. Weak Platforms (those which did not meet regularly or did not make reports) tended to have weak leadership.

o Some believed that co-leadership (MP and local administrative authority) was best to ensure both representation and improved public services.

MPs were often absent or unavailable for Platform meetings; Platforms need an office and staff so that citizens can make contact with the MP or have a site to

raise community issues; and a facility to ensure reporting, logistics and follow up; Platforms lacked follow up and monitoring from LSP to strengthen capacities or re-enforce good

practices;18 Platform meetings were often infrequent, or in some case did not take place following start up; When the MP who initiated the Platform loses his/her parliamentary seat, there is lack of continuity

in the Platform; Some Platform members wanted or needed travel stipends; There were no members from village level organizations found in the sample of Platforms visited

(reported to consultants that other Platforms had village-level representation).

Please see the case study of a successful Platform in Abengourou in Annex G.

CONCLUSIONS Preliminary findings showed a more positive perception of MPs and National Assembly. Participants were able to document success stories in public service delivery. These services are related to improvement of security, water supply, electricity, education and health. Leadership of a Platform was found to be important to success, but there was disagreement as to who should be the leader. Some MPs were frustrated when the platform was led by the local administration. According to this view, the project is built around the MP as leader, the MP submitted the application and was awarded a Platform. Others were of the opinion that Platforms must equally engage local government as they have the resources to improve public services. From this perspective, a Platform should be jointly chaired by MP and local authority (Mayor or regional head). The LSP staff was of the view that a Platform led by local government achieved more results in terms of improved public services.

Arguably, a Platform might be more effective as an advisory body that participates with local government in planning and budgeting.19 What then is the role of the MP? And how then can representation nevertheless be strengthened? The case study of Abengourou (see Annex G) is relevant to this argument. The Platform was jointly chaired without clear-cut ownership, the goal of improving service delivery remaining the focus.

18 LSP project management commented as follows: “LSP agrees that additional onsite support would have been beneficial. Unfortunately, the implementation strategy for the platforms shifted dramatically during project start up from that originally contemplated in the original proposal and the proposal budget where the travel line to platform support was dramatically inadequate to what SUNY deemed appropriate – less than one third of the amount that SUNY estimated necessary for effective support. However, USAID deemed a realignment of almost 200% of the travel line to be excessive and directed adjustments accordingly.”

19 It is important to note that LSP disagreed with this assessment pointing that successful efforts of the Anyama platform to get the state to deliver potable water and the Yakassé-Attobrou platform to successfully press for the resumption of work on an important roadway demonstrate the possibility of the platforms serving as an important advocate for improved services.


It is possible that the functions of a Platform could be filled by an alternative approach. MP constituency offices, staffed by assistants, could also facilitate representation, and also assist citizens with issues, the latter by organizing and conducting outreach activities in the community.

RECOMMMENDATIONS

1. LSP should assist the ANCI in the debate about maintaining or evolving Platforms, while increasing representation and improving service delivery. Costs and benefits of options should be calculated. One option to consider is whether an MP constituency office located in the local administration could be effective, if combined with the Platform committee structures.


CONCLUSIONS COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF KEY PROJECT PERFORMANCE INDICATORS There exists no mid-line assessment to compare LSP’s key performance indicators against the baseline assessment. Although we can use the 2017 citizen perceptions survey to compare to the SUNY score card data, the data sets are not comparable because as argued above, the SUNY baseline score card assessment was not conducted in a statistically rigorous manner. The CSC survey defines statistical robustness in terms of sample size. However, a large sample generates a low margin of error only with respect to our ability to generalize characteristics of the sample to the larger population, and SUNY’s convenience sampling methodology renders this extremely difficult. Generalizability is a function of sample size and the representativeness of the sample. Representativeness is statistically guaranteed by random sampling, in which each member of the target population has a known and equal chance of being included in the sample. Convenience sampling introduces selection bias that eliminates equal probability of inclusion. Convenience samples can provide rich qualitative information about the individuals surveyed, but it is important to resist the temptation to characterize descriptive statistics of SUNY’s sample as characteristics of the target beneficiary population, or of the population of Cote d’Ivoire at large.

While we are comparing and contrasting available data, the evaluation cannot draw firm conclusions from a simple comparison of these two different quantitative data sets. The evaluation uses the DI survey as a tool to validate qualitative data collected during field work and to understand more generally how citizens perceive the work of their MPs and the quality of service delivery in the communes where they live.

Analysis of the LSP output-related performance indicators (presented in Table M) suggests a problem with the design of these measures. Table M includes a right-hand column listing the targets in 2014. These targets were revised by 2016 (to fewer expected outputs).

Number of ANCI documents made available to the Public: Target reduced from 150 to 28.

Number of draft laws subject to substantive amendment & final vote that benefitted from USG assistance: Target reduced from 66 to 21.

Number of executive oversight actions taken by the legislature with USG assistance: Target reduced from 90 to 31.

Number of Public Forums in which Members of Parliament and Members of the Public Interact with USG assistance: Target reduced from 126 to 60.

Number of LSP technical deliverable appropriated by ANCI: Target reduced from 45 to 16.

Number of participants in LSP activities: Target increased from 16,000 to 32,000.

The last indicator was combined with an earlier indicator that was discontinued, which explains the increase. The others were likely reduced once the LSP recognized difficulties in delivery.

The above indicators are not very informative as to the performance of the project in the targeted areas of administration, representation, oversight, and legislation. The numbers of MPs and staff trained in each of these functions would be an improvement. It would have been useful to have indicators on the various themes addressed by PSAN: the number of interactions with civil society organizations, the timeliness of delivery of research services or legislative services, the number of issues in a subject raised in parliament, or number of questions asked of Ministers. The number of oversight actions is an indicator, but is a larger number than the activity reports show.


EFFECTIVENESS AND RELEVANCY OF THE PROJECT APPROACH The LSP is found to be effective and relevant to capacity building of the National Assembly. Findings from the interviews and focus groups are that LSP activities contributed to significantly improved capacity of MPs and staff. The infrastructure of the National Assembly is much improved, compared to 2013, both the physical and systems aspects. The National Assembly administration/management and human resources services are much improved, and staff is all reported to be responsive and positive. LSP made significant progress in modernizing the voting systems. The representation function has been strengthened in the case of active Platforms (The evaluation observed 8 Platforms, of which representation was improved in at least five). The oversight function is improved as is the legislative function. Improvements, however are dependent on project support, both for staffing and resources to finance oversight visits. There is evidence in some locations of a strengthened relationship between elected officials and the people. LSP helped to create the Communication Department and through it, more activities have taken place to educate the public about the role of members and the ANCI.

The LSP completed activities in many of the planned thematic areas – but only the Communications Function can be said to have been raised close to the intended performance level.

Not all LSP support was successful, however. Parliament has received very little training in budget analysis. Nor has it begun the process of preparing and adopting its own internal budget. This is a significant finding relating to the project approach. There were three programming areas that were sensitive: budget training, establishing a Gender Committee, and reform of rules (Standing Orders). Two are still in process, making slow but forward progress, as LSP reports. Budget training however, disappeared from work plans in 2015, because the National Assembly Leadership asked that the training for the Commission on Economic Affairs related to the National Budget and the National Assembly Budget be removed from the 2015 Work plan20 – allegedly this was in part because the analysis made by the Consultant hired by LSP differed from that provided by the Minister of Finance. As a result, a number of activities planned for LSP, both for 2015 and beyond, were cancelled or put on indefinite hold. (LSP 2016 Work Plan P. 8).

In fairness, LSP did support one training seminar on the budget process and one on gender budgeting. But LSP Reports clearly show that by early 2014, LSP had concluded there was no political will for these activities. The defence offered by the Assembly is credible – that they had to be ‘extra’ careful in the 2013-2017 Parliament to work with the Executive. Moreover, the National Assembly believes that it does not yet have the ability to act in the financial sector including the development of its own budget, despite the fact that legal texts allow it to do so.

However, budget capacity and the development of the internal budget by the National Assembly form an entire “axe” in the PSAN and are singled out as a critical area of work in the Needs Assessment. The PSAN stressed that the goal of the 2012-2015 Plan was to prepare the MPs for a more ‘normal’ Parliament in 2017-2022.

Budget issues are the heart of any Parliament – and are very political. In the local context, it is impossible to imagine that the initial training could have started with an analysis that contradicted the Minister of Finance and given the existing levels of political will to reform the budget process among the National Assembly leadership. LSP should have anticipated that. As Barkan notes, how a Parliament handles the two Budgets is an extremely important indicator of its independence and maturity. Budget issues are the heart of every Parliament – and are always very political. That in the local context – when ‘getting along’ is seen as key –

20 Support for the National Assembly in the management of its finances and technical assistance to strengthen its control over the budget planned for 2015, were cancelled due to objections by the ANCI/LSP program management bodies at their March 2015 meeting.


makes training in budget issues both more challenging – and thinking strategically about training becomes even more important.

PROJECT MANAGEMENT ISSUES AND COALITIONS The time to complete a suite of activities was often very long – and reasons are not entirely clear.21 Little was accomplished in the first 12-18 months – but individual activities moved quickly after the arrival of a new COP. When she departed the pace slowed down again.22

For all the difficulties experienced in the beginning, SUNY is highly regarded at the ANCI – and their advice is sought. (e.g., the orientation, the coordination role the played that the NA encouraged). That is a remarkable turnaround – but it may have only been possible by giving up the role of prodding the ANCI for more and faster change as imagined in the PSAN.

The key strategy adopted by SUNY – to build coalitions of donors and CSOs into the implementation of an activity as often and as comprehensively as possible – worked extremely well. Donor partners accepted the coordination (and saw that it was supported by the NA). Secondly, leadership saw the value of coalition-building – and built that understanding into the teaching and action plans (it is the core ‘value’ of the platforms.).

NATIONAL ASSEMBLY STRATEGIC PLAN The PSAN proposed that, given the circumstances, Parliament should seek to become a fully operational Parliament only in its second five-year term and should use the first five years to build the capacity of the MPs and of the staff to be able to perform the ‘normal’ functions of oversight, legislation and representation in the second term.

The leadership felt that the priority in the post-conflict context was to focus on learning to live together in peace towards a better standard of living – in order to not slip back into civil war.

Some examples of this one-two approach include: Parliament should develop the capacity to support the drafting of private members’ Bills – but should not expect to see many such Bills during this term; Parliament should develop its capacity to scrutinize the National Budget proposed by the Government – but should also refrain from taking an adversarial role in this term (this was the reason given by SUNY why budget training and support for the Committees was cancelled).

The PSAN has, in fact, two foci: building capacity and tools related to the three functions during this first term; and the implementation of the National Development Plan (NDP).

The implementation (not the design) of the NDP is an explicit goal of the PSAN. The NDP was to become the content of the work of the Committees – and the reason to learn to use oversight tools was because Committees need to learn how to oversee the actions of Government in order to contribute to the implementation of the Development Plan. In this case, constructive criticism of the actions of the Government is not only permitted – but expected.

21 Annex L shows the significant time gaps between related activities. For example, HR assessments took place once per year with no follow up in between. 22 According to LSP management “The slowdown in activity implementation in 2016 was not due to the transition in COP management but rather due to the fact that 2016 was an election year. This resulted in planned and unplanned slowing of implementation. On the planned level, in order to avoid appearing to favor serving MPs in the election, activities involving work with the platforms were scheduled and completed during the first half of 2016 (aside from ongoing support of the local focal points which continued discreetly after that.) Similarly, all public engagement activities involving the MPs were prohibited by USAID starting 3 months before the elections. On the unplanned level, due to a press on advancing the ANCI’s work agenda along with the need to campaign, MPs and staff were increasingly unavailable to participate in project activities as the year progressed.”


Finally, note also that Parliament’s plan explicitly looks towards the day when the Parliament will function ‘normally’.

The purpose of the LSP was to support the Parliament in the implementation of the PSAN – with its constraints and limitations – not the development of an ‘ideal’ Parliament.

PROJECT MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Consolidation of activities planned and activities should be conducted – the story of the project can

then be more easily read and understood by the final assessors.

2. LSP should formally assess the benefits and costs of key LSP inputs and establish budgets for the costs of continuing the activities that advance the institution’s development.

3. LSP focus for the remaining time should be sustainability of the project and ANCI achievements.

4. Strategy: The development of the next Strategic Plan has started. The assessment of the PSAN 2013 to 2017 has already taken place (at Yamoussoukro). The initial discussion identified the somewhat small percentage of activities completed and the dependency on donors as major concerns. There is likely to be the same concerns among donors and partners. The Government must demonstrate the will to implement PSAN by investing financially in the PSAN and its objectives. Otherwise, there is very little likelihood that there will be an LSP 2 (a significant support program that all the Donors subscribe to support) to support PSAN 2017-2022.

LESSONS LEARNED Supporting parliamentary institutions is one of the most difficult of development undertakings. Thomas Carothers, in his 1999 book, Aiding Democracy Abroad: The Learning Curve (Carnegie Endowment for International Peace), wrote:


It is very unrealistic to expect significant institutional change in a few years even in the best of cases. The Côte d’Ivoire National Assembly is a worst case due to 10 years of civil war. In these circumstances the LSP has done well. The slow and difficult start meant that some activities began as little as one year ago (Platforms implemented, for example). One repeated comment from interviewees in communes was, “The pilot has just started, you cannot leave now!”

The “collective approach” strategy developed and refined by LSP was very effective, as discussed extensively in findings section. The collaboration with 18 other donors and partners added significant resources, both technical and financial (i.e., funding of project planned activities and technical assistance by other donors), added credibility and may have a reversed difficult start up that might have prematurely closed the project. However, “collective approach” is another word for donor cooperation, which is hardly a new idea, its advantages being widely known (indeed formalized in the 2002 “Paris Principles”). EU members and other countries frequently share projects; in some versions, one or more countries transfer funds to a designated lead donor who manages the project on behalf of all. Basket funding arrangements are common among donors, with the exception of the USG which is prohibited from co-mingling its funds.

What was missing from the LSP project was a donor committee. Each donor or partner took their lead from the PSAN, with coordination provided by SUNY project staff. There were no joint meetings of donors to strategize, share lessons or otherwise collaborate. This practice would also have added value. Donors and implementing partners working with a jointly-developed strategy may have greater influence and achieve more results than one contractor/implementing partner alone.

MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF LSP – FINAL REPORT A-1

ANNEX A: STATEMENT OF WORK

MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF LSP – FINAL REPORT B-1

ANNEX B: KEY INFORMANTS NOM ET PRENOMS INSTITUTIONS FUNCTIONS Location

1 Fama TOURE SUNY LSP Component 1 coordinator

Abidjan

2 Pauline KY épouse KOUASSI

SUNY LSP Component 2 coordinator

Abidjan

3 GOGOUA SUNY CASC Abidjan

4 Akpo Frederic ESSOH SUNY Affaires Extérieures

Abidjan

5 William N’GUESSAN SUNY Abidjan

6 Franck OKOUBI SUNY Expert chargé de l’analyse de loi

Abidjan

7 Pacome DESSERO SUNY MαE Abidjan

8 L. Ahouanzi LATTE Assemblée Nationale Secrétaire Général

Abidjan

9 Maruis N’DRI Assemblée Nationale Secrétaire Général Adjoint

Abidjan

10 Siaka OUATTARA Parlement Député Anyama

11 Amidou SYLLA Mairie Maire Anyama

12 Zenab SARR Radio Directrice Générale

Anyama

13 Veronique ALLAH Plateforme Membre Abidjan/Koumassi

14 Edth ASSY Plateforme Membre Abidjan /Koumassi

15 Mamadou SYLLA Plateforme Membre Abidjan /Koumassi

16 Yvonne ZOMAHOUN Plateforme Membre Abidjan /Koumassi

17 Issa DIARRA Société Civile Président des Soufi de

Koumassi

Abidjan /Koumassi

18 Innocent EMOLO Parlementaire Député Abidjan /Koumassi

19 AHUE Commissariat de Koumassi 6e ARRDT

Major Abidjan /Koumassi

20 Aboa KOUADIO Mairie 1er Adjoint au Maire

Abidjan /Koumassi


NOM ET PRENOMS INSTITUTIONS FUNCTIONS Location

21 Sekou BAMBA PNUD Coordonnateur National du Programme d’Appui à la

Gouvernance

Abidjan

22 Yaya DOUKOURE DGDDL Administrateur Civil/ Directeur

de la Coopération Décentralisée

Abidjan

23 Mme GOGOUA ONUFEM Responsable du Programme de Leadership et

Responsable des Femmes

Abidjan

24 David GILES Pro justice Chef de Projet Adjoint

Abidjan

25 James ASSANDE

Conseil regional Chef service communication

Abengourou

26 Koufinda KONE FEMFECA Presidente Abengourou

27 Matagare GBANE Epse YORO

FEMFECA Chargee de Suivi-Evaluation

Abengourou

28 Ousmane TIA Mairie 2eme Adjoint au Maire

Abengourou

29 Isabelle Trazie KOFFI Prefecture chef division planification et equipe,memnt

Abengourou

30 Jean Claude DON MELLO Prefecture chef de division affaires generales

Abengourou

31 Aime GOLI Prefecture de Police Commissairede pOlice

Abengourou

32 Amoikon KANGA Radio Agnia FM la Voix de l’Indenie

Chef de service production et

maintenance et Vice-president

du CODES de la Radio

Abengourou

33 Joseph AMANI Radio Agnia FM la Voix de l’Indenie

Chef de service radio

Abengourou



34 Koffi Julien HOUSSOU Plateforme Leader communautaire

Abengourou

35 Julien N’GUESSAN Plateforme ONG UNIVERS SANTE-CI

Abengourou

36 Israel AHONON Plateforme Président des jeunes

Abengourou

37 Adjoua Christine KOUASSI Epse KONATE

Plateforme Présidente FAFDA

Abengourou

38 Brou KRE Préfecture de Police Préfet de Police, commissaire divisionnaire

Abengourou

39 Alama DOUMBIA Religion Imam Abengourou

40 Ibrahim COULIBALY Sous-préfecture Chargé Administratif

Abengourou

41 Mamadou FANNY Parlement Député Suppléant

Abengourou

42 Tanoh Marguerite KOUA Parlement Députée Abengourou

43 Kouakou Kan Abel BERNABRA

Parlement Député Suppléant

Bouaké

44 Paul Koffi KOFFI Parlement Député Bouaké

45 Mamadou FANNY Permanence du député Charles Gnahore

Député suppleant

Bouaké

46 Desire Ibrahim COULIBALY

Permanence du député Charles Gnahore

Chargee des affaires

administrative

Bouaké

47 Brahima LASSANA Permanence du député Charles Gnahore

Secretaire General Adjoint de FORCE 2015

Bouaké

48 Dr DIOMANDE Ex-député Pharmacien Bouaké

49 Navoga

SILUE

Ministère des affaires sociales

Membre de la plateforme

Bouaké

50 Pascal KOUASSI

Minsitere de l’agriculture Membre de la plateforme

Bouaké

51 Imam IDRISS Président de la Plateforme Membre de la Bouaké



des confessions religieuses plateforme

52 Mme Anne-Maire YAO

Fédération des associations féminines

Membre de la plateforme

Bouaké

53 Jules KOUADIO

Préfecture Membre de la plateforme

Bouaké

54 Lancine COULIBALY

Minsitere de l’agriculture Membre de la plateforme

Bouaké

55 Mamadou BAMBA Mairie 2eme Adjoint au Maire

Bouaké

56 Souleymane KEMEINGUE

Radio Media+ Charge de relation publique

Bouaké

57 Tiemoko TRAORE Radio Media+ Responsible technique

Bouaké

58 Beri Eugénie Koné Plateforme Chef de cabinet du prefet

Ferkessédougou

59 Larghaton OUATTARA plateforme Ex-député suppleant

Ferkessédougou

60 Ismael DIALLO Radio Binkadi, Directeur adjoint

Ferkessédougou

61 Yacouba SANOGO Mairie 2e Adjoint au Maire

Ferkessédougou

62 Tanhanyeloma KONE Mairie 3e Adjoint au Maire

Ferkessédougou

63 Kouassi Sylvain TCHOKPOHOVE

Mairie Secrétaire Général

Ferkessédougou

64 Saki Firmin BOGA Plateforme Policier Ferkessédougou

65 Zakaria COULIBALY Plateforme Chambre des métiers

Ferkessédougou

66 Sangolo TRAORE Plateforme Imam Ferkessédougou

67 Soungalo KONE Plateforme Jeunesse(UJCF) Ferkessédougou

68 Aoua Sissoko MAIGA Plateforme UFEF Ferkessédougou

69 Patrice N’GORAN Conseil Régional S/D charge de la prospective

Daloa



70 Viviane DOFFOU Conseil Régional S/D charge de la planification

Daloa

71 Amidou SORE Plateforme Suppléant du Député Koné

Boubacar,

Daloa

72 Lepko Arsene GNAHORE Mairie Directeur des Services socio-culturels et de

promotion humaine

Daloa

73 Jean Sihye DIE Radio DALOA FM Directeur Daloa

74 Otis Bernading ABOUA Plateforme Point focal Daloa

75 Tape Sebastien GUEDI Plateforme Représentant des chefs de

village

Daloa

76 Julien BAGNOHOU Plateforme Education Nationale

Daloa

77 AKA BROU Plateforme Représentant ONG VIF

Daloa

78 Guy Marc YEPE Plateforme Pasteur Daloa

79 Cherif Aziz HAIDARA Plateforme Jeunesse communale

Daloa

80 Marie SIA Plateforme Présidente des associations féminines

Bingerville

81 Theophile ALLEY Plateforme ONG WANE-ZI Bingerville

82 Kobena Ambroise DAPPA Plateforme Secrétaire Général

Bingerville

83 Jean Luc DIARRA Plateforme Ministère de la construction

Bingerville

84 Davon KOFFI Plateforme Sous-préfecture Bingerville

85 Mme Dago Plateforme Presidente Union des

femmes de la Commune

San Pedro

86 Felix ANOBLE Parlement DEPUTE San Pedro

87 Caroline YEBOUE Radio Yakoi Fm Directeur San Pedro



88 Camara SEYDOU Plateforme President OSC San Pedro

MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF LSP – FINAL REPORT C-1

ANNEX C: INTERVIEW PROTOCOL

Hello. My name is ____________. I am from Democracy International, an independent consulting firm based in Washington DC in the USA. We are commissioned to do an evaluation of the Program d’Appui a l’Assemblee Nationale de Côte d’Ivoire, funded by USAID and implemented by SUNY (the State University of New York at Albany).

I do not represent the government of Côte d’Ivoire or any political party. We are studying the views of individuals and organizations that have been involved with the program, to obtain your opinions about what has gone well in the program or not so well, and why.

Your answers will be confidential. They will be put together with the responses of over 100 other people we are talking to, to get an overall picture. It will be impossible to pick you out from what you say, so please feel free to tell us what you think. This interview will take about forty minutes.

If you are happy to proceed, then let’s begin.

Guide to Interviewer: The protocol contains 26 questions for discussion topics. All questions must be relevant to the 6 evaluation questions EQ1, EQ2 EQ2a, EQ2b, EQ3, and EQ4, (see “Guide to Interviewer above each EQ).” Some subjects may not be known by some respondents; in that case continue to next topic and note “NA”.

EQ Code

s

Question Interviewee Category

INTRO

above

1. Are you familiar with the LSP? ALL 2. Which LSP approaches/activities have you been involved with? ALL

Now I am going to ask you some questions about management of the National Assembly

Guide to Interviewer EQ1: Which of the combined activities and or collective approaches promoted by LSP were effective in building the management of the administration capacity of the National Assembly? Sub-Questions: (Activities to be compared to observe relative effectiveness include: project committees, developing with NA a strategic plan, training and tools for budget oversight, strengthen rules of procedure (Standing Orders), strengthening caucuses through training, technical assistance and other support, MP/staff training, other Technical assistance, support to communications, development of IT systems, outreach to CSOs, caucus outreach, parliamentary research services, partners with government, partner with radio, or partnerships with CSOs.)

What evidence does the evaluation find regarding the extent to which LSP is strengthening in its administrative and management capacity?

What is the profile of a fully capacitated institution having the NA functions? What is now and was before the NA institutional profile?


What combined activities and/or approaches within those activities were effective in causing changes to the profile? How can changes be documented?

EQ Code

s


EQ1 3. How were the activities and or approaches with which you were involved effective in building the management of the administration capacity of the National Assembly?

NA STAFF, MPs, LSP PARTNERS, COMMUNES

EQ1 4. Are you aware of any other activities /approaches used in the LSP to improve the management and administration of the National Assembly?

LSP PARTNERS, COMMUNES

EQ1 5. Which of the four NA functions has been strengthened the most (oversight, lawmaking, representation, administration)?


EQ1 6. Can you give an example of a project success story in strengthening the NA? What management function was strengthened?


Now I am going to ask you some questions about the LSP activities in the 24 Treatment Communes ‐ Representation

Guide to Interviewer: EQ2: To what extent did LSP interventions promote the representational function of MPs in the 24 targeted constituencies? Sub-questions. How does the Project define the components of the ‘representational function’ that is to be improved though

the LSP? Which of these components were promoted by LSP? How were they promoted? What are the 2013, 2015 and 2017 comparative profiles of representation in the communes studied? How do constituents perceive the work of MPs in representation? Did citizen perceive representation increased compared to 2013? Were project promotions/activities the most likely reasons why perceived effectiveness increased? Were external factors influential? Could other activities be more effective? Do men and women perceive differences in representational quality? Did LSP interventions alter these

differences?

EQ Code

s


EQ2 7. Were you involved in the LSP activities in any of the 24 targeted communes?


EQ2 8. Did these LSP (USAID project) activities help MPs to better represent constituents in this constituency? How did they help??


EQ2 9. What kinds of representation were improved? How? Why? PARTNERS, COMMUNES


EQ Code

s


EQ2 10. Did any other LSP (USAID project) activities help MPs to better represent constituents? If so, how?


Oversight

Guide to Interviewer:

EQ2.a How were oversight functions improved? Sub-questions. How do constituents perceive the work of MPs in oversight of the executive? Did citizen perceive representation increased compared to 2013? Were project promotions/activities the most likely reasons why perceived effectiveness increased? Were external factors influential? Could other activities be more effective? Do women and men feel equally efficacious in their ability to hold MPs to account? Are women more or less likely than men to approve of the NA oversight function?

EQ Code

s


EQ2a)

11. Were you involved in any activities intended to improve oversight by the MPs – either in the 24 communes or at the National Assembly? 12. Were they effective? Why or why not? 13. Did any other LSP (USAID project) activities help to improve oversight by the MPs? If so, how?

NA STAFF, LSP PARTNERS, COMMUNES

Legislation

Guide to Interviewer: EQ2.b What change if any was noted in increased capacity of Deputies to perform their legislative functions? Sub-questions. How do constituents perceive the work of MPs in oversight of the executive? Did citizen perceive representation increased compared to 2013? Were project promotions/activities the most likely reasons why perceived effectiveness increased? Were external factors influential? Could other activities be more effective? Do women and men feel equally efficacious in their ability to hold MPs to account? Are women more or less likely than men to approve of the NA oversight function?

EQ Code

s


EQ2b)

14. Were you involved in any activities intended to improve law-making by the MPs – either in the 24 communes or at the National

NA STAFF LSP PARTNERS,


EQ Code

s


Assembly? 15. Were they effective? Why or why not? 16. Did any other LSP (USAID project) activities help to improve lawmaking by the MPs? If so, how?

COMMUNES

Now I am going to ask you some questions about how the National Assembly is perceived

Guide to Interviewer:

EQ3 How are LSP activities changing the perception of constituents about MPs and the National Assembly? Sub-questions. Do project communes have significantly larger changes in perception than control communes? What was the most effective activity for changing the way people in the communes feel? Do men and women diverge in whether they see improvements in the NA over time?

EQ Code

s


EQ3 17. Were you involved in any activities intended to improve understanding of the NA? 18. Were they effective? Why or why not?

COMMUNES PROJECT PARTNERS

EQ3 19. Did LSP project activities change the way people feel in the constituency about MPs and the National Assembly? 20. If so how did activities accomplish this?

COMMUNES

Now I am going to ask you some questions about Collaborative Platforms in the 24 target communes

Guide to Interviewer: EQ4 How did the creation of collaborative platforms in each pilot commune change the understanding of deputy’s role and help to improve the delivery of the basic services at grassroots? Do women and men prioritize different public services and/or identify different barriers to service delivery?

What are the key barriers that need to be addressed? Sub-questions. What are the strengths and weaknesses of the approach? Is there a standard method or does it vary between different communes? How do collaborative platforms improve delivery of services? How do they change the perception of MP roles? Are women afforded equal voice and opportunity to contribute to collaborative platforms in the pilot

communes? Do women in pilot communes exhibit greater knowledge of deputies’ roles than women in other communes?


EQ Code

s

Question Interviewee

Category EQ4 21. Are you familiar with "collaborative platforms?"

22. What did this method (in each pilot commune) change? 23. Were you involved with the Platforms in any way? 24. Was there a new understanding of an MPs role? 25. Did it help improve delivery of the basic services at grassroots? If so, how?

NA STAFF, LSP PARTNERS, COMMUNES

EQ4 26. What are the barriers that keep this approach from succeeding? SUNY, NA

MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF LSP – FINAL REPORT D-1

ANNEX D: CITIZEN SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE LEGISLATIVE STRENGTHENING PROGRAM MID-TERM EVALUATION SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE INFORMED CONSENT – CREFDI to use its standard intro

Hello. My name is ____________. I am from [CREFDI], an independent research organization. I do not represent the government of Côte d’Ivoire or any political party. We are studying the views of citizens like you, to find out what your life is like and what you think the future will bring. We would like to discuss these issues with you.

Your answers will be confidential. They will be put together with the responses of over 1000 other people we are talking to, to get an overall picture. It will be impossible to pick you out from what you say, so please feel free to tell us what you think. This interview will take about forty minutes.

If you are happy to proceed, then let’s begin.

NOTE: DO NOT BEGIN THE INTERVIEW UNLESS THE RESPONDENT GIVES HIS/HER CONSENT. IF THE RESPONDENT REFUSES, LEAVE THE HOUSE AND RECORD THE REFUSAL.

If consent is granted:

Thank-you. As we go through the questions, please keep in mind that you may say ‘I don’t know’ to any question when you do not know the answer, and you may say ‘pass’ to any question when you do not feel comfortable answering. You may also terminate the interview at any time. Do you understand?

[Proceed with interview only if answer is positive].

Let’s begin.

METADATA (TO BE COLLECTED BY ENUMERATOR)

P1. Time interview started: P5. Day of Interview

Single code

Monday 1

Tuesday 2

Wednesday 3

P2. Interviewer name:

P3. Interviewer gender: F M

P4. Interview Date:


Thursday 4

Friday 5

Saturday 6

Sunday 7

D1. Commune

Abengourou 1 Daoukro 24 Oume 47

Abidjan 2 Divo 25 Prikro 48

Aboisso 3 Duekoue 26 Sakassou 49

Adzope 4 Facobly 27 San Pedro 50

Agboville 5 Ferkessedougou 28 Sassandra 51

Agnibilekro 6 Gagnoa 29 Seguela 52

Akoupe 7 Grand-Bassam 30 Sinfra 53

Arrah 8 Guiglo 31 Soubre 54

Attiegouakro 9 Issia 32 Tabou 55

Bangolo 10 Jacqueville 33 Tanda 56

Beoumi 11 Kani 34 Tehini 57

Bettie 12 Katiola 35 Tengrela 58

Biankouma 13 Korhogo 36 Tiassale 59

Bocanda 14 Koun-Fao 37 Tiebissou 60

Bondoukou 15 Kouto 38 Touba 61

Bouafle 16 Lakota 39 Vavoua 62

Bouake 17 M'bahiakro 40 Yamoussoukro 63

Bouna 18 M'batto 41 Zouan-Hounien 64

Buyo 19 Man 42 Zuenoula 65

Dabakala 20 Mankono 43

Dabou 21 Meagui 44 Other (specify) 99

Daloa 22 Odienne 45

Danane 23 Ouangolodougou 46


FILTER QUESTIONS

F1. Are you eligible to vote in Côte d’Ivoire?

Yes 1 CONTINUE to F2 No 2 END SURVEY DK 88 NR 99

F2. How old are you?

NR 999

F3. Sex of respondent (by observation)

Male 1 Female 2

F4. Type of living space (by observation – Ask ONLY if you are not sure)

Independent house 1 Apartment within a building 2 House within a housing project 3 Neighborhood dwelling 4 Shack or hut 5 Makeshift dwelling 6 Independent house shared with 1 or more families 7

F5. Do you own the house you live in?

No 1 Yes 2 DK 88 NR 99

F6. About how long have you resided at this address?

One month or less 1 Up to one year 2 Up to 4 years 3


More than 4 years 4 DK 88 NR 99

SECTION 1. POLITICAL INTEREST

1. Thinking about your community, would you say you have a great deal of interest, some interest, a little interest, or very little interest in local community affairs?

Very little interest 1 A little interest 2 Some interest 3 A great deal of interest 4 DK 88 NR 99

2. And what about national politics of Côte d’Ivoire? Would you say you have a great deal of interest, some interest, a little interest, or very little interest in national politics and national affairs?

Very little interest 1 A little interest 2 Some interest 3 A great deal of interest 4 DK 88 NR 99

3. When you get together with your friends or family, how often would you say you discuss political matters? Frequently, occasionally, or never?

Never 1 Occasionally 2 Frequently 3 DK 88 NR 99

SECTION 2: AVAILABILITY AND RELATIONS WITH YOUR MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT AND

WORK OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY


4. How familiar are you with the activities of the National Assembly? Are you very familiar, somewhat familiar, not very familiar or not at all familiar with the activities of the National Assembly?

Not at all familiar 1 Not very familiar 2 Somewhat familiar 3 Very familiar 4 DK 88 NR 99

5. Next, I will read a series of statements about the National Assembly. For each, please tell me whether you completely agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or completely disagree

Completely agree

Somewhat Agree

Somewhat disagree

Completely disagree

DK NR

a. The MPs that represent your commune are available in your constituency

5 4 2 1 88 99

b. The MPs that represent your commune take what you say in consideration in their work.

5 4 2 1 88 99

c. You know the activities of your MP within the National Assembly

5 4 2 1 88 99

d. You know the activities of the National Assembly.

5 4 2 1

e. The current National Assembly responds to the needs of the population.

5 4 2 1 88 99

f. The current National Assembly is close to the population

5 4 2 1 88 99

g. The MPs of the National Assembly exercise their function of representation in the best interest of the

5 4 2 1 88 99


h. The MPs of the national assembly develop and vote laws in the best interest of the citizen

5 4 2 1 88 99

i. The MPs of the National Assembly exercise their function of oversight of government action in the best interest of the citizen.

5 4 2 1 88 99

6. How do you rate the job your MPs are doing in your commune?

Very bad 1 Bad 2 Good 3 Very good 4 DK 88 NR 99

7. To what extent has your MP contributed to improved public services?

Contributed nothing 1 Contributed a little 2 Contributed a fair amount (some) 3 Contributed a lot 4 DK 88 NR 99

8. Can you give an example of your MP contributing to public services? If yes, what was it?

Yes 1 Continue to Q 9 No 2 Skip to Q10 DK 88 NR 99

9. Can you briefly describe how your MP contributed to public services?


10. How strongly do you approve or disapprove of the way your MPs have performed their jobs over the past 12 months, or haven’t you heard enough to say?

Strongly disapprove 1

Disapprove 2

Approve 3

Strongly Approve 4

DK/Haven’t heard enough 88

NR 99

11. During the past year, about how often have you contacted a Member of Parliament about some important problem or to give them your views?

Never 1

Only once 2

A few times 3

Often 4

DK 88

NR 99

12. How much of the time do you think Members of Parliament try their best to listen to what people like you have to say?

Never 1

Only sometimes 2

Often 3

Always 4


DK 88

NR 99

13. In your opinion, how important are the following roles that MPs play in government?

Very important

Somewhat important

Somewhat unimportant

Very unimportant

DK NR

a. Voting on the budget 5 4 2 1 88 99

b. Representing the interests of the people

5 4 2 1 88 99

c. Voting on laws 5 4 2 1 88 99

d. Monitoring the President 5 4 2 1

e. Making themselves available to constituents

5 4 2 1 88 99

14. Of these functions, which is most important to you?

Voting on the budget 1

Representing interests of citizens 2

Voting on laws 3

Monitoring the president 4

Being available to constituents 5

DK 88

NR 99

15. And how do you rate your MP on his/her performance with respect to {Answer selected in Q14}?

poor 1

fair 2

Good 3

excellent 4

DK 88


NR 99

16. And considering the National Assembly as a whole, how important are the following roles that the National Assembly plays in Côte d’Ivoire?

Very important

Somewhat important

Somewhat unimportant

Very unimportant

DK NR

a. Voting on the budget 5 4 2 1 88 99

b. Representing the interests of the people

5 4 2 1 88 99

c. Voting on laws 5 4 2 1 88 99

d. Monitoring the President 5 4 2 1

e. Creating jobs 5 4 2 1 88 99

17. Of these functions, which is most important to you?

Voting on the budget 1

Representing interests of citizens 2

Voting on laws 3

Monitoring the president 4

Creating jobs 5

DK 88

NR 99

18. And how do you rate the National Assembly on its performance with respect to {Answer selected in Q17}?

poor 1

fair 2

Good 3

excellent 4

DK 88


NR 99

19. To what extent has your perception of the National Assembly changed in the past year?

Much more negative 1 More negative 2 No change 3 More positive 4 Much more positive 5 DK 88 NR 99

20. In your opinion how effective is the parliament in monitoring the actions of the Executive now compared to a year ago?

Much less effective 1 Less effective 2 No change 3 More effective Much more effective 4 DK 88

NR 99

21. In your opinion, how effective is the parliament in making quality laws now compared to a year ago?

Much less effective 1 Less effective 2 No change 3 More effective 4 Much more effective 5 DK 88

NR 99

22. In your opinion, how effective is the parliament in representing citizens’ interests now compared to a year ago?

Much less effective 1 Less effective 2 No change 3 More effective 4 Much more effective 5


DK 88

NR 99 SECTION 3: PUBLIC SERVICES

23. Thinking only of your constituency, how would you rate the quality of the following public services in your constituency? Please rate each service as poor, fair, good, or excellent?

Poor Fair Good Excellent DK NR

a. Medical services and health care 5 4 2 1 88 99

b. Education services and teaching 5 4 2 1 88 99

c. Judicial services 5 4 2 1 88 99 d. Roads and other infrastructure 5 4 2 1 88 99 e. Transportation services 5 4 2 1 88 99

f. Security (like police and military) 5 4 2 1 88 99 g. Electricity 5 4 2 1 88 99

h. Access to drinking water 5 4 2 1 88 99

i. Trash collection and sanitation 5 4 2 1 88 99

24. Thinking back over the past year, how would you describe the overall quality of public services in your constituency? Was the quality of public services this year poor, fair, good, or excellent?

Poor 1 Fair 2 Good 3 Excellent 4 DK 88 NR 99

25. Compared to the quality of public services last year, is the quality of public services better, worse, or about the same this year?

Worse 1 About the same 2 Better 3 DK 88 NR 99


26. Based on your experience, how easy or difficult is it to contact your MPs about improving public services? Or have you not contacted your MP about public services?

Very difficult 1 Somewhat difficult 2 Somewhat easy 3 Very easy 4 DK/Has not contacted MP 88 NR 99

SECTION 4: VALUES AND ATTITUDES TOWARD GOVERNMENT

27. Next, I’ll read a series of statements. For each, please tell me whether you completely agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or completely disagree.

Completely agree

Somewhat Agree

Somewhat disagree

Completely disagree

DK NR

a. My opinions are respected by MPs in Côte d’Ivoire

5 4 2 1 88 99

b. The government takes into account the opinions of citizens when making decisions

5 4 2 1 88 99

c. People like me have no say in what the government does

5 4 2 1 88 99

d. I feel well-prepared for participating in political life

5 4 2 1 88 99

e. My vote makes no difference to who wins an election

5 4 2 1 88 99

28. Please tell me how strongly you agree or disagree with the following statement: “Democracy may have problems, but it is better than any other form of government.”

Strongly disagree 1 Disagree 2 Neither agree nor disagree 3 Agree 4


Strongly agree 5 DK 88 NR 99

29. Overall, how satisfied are you with the way democracy works in Côte d’Ivoire? Are you satisfied, fairly satisfied, not very satisfied, or not at all satisfied?

Not at all satisfied 1 Not very satisfied 2 Fairly satisfied 3 Satisfied 4 DK 88 NR 99

30. Which of the following statements is closest to your own view? Choose statement 1 or statement 2

a. Statement 1: Men make better political leaders than women and should be elected rather than women.

b. Statement 2: Women should have the same chance of being elected to political office as men.

Agree strongly with Statement 1 1 Agree with Statement 1 2 Agree with Statement 2 3 Agree strongly with Statement 2 4 DK/Can’t decide 88 NR 99

31. Next I will read a series of statements. For each, please tell me whether you completely agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or completely disagree.

Completely agree

Somewhat Agree

Somewhat disagree

Completely disagree

DK NR

a. Men and women should have equal access to existing economic opportunities.

5 4 2 1 88 99


b. Men and women should have equal access to existing social opportunities.

5 4 2 1 88 99

c. Men and women should have equal access to existing political opportunities

5 4 2 1 88 99

d. Men and women should have equal access to public services.

5 4 2 1 88 99

SECTION 5: POLITICAL PARTICIPATION/CIVIC ENGAGEMENT

32. Next, I’m going to list a number of activities that people sometimes do. Please tell me how often you have done each activity, if at all, in the past 12 months.

Often Occasionally Rarely Never DK NR

a. Attended a town or municipal meeting or another public meeting

4 3 2 1 88 99

b. Met with a Member of Parliament, called him or her, or sent an email or letter

4 3 2 1 88 99

c. Notified the local authorities about a problem in your neighborhood or town

4 3 2 1 88 99

d. Worked with members of your community to solve a local problem

4 3 2 1 88 99

33. Did you vote in the last elections?

Yes 1 No 2 DK 88 NR 99


34. Is there any political party you generally prefer over all the other parties?

Yes 1 CONTINUE WITH Q35 No 2

SKIP TO Q36 DK 88 NR 99

35. Which political party? {do not read aloud; record response}

36. Which political party?

35. [do not read options ]

Rassemblement des Républicains ( RDR) 1

Parti Démocratique de Côte d’Ivoire (PDCI) 2

Front Populaire Ivoirien (FPI) 3

Union pour la Démocratie et pour la Paix en Côte d’Ivoire (UDPCI) 4

Union Démocratique et Citoyenne (UDCY) 5

Mouvement des Forces d’Avenir (MFA) 6

Parti Ivoirien des Travailleurs (PIT) 7

Union des Sociaux Démocrates (USD) 8

Union pour la Côte d’Ivoire (UPCI) 9

else [Préciser]: __________________________________________________________ Code postal

WILL NOT VOTE 97

DK 98

NR 99

SECTION 6: DEMOGRAPHICS

37. What is the highest level of school that you have completed?

Illiterate/none 1 Primary incomplete 2 Primary complete 3 Secondary incomplete 4 Secondary complete 5 High school 6


University undergraduate incomplete 7 University undergraduate complete 8 Post university incomplete 9 Post university complete 10 DK 88 NR 99

38. Please tell me about the work you are now doing. Which of the following best describes your present status?

Employed full time (32+ hrs/week) 1 Skip ahead to Q39 Employed part time (15-32 hrs/week) 2

Employed less than 15 hrs/wk 3 Unemployed 4 Continue to Q38 DK 88 Skip ahead to Q39 NR 99

39. If you’re not working, what is your status?

Student 1 Non-working pensioner or invalid 2 Housewife/maternity leave 3 Looking for work 4

Not looking for work 5 Waiting for work to start 6 Permanently disabled 7 Other non-working, specify 8 DK 88 NR 99

40. What is your current marital status?

Married or living together as married 1 Widowed 2 Divorced 3 Married but separated/not living together 4 Single, never married 5 DK 88 NR 99

41. Compared to 12 months ago, do you think the general economic situation in Côte d’Ivoire is…(READ OUT)


A lot better 5 A little better 4 The same 3 A little worse, or 2 A lot worse 1 DK 88 NR 99

42. Compared to 12 months ago, do you think the financial situation of your household is (READ OUT)

A lot better 5

A little better 4

The same 3

A little worse, or 2

A lot worse 1

DK 88

NR 99

43. What IS YOU ETHNIC GROUP? Akan 1 Only ivorian 9990

Krou 2 DK 9998

Mandé du Nord 3 NR 9999

Mandé du Sud 4

Autres [Précisez]:

_____________________________

Code postal

Gur (Voltaïque) 5

THANK YOU FOR TAKING THE TIME TO ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS.

P6. TIME THE INTERVIEW FINISHED:

THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS ARE FOR THE INTERVIEWERS ONLY:


Please make sure that you fill the answers for these questions right after you completed the interview and left the flat/house of the respondent.

P7. Overall, did you feel that the respondent understood the questions?

Never 1 Almost never 2 Now and then 3 Often 4 Very often 5 DK 88 NR 99

P8. Was another adult present, who interfered with the interview?

Yes 1 No 2 DK 88 NR 99

MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF LSP – FINAL REPORT E-1

ANNEX E: SURVEY RESULTS DI conducted a population-based survey to validate and expand findings of the Citizen Score Card (CSC) survey and provide additional data to inform evaluation questions. Specifically, the survey is designed to accomplish four tasks.

First, it serves to replicate SUNY’s analytical baseline analytical strategy. The CSC was fielded in communes where SUNY intervened and also in “control communes” where SUNY did not conduct program activities under LSP. Note that these are not experimental control groups in the impact evaluation sense; they merely act as a benchmark for comparison. SUNY maintains that post-project differences between those two comparison groups of communes strengthen arguments for LSP’s success. In replicating this approach, DI permits any conclusions made by SUNY to be corroborated by independent analysis. Moreover, DI’s survey instrument includes questions that are identical to those included in the CSC. This will permit us to measure changes that have occurred since the CSC was conducted in 2015.

Second, it helps to validate SUNY’s findings. Validation means finding similar patterns across treatment and control communes in the DI survey and across treatment and control communes in the CSC. On the one hand, DI’s survey permits this by including “control” communes that are identical to the “control” communes where SUNY conducted its CSC. Comparing patterns across the same treatment and control communes at two separate points in time allows us to validate SUNY’s findings and also highlight any differences that have emerged over time. On the other hand, DI’s survey includes additional, new “control” communes where SUNY did not conduct its CSC. Comparing differences between the treatment communes and two different sets of control communes is a rough measure of the external validity (i.e. generalizability) of SUNY’s findings and of LSP’s results.

Third, DI’s survey further informs the analysis. By comparing contextual information from treatment and control communes, along with general characteristics of the people who live there, we can establish more nuanced findings about the results of LSP and identify other possible factors that contributed to the project’s overall results. Treatment and control communes differ in nontrivial ways and not only in whether LSP activities were implemented or not. Surfacing this information and accounting for this in the analysis means we can make a stronger case for effect that could be attributable to LSP independently of these differences. Finally, our survey extends lessons from the CSC. DI’s sampling procedure permits generalization from sample to population, meaning that the results will be externally valid of all people living in the communes of interest to USAID, and not only those who happened to be interviewed.

Afrobarometer’s implementing partner in Côte d’Ivoire, the Centre de Recherche et de Formation sur Le Développement (CREFDI), supplied the sampling frame based on the communes included in the Citizen Score Card (CSC) baseline survey, questionnaire translation, and enumerators for data collection. The face-to-face survey is approximately 30 minutes in length, which is well below the 45 minute threshold generally considered the maximum survey duration average respondents can tolerate. The survey was conducted according to the questionnaire including in Annex D and approved by USAID.

A survey sample must be interpreted as a representation of some larger population. That is, the results we observe for a particular sample of people we draw from a population should be characteristic of the results we would see if we had interviewed every person in that broader


population. In this case, DI’s survey sample is drawn to be representative of the population of people living in communes across Côte d’Ivoire. Each of the 24 communes where LSP programming is underway and where CSC baseline survey data were collected were oversampled for this study in order to ensure that program beneficiaries were adequately represented in the sample. All similar communes without LSP programming had an equal probability of being selected into the sample. “Similarity” is defined along several dimensions, including demographic characteristics like population size, and political characteristics, like number of deputies, whether the deputy is male or female, and whether deputies are also regional advisors. CREFDI also ensured broad geographic representation by selecting communes from all regional areas: North, South, East, West, Centre and Abidjan. With these criteria defining down the population of eligible communes, CREFDI randomly sampled 16 of the 24 treatment communes for data collection and 11 control communes that were randomly sampled from the remainder of eligible communes.

DI did not employ any statistical matching procedure in this analysis. For this performance evaluation, commune comparisons were developed based on the limited set of criteria noted above, which determined eligibility for selection into the sample. Thus, “control communes” on average roughly approximate the geographic, demographic, and political characteristics of the “treatment communes” – there is not a one-to-one comparison across pairs of communes.

The final sample of 16 treatment communes includes: Anyama; Bingerville; Koumassi; Odienne; Guinteguela; Ferkessedougou; Bouake; Daoukro; Sakassou; Daloa; Bouafle; Biankouma; Yakasse-Attobrou; San Pedro; Bouna; and Abengourou. These are communes where LSP activities are implemented and where we have CSC baseline data; they were randomly selected from among the 24 communes with LSP activities.

The final sample of 11 control communes and sub-prefectures includes: Songon; Adjame; Kong, Bilimono and Sikolo; Babikaha, Niedekaha and Tafire; Seguela; Lomokankro, Molonou, Tiebissou, and Yakpabo-Sakassou; Bongouanou; Man; Bin-Houye and Goulaleu; Aboude, Attobrou, Guessiguie, Grand-Morié, Loviguie, Oress-Krobou; Agboville; Appimandoum, Bondoukou, and Pinda-Boroko. These are communes/prefectures where no LSP activities are implemented.

Within these communes, CREFDI employed clustered area, stratified sampling to ensure the sample in each commune would be representative of the true population of that commune as a whole. This sampling strategy operates in the following way. First, CREFDI uses official mapping data from the National Bureau of Statistics to identify “blocks” of residences that correspond with verified census data. Next, CREFDI randomly samples blocks for inclusion in the survey, with each block having an equal probability of being included. Then, within those blocks, CREFDI randomly selects individual residences to send its enumerators. Finally, within those residences, the enumerators alternate interviews between male and female respondents in order to get a representative sample that can be meaningfully disaggregated by gender. Given random selection of individuals at the household level, enumerators may speak with anyone above 18 years of age. The survey sample includes a sample size of 2,400 respondents (1,200 respondents from treatment communes and 1,200 respondents from control group) at a level of confidence of 95percent.

The tables below are presented by relevance to each evaluation question. Relative frequencies of responses for each question are presented separately for “control” and “treatment” (i.e. Pilot) communes and are disaggregated by gender within each comparison group.


EVALUATION QUESTION 1 Which approaches promoted by LSP were effective in building management capacity of the National Assembly administration? What gaps remain?

Respondents are "familiar" with activities of the National Assembly Control Treatment

Women Men Overall Women Men Overall Not at all familiar

246 40% 312 55% 558 47% 276 46% 362 63% 638 55%

Not very familiar 145 24% 123 22% 268 23% 142 24% 107 19% 249 21% Somewhat familiar

185 30% 115 20% 300 25% 147 25% 88 15% 235 20%

Very familiar 34 6% 17 3% 51 4% 33 6% 15 3% 48 4% Total 610 567 1177 598 572 1170

Respondents know the activities of the National Assembly Control Treatment

Women Men Overall Women Men Overall Strongly disagree 207 35% 299 54% 506 44% 193 35% 293 60% 486 47% Somewhat disagree

103 17% 97 18% 200 17% 50 9% 48 10% 98 9%

Somewhat agree 181 30% 113 21% 294 26% 166 30% 89 18% 255 24% Strongly agree 104 17% 40 7% 144 13% 141 26% 62 13% 203 19% Total 595 549 1144 550 492 1042


Respondents feel like the National Assembly is "close" to the people Control Treatment


137 23% 101 18% 238 21% 72 13% 62 13% 134 13%


Respondents believe the National Assembly is responsive to citizen interests Control Treatment


135 23% 101 18% 236 21% 78 14% 82 17% 160 16%


How well does the National Assembly perform in the role respondents believe is most important?

Control Treatment

Women Men Overall Women Men Overall Poorly 178 30% 171 32% 349 31% 197 35% 174 35% 371 35% Fairly 255 43% 227 42% 482 43% 188 33% 188 38% 382 36% Well 137 23% 122 23% 259 23% 130 23% 98 20% 228 21% Very well 23 4% 17 3% 40 4% 44 8% 36 7% 80 8% Total 593 537 1130 565 496 1061


EVALUATION QUESTION 2 To what extent did LSP interventions promote the representational function of MPs in the 24 targeted constituencies?

MPs are perceived as being available to the public in their constituency Control Treatment

Women Men Overall Women Men Overall Not at all familiar 322 53% 305 54% 627 54% 286 50% 284 54% 570 52% Not very familiar 80 13% 79 14% 159 14% 58 10% 59 11% 117 11% Somewhat familiar

95 16% 97 17% 192 16% 106 19% 97 19% 203 19%

Very familiar 106 18% 80 14% 186 16% 121 21% 83 16% 204 19% Total 603 561 1164 571 523 1094

Respondents know the activities of their MP in the National Assembly

Control Treatment

Women Men Overall Women Men Overall Strongly disagree 304 51% 353 65% 657 58% 305 57% 357 73% 662 65% Somewhat disagree 106 18% 83 15% 189 17% 27 5% 43 9% 70 7%



MPs are perceived as acting in the best interests of the people they serve

Control Treatment


113 19% 83 15% 196 17% 71 12% 75 15% 146 14%


MPs performance rating on representation among individuals who rate "representation" as an MP's most important role Control Treatment


135 23% 101 18% 236 21% 78 14% 82 16% 160 16%


MP's performance rating on representation among individuals who rate "representation" as the MP's most important role

Control Treatment

Women Men Overall Women Men Overall Poorly 122 48% 87 43% 209 46% 94 52% 73 54% 167 53% Fairly 94 37% 85 42% 179 39% 53 29% 43 32% 96 30% Well 32 13% 29 14% 61 13% 27 15% 15 11% 42 13% Very well 6 2% 2 1% 8 2% 6 3% 5 4% 11 3%


Total 254 203 457 180 136 316

The MP's performance rating on representation among individuals who DO NOT rate "representation" as the MP's most important role

Control Treatment


The National Assembly's performance rating on representation among individuals who rate "representation" as the National Assembly's most

important role Control Treatment

Women Men Overall Women Men Overall Poorly 59 35% 34 30% 93 33% 50 37% 39 49% 89 42% Fairly 72 43% 55 49% 127 45% 49 36% 30 38% 79 37% Well 32 19% 24 21% 56 20% 29 21% 7 9% 36 17% Very well 5 3% 0% 5 2% 7 5% 3 4% 10 5% Total 168 113 281 135 79 214

The National Assembly's performance rating on representation among individuals who DO NOT rate "representation" as the National Assembly's

most important role Control Treatment

Women Men Overall Women Men Overall Poorly 119 28% 137 32% 256 30% 147 34% 135 32% 282 33% Fairly 183 43% 172 41% 355 42% 145 34% 158 38% 303 36%


Well 105 25% 98 23% 203 24% 101 23% 91 22% 192 23% Very well 18 4% 17 4% 35 4% 37 9% 33 8% 70 8% Total 425 424 849 430 417 847

Respondent belief that "MPs consider what the public has to say in their work" Control Treatment


90 15% 96 17% 186 16% 72 13% 56 11% 128 12%


Respondents believe their opinions are respected by MPs and in the National Assembly

Control Treatment

Women Men Overall Women Men Overall Strongly disagree 324 53% 266 47% 590 50% 299 51% 294 54% 593 52% Somewhat disagree 98 16% 113 20% 211 18% 81 14% 81 15% 162 14%


Overall level of improvement in quality of representation over the past year

Control Treatment

Women Men Overall Women Men Overall Much less effective

34 6% 25 5% 59 5% 56 10% 56 11% 112 11%

Less effective 149 25% 105 19% 254 22% 167 30% 131 26% 298 28% No change 292 49% 320 59% 612 53% 209 37% 222 45% 431 41%


More effective 100 17% 81 15% 181 16% 96 17% 70 14% 166 16% Much more effective

24 4% 14 3% 38 3% 31 6% 16 3% 47 4%

Total 599 545 1144 559 495 1054

EVALUATION QUESTION 2A How were Oversight functions improved?

Overall level of improvement in quality of oversight over the past year Control Treatment

Women Men Overall Women Men Overall Much less effective

20 3% 14 3% 34 3% 48 9% 30 6% 78 8%

Less effective 112 19% 84 16% 196 17% 142 26% 134 28% 276 27% No change 319 54% 324 60% 643 57% 204 37% 220 45% 424 41% More effective 121 20% 95 18% 216 19% 126 23% 91 19% 217 21% Much more effective

22 4% 19 4% 41 4% 34 6% 11 2% 45 4%

Total 594 536 1,130 554 486 1,040

Respondents believe MPs' oversight activities serve citizen interests Control Treatment


85 15% 78 15% 163 15% 65 12% 65 14% 130 13%

Somewhat agree 146 25% 130 25% 276 25% 115 21% 84 18% 199 20% Strongly agree 116 20% 92 17% 208 19% 131 24% 99 22% 230 23%


Total 585 526 1,111 547 459 1,006

Belief that MPs' oversight activities serve citizen interests among Respondents who are familiar with the National Assembly Control Treatment


113 19% 83 15% 196 17% 71 12% 75 15% 146 14%

Somewhat agree 137 23% 149 28% 286 25% 116 20% 103 20% 219 20% Strongly agree 97 16% 73 14% 170 15% 135 24% 105 21% 240 22% Total 593 536 1,129 569 509 1,078

Belief that MPs' oversight activities serve citizen interests among Respondents who are NOT familiar with the National Assembly

Control Treatment

Women Men Overall Women Men Overall Strongly disagree 257 43% 265 48% 522 46% 240 44% 245 52% 485 48% Somewhat disagree 135 23% 101 18% 236 21% 78 14% 82 17% 160 16% Somewhat agree 132 22% 129 23% 261 23% 131 24% 81 17% 212 21% Strongly agree 67 11% 54 10% 121 11% 95 17% 67 14% 162 16% Total 591 549 1140 544 475 1019

Belief that MPs' oversight activities serve citizen interests among Respondents who are Interested in public affairs

Control Treatment



Belief that MPs' oversight activities serve citizen interests among Respondents who are NOT interested in public affairs Control Treatment


The National Assembly's performance rating on representation among individuals who rate "Oversight" as the National Assembly's most


Women Men Overall Women Men Overall Poorly 59 35% 34 30% 93 33% 50 37% 39 49% 89 42% Fairly 72 43% 55 49% 127 45% 49 36% 30 38% 79 37% Well 32 19% 24 21% 56 20% 29 21% 7 9% 36 17% Very well 5 3% 0% 5 2% 7 5% 3 4% 10 5% Total 168 113 281 135 79 214

The National Assembly's performance rating on representation among individuals who DO NOT rate "Oversight" as the National Assembly's

most important role Control Treatment



EVALUATION QUESTION 2B What change if any was noted in increased capacity of Deputies to perform their legislative functions?

Overall level of improvement in quality of legislative function over the past year Control Treatment

Women Men Overall Women Men Overall Much less effective 36 6% 24 4% 60 5% 48 9% 36 7% 84 8% Less effective 140 24% 107 20% 247 22% 160 28% 144 30% 304 29% No change 269 45% 300 55% 569 50% 182 32% 181 37% 363 35% More effective 118 20% 94 17% 212 19% 136 24% 94 19% 230 22% Much more effective

29 5% 18 3% 47 4% 37 7% 30 6% 67 6%

Total 592 543 1,135 563 485 1,048

Overall level of improvement in quality of legislative function over the past year among respondents who know the National Assembly Control Treatment

Women Men Overall Women Men Overall Much less effective 32 8% 16 6% 48 7% 30 7% 26 10% 56 8% Less effective 108 27% 59 23% 167 25% 122 30% 73 28% 195 29% No change 145 36% 113 43% 258 39% 134 33% 80 31% 214 32% More effective 92 23% 63 24% 155 23% 97 24% 60 23% 157 24%


Much more effective

23 6% 11 4% 34 5% 20 5% 21 8% 41 6%

Total 400 262 662 403 260 663

Overall level of improvement in quality of legislative function over the past year among respondents who DO NOT know the National Assembly Control Treatment Women Men Overall Women Men Overall

Much less effective 4 2% 8 3% 12 3% 18 11% 10 4% 28 7% Less effective 32 17% 48 17% 80 17% 38 24% 71 32% 109 28% No change 124 65% 187 67% 311 66% 48 30% 101 45% 149 39% More effective 26 14% 31 11% 57 12% 39 24% 34 15% 73 19% Much more effective

6 3% 7 2% 13 3% 17 11% 9 4% 26 7%

Total 192 281 473 160 225 385

Overall level of improvement in quality of legislative function over the past year among respondents who know their MP's activities in the National Assembly

Control Treatment


16 6% 8 4% 24 5% 11 5% 3 3% 14 4%


Total 283 180 463 215 112 327

Overall level of improvement in quality of legislative function over the past year among respondents who DO NOT know MP's activities in the National Assembly

Control Treatment


12 4% 9 3% 21 3% 20 7% 18 6% 38 6%

Total 295 336 631 283 304 587

Overall level of improvement in quality of legislative function over the past year among respondents who are interested in public affairs Control Treatment


16 5% 9 5% 25 5% 24 7% 14 6% 38 7%

Total 323 185 508 350 229 579


Overall level of improvement in quality of legislative function over the past year among respondents who are NOT interested in public affairs Control Treatment


13 5% 9 3% 22 4% 13 6% 16 6% 29 6%

Total 269 358 627 213 256 469

The National Assembly's performance rating on legislation among individuals who rate "Voting on laws" as the National Assembly's most important

role Control Treatment

Women Men Overall Women Men Overall Poorly 33 52% 36 59% 69 55% 13 23% 11 27% 24 25% Fairly 23 36% 17 28% 40 32% 25 45% 15 37% 40 41% Well 8 13% 5 8% 13 10% 12 21% 10 24% 22 23% Very well 0% 3 5% 3 2% 6 11% 5 12% 11 11% Total 64 61 125 56 41 97

The National Assembly's performance rating on legislation among individuals who DO NOT rate "Voting on laws" as the National Assembly's most




EVALUATION QUESTION 3 How are LSP activities changing the perception of constituents of MPs and the National Assembly?

Rating of MPs' work in their constituency Control Treatment

Women Men Overall Women Men Overall Very poor 142 24% 113 21% 255 22% 157 28% 143 27% 300 28% Poor 250 42% 251 46% 501 44% 194 35% 189 36% 383 35% Good 175 30% 170 31% 345 30% 175 31% 159 30% 334 31% Very good 24 4% 11 2% 35 3% 31 6% 32 6% 63 6% Total 591 545 1136 557 523 1080

Respondent approves of MP's work over the past 12 months Control Treatment

Women Men Overall Women Men Overall Strongly disagree

127 24% 109 23% 236 24% 158 32% 161 35% 319 33%

Disagree 225 43% 203 43% 428 43% 178 36% 163 36% 341 36% Agree 156 30% 157 33% 313 31% 133 27% 115 25% 248 26%


Strongly agree 20 4% 7 1% 27 3% 27 5% 18 4% 45 5% Total 528 476 1004 496 457 953

Overall level of improvement in perceptions of the National Assembly over the past year Control Treatment

Women Men Overall Women Men Overall Much more negative

26 4% 20 4% 46 4% 56 10% 43 9% 99 9%

More negative 85 14% 46 9% 131 12% 67 12% 54 11% 121 12% No change 311 52% 350 66% 661 58% 250 45% 254 52% 504 48% More positive 152 25% 109 20% 261 23% 156 28% 116 24% 272 26% Much more positive

23 4% 9 2% 32 3% 32 6% 20 4% 52 5%

Total 597 534 1,131 561 487 1,048

Overall perception of how frequently MPs do their best to listen to what ordinary voters have to say Control Treatment

Women Men Overall Women Men Overall Never 295 49% 274 48% 569 49% 300 51% 307 55% 607 53% Only 177 29% 183 32% 360 31% 176 30% 170 30% 346 30%


sometimes Often 104 17% 91 16% 195 17% 85 15% 66 12% 151 13% Always 26 4% 19 3% 45 4% 25 4% 16 3% 41 4% Total 602 567 1169 586 559 1145

EVALUATION QUESTION 4 How did the creation of collaborative platforms in each pilot commune change the understanding of deputy’s role and help to improve the delivery of the basic services at grassroots? What are the key barriers that need to be addressed?

Level of contribution respondents believe that their MP(s) made to service improvement in their commune Control Treatment

Women Men Overall Women Men Overall No contribution at all

309 52% 307 56% 616 54% 237 42% 249 48% 486 45%

A small contribution

159 27% 147 27% 306 27% 150 27% 156 30% 306 28%

A moderate contribution

90 15% 71 13% 161 14% 128 23% 82 16% 210 20%

A large contribution 36 6% 24 4% 60 5% 44 8% 30 6% 74 7% Total 594 549 1143 559 517 1076

Perceived level of difficulty of contacting an MP about local services improvements

Control Treatment

Women Men Overall Women Men Overall No experience 93 15% 133 23% 226 19% 117 19% 163 27% 280 23%


Very difficult 362 59% 335 57% 697 58% 360 60% 349 59% 709 59% Somewhat difficult 71 12% 63 11% 134 11% 58 10% 45 8% 103 9% Somewhat easy 58 9% 33 6% 91 8% 35 6% 20 3% 55 5% Very easy 29 5% 23 4% 52 4% 32 5% 16 3% 48 4% Total 613 587 1,200 602 593 1,195

Quality of health services in commune Control Treatment

Women Men Overall Women Men Overall Poor 253 41% 241 41% 494 41% 236 39% 211 36% 447 38% Fair 208 34% 178 30% 386 32% 210 35% 170 29% 380 32% Good 125 20% 147 25% 272 23% 127 21% 185 31% 312 26% Very Good 24 4% 18 3% 42 4% 25 4% 25 4% 50 4% Total 610 584 1194 598 591 1189

Quality of education services in commune

Control Treatment



Quality of judicial services/access to justice in commune

Control Treatment


Quality of roads and infrastructure in commune

Control Treatment


Quality of transportation services in commune

Control Treatment



Quality of security services in commune

Control Treatment


Quality of electricity supply in commune

Control Treatment


Quality of trash and sanitation services in commune

Control Treatment



Overall quality of public services in commune

Control Treatment


Perception of change in service quality relative to last year Control Treatment

Women Men Overall Women Men Overall Worse 78 13% 69 12% 147 12% 103 17% 110 18% 213 18% About the same 421 69% 412 70% 833 69% 363 60% 347 58% 710 59% Better 112 18% 97 17% 209 17% 127 21% 117 20% 244 20% Total 612 587 1199 604 596 1200

MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF LSP – FINAL REPORT F-1

ANNEX F: LIST OF DOCUMENTS REVIEWED

1. Côte d’Ivoire: Plan Strategique de L’Assemblee Nationale 2013-2016 2. Rapport_Evaluation des Besoins et Priorites de l'ANCI_Fev11 C (1) 3. CAHIER DE CHARGES DES PLATEFORMES février 2015 4. Compte rendu de la réunion du mercredi 24 aout 2016 5. Compte rendu Séance de travail avec le DD_Santé Abengourou_PCC 6. List of MPs and Platform Members 7. Mid-term Review Report June 28 2016 Meeting 8. Platform Yakasse Attobrou 9. PROTOCOLE D'ACCORD LSP-CI -RADIO 10. Rapport de la réunion plate forme du 27 juin 2016 11. Success Yakasse 12. TOR for Platform - Cahier de Charge (1) 13. Rapport_Evaluation des Besoins et Priorites de l'ANCI_Fev11 C (1) 14. Legislative Strengthening Program in Côte d’Ivoire 15. CR Atelier Brainstorming PSAN 16. LSP 2016 Work plan Matrix 17. TABLEAU DES MEMBRES DES COMITES

PROJECT REPORTS

18. First Q Report December 2012 to March 2013 19. Second Q Report April to June 2013 20. 2013 Annual Report/Quarterly Progress Report (October to December 2013) 21. 2.1 Q report Jan-March 2014 22. 2.2 Q Report Apr-Jun 2014 23. 2.3 Q Report July-Sep 2014 24. 2014 Annual Report/Quarterly Report 4 October to December 2014 25. 3.1 Q Report Jan-March 2015 26. 3.2 Q Report April-June 2015 27. 3.3 Q Report July-Sep 2015 28. 3.4 Annual Report 2015/ Quarterly Report 4 October to December 2015 29. 4.1 Q Report Jan-March 2016 30. 4.2 Q Report April-June 2016 31. 4.3 Q Report July-Sep 2016 32. 4.4 Annual Report 2016 33. 2016 LSP Annual Work Plan - 29FEB16 (2) (3)

MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF LSP – FINAL REPORT F-2

34. Citizen Score Card Baseline Report 35. LSP CSC Report - English - 18FEB16 36. LSP-CI PMP V 2 - Revised FEB 2016 (2) 37. LSP 2013 Annual-4Q Report (2) 38. 2016 LSP Annual Work Plan - 29FEB16 (2) (3)

MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF LSP – FINAL REPORT H -1

ANNEX G: PLATFORM CASE STUDY – ABENGOUROU

Case Study of a “Community Pilot Platform” A Component of the Legislative Strengthening Project (LSP)

Compared to the bustling cities of Abidjan or Bouake, Abengourou is a small community. The city’s sole Member of Parliament sits in her store-front office, a glass door looking out on the noisy street steps away. This a very accessible office, anyone can drop by. Many do, about 75 a month, each visit recorded and tracked. Typical to Africa, 75percent of visitors come to ask for personal financial help from their MP, a funeral, a child needing school fees…. Not always, however. Residents of a nearby neighborhood had heard about the “Platform.” They have a problem with troublesome waste-water drainage to report to her. Later, she and her Community Pilot Platform, helped by her five office staff, will solve that problem.

A goal of this office is to educate citizens about roles of MP, corresponding to an objective of the National Assembly and the project we have come to evaluate. Visitors leave better informed. The Honorable MP or one of her friendly, confident staff will explain. No one leaves unhappy, however. In Africa, we understand that the group, the collective, is greater than the individual.

This office is a community hub. One wonders to what degree a sense of community is important to success of this “Platform” concept. Like rural farmers looking out for one another. The office serves as logistics hub for the Community Platform we have come to study. Platform meetings however, are held at the Regional administration office. Obviously, this room cannot accommodate 30 persons, but there is another reason for the Regional or Municipal offices to host the Platform, as we soon learn. In fact, this is the constituency office of Honorable Mme Brou, funded through her personal resources (Parliament does not fund private member constituency offices.).

Mme. the Honorable Marguerite Kuha Brou Epse Tanoh is a powerful personality, yet warm. Her staff are also confident, there is no sense of hierarchy here. She has been a politician for a long time, first in local politics; now, she is beginning her second term as Member of Parliament in the National Assembly, and also sits on the Regional Council. She is clearly well connected in her community, giving her an enormous advantage as the Chair (or co-chair) of the Community Pilot Platform. We begin to understand that the Platform concept must have clear, active, well-connected leadership.

Despite the late hour of our arrival, we receive a two-hour briefing about “Platforms.” For the next day our plans have been organized: 12 hours of meetings with 15 persons from the Platform or local government. In one day we receive a comprehensive briefing on the workings of the Community Platform of Abengourou. We meet local government administrative officials and heads of community-based organizations, including one that coordinates 80 CBO membership organizations. We hear anecdotal stories how the Platform helped resolve city water, health care service or school room availability. One official tells us that 12 new school rooms were added, at a cost of 100 million CFA. It was reported to us that the Municipality shifted its priorities towards those of the Platform Action Plan, however, we were unable to confirm exactly what roles the Platform played.

We get a taste of the degree of commitment of Platform members: we leave a questionnaire with her staff and by end of the next day 15 of 20 Platform members (who we were not scheduled to meet) have shown up and filled the questionnaire.


During the evaluation of this USAID-funded project, we visit altogether eight “Platforms”, spread across The Côte d’Ivoire. Abengourou is not a typical Platform, probably the best or one of two best examples of how these pilot concepts are intended to work. While designing the study we developed criteria of what we thought would make or break a Platform:

Strong and competent leadership Systems and facilities for reporting, holding meetings Effective radio communications outreach and coverage Ethnic and socio-economic community profile Decision-making. Who chairs the platform? Are decisions by consensus building or by vote, or

an alternative process? Degree of presence of the MPs Regular meetings

Abengourou has held five meetings since its inception in November 2015. This is fewer than the project concept intended, but more than most of the Platforms visited. Meetings are documented, and the Action Plan has been adopted. The Platform has 30 members (5 women). Most meetings are well attended by the volunteers and have been chaired by the MP, but the Municipal and Regional Council sometimes also Chair and there is no conflict. Decisions are made by consensus. The community radio services intended as integral part of the project has been less effective than other Platforms.

Later we visited Platforms where the members had hardly ever seen their MP, hardly ever met as a group, and did not know who to turn to for help. These members were disappointed and frustrated after a strong beginning and high expectations created.

A “Platform” has no resources and no power, yet in its mandate it targets improvements to public services as defined by the community. How does it do this? The Platform includes administrative authorities among its members, along with civil society and membership organization representatives. They have a common agenda, the Action Plan for the community crafted through a series of activities, all spelled out in the project plan. Water is the problem? The authority responsible may not be sitting at the table, but someone from his/her office is present. Advocacy is then more family matter, not adversarial. The advocacy training workshops Platform members received, are also helpful, we are told. As we observed in Abengourou, the concept can and does work. Whether such a concept needs to be driven by parliament, or whether any community development organizational framework with good, well-connected leadership would achieve the same is an open question.


ANNEX H: LSP “COLLECTIVE” PARTNERS Table H#1. List of LSP Partners by Time Frame and Activities Delivered

Time Line Activities Collaborating Partner

November 2013

Needs assessment of the HR services of the National Assembly Association des Parlementaires Francophones (APF)

December 2013

Workshop on gender budgeting International Parliamentary Union (IPU)

January-march 2014

Workshop on the implementation and financing of the National Assembly work plan (PTAN)

UNDP, UNOCI, and UNIFEM

January-March 2014 2014

Three day working retreat in Yamoussoukro to review and validate the 2014/2015 communications and implementation plan for the ANCI. Two oversight missions as a means of improving parliamentary oversight

Association des Parlementaires Francophones (APF)

March 2014 Communication and Information Plan working retreat APF

July 2014 Needs assessment of Human Resources Services (2) Association des Parlementaires Francophones (APF)

July- September 2014

Strengthen the capacity of the Parliament to develop its own annual budget; financial support from the World Bank to provide for four exchange visits with the parliaments in Senegal, Ghana, Belgium and France.

The World Bank

Jul-September 2014

Seminar on the standards and best practices in the provision of the legislative services in Yamoussoukro for the Legislative Services Department

UNDP

July- September 2014

Information gathering and awareness raising oversight mission to assess Ebola preparedness and prevention procedures in place in 8 regions of the country most vulnerable to the epidemic.

UNDP

(fully financed by UNDP)

January 2015 In 2014, LSP provided technical support to the CASC President prior to his participation in the ILO funded mission to Turin to discuss child labour issues. meeting with the ILO on potential LSP/ILO collaboration opportunities.

ILO

February 2015

Parliamentary oversight mission to the prisons. ProJustice program

February 2015

Seminar on the role and involvement of religious leaders in strengthening social cohesion, consolidating peace and the electoral process to ensure peaceful elections in 2015.

Catholic Relief Services (CRS) and CARITAS

2015 March Working retreat with the Secretary General, Cabinet Secretaries, members of the CICAN, MPs and Administrative staff to validate the 2014/2015 ANCI Communications and Information Plan

Association des Parlementaires Francophones (APF)


Time Line Activities Collaborating Partner

Mai 2015 Capacity building seminar for managers of the Platform of Civil Society Organizations for Election Observation in Côte d’Ivoire (POECI) on observation of elections

National Democratic Institute (NDI)

2015 Develop a guide on the roles, responsibilities and interaction of institutional actors in the budget cycle. (activity not implemented)

CAPAC

June 2015 Good Governance and Anti-Corruption Seminar. Joint anti-corruption and promotion of good governance seminar in Dabou. Official presentation of APNAC-CI to the National Assembly and a signing ceremony of a partnership convention between ROSCI-CCAP and APNAC-CI.

UNDP and SNRC (Secrétariat National au Renforcement des Capacités)

June 2015 Capacity building support (2 experts) to the Human Resource Services of the ANCI to implement recommendations identified in the HR assessment conducted in 2014

National Assembly of Québec, cia Association des Parlementaires Francophones (APF)

July 2015 Assessment and evaluation of the classification process in force at the Documentation and Archives Service (SDA) in relation to international standards

National Assembly of Quebec via Association des Parlementaires Francophones (APF)

September 2015

Seminar on Conflict Reconciliation, Prevention and Management

CITI2 WANEP, PNCS, NDI and IFES

2016 Capacity Building seminars for 24 Platforms. Roles and responsibilities of local authorities in local governance, project planning process, programming and budgeting, and budget execution and oversight.

Directorate-General of Decentralization and Local Development (DGDDL)

June 24-26 2016

Strategic planning and work planning workshop (PSAN/PTAN) Yamasoukro

World Bank fully- funded

June 2016 Work shop for 50 persons on development of Action Plan on joint collaboration and activities in the areas of public health service delivery and public procurement transparency. With Ministry of Health, the High Authority on Good Governance (HABG) and National Public Procurement Regulatory Authority (ARNMP).

UNDP

With ROSCCI-CCAP and APNAC-CI

August 2016 Seminar for 40 persons on creation of a Gender Commission of Parliament

UNWOMEN, UNDP, UNFPA

MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF LSP – FINAL REPORT I-1

ANNEX I: PROJECT PERFORMANCE RELATIVE TO PSAN AND EVALUATION QUESTIONS ANALYSIS BY STRATEGIC PLAN Table I#1: Project Performance: Extent of Achieving National Assembly Strategic Plan

PSAN Strategic Objective

Expected Results # LSP/ Partners Activities 23

Assessment of Change

1.2 Capacity building of MPs and staff

MPs aware of their missions

Staff perform their functions more effectively

Increased productivity of MPs and staff

31 activities: HR Needs assessments; writing scopes of work, M&E training, Org chart training, training related to community Pilot Platforms, and 6 strategic and work planning events

Significantly capacity built

MPs substantially more aware of their roles; staff more effective; increased productivity of staff and MPs

1.3 Parliament can develop its own budget

necessary resources and skills 2 activities

Draft Guide not completed

No change

1.4 Provide infrastructure and adequate equipment to Parliament

housed in functional and modern premises

Including ICT and software and web site

Documentation: access to data and information

4 activities: ITC Needs Assessment (2014), procure equipment for archives

Infrastructure much improved. Several items that have yet to be delivered or not yet planned

1.5 Improve functioning of the Secretariat – General and Human Resources Systems

Procedures formalized in each service. Administration able to effectively support the work of members

11 activities Administrative Writing training, Human Resources Plan Guide on Legislative Research, Archives Needs Assessment Personnel funded: Project-funded staff and interns (15) HR consultants (2)

Administration better able to support MPs. Several Manuals completed.

Human Resources Plan not yet adopted.

However, improved performance depends on project funded staff, no plan to replace them

1.6 Strengthen capacity of Parliament to communicate with voters, civil

A communications strategy adopted and implemented

Staff qualified in place and operational

40+ activities

2 journalist training events

23 MOUs with community

Some changes. Overall Unknown Communications and Information Plan

23All LSP activities are documented in Annex L, including activity links to PSAN Strategic Objectives





society and public

Modern communication facilities are in place

Communications and Information Plan

radio stations re Platforms

Radio shows in 24 communes beginning 2016

adopted Qualified staff Modern communication facilities established Public perception unknown

1.7 Strengthen internal provisions to enable Parliament to effectively fulfil three essential missions

Parliament has the regulatory framework to effectively perform its duties

Rules, procedures and internal parliamentary structures revised

Parliamentary committees fulfill their mandate with efficiency

Parliamentary groups contribute more effectively to the tasks of the Parliament

Parliamentary committees contribute qualitatively to the tasks of the Parliament

Parliament promotes Gender

Contributes to integration of Youth

network of Ivorian Parliamentarians on Population and Development created

9 activities

2 gender workshops, national youth parliament established, seminar for 40 on creating Gender Commission Aug 2016

Also 6 Gender oversight and consultation missions conducted (strategic objectives 3.1 and 4.3)

No change of rule activities

Some changes noted

No changes to Standing Orders

Gender workshops but no Gender Committee

Youth Parliament set up

Committees more active than before

Committee staff more effective, but depend on project funded staff

2.1 Build the capacity of MPs and staff to support the legislative process

Voted laws well- made and reflect the will of the people

1 activity

Seminar on best practices for legislative services 2014

Results unknown

2.2 Improving the process of review and adoption of the Finance Act and other bills

Finance Bill passed after thorough and integrated study priorities of populations

Professional staff who support the thematic committees and the MPs generally in the analysis of

No activities completed No change





legislation. staff unit within Parliament

to provide fiscal analysis and support committees

MPs have capacity to analyze budget policies and procedures

2.3 Improving participation of external partners (civil society and others)

Voted laws reflect the expectations of citizens

The content and status of bills is publicly available on the website.

No activities Results Unknown

Data partly available on website

Citizen consultation limited. More so in active Platforms

2.4 Enhance capacity of NA to initiate its own laws

Number of laws initiated by the Parliament

No activities No change

2.5 Modernize the NA voting system

electronic voting and speaking time management operational

2 activities

E-Voting system being installed (2016)

Significant progress.

electronic voting system nearly fully operational

3.1 Strengthen capacity of MPs and staff to support oversight of government action

MPs are proactive in oversight of government action

adequate staff to help them and to do research. Currently two staff are assigned by DSL to the 6 Commissions.

49+ activities in 3.1 and 3.2: Oversight missions – Ebola (2014), CAGI (2014), CAEF/Roads (2016), Security & Defense (2016), Prisons (2015) Question Period events

24 Action Plans defined by Platforms on public services needs and priorities

Some Platforms engaged in advocacy actions re improve public services

Oversight strengthened. Many activities in both C1 (national) and C2 (communes). 5 oversight missions funded by LSP and other activities; 24 Action plans re public services in communes

At National level, MPs cautious about questioning a Minister

3.2 Improve oversight procedures of governmental action by NA

Oversight effectiveness strengthened

Manuals

2 activities

Oversight Manual

Unknown. Some changes have occurred

3.3 Strengthen monitoring of laws promulgated

enacted laws are implemented quickly

No activities No change

3.9 Strengthen NA capacity to

Parliament is systematically 2 activities Some changes





contribute to good governance and the fight against Corruption

involved

Workshop for 50 on Action Plan public health service delivery and procurement, with APNAC 9Jun 2016)

APNAC chapter created

3.10 enhance capacity of MPs for good governance and fight against Corruption

MPs systematically involved

MPs have capacity to analyze budget policies and procedures

2 activities

Seminars on procurement and APNAC

Results Unknown

4.1 Strengthen relationship between elected officials and the people

MPs fulfill duty to account to the population

Grievances of the population reach parliamentarians

Youth involved in the governance of the country

Parliaments support travel to constituency, fund and staff a constituency office, and provide small budget to help the poorest local NGOs

60+ activities, Pilot Platforms in 24 communes targeted improved relationship Civic education town hall meetings as part of Platforms held in 24 communes (22015-16) Capacity building seminar for CSO election observers (May 2015) Seminar on conflict resolution (sep 2015)

Significant Change in some communes

Primarily commune level Platform activities. Very active and successful in the cases where the Platforms are active and have effective leadership and an office

Platforms visited have limited youth involvement

Platforms do not have offices, and no NA plans as yet to start them

4.2 Improve delivery of services to local communities

Parliament closer to the people

24+ activities

24 Platforms set up with objective to improve public services

24 Platform Needs Assessments and Action Plans

Success Cases

Examples of improved public service delivery resulting from Platforms found

Depends on effectiveness of Platform

4.3 Strengthen capacity of standing committees to initiate thematic consultations

Committees give recommendations to government

2 activities

Support CASC President prior to visit to ILO on child labor issues

Some Changes noted. Prison policy changed following oversight visit

4.4 Educate public about the

Citizens better understand the role of MPs

24+ activities

24 Platforms set up, including

Good results in communes where





role of members

MPs have travel allowances to visit constituencies

24 civic education outreach events

Platforms are effective.

No travel allowances except through project

ANALYSIS OF PERFORMANCE BY EVALUATION QUESTION

EVALUATION QUESTION #1 Which of the collective approaches promoted by LSP were effective in building the management capacity of the administration of the National Assembly? What gaps are there that still need to be addressed?

Strategic Objectives judged to be relevant to this evaluation question are: 1.2 Capacity building of MPs and staff 1.3 Parliament can develop its own budget 1.4 Provide infrastructure and adequate equipment to Parliament 1.5 Improve functioning of the Secretariat – General and Human Resources Systems 1.7 Strengthen internal provisions to enable Parliament to effectively fulfil three essential missions 2.1 Build the capacity of MPs and staff to support the legislative process 2.4 Enhance capacity of NA to initiate its own laws 2.5 Modernize the NA voting system

Each of the approximately 100 LSP activities were assessed in terms of relevance to the 20 strategic objectives of the PSAN. (From that assessment, four positive findings are consistent with the results presented above: The LSP contributed to significantly improved capacity of MPs and staff, LSP contributed significantly to improved infrastructure of the National Assembly LSP contributed significantly to improved NA administration/management and human resources

systems The LSP made significant progress in modernizing the voting systems

For example, seven management-related activities (strategic and work planning) contributed to the perception from interviewees they had acquired considerable management skills from the project. In 2016 LSP funded 5 staff and 10 interns to support legislative functions, contributing to legislative outputs.

Weaker areas of LSP interventions relative to the strategic objectives of the National Assembly included:

Parliament has not developed its own budget Internal rules and provisions not changed Capacity for supporting the legislative process not significantly changed Capacity for Oversight of the Finance Bill not changed


Capacity of NA to initiate its own laws unchanged Decisions to sustain project achievements not taken (HR staffing, funding and continuation of Platforms.)

Assessment by Strategic Objective:

Assessment Scale: 1 no change 2 a little change 3 moderate change 4 substantial change 5 up to standard international practice

1.2 Capacity building of MPs and staff. The MPs are substantially more aware of their roles (4); they have improved their performance in their roles moderately (3); they have improved their performance more than a little but less than moderately (2.5)

1.3 Parliament can develop its own budget. No change (1)

1.4 Provide infrastructure and adequate equipment to Parliament. The premises are much better in many ways – but there also several items that have yet to be delivered or are not yet planned. (2.5)

1.5 Improve functioning of the Secretariat – General and Human Resources Systems. At this time, the HR plans are not yet adopted and implemented (including the planned additional staff). Procedures are a little more formalized (2) and the Administration is generally better able to effectively support the work of the MPs. (3+). However, staff support is provided by LSP; if those staff are removed, the performance would drop to somewhat better than 2013 – but not much (2). Finally, assuming the HR plan is adopted and implemented, it is likely that the measure of performance would move quickly to 4 or better on both objectives – as the skills and the knowledge have been transferred and wait only people to have effect.

1.7Strengthen internal provisions to enable Parliament to effectively fulfil three essential missions. No changes have been made to the standing orders. A decision seems to have been made to not touch this item until after the Senate has been created. The problem is that makes the process and the decision to revisit the rules a ‘big’ item politically. In most parliaments today, the rules are reviewed at Committee on a routine and a regular basis – a useful small changes do not wait for a ‘big’ one to carry them through. (1) The Committees are doing a better job – but still are significantly hobbled by lack of recourses. (2.5). And this will get worse if the staff from the LSP are not replaced. (2) Because of the LSP Staff assigned to them, the Groups are playing a much more active role – but that too will change if the staff are not renewed. (3) or (2). Gender is much discussed – but has little traction so far. There are signs that the subject may get more focused attention in the new Legislature and that a modality may emerge. (2.5) One significant activity has been aimed at Youth; it was a good start. (2) The Network has not been created (1) The Missions have had an impact (3).

2.1 Build the capacity of MPs and staff to support the legislative process. The training for the staff and the MPs has clearly improved the textual quality of the writing of the legislation (3). There are also clear signs that the people do feel that the MPs now more closely listen to them than did the MPs in the past – but the evaluation data do not relate to the second half of the objective


2.4 Enhance capacity of NA to initiate its own laws. No change (1) 2.5 Modernize the NA voting system. The necessary equipment was installed recently. (4)

EVALUATION QUESTION #2 To what extent did LSP interventions promote the representational function of MPs in the 24 targeted constituencies? #2a. Oversight functions? 2b. legislative functions?

Strategic Objectives judged to be relevant to question #2 are: 2.3 Improving participation of external partners (civil society and others) 4.1 Strengthen relationship between elected officials and the people 4.2 Improve delivery of services to local communities 4.4 Educate public about the role of members

When LSP activities were assessed in terms of relevance to the 20 strategic objectives of the PSAN. The findings are:

The presence of Pilot Platforms in 24 communes was a significant part of increased representation by MPs.

The Platform design and development process included civic education town hall meetings held in 24 communes for 6,000 persons.

Examples were found during the field work of Platforms contributing to improved public services The structure of Platforms required that administrative authorities sit at the table with the MP and with

civil society : Overall, therefore, these findings are consistent with those above. There is further supporting evidence here that the function of representation has improved.



2.3 Improving participation of external partners (civil society and others). CSOs representatives told the evaluation us that they can contribute their views to the process – but that that process is more personal than institutional. The lack of an interactive web site hurts here. (2) 4.1 Strengthen relationship between elected officials and the people The Platforms and the attendant publicity around them (and the speculation about their importance in the recent campaign) – all have served to improve understanding and auctioning the representation role (3.5) The reports are almost unanimous that the MPs are doing a better job of listening (3) The Platforms have systematically involved Youth representatives and organizations – but that takes place in only 24 communes; One significant event has been held by Parliament. There is some way to go (2)


4.2 Improve delivery of services to local communities. The Platforms – and the communication Strategy – have worked well in this regard – but their reach is limited. (2.5)

4.4 Educate public about the role of members. The Platforms and the communications Strategy have done an excellent job of helping citizens understand the role of their MPs – in a limited geography so far. (3) More would be helpful.

2a. How were oversight functions improved? Strategic Objectives judged to be relevant to this evaluation question are: 3.1 Strengthen capacity of MPs and staff to support oversight of government action 3.2 Improve oversight procedures of governmental action by NA 3.9 Strengthen NA capacity to contribute to good governance and the fight against Corruption 3.10 enhance capacity of MPs for good governance and fight against Corruption

When LSP activities were assessed in terms of relevance to the 20 strategic objectives of the PSAN, the findings are that a number of oversight-related activities were conducted through the project. Five oversight missions were undertaken and six missions relating to gender issues. A chapter of the African Parliamentarian Network Against Corruption was established. The activity “improved oversight activities” was little developed, having only two activities. Overall, the activities support the finding that oversight was improved, at both the National and (where Platforms were active) the commune level. Assessment by Strategic Objective:


3.1 Strengthen capacity of MPs and staff to support oversight of government action. The Field Visits and Missions have done an excellent job as learning tools) and at demonstrating what Committees can achieve if they plan their work well. Now what is needed is more resources to allow more Oversight Missions to occur. (3). It is worth noting that the reticence shown for challenging a Minister on a policy issue does not appear to be present when the subject is a poor quality of or absent public service.

3.2 Improve oversight procedures of governmental action by NA. No information was found on this subject to allow for a rating of performance

3.9 Strengthen NA capacity to contribute to good governance and the fight against Corruption. The establishment of an APNAC Chapter here is a very positive sign – as is the ongoing training and commitments of support they have received. The Leadership seems to be keen to see the work proceed – also a very good sign (3)

3.10 enhance capacity of MPs for good governance and fight against Corruption. Same as 3.9 (3) 2.b How were legislative functions improved?


Strategic Objectives judged to be relevant to this evaluation question are: 1.5 Improve functioning of the Secretariat – General and Human Resources Systems 2.1 Build the capacity of MPs and staff to support the legislative process 2.2 Improving the process of review and adoption of the Finance Act and other bills 2.4 Enhance capacity of NA to initiate its own laws

LSP activities were concentrated on Strategic Objective 1.5 (Human Resources). Starting in 2016, LSP funded 5 staff and 10 interns to work with Legislative Services, supporting the legislative functions, including legal texts.



1.5 Improve functioning of the Secretariat – General and Human Resources Systems. At this time, the HR plans are not yet adopted and implemented (including the planned additional staff). Procedures are a little more formalized (2) and the Administration is generally better able to effectively support the work of the MPs. (3+). However, staff support is provided by LSP; if those staff are removed, the performance would drop to somewhat better than 2013 – but not much (2). Finally, assuming the HR plan is adopted and implemented, it is likely that the measure of performance would move quickly to 4 or better on both objectives – as the skills and the knowledge have been transferred and wait only people to have effect.

2.1 Build the capacity of MPs and staff to support the legislative process. The training for the staff and the MPs has clearly improved the textual quality of the writing of the legislation (3). There are also clear signs that the people do feel that the MPs now more closely listen to them than did the MPs in the past – but the evaluation data do not relate to the second half of the objective 2.2 Improving the process of review and adoption of the Finance Act and other bills. The Committee has had some excellent training – but it is still early days on this matter. We can say that there has some improvement but not that the process is as responsive as the objective suggests. (2) 2.4 Enhance capacity of NA to initiate its own laws. No laws have been initiated (1)

EVALUATION QUESTION #3

How are LSP activities changing the perception of constituents of MPs and the National Assembly?

No relevant data from Strategic Plan analysis

EVALUATION QUESTION #4

How did the creation of collaborative platforms in each pilot commune change the understanding of deputy’s role and help to improve the delivery of the basic services at grassroots? What are the key barriers that need to be addressed?


No relevant data from Strategic Plan analysis

MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF LSP – FINAL REPORT J-1

ANNEX J: RATING SCALE SCORES Table J#1: Rating Scale Mean Scores Administered to KII and FGD Respondents

Question Men (121)

Women (37)

Total (158)

Which is the most important function/role of the National Assembly in your view? Legislation: 51.89percent of respondents Oversight: 26.42 percent Representation: 21.7 percent

Onascaleof1‐5,howeffectiveistheparliamentinrepresentationnowcomparedto3yearsago?

2. MuchLess2.SomewhatLess3.AboutSame

4.Somewhatmore5.MuchMoreDoNotKnow

3.74 4.00 3.829

Onascaleof1‐5,howeffectiveistheparliamentinlawmakingnowcomparedto3yearsago?

1.MuchLess2.SomewhatLess3.AboutSame4.Somewhatmore5MuchMore

DoNotKnow

3.74 3.76 3.772

Onascaleof1‐5,howeffectiveistheparliamentinadministrationandmanagementnowcomparedto3yearsago?

1.MuchLess2.SomewhatLess3.AboutSame4.Somewhatmore5.MuchMore

DoNotKnow

3.54 3.66 3.589

Onascaleof1‐5,howeffectiveistheparliamentinoversightoftheExecutivenowcomparedto3yearsago?

1.MuchLess2.SomewhatLess3.AboutSame4.Somewhatmore5.MuchMore

DoNotKnow

3.42 3.55 3.475

To what extent has your perception of the National Assembly changed in the past 3 years? 1. Much More Negative. 2. More Negative. 3. No Change. 4. More Positive. 5. Much More Positive.

DoNotKnow

3.42 3.34 3.424

To what extent has your perception of your MP changed in the past 3 years? 1. Much More Negative. 2. More Negative. 3. No Change.

3.37 3.26 3.367

MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF LSP – FINAL REPORT J-2

Question Men (121)

Women (37)

Total (158)

4. More Positive. 5. Much More Positive. Do Not Know

MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF LSP – FINAL REPORT K-1

ANNEX K: COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF LSP PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

Table K#1: LSP Performance Indicators

# Indicator Title Definition

C-Indicator 8

Percentage of satisfactory scores and higher on the Citizen Score Card Survey

percent of respondents among the sampled target population with an average score of satisfaction or, higher for all CSC items.

F-GNDR-4 percent of target population reporting increased agreement with the concept that males and females should have equal access to economic, social and political opportunities.

percent of respondents among the sampled target population of the selected municipalities with an average score of agreement or, higher on the statement that males and females should have equal access to economic, social and political opportunities item of the Citizen Score Card Survey.

C-Indicator 7

Percentage of individuals who trust that ANCI is exercising its constitutional functions in the best interest of the citizen.

percent of respondents among the sampled target population in the selected municipalities with an average score of agreement or, higher on the statement item that ANCI is better exercising its constitutional functions than the preceding year in the best interest of the citizen.

C-Indicator 6

Percentage of individuals who trust that ANCI is improving the national legislative framework to better serve the citizen.

percent of respondents among the sampled population with an average score of agreement or, higher on the statement that ANCI is better exercising its constitutional functions than the preceding year in the best interest of the citizen.

C-Indicator 5

Percentage of individuals who agrees with the statement that public services in their municipality is better than the preceding year

Percentage of respondents among the sampled population in the selected municipalities with an average score of agreement or, higher on the statement that public service delivery in their commune is better than the preceding year item of the citizen score card survey.

C-Indicator 4

Number of ANCI documents made available to the Public

Number of ANCI documents made available to the public with and without USG assistance. Number of ANCI documents made available to public scrutiny with USG assistance.

F-Ind. 2.2.1-3

Number of draft laws subject to substantive amendment & final vote that benefitted from USG assistance.

Draft laws include any proposed enactment formally introduced in the parliament. Draft laws subjected to substantive amendment include any proposed enactment formally introduced by commissions (Standing or Special Committees) in the Parliament. The commission technical analysis of Draft laws includes any type of research, report or analysis that provides information about the problem being addressed, policy being proposed and potential impact of draft laws. A final vote indicates draft legislation has been passed or rejected.

F-Ind. 2.2.1-4

Number of executive oversight actions taken by the legislature with the USG assistance.

Oversight actions include legislative committee investigations, public hearings, formal question and answer sessions, and written interrogatories regarding an executive branch program, decision or action. Public forums are defined as public hearings and town hall


meetings.

F-Ind. 2.2.1-6

Number of Public Forums in which Member of Parliament and Member of the Public Interact with USG assistance.

Public forums are defined as public hearings and town hall meetings. Within LSP-CI Member of the public includes Civil Society Organizations (CSOs), traditional tribal and religious leader and local community group’s delegates as well as individual citizens.

C-Indicator 3

Number of participation in LSP-CI activities

Number of participants in LSP activities for the reporting period.

C-Indicator 2

Number of LSP-CI technical deliverable appropriated by ANCI

Number of ANCI procedural manuals and templates resulting from LSP-CI assistance

C-Indicator 1

Number of participants in LSP-CI activities.

Number of participants in LSP-CI activities

Table K#2: Comparison of Survey Scores Addressing LSP Performance Indicators

LSP Indicator 2015 Survey (SUNY) 2017 Survey (Democracy Int.)

2013 Survey (OTI/AECOM)

C-Indicator 8 Composite #5, #6, #7 and #4 Gender

58percent

F-GNDR-4 Equal Gender Access (economic, social and political)

92percent

C-Indicator 7 Constitutional Functions in Best Interest of Citizen

51percent

C-Indicator 6 improving the national legislative framework

47percent

C-Indicator 5 Municipal Public Services Better

43percent

Table K#3: Comparison of Citizen Perception Survey Scores Other Questions

Survey Question 2017 DI

(Platform and

Control)

2015

Citizen Score Card

2013 Survey

Reference

How familiar are you with the activities of the National Assembly? (DI#4)

62percent 100percent

The MPs that represent your commune are available in your constituency (DI #5a)

Evaluation: EQ2 LSP: PI C-6



(Platform and

Control)

2015

Citizen Score Card

2013 Survey

Reference

The MPs that represent your commune take what you say in consideration in their work (DI #5b)


You know the activities of your MP within the National Assembly (DI #5c)


You know the activities of the National Assembly (DI #5d)

62percent Evaluation: EQ2 LSP: PI C-6

The current National Assembly responds to the needs of the population (DI #5e)

43percent 23percent EQ2, EQ3 C-6

The current National Assembly is close to the population (DI #5f)

44percent 27percent EQ2, EQ3 C-6

The MPs of the National Assembly exercise their function of representation in the best interest of the people (DI #5g)

48percent EQ2 C-7

The MPs of the national assembly develop and vote laws in the best interest of the citizen (DI #5h)

EQ2b, C-7

The MPs of the National Assembly exercise their function of oversight of government action in the best interest of the citizen (DI #5i)

EQ2c, C-7

How do you rate the job your MPs are doing in your commune? (DI #6)

EQ3

To what extent has your MP contributed to improved public services? (DI #7)

EQ4 Performance Indicator C-5

How strongly do you approve or disapprove of the way your MPs have performed their jobs over the past 12 months, or haven’t you heard enough to say? (DI #10)

EQ3

During the past year, about how often have you contacted a Member of Parliament about some important problem or to give them your views? (DI#11)

EQ2 C-6

How much of the time do you think Members of Parliament try their best to listen to what people like you have to say? (DI #12)

EQ2, EQ3

To what extent has your perception of the National Assembly changed in the past 3 years? (DI #19)

EQ1 C-8

In your opinion how effective is the parliament in monitoring the actions of the Executive now compared to 3 years ago? (DI #20)

EQ2a C-8

In your opinion, how effective is the EQ2b



(Platform and

Control)

2015

Citizen Score Card

2013 Survey

Reference

parliament in making quality laws now compared to 3 years ago? (DI #21)

C-8

In your opinion, how effective is the parliament in representing citizen interests now compared to 3 years ago? (DI #22)

EQ2c C-8

To what extent has your perception of the National Assembly changed in the past 3 years?

EQ3 C-8

Compared to the quality of public services last year, is the quality of public services better, worse, or about the same this year? (DI# 25)

EQ4

Men and women should have equal access to existing economic (DI#31 a)

92percent F-GNDR-4

Men and women should have equal access to existing social opportunities (DI#31 b)

92percent F-GNDR-4

Men and women should have equal access to existing political (DI#31 c)

92percent F-GNDR-4

Men and women should have equal access to public services. (DI#31 d)

92percent F-GNDR-4

MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF LSP – FINAL REPORT M-1

ANNEX L: TABLES OF LSP ACTIVITIES DELIVERED TABLE L#1: COMPONENT 1 ACTIVTIES DELIVERED

TIME FRAME ACTIVITY ACTIVITY NUMBER

PSAN STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE #

2013

June PSAN/PTAN assessment and update 1.2.1 1.2

August Program committees established 1.1.1 1.2

October Program Committees meet for the first time 1.1.2 1.2

October Needs Assessment of the ANCI 1.1.1 1.2

December Organize Pre-Budget Workshop for Commissions prior to the session. In partnership with the ANCI and International Parliamentary Union (IPU), LSP sponsored a workshop on Gender Budgeting. The workshop replaced the training of the Economic and Financial Affairs Committee planned by LSP and the ANCI on issues on the budget session agenda.

1.4.3

With IPU

1.7

2014

Q1Q2 The Needs Assessment of the ANCI was adopted in the second quarter of 2014. The report identified the current status of ANCI’s units and institutional tools. It made recommendations for the necessary support to be provided to the Strategic Plan development, the PTAN implementation, the ANCI Information and Communication Centre, the Human Resources Development Plan and the Legislative Research Unit. Training and technical assistance needs were broken down by type, in the long, medium and short term as per USAID comments. In order to expedite program implementation, while awaiting the ANCI’s comments, most of the report’s recommendations were included in the LSP 2014 Work Plan and, after receiving comments, were also addressed within the proposed 2015 Work plan. The ANCI similarly incorporated many of the assessment findings within its

1.1.1 1.2




PTAN February The PTAN was accepted by ANCI’s other financial partners as reference document

for their support to the Parliament 1.2.1

March – April First Oversight Field Visit – by CASC in Abidjan. A Manual/Guide is one outcome.

1.4.1 3.1

April Oversight Field Visit by the Commission of Security and Defense (CSD). 1.4.1 3.1

May Oversight Field Visit by the Commission of Research, Sciences and Technology and the Environment (CRSTE).

1.4.1 3.1

July Provide Parliamentary Groups (PG) with technical assistance. A parliamentary expert from Benin, Dr. Charles Yaovi Djrekpo, provided technical assistance to the ANCI Standing Committees and Parliamentary Groups on various topics, including: � International standards on the activities of Standing Committees and Parliamentary Groups � Mandates of Standing Committees and Parliamentary Groups � Overview of essential standards and processes in drafting legislation � Strategies for the action plan of a committee or parliamentary group

1.2.6

1.3

1.5

4.3

August Assessment of ANCI ICT needs. In order to facilitate the implementation ICT assistance to the ANCI, LSP engaged an ICT expert from the National Assembly of Quebec to conduct a ICT needs assessment in August 2014. The consultant’s final report was submitted in September 2014 and provided several short-term, medium-term and long-term recommendations ranging from internet connectivity, web site management and audio-visual improvements.

1.2.3.1 1.4

July-August Assessment of ANCI HR needs. Human resource management was identified as an area in which the ANCI required technical assistance. Two international experts, identified and deployed through collaboration efforts between LSP and APF, conducted an assessment of the organizational chart and the development plan of the ANCI, and held meetings with key NA staff between July 13 and 25, 2014. Their final reports outlining recommendations was submitted to the Secretary General and Head of the Office of the President in August 2014.

1.2.2 1.5

July The Development of the ANCI Communication Strategy. The final report on ANCI Communication Strategy and Implementation Plan, which encompasses citizen sensitization tools, was presented and endorsed by CICAN and ANCI in July

1.2.4 1.6

1.5

December Oversight Field Visit regarding Ebola by members of the Committee on Health and Social Monitoring (CVSSD) conducted an information gathering and awareness raising oversight mission to assess Ebola preparedness and prevention procedures in

1.4.1

Fully financed by the

3.1




place in 8 regions of the country most vulnerable to the epidemic. This mission was financed in full by UNDP. 16 delegations composed of 49 MPs met 5000 people in 140 locations.

UNDP

December Oversight Field Visit (Pilot) by the General and Institutional Affaires Commission (CAGI). In December 2014, a pilot oversight mission was conducted to the MACA Prison in Abidjan, the largest prison in the country.

1.4.1.3 3.1

December

Distribution of the Oversight Mission Guide Manual and Brochure. LSP distributed over 250 copies of the Oversight Mission Guide Manual and Brochure to MPs and NA staff during the closing ceremony of the National Assembly on December 19, 2014.

1.4.1 3.2

2015

MARCH; NOVEMBER

Meet with Executive and Steering Committees. Review 2014; WP for 2015- with UNDP UNOCI and UNIFEMME

TA for strategic plan and PTAN NOVEMBER

review the 2014/2015 PTAN and develop the 2015/2016 PTAN 8 1.2.1.1 incl. 2 TA re monitoring and implementation of the PTAN.

1.2

Communications Plan MARCH

working retreat to validate the 2014/2015 Communications and Information Plan With APF SA 1.2.4.3 1.6

1.5

March Communications Materials developed SA 1.2.4.4

March Oversight Field Visit by CASC Mission regarding anti-viral 3.1

March Oversight Field Visit by CAGC and CASCE to Prisons in March; 3.1

April TA to support implementation of the recommendations in the ICT assessment.

1.2.3.1 With APF

1.4

May Training Seminar for journalists and MPs 1.2.4.8: Conduct Media Relations Seminars for Members of Parliament 1.2.4.9: Provide Legislative Reporting Training to Journalists

1.2.4.8 and 1.2.4.9 With APF

1.2




The seminar focused on the following themes: The constitutional mission and organization of the National Assembly of Côte d’Ivoire Reporting and communications on parliamentary activities Journalism ethics It also sought to promote constructive relations between the reporters and the members and staff of the National Assembly.

Oversight MAR; DEC

Training/ support for 3 missions; manual done Learning by doing SA 1.3.1.2

3.2

MAY - Administrative Acts Seminar;

Capacity strengthening in administrative writing and conduct SA 1.2.2.2 1.5

JUNE 2015 H R Training

Workshops on Scopes of work, performance evaluation, recruitment SA 1.2.2.1 1.5

JUNE – Anti-corruption training for APNAC chapter With UNDP and SNRC SA 1.4.4.5

3.10

June Workshop on the implementation of the Communications Plan 1.2.4.3 1.6

August Training for Staff in Legislative Research and Policy Analysis A training workshop for 22 parliamentary administrators and parliamentary assistants. concepts and methodologies presented: legislative research techniques, methods of evaluating public policies, proper source citation practices and avoidance of plagiarism, Principal sources and sites of judicial information Methods of finding information using search tools Information monitoring

1.3.2.4 with APF 2.1

SEPTEMBER - Seminar on peace and social cohesion CSOs and MPs as actors for peace and social cohesion

With NDI IFES and others (WANEP) SA 1.2.6.3

4.1

OCTOBER Peace messaging campaign on Radio with (WANEP) 1.6




November Support to the PTAN. LSP supported a seminar on the review of the 2014/2015 PTAN and development of the 2015/2016 PTAN from November 4 to 8 for 63 members of the ANCI. The seminar also included trainings on the implementation and monitoring of the PTAN. In addition, two consultants have been engaged to support the implementation and monitoring process of the 2015/2016 PTAN.

1.2.1.1

1.1.2.3

1.2

November APF/NORIA takes over Wi-Fi support; LSP keeps e-voting and debate registration equip.

LSP – E-voting and debate registration

2.5

National Youth Parliament created Task 1.2.8 4.1

June July Needs assessment re archives/doc. classification with ANQ SA 1.3.2.3 1.5

Re: legislative research and policy analysis With APF SA 1.3.2.4 2.1

March Mission re prisons and Mission re HIV/AIDS in March SA 1.4.1.3 3.1

November Mission re gold mines in November SA 1.4.1.3 3.1

Compilation of database IN PROCESS SA 1.5.1.3 1.6

2016

JUNE AND DECEMBER

Meetings of Steering & Executive Committees 1.2

Drafting and implementing the NA’s Strategic Development Plan and the Annual PTANs

SA 1.2.1.1; with UNDP and UNIFEMME and APF

1.2

January AV equipment given to CICAN. LSP procured a video camera, two digital cameras, a camera tripod and microphones which was handed over to the CICAN on January 15, 2016

1.6

March Oversight Field Visit by CAEF. Fact-finding mission on road infrastructure in various locations around Côte d’Ivoire,

1.4.1.3 3.1

March 7day HR workshop to review the proposed modifications to the organizational chart and job descriptions. Participants validated the logical

1.2.2.1 1.5




framework, new organizational chart, scopes of work and administrative regulations.

June Seminar in Grand Bassam for APNAC on Procurement 1.4.4.5

With UNDP and ROSSI CCAP

3.10

June LSP participated in the World Bank funded workshop on the review of the strategic development plan (PSAN2013-2016) and National Assembly Work Plan (PTAN) for 2017 which took place in Yamoussoukro at the Hotel des Parlementaires from June 24th to June 26th 2016.

1.2.1.1; with UNDP and UNIFEMME and APF

1.2

June-and December meetings of Steering & Executive Committees

June 10 interns recruited as follows: 5 interns for the SDA, 2 interns for the SEAP and 3 interns for the SDP.1.3.2.9

1.3.2.9 1.5

June 30 Support to MP Adjaratou Traore Fadiga to ask oral questions to be addressed to the Minister of Transport on June 30, 2016.

1.4.1.2 3.1

July 15 Support to MP Sangaré Yacouba to ask oral questions, on July 15th 2016, to the Minister of Economic Infrastructures.

1.4.1.2 3.1

July August

6 Oversight Field Visits re gender issues: one in Abengourou, two in Yopougon, one in Bouaflé, one in Daoukro and one in Touba.

1.2.8.4 3.1 (6)

AUGUST Seminar to discuss the development of a Women’s commission with UNWOMEN, UNDP, and UNFPA

1.7

August Workshop on integrating Gender - 1.2.8.2 1.7

August Oversight Feld Visit by the Security and Defense Commission (CSD). Mission to study two military barracks in Daloa and Korhogo and to gather information on the living conditions within these barracks. .

1.4.1.3 3.1

August Training for MPs at the Gender Workshop on using email and social media 1.7




August Oversight Feld Visit by the Security and Defense Commission (CSD). Mission to study two military barracks in Daloa and Korhogo and to gather information on the living conditions within these barracks. .

1.4.1.3 3.1

July and October Finance Le Parlementaire 1.2.4.3

September Organization of a round table for the National Youth Parliament (NPC):

1.2.8 1.7

September World Bank training on the Budget Cycle for 35 NA Administrators – attended by 5 LSP staff (NOT an LSP activity)

November The e-voting system is currently being installed and it should be ready sometime in October for use during the second ordinary session of the National Assembly in 2016. The debate transcription software and the Wifi extension have not yet been installed

1.2.3.2 2.5

Q2

LSP pays 5 staff –1 gender specialist. The LSP Commissions support staff support National Assembly staff and Commissions, with special emphasis on the analysis of legal texts. 4 bills analyzed in Q2

ONGOING 1.3.1.2 1.5

Q2 10 interns RECRUITED TO WORK AS FOLLOWS: 5 interns for the SDA, 2 interns for the SEAP and 3 interns for the SDP.1.3.2.9

1.3.2.9 1.5

Q4 LSP drafted a guide on legislative research for parliamentary work. Based on training provided in 2015; A first draft of the guide was submitted to the ANCI in the last quarter of 2015 and underwent joint review by LSP and the ANCI throughout the first quarter of the year. The final draft of the guide was submitted for final validation by the ANCI in April 2016 and is currently awaiting final ANCI approval. Once it has been approved, the guide will be printed and distributed to the members of the National Assembly.

NOT YET APPROVED 1.3.2.4 and 1.2.6.1

Q4 Equipment to digitize the archives ST 3: Procure Necessary Equipment for SEAP and SDA List revised in Q3

1.3.2.3NOT YET PROVIDED

Q4

LSP entered into a subcontract agreement with CAPEC to produce a guide on the budget cycle. CAPEC submitted the first draft of the guide on March 22, 2016. A final review is currently under way and should be

1.4.3.1

Draft returned to CAPEC in July for




completed early in the first quarter of the year. (q4) rewriting

Legislation Q2

LSP pays 5 staff –1 gender specialist. The LSP Commissions support staff support National Assembly staff and Commissions, with special emphasis on the analysis of legal texts. 4 bills analyzed

ONGOING 1.3.1.2 1.5

Q3 ST 3: Procure Necessary Equipment for SEAP and SDA equipment to digitize the ANCI’s archives. LIST REVISED

1.4

Develop a manual

1.3.2.4

B SA 1.3.2.4: LSP drafted a guide on legislative research for parliamentary work. Based on training provided in 2015; A first draft of the guide was submitted to the ANCI in the last quarter of 2015 and underwent joint review by LSP and the ANCI throughout the first quarter of the year. The final draft of the guide was submitted for final validation by the ANCI in April 2016 and is currently awaiting final ANCI approval. Once it has been approved, the guide will be printed and distributed to the members of the National Assembly.

NOT YET APPROVED 1.3.2.4 and 1.2.6.1

1.5

Equipment to digitize the archives 1.3.2.3 1.4

March CAEF mission occurred between March 7 to 12, 2016-- Roads fact-finding mission on road infrastructure in various locations around Côte d’Ivoire,

ST 1.4.1.3 3.1

June 30 support to MP Adjaratou Traore Fadiga in developing the specific questions to be addressed to the Minister of Transport. The oral question was held on June 30, 2016 in the presence of the Minister.

1.4.1.2 3.1

July 15 With technical support provided by LSP in the preparation of oral questions, on July 15th 2016, MP Sangaré Yacouba interpellated the Minister of Economic Infrastructures about government practices relating to the creation, maintenance and the quality control of road infrastructures in te d’Ivoire.

1.4.1.2 3.1

AUGUST 21-28 the Security and Defense Commission (CSD); a parliamentary information mission to two military barracks in Daloa and Korhogo to gather information on the living conditions within these barracks. .

1.4.1.3 3.1




LSP entered into a subcontract agreement with CAPEC to produce a guide on the budget cycle. CAPEC submitted the first draft of the guide on March 22, 2016. A final review is currently under way and should be completed early in the first quarter of the year. (q4)

1.4.3.1

DRAFT RETURNED TO CAPEC IN JULY FOR REWRITING

1.3

TABLE L#2: COMPONENT 2 ACTIVITIES DELIVERED

TIME FRAME

ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION PSAN STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE #

2013 Commune Pilot Project Design: Beginning with four-day field visit from March 26 to March 29, 2013

”Pilot activities aimed at improving interaction between MPs and their constituents at the local level. " (Q report 2 April to June 2013)

4.1

2013 MP Competitive Selection procedures for 24 pilot communes begun

Selection based on 1) as many MPs as possible in 24 communes; 2)as many women MPs as possible

4.1

Selection of MPs for 24 Communes Pilot Platforms

4.1

2014 Selection process presented to Project Advisory Committee

2014 Testing of commune needs assessment methodology with DGDDL

i)current state of service delivery quality, ii) optimum conditions for the creation of Platform to discuss priority public services and iii) roles of local government and MPs

4.1

Information sessions with selected MPs 42 MPs from 24 communes (8 women) selected to head Platforms 4.1 1.2

2014-2016 MOU Radio and media coverage MOU signed with 22 radio stations in 23 communes, including supply of equipment

1.6

2014-20116 Radio agreements implemented Objective is public outreach: Improve citizen understanding of Platforms and roles of MPs, parliament, etc. and of public service delivery issues

1.6

Training seminars for 60 journalists Included 44 persons from Radio Station partners 1.6 From 2016 Awareness raising through radio activities 1.6


TIME FRAME

ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION PSAN STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE #

2014-2015 Civic Education: Public information town hall meetings

Citizens in 24 communes; and with local leaders. A total of 4,047 participants took part in 13 public information sessions (See Annex 8 for more details). (Q Report 2.3 July-Sep 2014) p 16

4.1

2015 Civic Education: Commune needs assessments

4.2

2014 Set Up and Implement Platforms 4.1 4.2

Terms of reference for “Collaborative Community Platforms” established

Platforms to address public service delivery issues” (Q report 2.3 2014)

March 2015 Identification and appointment of Platform members and Focal Points

Each Platform comprised of 20 citizens of the commune representing various municipal or regional administrative departments and civil society. Focal Points (Platform members) chosen from local government administrative authorities in Commune

4.1 4.2

Jan-Mar 2016

Material support to Platform Focal Points computers, printers 4.1 4.2

Beginning Apr-Jun

2015

Capacity building for Platform members

4.1 4.2

Jul-Sep 2015 Establish partnerships for platform capacity building

DGDDL partnership to deliver workshops in Communes 4.2

2016 Develop Platform Needs Assessment Identify 3 public services needs priorities; use of citizen score card results to identify needs

4.2

Develop Platform Action Plans 21 Action Plans developed by Mar 2016 4.2 2016 Capacity building and training seminars

for Platforms delivered 20 seminars delivered by March 2016 Included lessons of participatory budgeting (Q 4.2 Apr-Jun 2016)

1.2 4.1

July-Sep 2016

Advocacy and fundraising workshops for platform Focal Points and MPs

Training for 110 selected platform members in 2 workshops 1.2 4.1

2015 Monitoring and Evaluation Service delivery performance monitoring tools developed

1.2

June 2016 M&E Review of Platform activities – for 46 participants/29 MPs

1.2


ANNEX M: LSP PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

Indicator Number Indicator Title Baseline

2014 Targets

2014 Actuals

2015 Targets

2015 Actuals

2016 Targets

2016 Actuals

Sum Targets

Sum Actuals percent

Target published in 2013

C-Ind 8 Percentage of satisfactory scores and higher on the Citizen Score Card Survey

60percent

55percent

F-GNDR 4

Percentage of target population reporting increased agreement with the concept that males and females should have equal access to economic, social and political opportunities

93percent

55percent

C-Ind 7 Percentage of individuals who trust that ANCI is exercising its constitutional functions in the best interest of the citizen

52percent

55percent

C-Ind 6 Percentage of individuals who trust that ANCI is improving the national legislative framework to better serve the citizen

50percent

55percent

C-Ind 5

Percentage of individuals who agree with the statement that public service in their municipality is better than the preceding

year

43percent

55percent

Indicator Number

Indicator Title Baseline 2014

Targets 2014

Actuals 2015

Targets 2015

Actuals 2016

Targets 2016

Actuals Sum

Targets Sum

Actuals percent



Indicator Number Indicator Title Baseline

2014 Targets

2014 Actuals

2015 Targets

2015 Actuals

2016 Targets

2016 Actuals

Sum Targets

Sum Actuals percent


C-Ind 4 Number of ANCI documents made available to the Public

8 8 8 11 9 9 9 28 26 93percent 150

F-Ind. 2.2.1-3

Number of draft laws subject to substantive amendment & final vote that benefitted from USG assistance

0 6 7 7 3 8 9 21 19 90percent 66

F-Ind. 2.2.1-4

Number of executive oversight actions taken by the legislature with USG assistance.

0 10 8 12 10 9 11 31 29 94percent 90

F-Ind. 2.2.1-6

Number of Public Forums in which Members of Parliament and Members of the Public Interact with USG assistance

0 24 25 6 31 30 40 60 96 160percent 126

C-Ind 2 Number of LSP technical deliverable appropriated by ANCI

1 5 6 3 7 8 3 16 16 100percent 45

C-Ind 1 Number of participants in LSP activities. 0 2500 13654 7764 8425 7 101 9 946 17365 32025 184percent 16000


U.S. Agency for International Development 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20523 Tel: (202) 712‐0000 Fax: (202) 216‐3524 www.usaid.gov

Filename: Democracy International - Cote D'Ivoire LSP Midterm Evaluation Report

Directory: C:\Users\agunn\Downloads Template:

C:\Users\agunn\AppData\Roaming\Microsoft\Templates\Normal.dotm

Title: Subject: Author: Nicole Goodrich Keywords: Comments: Creation Date: 6/5/2017 11:24:00 AM Change Number: 2 Last Saved On: 6/5/2017 11:24:00 AM Last Saved By: Kirby Neuner Total Editing Time: 2 Minutes Last Printed On: 6/5/2017 11:53:00 AM As of Last Complete Printing Number of Pages: 137 Number of Words: 38,315 (approx.) Number of Characters: 218,397 (approx.)

mid-term performance evaluation legislative …

Documents