PROJECT EVALUATION INITIATIVE TO PROMOTE AFGHAN CIVIL SOCIETY II (I-PACS II)

Transcription

1 * PROJECT EVALUATION INITIATIVE TO PROMOTE AFGHAN CIVIL SOCIETY II (I-PACS II) JULY 2013 This report was produced for review by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). It was prepared under contract with Checchi and Company Consulting, Inc. for USAID s Afghanistan Services Under Project and Project Offices for Results Tracking Phase II (SUPPORT II)

2 Activity Signature Page This report was contracted under USAID Contract Number: AID-306-C Afghanistan Services under Program and Project Offices for Results Tracking Phase II (SUPPORT II). This activity was initiated by the Office of Project and Program Development by Mr. Sayed Aqa, COR/SUPPORT II. Assignment Title: Team Leader: Initiative to Promote Afghan Civil Society II (I-PACS II) Saskia Ivens Activity Start Date: April 29, 2013 Completion Date: July 21, 2013 Hoppy Mazier, Chief of Party Waheed Ahmadi, Deputy Chief of Party Checchi and Company Consulting, Inc. Kabul, Afghanistan Disclaimer: The views expressed in this report are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID, the Government of Afghanistan, or any other organization or person associated with this project. i

3 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Executive Summary Project Background Evaluation Questions, Design, Methods and Limitations Findings And Conclusions Recommendations...5 II. Introduction Project Background Evaluation Purpose Evaluation Questions Methods and Limitations...11 III. Findings Objective 1: Improved Civil Society Accountability, Legal and Regulatory Framework...12 Objective 2: Strengthened Civil Society Capacity and Sector Infrastructure for Democratic Processes...15 Objective 3: Increased Citizen Mobilization and Policy Engagement...23 IV. Conclusions V. Recommendations Objective 1 : Legal and Regulatory Framework...29 Objective 2: Civil Society Capacity...30 Objective 3: Citizen Mobilization and Policy Engagement...32 ii

4 ACRONYMS AABRAR Afghan Amputee Bicyclist Rehabilitation Association ACBAR Agency Coordinating Body for Afghan Relief ACSFo Afghan Civil Society Forum organization ACTD Afghanistan Center for Training and Development ADWRO Assistance to Defend Women s Rights Organizations ALBA Assistance to Legislative Bodies of Afghanistan ANCB Afghan NGOs Coordination Bureau ANCC Afghanistan National Reconstruction Company AREU Afghanistan Research and Evaluation Unit AWEC Afghan Women s Educational Center AWN Afghan Women Network BEST Basic Education and Employable Skill Training CDC Community Development Council CoAR Coordination of Afghan Relief CRDSA Coordination of Rehabilitation and Development Services for Afghanistan CSO Civil Society Organization CSSC Civil Society Support Center DAI Development Alternative International DAO Development and Ability Organization DEOW Development and Educational Organization for Women DoWA Department of Women s Affairs ECW Education and Training Center for Poor Women and Girls of Afghanistan EVAW Elimination of Violence Against Women FY Fiscal Year HAFO Humanitarian Assistance and Facilitating Organization HR Human Resources ICNL International Center for Not for Profit Law IFES International Foundation for Electoral Systems INGO International Non-Governmental Organization I-PACS I Initiative to Promote Afghan Civil Society, Phase One I-PACS II Initiative to Promote Afghan Civil Society, Phase Two ISO Intermediary Service Organization KPO Key Partner Organization LCSAWC Legal and Cultural Services for Afghan Women and Children M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MoE Ministry of Economy MoF Ministry of Finance MoJ Ministry of Justice MoU Memorandum of Understanding MoWA Ministry of Women s Affairs MP Member of Parliament MRRD Ministry of Rural Rehabilitations and Development NAPWA National Action Plan for Women of Afghanistan iii

5 NGO NPRC OD PMEP PO POC PRT RFA SO STEP TA THRA ToT WASSA Non-Governmental Organizations National Policy Reform Conference Organizational Development Performance Monitoring & Evaluation Plan Peace Organization Point of Contact Provincial Reconstruction Team Request for Application Social Organization Support to the Electoral Process Technical Assistance Training Human Rights Association for Afghan Women Training of Trainers Women Activities and Social Service Association iv

6 I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1. PROJECT BACKGROUND The initiative to Promote Afghan Civil Society Phase II (I-PACS II) is a three-year $45,000,000 program funded by USAID and implemented by Counterpart International Inc. (Counterpart) in partnership with the International Center for Not-for Profit Law (ICNL). The project runs from October 1, 2010 through September 30, I-PACS II is a follow-on award to the I-PACS I Project ( ). The overall goal of I-PACS II is to enable Afghan citizens to more effectively participate in the political process, solve community problems and demand good governance from their leaders. The three program objectives are: 1) To strengthen civil society by improving its enabling environment, accountability and transparency; 2) To strengthen civil society s capacity for democratic processes; and 3) To increase citizen mobilization and policy engagement. The program responded to the fiscal year (FY) 2010 Congressional earmark on the participation and leadership of Afghan women and improved security, economic and social well-being and political status of Afghan women and girls. As such, capacity building of Afghan civil society organizations (CSOs) has been a major component of I-PACS work, with an emphasis on Afghan women-led CSOs and gender policy activities. Other areas include public awareness of the purpose and importance of civil society. The I-PACS II network now includes 380 organizations, almost half of which are women-led or women-focused. The network originally included 19 key partner organizations (KPOs), each working with up to 20 target CSOs, and has recently diminished to 17 KPOs. 2. EVALUATION QUESTIONS, DESIGN, METHODS AND LIMITATIONS To adequately answer the evaluation questions the evaluation team used a variety of proven evaluation methods such as document review, a questionnaire, interviews, focus group discussions, observation of meetings and observation of a training session. The evaluation team also visited Kabul, Herat, Mazar-e-Sharif, Jalalabad and Kandahar. The team held meetings with 50 target CSOs and conducted CSO questionnaires with 191 of the 380 target CSOs, either in-person or by phone. The evaluation team met with 16 of 19 KPOs and interviewed the remaining three KPOs by phone. All the KPOs completed the KPO questionnaire. The evaluation team further met with other I-PACS and non-i-pacs CSO beneficiaries and partners, government officials, Parliamentary Committees, Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT) members and Provincial Council members. 1

7 3. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Legal and regulatory framework The various advocacy efforts used by I-PACS II and its implementing partner ICNL have been effective in facilitating the adoption of desired amendments in legislation. I-PACS II was instrumental in forming working groups to address the legal and regulatory framework. The working group methodology was very successful for the Social Organization (SO) law and progress has been made on the non-governmental organization (NGO) law. Having government officials participate in the Civil Society Legal and Accountability Framework working group contributed largely to the success of the working groups. Both the Head of the NGO Coordination Unit of the Ministry of Economy (MoE) and the Head of the Social Unions and Political Parties Department of the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) were active members. Other advocacy efforts that enhanced the project included the publication of the NGO law and the Registration Brochure for NGOs, advocacy within the Parliament and training to KPOs and target CSOs on the proposed amendments. The activities positively affect women-led organizations. Women-led and women-focused organizations were well represented and were active participants of the working groups. They feel that their concerns, if different at all, are addressed. Eight of 19 KPOs are members of other advocacy groups, many of which include the Afghan Women Network (AWN) and other advocacy groups promoting women s rights. A concern is the ability of the task force and working groups to continue beyond the life of the project. ICNL, more than the working group members, took a leading role. Most, working group members think the working groups would continue if there were a determination of need and in case the I-PACS II program ended. Civil society capacity The cascading model of training that I-PACS II has adopted has been very effective for the majority of organizations. According to the quantitative data, all KPOs received training and in turn trained most target CSOs. All KPOs and 80 percent of CSOs noted the trainings brought positive changes in their organizations. One of the measures of success is that many other donors are funding I-PACS II KPOs and target CSOs including Creative, Tawanmandi, CARE, etc. One KPO reported that their target CSOs were not that interested in training as they are not being paid to attend, others said that their CSOs were very new and the training materials were too advanced for them. The less established target CSOs felt strongly that the organizational development (OD) trainings were excellent and wanted more. The KPOs and target CSOs said they had learned how to write reports, design and write proposals and learned about gender issues and human rights. They were excited to train others in these skills. The three KPOs in remote areas expressed that the level of their CSOs was very basic and they needed much more basic 2

8 training materials. On the other end of the spectrum, more established KPOs and CSOs asked for more advanced training by subject matter experts. Many organizations felt that the trainings were too short; stating that a two or three-day training had less effect if there is no follow-on mentoring or on-the-job training. KPOs reported that the I-PACS II Technical Assistance (TA) support staff would stay a day or two but they need mentoring for longer periods of time. Most common topics for TA were Human Resources (HR) policies, finance, proposal writing and grants management, leadership and strategic management, communication and outreach. KPOs asked that I-PACS II staff stay for at least a week and help them develop the monthly financial report and the narrative reports and provide more TA on monitoring and evaluation once they have received the training. According to the CSO questionnaires only 40 percent of target CSOs received TA. CSOs requested more mentoring to increase their capacity. The most requested TA was on financial management, the CSOs wanted to learn more about QuickBooks and how to generate reports. CSOs also wanted KPOs to train them in facilitation skills. To promote learning on Requests for Applications (RFAs) and proposal writing, ten of the KPOs are awarding grants to half of its 20 target CSO partners. I-PACS II also awards grants to KPOs and to CSOs outside of the direct I-PACS network. KPOs and successful target CSOs said that they had learned a lot about the process. KPOs had learned how to undertake RFA processes, while CSOs had gained experience in proposal writing. One of the most vocal complaints from many of the KPOs, target CSOs and other grantees was that the grant period was too short. There were also numerous complaints regarding the transparency of the awarding of grants due to the lack of feedback from I-PACS II and the KPOs and because most grants were awarded to groups within the I-PACS II network. Similar concerns were raised on the transparency of the selection of KPOs and target CSOs, particularly by non-i- PACS partners. Women-focused and women-led KPOs are disproportionately affected by underfunding by donors and require continued attention. I-PACS II stands out as a leading supporter of these organizations. Whereas women-led KPOs receive less funding than other organizations, this is not the case for the target CSOs in some regions. However, the number of women-led target CSOs receiving funds under I-PACS II is relatively low compared to other target CSOs except for the West. Since women in general and particularly in the rural areas are less advanced and have the least opportunities to participate, all I-PACS II KPOs and target CSOs surveyed for this evaluation said they felt that women's groups should be priorities. In many of the interviews conducted by the evaluation team, interviewees stated that the youth, both male and female youth groups, are going to be the future and therefore should receive priority to build the necessary leadership skills to help develop their country. 3

9 Despite the I-PACS II approach to gender mainstreaming the evaluation team concludes that the I-PACS II vision on gender mainstreaming is not fully understood and needs more attention. Many of the KPOs visited still have a point of contact (POC) in the position of a gender officer despite the I-PACS II decision in the final year of implementation not to require the position as part of their technical assistance to the KPOs. The role of the KPO gender officers is not always clearly identified. All the KPOs and 50 percent of the target CSOs have a gender policy in place but implementation of the gender policy primarily focuses on gender balance and the hiring of more female staff, not on gender integration into projects and organizational strengthening. The monitoring conducted by I-PACS II is directed towards the KPOs and in many cases did not reach target CSOs. I-PACS II relied on the KPOs to do the monitoring for target CSOs and in some cases there were oversights neglecting CSOs or claiming CSOs were partners but were not in the program. Citizen mobilization and policy engagement KPOs are actively engaged in their role as a bridge between citizens and government by the organization of Community Dialogues and work with the communities on resolving their problems. All 19 KPOs participated in Community Dialogues, averaging 33 community meetings per KPO per year. These dialogues are organized differently in the different regions and women's participation depends upon the region in which they live. In the most conservative areas, KPOs continue to work to increase women s participation through discussions with local elders and collaboration with the Department of Women s Affairs (DoWA) showing some initial results. KPOs reported many of the community-related issues raised in the meetings were resolved. KPOs invite members of the Community Development Councils (CDCs) to the meetings to continue building relationships between government and the community. Elders are involved in solving community-related issues. It was important to work with the government 69 percent of the time on more complex issues like infrastructure or legal disputes. Thirty-one percent of the time the issues could be resolved at the community level, for example issues such as underage marriage or family disputes. The evaluation team concludes that it is important to further work with government officials and parliamentarians to strengthen the bridge between CSOs and government/parliament. Discussions with a variety of Parliamentary Committees revealed that CSO participation is strong within the Women's Affairs Commission but that for example the Economic Committee of Parliament does not engage civil society and the Commission on NGO and Rural Rehabilitation and Development only occasionally involves CSOs. However, the sustainability of the Community Dialogue groups is not guaranteed given the limited role of the I-PACS II target CSOs. In most instances, CSOs set up the Community Dialogue and the KPOs facilitate the meetings. Most CSOs also conduct community meetings although about half of these meeting are structured around projects rather than 4

10 promoting Community Dialogues to build a system to recognize community issues and facilitate problem solving. KPOs and target CSOs said they want more advanced trainings on human rights, advocacy, conflict resolution, peace building, civil society building and understanding government to be able to better play their role. Following discussions on the sustainability of CSOs, target CSOs further requested training on self-sufficiency, volunteerism and business planning. 4. RECOMMENDATIONS Working groups on legal and regulatory frameworks should be led by the KPOs or other working group members. This will increase their capacity and minimize the likelihood of the working groups being dissolved in case I-PACS II is not funded. Continue the working group on NGO law for advocacy for the proposed NGO amendments. Conduct more mentoring and technical assistance. Organizational development trainings are important for the less developed target CSOs but the need for follow-on and practical use of the new training materials is essential for all organizations. Conduct tailored trainings to the diverse needs of the community and levels of expertise. The target CSOs in the rural areas need the most basic trainings while the more experienced CSOs are asking for more advanced training. Make grant periods longer. The three to six month short-term projects are not perceived as a positive development strategy unless it is for an emergency situation. Conduct an independent review with outside evaluators for all proposals to remove the idea that the granting and re-granting process may not be transparent. Give all organizations submitting proposals feedback on their proposal. In the future I-PACS II monitoring should also take place on the target CSO level to ensure the KPOs are effectively managing the program. Continue to prioritize women's organizations and also include youth, both male and female organizations. Every organization was adamant these should be the priorities for the next program. Conduct trainings on peace building, conflict mediation, understanding government, sustainability and volunteerism. The more developed KPOs and target CSOs are looking at ways to become more sustainable and as such want trainings to strengthen their activities under Objective Three. Target CSOs should have the responsibility to hold and facilitate Community Dialogues in conjunction with KPOs. The meetings should be conducted with the spirit they will continue after the life of the project. Ensure the presence of a female community development officer in more conservative areas. In addition, budget for Mahrams and continue working with the DoWA to encourage women's participation. 5

11 II. INTRODUCTION 1. PROJECT BACKGROUND The initiative to Promote Afghan Civil Society Phase II (I-PACS II) is a three-year program funded by USAID and implemented by Counterpart International Inc. (Counterpart) in partnership with the International Center for Not-for Profit Law (ICNL). I-PACS II is a follow-on award to the I-PACS I project ( ). USAID awarded a Cooperative Agreement to Counterpart on October 1, 2010 in the amount of $45,000,000. The overall goal of I-PACS II is to enable Afghan citizens to more effectively participate in the political process, solve community problems and demand good governance from their leaders. The three objectives of the program include 1) an improved civil society legal enabling environment, accountability and transparency; 2) strengthen civil society capacity for democratic processes; and 3) increased citizen mobilization and policy engagement. The program responded to the fiscal year (FY) 2010 Congressional earmark specifying that assistance for Afghanistan shall be made available, to the maximum extent practicable, in the manner that utilizes Afghan entities and emphasized the participation and leadership of Afghan women and directly improves the security and economic and social well-being and political status of Afghan women and girls, through an emphasis on women-led nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). 1 USAID/Afghanistan has supported the development of a network of civil society organizations (CSOs) on a national scale since 2005 through I-PACS I and II. I-PACS I addressed four primary components: 1) ensuring informed policy and equitable resource allocation decisions concerning civil society and CSO development in Afghanistan through sector research; 2) assisting in the development and enforcement of a comprehensive legal and regulatory framework that strengthens the CSO sector; 3) building the capacity of CSOs to design, implement, manage, monitor and evaluate their activities; and 4) providing grant funding to CSOs to implement development and advocacy projects. The capacity of the civil society sector in Afghanistan at the start of the I-PACS program in 2005 was relatively low. In 2005, I-PACS established a national civil society network headed by two Afghan Intermediary Service Organizations (ISOs): the Afghan Civil Society Forum organization (ACSFo) and the Afghan Women s Educational Center (AWEC). The ISOs oversaw eight regionally-based Afghan Civil Society Support Centers (CSSCs). Resource Centers housed within these CSSCs provided a venue for training, internet research, reference materials and meetings. Each regional CSSC worked with local CSOs, so-called target CSOs. In June 2005, the president signed a decree on the NGO Law; this was an important step towards an improved NGO environment in Afghanistan. The Law is still pending review and 1 Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010 Public Law , 111 th Congress, Sec (a)-(b) 6

12 ratification. Until it is amended or approved by Parliament, it serves as the de facto NGO law in Afghanistan. Over the past seven years, civil society in Afghanistan has grown into a community of organizations capable of responding to the needs of their communities, implementing programs with a variety of funding sources and advocating on behalf of their constituents. Capacity building of Afghan CSOs was a major component of I-PACS I s work, with an emphasis on Afghan women-led CSOs and gender policy activities. After several years of cascade training during phase I, the ISOs and CSSCs in the provinces were able to deliver training modules to new CSSCs and target CSOs and administer grants of up to $125,000. Many local organizations built their capacity to draft proposals, effectively lobby donors for funds and implement programs. Other areas for development included the reach of civil society and public awareness of the purpose and importance of civil society. Few citizens understood how civic engagement can help to improve their lives and CSOs were still deficient in their ability to provide effective channels for citizen participation in the political process. In many cases, NGOs and CSOs faced negative public and governmental perceptions about their role and operations. I-PACS II aimed to build on the network developed under I-PACS I, offering an increased sense of ownership to Afghan CSOs. Under I-PACS II Afghan ISOs and CSSCs contribute to program planning, delivering capacity building and conducting grant making activities. Afghan civil society representatives were also supposed to receive tailored organizational capacity building to prepare them to directly engage with USAID as program implementers in the future. During the I-PACS II grant period from October , I-PACS II expanded their network from two ISOs to seven ISOs and now has 12 CSSCs making a total of 19. The ISOs and CSSCs have been renamed into key partner organizations (KPOs) as the ISO oversight role was no longer deemed required. In March 2013, work with two of the 19 KPOs was discontinued. Each of the remaining 17 KPOs work with up to 20 local target CSOs. The following is a list of KPOs and geographic areas in 2013: Advisory Board/KPOs 1. Afghan Civil Society Forum organization (ACSFo) - Kabul, Parwan, Paktia, Paktika, Khost 2. Afghan National Reconstruction Coordination (ANCC) Uruzgan, Zabul 3. Afghan Women s Educational Center (AWEC) - Kapisa, Panjsheer, Kuner, Nooristan, Laghman, Nangarhar 4. Coordination of Afghan Relief (CoAR) Logar, Wardak 5. Humanitarian Assistance and Facilitating Organization (HAFO) - Helmand 6. Shuhada Organization Bamyan, Diakundi 7

13 7. Women Activities and Social Service Association (WASSA) - Herat, Farah, Ghor, Nimroz, Badghis 8. Education and Training Center for Poor Women and Girls of Afghanistan (ECW) - Kunduz, Baghlan, Takhar, Badakhshan 9. Assistance to Defend Women s Rights Organization (ADWRO) - Mazar, Saripul, Samangan, Jawzjan, Faryab 10. Afghan Amputee Bicyclists for Rehabilitation and Recreation (AABRAR) - Paktia, Paktika 11. Coordination of Rehabilitation and Development Services for Afghanistan (CRDSA) - Badghis, Nimroz 12. Development and Ability Organization (DAO) - Kunar, Nooristan 13. Development and Educational Organization for Women (DEOW) Faryab 14. Help the Afghan Children (HTAC) - Jouzjan, Saripul 15. Legal and Cultural Services for Afghan Women and Children (LCSAWC) Badakhshan 16. Peace Organization (PO) - Baghlan, Takhar 17. Training Human Rights Association for Afghan Women (THRA) - Nangarhar, Laghman 18. Basic Education and Employable Skill Training (BEST)- Ghazni, Wardak, Bamyan, Daikundi; 19. Afghan Center for Training and Development (ACTD) Kandahar; Figure 1: Geographic Area for I-PACS II Activities 8

14 2. EVALUATION PURPOSE This evaluation was conducted to review and evaluate the performance of USAID-funded civil society development activities through the Initiative to Promote Afghan Civil Society II (I-PACS II) program. The evaluation focused on assessing the effectiveness of the project s performance in achieving its programmatic goal and results through the three components over the course of the program (October 1, 2010 through September 30, 2013). The findings and recommendations from this evaluation will be used to guide the design of a new civil society program for USAID/Afghanistan. More broadly, it will inform USAID programming decisions on and approaches to civil society activities in Afghanistan into the transition period and beyond. The successes and weaknesses of this program have been studied and documented and recommendations are provided for potential follow-on program models to promote the development and sustainability of civil society in Afghanistan. This evaluation: Evaluated the approach, implementation and effectiveness of USAID s support for civil society development in Afghanistan through I-PACS II. The discussion included the project s effectiveness in achieving the expected results; identification of strengths, weaknesses and challenges; and an assessment of sustainability of individual projects after the project s end. Distilled lessons learned that are relevant for the design and implementation of future USAID civil society development projects in conflict-affected and traditional environments. This included identification of lessons learned and best practices to inform and improve designs and models for future programs and projects, as well as provide information and recommendations on how the existing project could be improved. Defined the level of overlap and duplication in overall program activities with other ongoing civil society strengthening programs in the country. Examined the scope, level and effectiveness of I-PACS II activities in the following areas: 1. Capacity building of CSOs 2. Network and coalition building within the civil society sector 3. Advocacy and policy engagement 4. Legal and regulatory frameworks 5. Increasing public awareness about the role and importance of civil society 9

15 3. EVALUATION QUESTIONS Objective 1: Improved civil society accountability, legal, and regulatory frameworks Which advocacy efforts have been most effective in facilitating the adoption of desired amendments and legislation? Objective 2: Strengthened civil society capacity and sector infrastructure for democratic processes How and to what extent has the cascading model of training and technical assistance (TA) provided first by I-PACS II International staff and then by I-PACS II key partners contributed to the organizational development of CSOs at each level of the cascade? If the training was ineffective, was this due to content, delivery, or other circumstances? Objective 3: Increased Citizen Mobilization and Policy Engagement To what extent have I-PACS II civil society organizations actively engaged in their role as a bridge between citizens and government? To what extent have community needs and priorities been addressed at the local level as a result of specific community actions and/or the engagement of local leaders by I- PACS II partners? What additional capacity building activities could help civil society organizations be more effective in advocating for and addressing the needs and priorities of their communities? Cross Cutting: Gender Are there challenges to organizational development and activity implementation that disproportionately affect women-led organizations? If so, what are they and what might be the causes? What has been the impact of the I-PACS II switch from funding one gender point of contact (POC) in each key partner organization to an approach that mainstreams gender throughout the key partner organization? Sustainability What factors will limit or enhance the ability of the task forces and working groups established under I-PACS II to continue this work beyond the life of the project? The evaluation team decided to reformulate and integrate the crosscutting questions on gender and sustainability under the relevant objectives. For that reason the responses to these questions are integrated in the rest of the text. 10

16 4. METHODS AND LIMITATIONS The evaluation team used a variety of methods consisting of document review, a questionnaire, interviews, focus group discussions, observation of three meetings and observation of a training session. A semi-structured list of interview questions was used for the focus group discussions and interviews. The combination of methods resulted in quantitative and qualitative data collection as required by the Scope of Work (SoW). The evaluation team visited Kabul, Herat, Mazar-e- Sharif, Jalalabad and Kandahar obtaining quantitative and in-depth findings. The team held meetings with 50 target CSOs. By conducting CSO questionnaires with 191 of the 380 I- PACS II target CSOs, either during meetings or by phone, the team was able to obtain data from a representative cross-section of all target CSOs within the I-PACS II network. The team met with 16 of 19 KPOs. The team interviewed the remaining three KPOs by telephone due to the distance/security limitations. All KPOs completed the questionnaires. The KPO and CSO questionnaires allowed for data disaggregation per region. Disaggregation by type of organization allowed for a good understanding of the differences between womenled, women-focused and other organizations. The team further met with: Members of the I-PACS II working groups on NGO law, SO law, Civil Society Legal Framework and Accountability, Democracy and Governance, Women s Empowerment and Youth, and the Task Force on Private Giving Community members in Jalalabad, Herat, Kabul and Kandahar Other I-PACS II grantees in Kabul, Herat, Jalalabad and Mazar-e-Sharif US embassy AWE grantees in Kabul, Herat, Jalalabad and Mazar-e-Sharif Non-US supported organizations in Kabul, Jalalabad and Mazar-e-Sharif A select group of Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT) members The Head of Solidarity and Unification of the Ministry of Economy (MoE) The Department of Social Unions and Political Parties of the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) Provincial Council members A representative of the Ministry of Women s Affairs (MoWA), A representative of the Ministry of Rural Rehabilitations and Development (MRRD) A number of Parliamentary Committees and with a representative of Tawanmandi. The evaluation team observed training from a KPO to target CSOs in Mazar-e-Sharif, a Provincial Dialogue meeting in Herat, two Community Dialogue meetings in Kabul and Jalalabad and a meeting of the Private Giving Task Force. 11

17 III. FINDINGS OBJECTIVE 1: IMPROVED CIVIL SOCIETY ACCOUNTABILITY, LEGAL AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK Working groups The I-PACS II implementing organization ICNL was instrumental in forming working groups to address the legal and regulatory framework. The program formed working groups on the Social Organization (SO) law, NGO law, Civil Society Legal and Accountability Framework and a task force on Private Giving. ICNL plans to develop a new working group on Foundation Law to encourage development of foundations in Afghanistan that could reach out to other funders, including the Afghan Diaspora. Working groups are open to I-PACS II and non-i-pacs II CSOs. I-PACS II maintains a membership list of active members. The Civil Society Legal and Accountability Framework working group consists of government and CSO members. Government representatives include the Head of the NGO Coordination Unit of the MoE and the Head of the Social Unions and Political Parties Department of the MoJ. The active CSO members consist of three non-i-pacs II CSO members and four I-PACS II KPOs. The working group discussed amendments to the NGO and SO law. The NGO and SO law working groups consist of CSO representatives that can lobby for the amendments. Four I-PACS II KPOs form the active members of the NGO working group. Three non-i-pacs II CSOs form the active members of the SO law working group. A representative from the Ministry of Finance (MoF) is a member of the task force on Private Giving. The task force is working on tax credit law for companies that donate to NGOs. This task force also works on NGO accountability, tax laws and has suggested new amendments for the NGO law. Women s representation in the working groups Representatives from women s organizations are actively contributing members on the task force on Private Giving (one of two active CSO members) and the working groups on NGO law (three of four active members) and Civil Society Legal and Accountability Framework (one of three active CSO members). A representative of the National Movement Afghanistan Youth (NMAY) is an active member of the SO law working group. Women s organizations representation on working groups is vital given the large number of women-led and womenfocused NGOs and SOs. The MoJ states that more than 50 percent of SOs are formed by Hazaras most of which primarily focus on women s issues. 12

18 Regional diversity and working group participation When discussing the working groups the target CSOs in Kabul and other provinces noted challenges in the reporting process to the government due to: bureaucracy, corruption and lack of coordination between the central government and provinces. Challenges were most persistent in the provinces as CSOs face problems of lack of coordination between provincial and national ministries and encounter a lack of awareness among government officials of the NGO law. Target CSOs identified the existence of the working groups as a positive step to improve this situation. Kabul-based target CSOs and KPOs were more likely to be actively involved in the working groups. Four KPOs indicated membership on the Civil Society Legal and Accountability Framework working group. Two KPOs say they are a member of the NGO Law working group, one of whom was a short-term member only. Three of the KPOs are Kabul-based; the other three are based in the North, East and West. Four Kabul-based KPOs are active members of the working groups, one of both the NGO and the Private Giving groups and three others of the NGO working group. Three of the four KPOs on the list are women-led or women-focused organizations. Sixty-five percent of the active members are from outside of the I-PACS network, selected for their level of influence and knowledge of these processes. One of the active members is an I-PACS II grantee without other linkage to I-PACS II. Working group members appreciated being involved in the working groups as it was a chance to be heard. Two KPOs based outside of Kabul expressed their disappointment at not being able to be a member; one saying that their KPO had not been selected for membership after attending a number of Kabul-based meetings. Another non-kabul-based KPO expressed less interest in membership expressing that the distance would be a problem saying that Kabulbased KPOs could play this role. Leadership ICNL, more than the members of the four working groups, directed the work of the working groups. The Legal Adviser is an expert in civil society law and is skilled in drafting amendments. He calls the meetings and the working group members share their ideas on amendments and provide support for advocacy efforts. Interaction between the working groups is limited. Most of the working group members were not aware of the issues of different working groups. Most working group members think that the working groups would continue if the I-PACS II program ends and if they determine there is a need. Working group members know each other and the government ministries reflect a commitment to continue the process. However, according to some, the capacity of the civil society members is too limited to continue alone. 13

19 Working group achievements Both government representatives and other working group members appreciated the participation of government in the Civil Society Legal and Accountability Framework and the Task Force on Private Giving. According to working group members and ICNL, government participation facilitated the adoption of desired amendments and legislation. Work on the SO law has been highly successful. According to working group members, 95 percent of the working groups concerns are addressed in the new law. After the MoJ accepted the suggested amendments, the law passed smoothly through the Upper and Lower Houses of Parliament and is now awaiting the signature from the President s Office. The MoE accepted nine out of 14 proposed changes for the NGO law suggested by the working group. Key issues that would be addressed if the law is passed include: use of the reporting format by the MoE for reporting to all concerned Ministries, no last-minute changes to the format and the ability to form a coordinating body with five instead of ten like-minded organizations. However, in the process, the MoE has proposed other changes, not all of which are beneficial to NGOs. The working group members with whom the evaluation team met were not aware of the changes proposed by the MoE. ICNL is aware of the changes and is in the process of developing an advocacy plan for lobbying Parliament. Working group members report interaction with Parliament and government, including with the following ministries: MoWA, MoJ, MoE, MoF and with the President s Office. In addition to interaction with working group members from the various ministries, working group members and ICNL report undertaking advocacy efforts through the use of personal contacts. Women-led, women-focused and other organizations indicated that the current NGO and SO legal and regulatory framework does not affect women-led or women-focused organizations differently than others. However, a representative from the MoWA was surprised that women-led organizations had not noted that they are at a disadvantage at the time of registration because they are less likely to have start-up money. She further mentioned that the requirement of the National Action Plan for Women of Afghanistan (NAPWA) to have 30 percent women staff in organizations is part of the proposed amendments. I-PACS II is on track achieving the Performance Monitoring & Evaluation Plan (PMEP) targets, including the number of positive modifications to legislation, trainings to provincial departments of the NGO department, CSO training and I-PACS II partners commentaries to improve NGO legislation. Information sharing In Kabul, Herat, Mazar-e-Sharif and Jalalabad all the organizations, both KPOs and target CSOs, were aware of the proposed changes in the SO and NGO laws. I-PACS II held meetings in some of the regions to inform KPOs and target CSOs of the NGO and SO laws 14

20 and its proposed changes. According to ICNL all regions will have received training by the end of the year. According to ICNL meetings in other provinces are being planned. In the absence of a current I-PACS II KPOs in one province the CSOs were not aware of any pending changes in the laws. Sixteen of 19 KPOs stated they report the progress being made on the NGO and SO legal or regulatory framework to their target CSOs. The frequency of reporting ranges from monthly to annually. Two of the current KPOs based outside of the five cities and one Kabul-based KPO do not report progress in the legal or legislative framework to their CSOs. One of them regretted not receiving a regular update from I-PACS II. A former KPO stated they did report progress on the NGO and SO framework to their target CSOs, however one former KPO indicated during an interview that they did not. ICNL produced 6000 publications of the NGO law in English (1000 copies), Dari (3000) and Pashto (2000) for use by the MoE, provincial departments and NGOs. They further published 4500 copies of a Registration Brochure for NGOs in English (1000 copies), Dari (2000) and Pashto (1500). Both CSOs and MoE made reference to the relevance of these publications and their wide dissemination. ICNL reported providing TA in the form of legislative drafting to the MoE on drafting laws and training to provincial governments on civil society law. The organization also undertook recent trainings on NGO law to coordinating bodies such as the ACBAR and the AWN. OBJECTIVE 2: STRENGTHENED CIVIL SOCIETY CAPACITY AND SECTOR INFRASTRUCTURE FOR DEMOCRATIC PROCESSES Organizational Development The cascading method of training and TA provided first by I-PACS II International staff and then by I-PACS II KPOs, has contributed to the organizational development of the target CSOs at most levels. Of the 191 organizations interviewed 80 percent believe they gained a great deal from the trainings. One of the measures of success is that many other donors are funding I-PACS II KPOs and target CSOs including Creative, Tawanmandi, CARE, etc. There is still a way to go to build the capacity further for newer CSOs. In the major cities all KPOs and the majority of the approximate 50 interviewed target CSOs were quite well-versed in all the basic organizational development skills such as how to develop, manage and execute financial reports, monthly reports and proposal writing. The KPOs developed a total of 29 policy documents while the target CSOs reported developing 236 documents from 2010 to All 19 KPOs asked for more advanced trainings. About half of the 50 target CSOs interviewed in the five cities stated they felt the trainings were too basic. One organization said the gender trainings were more suited to Western culture. Most other organizations whether non-us supported, I-PACS II or AWE grantees said they operate with the following organizational documents: a written vision and mission statement, Human Resources (HR) manual, HR policy, gender policy and finance manual. This is even 15

21 more so in the case of the I-PACS II and AWE grantees. The number of trainings non-i- PACS II organizations receive is much lower than those received by KPOs and target CSOs. Many of the target CSOs has been partners with the KPOs and I-PACS II since Phase I. Some of the CSOs manage as many or more grants from other donors as they do from their partner KPO. Of the 50 CSOs interviewed, there are at least ten cases where target CSOs are older organizations than the KPOs. Target CSOs report being successful as a result of I-PACS II and are now winning new grants and finding new donors. The evaluation team noted that the most advanced CSOs do not graduate. Promoting graduation would allow new organizations to enter the program. One major issue for most organizations, including I-PACS II, is staffing. They are victims of their own success. After their staffs gain experience and knowledge, they are often recruited away by other organizations. Many organizations, women-led, women-focused and other organizations, expressed concern over the issue of staff retention. It is a credit to the program that their staff is in such high demand, but it does not ease the burden of starting all over again with new inexperienced staff. Training and TA According to the questionnaire findings, 100 percent of all KPOs received training and all KPOs said they passed the training on to target CSOs. When CSOs responded to the questionnaires, 175 said they received training and 16 said they had received no training, but five have attended Community Dialogue meetings and seven received grants. Five target CSOs did not receive anything. There were a few CSOs that did not know they were partners with the I-PACS II KPO. In the rural areas, one KPO reported that some of the trainees did not see the benefit of attending the training because there was no financial incentive. Another rural-based KPO stated that target CSOs over time came to see the benefit of attending training. The questionnaires indicate that 83 percent of the KPOs rated the training from 75 percent to 100 percent effective. One indicator of satisfaction is that they are asking for advanced trainings and more training on human rights. The three KPOs based in the remote areas gave low scores for training as their target CSOs capacity is reported to be minimal. Fifty-six percent of the target CSOs rated the training 75% to 100 percent effective. Training topics included community dialogue, human rights, gender, budgetary process, citizen s report card, income tax law, advanced OD, financial sustainability, strategic management and monitoring and evaluation (M&E). 16

22 Figure 2: Success Rate of Trainings to KPOs by O-PACS II and to CSOs by KPOs In the questionnaire 74 percent of target CSOs responded that as a result of I-PACS II trainings they observed changes in their organizations. Twenty percent of CSOs reported no changes in their organizations from training. Six percent of the CSOs did not respond to this question. Changes reported: 1. Staff capacity improved in office management skills, filing system and documentation (high frequency) 2. Improved report writing and proposal writing skills (high frequency) 3. Able to conduct awareness raising sessions to the citizens on various issues like human rights. 4. Increased capacity of their staff in gender mainstreaming (few responses) 5. Increased knowledge on how to conduct trainings 6. Increased knowledge on how to apply M&E methodology 7. Increased knowledge on how to conduct Community Dialogues (one response) The less established target CSOs felt strongly that the trainings were excellent and wanted more. The KPOs and target CSOs said they had learned how to write reports, design and write proposals and learned about gender issues and human rights. They were excited to train others in these skills. The more established KPOs and target CSOs remarked that they had several of the same trainers for different topics. They want a sector specialist with the trainers. When they asked a question that was more advanced on the subject, the trainers could not answer. I-PACS II currently employs four sector specialists that conduct training and also provide individual TA to KPOs. Many organizations, both KPOs and target CSOs, felt that the trainings were too short; stating that a two or three-day training has less effect on the organization if there is no follow-on mentoring and/or on-the-job training. When the KPOs monitored their partners, they noted the CSOs were not using all the techniques taught through the different sessions, substantiating the need for more TA. 17

23 I-PACS II staff travel to each KPO approximately two times per year to provide TA for each KPO. KPOs are supposed to provide TA to the target CSOs on an as needed basis. Most common topics for TA were HR policies, proposal writing and grants management, leadership and strategic management, communication and outreach. KPOs reported that the I- PACS II TA support staff would stay a day or two but the KPOs would prefer TA for longer periods of time. KPOs asked that I-PACS II staff stay for a week and help them develop the monthly financial report and the narrative reports. They believe more one-on-one time would improve their organizations capacity, especially in the finance department and monitoring and evaluation. Sixty percent of target CSOs said they did not receive any kind of TA from the KPOs. CSOs requested more TA to increase their capacity. The most requested TA was financial management; CSOs wanted to learn more about QuickBooks and how to generate reports. CSOs also wanted KPOs to train them in facilitation skills. Of the 50 target CSOs interviewed all are training others, in their organizations and in their communities. The evaluation team observed a training session and two community meetings. The observed training session mostly consisted of the facilitator lecturing the participants and the same was true in one community meeting set in Kabul. The community meeting with women in Jalalabad was more interactive; with an active exchange among the women. The I-PACS II program conducts a capacity building CSO assessment each year to gather information regarding new or expanded trainings. Current training needs are diverse; needs differ by location (urban verses rural), region, education level, cultural norms and organizational maturity. Generally the maturity level of target CSOs is lower in rural areas, which is most likely due to lower levels of education, limited access to information and higher security risks. These organizations and newly established organizations in the urban areas need more basic trainings than established organizations in the cities that benefitted from I-PACS I and II. Additionally, training materials are in Dari yet many of the interviewees are in Pashto speaking areas. The KPOs felt it was difficult and time-consuming to translate all the materials for their partners. Sixteen of 19 KPOs have received TA or training from other organizations. Of the 191 target CSOs surveyed 171 said they had received training from other organizations. There are many training modules in the community with different organizations and many of these trainings overlap. USAID is funding other organizations that do training. It seems that the community of International Non-Governmental Organizations (INGOs) continues to reinvent the wheel developing overlapping training modules. Currently, Tawanmandi, a donor consortium agency, is training on conflict resolution, corruption, peace-building and advocacy. The USAID Democracy and Governance program currently funds the informal and formal justice sectors; these programs also offer trainings and materials that could support the I-PACS II program. Connections with these programs could be strengthened as well as improved coordination with other US-funded programs. Regarding discussions on the sustainability of CSOs, target CSOs requested training on selfsufficiency and business planning. At first, few CSOs and KPOs mentioned wanting to 18

24 generate resources outside of the donor network. Non-US funded organizations seemed even less interested. ICNL supports the idea to promote a new Foundation Law to encourage the Diaspora to support NGOs. ICNL is further exploring opportunities for tax incentives for businesses and individuals to donate to NGOs with an extra tax incentive if donating to women's organizations. Almost all organizations suggested ways to promote the concept of volunteerism. I-PACS II is in the process of developing an organizational certification program for their KPOs to establish and strengthen Afghan I-PACS legacy. This is a way to formalize a network of KPOs. I-PACS II would like the certification to stand for exceptional organizational skills. Tawanmandi is funding many of the I-PACS II partner organizations. The Director of Tawanmandi said the level of development of many of the Tawanmandi grantees is a direct result of the intensive organizational development (OD) training from I- PACS II. Networking I-PACS II sponsored 14 youth to attend an international conference in Pakistan. Most of the 14 members were part of the I-PACS II network. This conference, targeting Pakistani and Afghan youth, was to exchange ideas and promote trust. I-PACS II also sponsored a KPO exchange with the KPO staff from Jalalabad going to Herat. The participants from Jalalabad stated that they learned how the two areas were so different in culture and education level. The Jalalabad groups stated they were working in their communities and trying some of the new methods learned in Herat. Herat learned some of the challenges facing KPOs in a different region. KPOs and target CSOs appreciated the networking opportunities when attending training sessions with other KPOs or target CSOs. To a lesser extent members of the working groups on legal and regulatory reform (see objective one) and the working groups that started after the National Policy Reform Conference (NPRC; see objective three) were provided networking opportunities. KPOs and target CSOs did not refer to other networking opportunities within I-PACS II. Eight of 19 KPOs are a member of non-i-pacs advocacy groups, which include the network organizations Agency Coordinating Body for Afghan Relief (ACBAR), Afghan NGOs Coordination Bureau (ANCB), Herat Civil Society Network, AWN and other advocacy groups promoting women s rights. These eight KPOs are spread evenly over the different regions. The proportion of women-led and women-focused KPOs that are members of other advocacy groups (50 percent) is higher than the proportion of other I-PACS II KPOs (36 percent) that are a member of an advocacy group. I-PACS II, Tawanmandi and other donors meet a few times a year to coordinate grants and in an effort to reduce duplicate funding and efforts. When the evaluation team met with the head of Tawanmandi, he said that Tawanmandi is funding many of the organizations partnering with I-PACS II. 19

25 Networking for gender equality Fifty percent of surveyed organizations think that the issues brought up by women s organizations in the different advocacy groups are different than those raised by nonwomen s organizations. Examples are given on violence against women and the Elimination of Violence Against Women (EVAW) law, implementation of the NAPWA, family law, women s participation in the Provincial Council and as presidential advisors and access to education and health. Grants Ten KPOs are awarding grants to ten of 20 target CSOs. The purpose of the re-granting has many different aspects: To offer the KPO a chance to learn how to write a request for proposals 1. To evaluate proposals 2. To award grants 3. To monitor the project as well as the finances 4. To offer TA to CSOs For the target CSOs: 1. To test their proposal writing skills 2. To implement projects 3. To practice the OD skills they have learned 4. To build credibility in their communities KPOs and successful target CSOs reported learning a lot about the grants process. KPOs had learned how to undertake Request for Application (RFA) processes, while CSOs had gained experience in proposal writing. One of the most vocal complaints from many of the target CSOs was that the grant period was too short and in some cases the money arrived late, allowing less time for implementation. One CSO related that he had a three-month grant to do a literacy program for women in the village. After three months the women knew the alphabet and how to write their names but required more. The grant was not extended and the CSO lost credibility and the women felt they had wasted their time. I-PACS II also announced RFAs for thematic grants. There were many complaints regarding transparency. The organizations said that most of the time grants were given to KPOs and target CSOs without feedback to organizations on their proposals even when requested. The organizations expended a lot of time and money to submit the documents and wanted to learn from the experience. Several of the organizations remarked that perhaps the RFA should have been advertised for KPO partners only. Though out of the control of the I-PACS II project, a number of organizations, KPOs and other grantees, mentioned that the USAID security vetting process was complicated and took too long. Verifying transparency of the RFA guidelines for I-PACS II and the different KPO grants one can see that the RFAs provide information on the application review standards, the grant 20

26 application and award process. Most of the time information on the technical aspects for selection and scoring is provided. The Grants Technical Evaluation Committee (GTEC) consists of the heads of the I-PACS II technical teams and may include an external expert. The RFAs further clearly indicate the purpose of the grants, all of which relate to the I-PACS II Objectives Two and Three. Target CSOs expressed similar sentiments regarding the re-granting process. Their argument was that I-PACS II is a capacity building project and they want to learn from the experience by receiving feedback. Both types of grants were used for a wide variety of projects, some of which directly related to the purpose of the project while others did not. Gender Mainstreaming Eighteen of 19 of the I-PACS II KPOs worked with both men and women's groups. Only one KPO worked with men and not women s groups. In more conservative areas it is difficult for women to attend trainings or meetings. In Kandahar city not one woman attended any of the meetings arranged for the evaluation team. For many of the I-PACS II other organizations (neither women-focused nor women-led) working on gender issues was somewhat new, exacerbating further that women's participation in the regions of coverage requires an extra effort. I-PACS II encouraged KPOs to mainstream gender in their organizations. All KPOs and 50 percent of the target CSOs have a gender policy in place but implementation of the gender policy primarily focuses on gender balance. The I-PACS II vision that gender mainstreaming is about integrating gender equality in all projects is not necessarily understood. Many of the KPOs visited still have a POC in the position of a gender officer despite the I-PACS II decision in the final year of implementation not to require this position as part of their technical assistance to the KPOs. The role of the gender officers was not clearly identified by the KPOs. For example, in one instance the gender officer would participate in the Community Dialogue meetings, in another case they would not. Despite KPOs focus on gender balance, this is not achieved in many organizations. One women-led KPO reported depends on her male deputy to run the operation. This organization did not have gender balance in the office. Another KPO reported that it was easy to hire women staff in the city but they could not leave the city and it was almost impossible to hire women outside of the city. Another KPO had two women staff and primarily they worked with women groups. One of the KPOs primarily focuses on women and had more women than men staff. Another KPO had recently hired a female gender officer; all other KPO staff are men. Since women in general and particularly in the rural areas are less advanced and have the least opportunities to participate, all I-PACS II KPOs and targeted and non-targeted CSOs interviewed for this evaluation said they felt that women's groups should be a priority. 21

27 They further felt that that youth groups, both male and female, should be given priority. CSOs felt that youth are going to be the future of the country and they should have leadership skills. Though not part of the IPACS program, the evaluation team visited a University in Mazar-e-Sharif and noted there was not one active student organization on campus. All I- PACS II KPOs and target CSOs feel the youth organizations are important as they need to know their rights. Two women students called after the meeting at the University and said they did not feel comfortable talking while teachers were in the room. Funding Of all funds to KPOs, I-PACS II has awarded 51 percent of their funds to women-led or women-focused KPOs. In general the level of funding by donors other than I-PACS II is very limited for the women-led KPOs as presented by the chart below. Table 1: level of funding of KPOs Type of Organizations I-PACS II funding Other Sources Funding Other 11 1,855,601 31,018,792 6% Women-focused 3 287,000 1,358,000 17% Women-led 5 1,637,570 1,400,000 54% Grand Total 19 3,780,171 33,776,792 10% I-PACS II funding in comparison with total funds received by KPOs 17 KPOs reported on the Amount of I-PACS funding 15 KPOs reported on the Amount of funding from Other sources 42% are women-led or women-focused organizations that received 51% of I-PACS II funding The Funding amount per type of organization is an aggregate of what the total numbers of KPOs have received. The data in the above chart indicates the funding levels by type of KPO, women-focused, women-led and other. Under Other Funding Sources data shows funding levels to womenfocused, women-led and other KPOs. It demonstrates that funding levels to women-led organizations are very low, 54 percent of the funding levels of the women-led KPOs is from I-PACS II. Funding to women-led organizations requires continued attention. Whereas women-led KPOs receive less funding than other organizations, this is not the case for the target CSOs in some regions (see chart below). Especially in the Center region, women-led target CSOs report a much higher amount of funding than other target CSOs. The figure is however highly influenced by one women-focused organization with a grant of $1,500,000, a women-led organization with a grant of $1,000,000 and another women-led organization with a grant of $450,000. All these three organizations are working in Kabul. The Center region CSOs also receives more training and TA from other donors. Women-led CSOs in the North are also doing well compared to others. By contrast, in the South womenled and women-focused CSOs do not report any funds other than I-PACS II grants and they receive less training and TA than other target CSOs. The number of women-led target CSOs 22

28 receiving funds under I-PACS II is relatively low compared to other target CSOs except for the West. Table 2: I-PACS II target CSOs: Type of Organization and Funding Amount ( ) I-PACS II No. of CSOs Number funding in receiving direct Other Type of Organization of CSOs I-PACS II comparison Region financial Sources of and Number interview Grants with total support from I- Funding ed funds received PACS II by target CSOs Other target CSOs , ,059 14% Center South North East West Women- focused target CSOs ,264 1,500,000 Women- led target CSOs ,800 1,616,000 4% Other target CSOs , ,000 29% Women- focused target CSOs Women- led target CSOs 7 5 9, % Other target CSOs ,300 73,000 56% Women- focused target CSOs 4 2 6,000 96,000 Women- led target CSOs , ,000 4% Other target CSOs , ,000 11% Women- focused target CSOs , ,400 Women- led target CSOs , ,350 18% Other target CSOs ,365 1,120,050 2% Women- focused target CSOs ,000 25,000 Women- led target CSOs , ,500 14% Center: Kabul, Parwan, Panjshir, Ghazni, Bamyan, Daikundi, Wardak, Logar South: Uruzgan, Zabul, Kandahar, Helmand North: Takhar, Kunduz, Balkh, Faryab, Samangan, Baghlan, Badakhshan, Jouzjan, Sar-e-Pul East: Kunar, Nooristan, Nengarhar, Laghman, Paktia and paktika West: Herat, Farah, Nimroz, Badghis 14% Not applicable Actual amounts of funding represent approximately 55.1% (54 CSOs) of I-PACS funded organizations among 191 target CSOs interviewed. Remaining organizations that received funding did not provide funding amount information. The Funding amount per region and per type of organizations is an aggregate of what the total number of CSOs has so far received. 6% 4% 29% OBJECTIVE 3: INCREASED CITIZEN MOBILIZATION AND POLICY ENGAGEMENT Community and Provincial Dialogues According to the quantitative data, all 19 KPOs participate in Community Dialogues averaging 33 community meetings per KPO per year. Excluding the two former KPOs this adds up to 561 community meetings per year, considerably more than the target of 350 for 23

29 2013 and 35 for 2012 as per the PMEP. Elders are involved in the community-related issues. Eighteen of 19 KPOs reported resolutions for numerous community-related issues raised in e meetings. An average of sixty-nine percent of the time government assistance was required to solve the more complex issues. Only one KPO reported that no issues had been resolved in their community meetings. Dialogues are organized differently as per the respective region. Similarities are in most cases that the target CSOs set up the Community Dialogue and the KPOs facilitate the meetings. In Herat the KPO originally facilitated the community meeting, but gradually the target CSOs took on the responsibility. In Jalalabad there are Community Dialogues with the same groups every month; the CSOs set up the meetings and the KPO facilitated. The evaluation team attended a women's group Community Dialogue meeting in Jalalabad. The women reported that they had received training on human rights, women's rights, child rights and women's inheritance rights. This group has been together for one year. In one province, the target CSOs set up the Community Dialogues and the KPO met with the same groups for 15 months but when the funding stopped so did the dialogues. The lack of a KPO in this province has put the communities at a disadvantage since the Community Dialogues have stopped. The lack of KPO is also impacting CSOs by interrupting the flow of information. All target CSOs in this province said they need and want to have I-PACS II in the community. In Kabul the Community Dialogues are held with different groups. Two target CSOs reported that the KPO does not invite them for the Community Dialogue meetings even though the CSO set up the Community Dialogues. The evaluation team attended a Community Dialogue organized by a Kabul CSO. The CSO chose a topic on drug use and lectured the participants. The Kabul CSO said they go to mosques, schools and other venues to spread their message. They train people from the Wakil, comparable to the Community Development Councils (CDCs) in the village. The Wakil is then supposed to train people in their communities. The methods used by this CSO seemed ineffective, as they are not working with the same groups and seem to be using a shot gun approach. The meeting attended by the evaluation team consisted of all the employees of the municipality building in district three and included the cleaning women and security guards. This meeting was not a dialogue but a lecture. In Mazar-e-Sharif, it was not possible to attend a Community Dialogue as they had completed their dialogues for the month. The KPO meets with the same people from the community each time. Most target CSOs also conduct separate community meetings. Around half of these meetings are structured around projects rather than promoting Community Dialogues during which time people come together to identify community issues and solutions to their problems. Elders are involved in the meetings. Likewise, all AWE, I-PACS II and non-us supported grantees interviewed said they hold community meetings. 24

30 Provincial Council participation was uneven. In Herat, the Provincial Council was involved in the Provincial Dialogue meeting. In Jalalabad some of the I-PACS and non-i-pacs II CSOs interacted with the Provincial Council. However CSOs said that when the Provincial Council meets only about 5 percent of the CSOs participate in the meetings. In Kandahar none of the organizations worked with the Provincial Councils, preferring to work at the district level. Activities for improved Community Dialogues KPOs and target CSOs said they want more advanced trainings on human rights, advocacy, conflict resolution, peace-building, civil society building and understanding government. A target CSO in Kandahar mentioned a USAID-funded project that Counterpart International implemented called Support to the Electoral Process (STEP) civic education project. This program employed CSOs to educate communities about the roles and responsibilities of the government from the Shuras, district, provincial and national levels. Implemented for only 6 months, in conjunction with the International Foundation for Electoral Systems (IFES), the CSO thought it was the best program as it gave the community a firm grasp of how government operates and also built bridges between the community members and government. This CSO wrote a proposal to I-PACS II to continue to fund the CSOs STEP activities but the proposal was not accepted. Non-US supported, AWE and I-PACS II grantees with whom the evaluation team met asked for training on women s legal issues, other legal and judicial issues, women s rights, human rights, youth mobilization, media, civic education, anger management, self-confidence and advocacy. Community Dialogues for Accountability Community members report they did not always receive information back regarding the issues they had raised during meetings. This method of having the target CSOs setting up the meetings and the KPO facilitating the meeting seems to add extra reporting layers. In Herat, target CSOs further reported lack of trust among community members when issues cannot be resolved quickly. The KPOs and target CSOs had many success stories regarding solving problems in the communities. Some of the issues were resolved within the community and some with the help of the CDCs. In Kandahar the UN was distributing wheat to the farmers, through the CDCs, but the community found out they only received 20 percent of their allotment. They contacted the CDC but it would not give the wheat to the community. The community took the CDC to court with the help of the KPO and won the case. The community felt proud they had resolved the issue. In Jalalabad the women's group has been meeting for over a year. They have resolved familyrelated matters, such as mediating for arranged marriages and child labor issues. Other issues such as the lack of water and power were brought before the CDCs, the Provincial Council 25

31 and MRRD. Similar examples were shared by community members from Herat province. At district and cluster level they further resolved tribal disputes. Several KPOs keep databases recording the needs of the communities and the success stories as a result of the Community Dialogues. Many KPOs and target CSOs maintain contact with different government officials to address the community needs. There is some overlap of CDC members who also participate as community members in the Community Dialogue groups. Most of the CSOs invite the CDCs to Community Dialogues as they can help when the community needs to approach government for issues dealing with infrastructure and CDCs also have access to small funds. Women s Participation Women s participation varies among and within regions. In the Center, North and West women s participation in Community Dialogues organized by target CSOs was high; in the South and East the figures are low. This can be attributed to cultural bias. Graph: percentage of women s and men s participation in Community Dialogues organized by target CSOs Figure 3: Graph of percentage of Women's and men's participation in Community Dialogues organized by target CSOs Generally, women s participation is higher among women-led and women-focused organizations than other target CSOs. Women s participation further differs within regions with less women s participation in the more remote and more conservative areas. In the remote areas KPOs try to increase women s participation by speaking with elders and the Department of Women s Affairs (DoWA). In one instance this had contributed to an increase in women s participation, in another, no increases have yet to be seen. In contrast, at KPO and CSO level in Kabul, there are many outspoken women activists. In one case, while women were not comfortable speaking in the focus groups, one-on-one, they were very vocal. Even women that are elected Provincial Council members at times seemed hesitant to speak freely when there were men in the room because some have received serious threats. 26