THE ROLE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT .

Type of actions organizations have conducted after the project periodAwareness raisingAction that engaged government8170Establishment of new networks or coalitions5151Action leading to change of law, policies4736Action that mobilized big number of citizensAction leading to the changes in institutionalprocedures30010 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90The impact of programs on local gender regimes is also visible. During implementationgender regimes were still dominantly patriarchal, particularly in rural areas, excluding womenfrom participation in public decision-making. Interventions implemented through CRDAprograms, with prescriptions to include at least 30% of women in local commune councils,brought change in these gender patterns in participation. Various testimonies from the surveyindicated that women-led initiatives were often more engaged. Programs also enabled higheractivism of women in areas with a long tradition of women’s grassroots initiatives (i.e.Vojvodina).The study found that various aspects of the approach and methodology of the threeprograms contributed to the success and sustainability of effects. Key components ofsuccess were: The allocation of significant professional resources (permanently available leaders, experts, mentors) which work closely in the communities and know the communities well The applied methods for increasing citizen knowledge and skills for participation (particularly‘learning by doing’). Broad participation and consultations in preparation of decisions, including assigning newresponsibility to citizens which increased their motivation to participate. The focus on visible impact, during early stages of program implementation, which additionallyincreased motivation to participate. Careful selection of local communities as units of intervention. The strengthening the role of community leaders.Some aspects of the approach and methodology detracted from the results of the programs.These include: The lack of a comprehensive approach, focusing only on one stakeholder in the policy cycle(either local government or citizens) instead of multiple stakeholders The lack of continuous oversight or monitoring mechanisms after the program implementationperiod, for tracking and understanding outcomes. The lack of timely planning of sustainability of mechanisms for civic participation.9The Role of Community Development and Citizen Engagement Activities inStrengthening Civic Engagement and Government Responsiveness in SerbiaUSAID.GOV

KEY LESSONS LEARNED AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTUREPROGRAMMINGA synthesis of all lessons learned and recommendations that were detailed in the 4 indepth studies and two illustrative studies suggest a number of learning points that should beconsidered:1.Sustainability of democratic processes requires systemic changes and interventions that address allcomponents, elements and stakeholders in the policy cycle. It also requires a change of knowledge,attitude and behavior on all sides. Therefore any future program aimed at strengthening democraticprocesses should target, at the same time, the government, private and civil sectors, in a wellcoordinated manner, as well as during all phases and with all stakeholders of the policy cycle.2.Sustainability of change requires systematic oversight of policy and budget making processes, toavoid pro forma processes. These mechanisms need to be established within the publicadministration system, but it is also of the utmost importance to establish independentmechanisms with active participation of CSOs and citizens. Currently most CSOs have verylimited influence on local government budget allocations, mainly through applying for budgetsupport for their project activities. Therefore any future programming should emphasize thisrole while having realistic expectations of capacities and political context possibilities amongst CSOsand citizens.3.Citizen participation depends primarily on the awareness and commitment of local politiciansto engaging citizens and capacities and the enthusiasm of community leaders. The importance ofindividual actors is predominant in the absence of the strong institutions (legal, administrative,political, economic etc.) that generate a predictable and unified behavior as an outcome. Therefore a key focus of future efforts should be raising the awareness of and building the capacitiesof Mayors, their teams and members of local councils to embrace and support participatoryprocesses and understand the benefits it brings - on strengthening the knowledge and skills ofcurrent leadership.4.A tailor-made, well-designed and expertly implemented local grant scheme can assist thetranslation of project ideas that tackle specific local concerns or problems into sustainableinterventions that have an impact on people’s lives. The process helps small organizations toovercome their capacity gaps, as well as organizations with a medium level capacity to developand sustain their professional and organizational skills and knowledge and to improve theiradvocacy strategies. It can also revive the sense, among citizens, that they can have an impact intheir community, which is critical to any re-establishment of participatory processes. Thereforefuture efforts should be modelled on the best practices of a local grant scheme that hasflexibility and close collaboration with the communities.5.Support provided for strengthening organizational capacities and improving policy-focusedadvocacy strategy can result in legislative changes in specific issue areas, as has been the casein regulating protection from and prevention of domestic violence and introducing neededservices. This is a legacy of the program intervention that is difficult to undo in the future.Furthermore, it motivates citizens to participate in building a democratic society from the locallevel up as the effects of their action were visible and immediate. Therefore any future effortsshould consider the extent to which legislative changes are of interest to all sides and can beprioritized in specific issue areas.6.CSO sustainability and the sustainability of their initiatives show creative ways that localorganizations have persevered from social enterprise creation to technical assistance provision.Therefore any future effort should keep in mind the variety of forms sustainability can take,and support innovative approaches to fostering both organizational and issue sustainability.USAID.GOVThe Role of Community Development and Citizen Engagement Activities inStrengthening Civic Engagement and Government Responsiveness in Serbia10

INTRODUCTIONASSIGNMENT BACKGROUND, CONTEXTThis assignment was initiated by USAID/Serbia,1 to address the role of community development andcitizen engagement activities in strengthening civic engagement and government responsiveness inSerbia, defined in a Statement of Work issued in late 2016. SeConS Development Initiative Group(hereinafter SeConS) responded to the RFP and was awarded the contract to undertake this Ex-postEvaluation.PURPOSE AND STANDARDS OF THE REPORTPer the Task Order for the assignment, the ‘purpose of the evaluation is to determine how past USAIDinterventions (the Community Development through Democratic Action (CRDA) Program; the SerbianLocal Government Reform Program (SLGRP) and the Civil Society Advocacy Initiative (CSAI)) havecontributed to sustainably increasing citizen engagement in public policy and government oversight.’2The evaluation report has been prepared in line with USAID’s Evaluation Policy criteriaEVALUATION METHODOLOGYSCOPE OF THE EVALUATIONThe evaluation encompasses the three overlapping USAID-funded programs focused onresponsive government and civic participation that were delivered in Serbia during the period2001-2011.OBJECTIVESThe Statement of Work defines two evaluation questions:1.Which approaches have had positive sustainable effects on civic participation, and which did not?Why?2.Which approaches have had positive, sustainable effects on government responsiveness, andwhich did not? Why?KEY DEFINITIONSDefinitions are based on the three programs, developed by the evaluation team and adoptedby USAID during initial consultations.Responsive government denotes institutional mechanisms, practices and procedures thatbring more accountable government actions. These mechanisms take into account the needs andinterests of citizens during policy-making and implementation, as well as in the delivery of services.Civic participation denotes diverse practices of active citizen engagement in the communityand society, including engagement in policy-making that influences decisions on infrastructureand economic investments. This citizen engagement also includes self-help grassroots actionsaiming at improvement to a variety of aspects of social life, advocacy, philanthropy and othersimilar activities that enable the better shaping of community and society in line citizen needsand interests.1In a request for proposals (RFP SOL-169-16- 000006)2Ex-post Evaluation Statement of Work. USAID/Serbia.11The Role of Community Development and Citizen Engagement Activities inStrengthening Civic Engagement and Government Responsiveness in SerbiaUSAID.GOV

Sustainable effects on civic participation and government responsiveness can be defined inseveral ways, representing different ‘layers’ or forms of sustainability, depending on the levelof formalization and type of agents who ‘carry’ the action or practice:1.Institutions and practices of cooperation between civil society and government that areformalized in legal norms of the municipality or budgets.2.Institutionalized or formalized standards of public services in line with good governance,responsive to citizen needs.3.Formalization of civic participation through associations, NGOs, networks, active in the area ofcommunity development.4.Action potential - Occasional informal mobilization of citizens in the area of their interests,pressure on government.EVALUATION METHODOLOGYThe evaluation consists of three main components: Initial research on the programming approaches – a desk review of more than 100programming documents and other relevant reports and studies (Annex 1); interviews withkey informants (Annex 2); reconstruction of the overall Theory of Change for th

to ensure citizen participation in local policy making had a much lower ‘survival rate’. For example, budget letters that were formalized, and backed by national legislation, exist in 93% of municipalities included in the mapping survey, while informal mechanisms of citizen participation such as cluster