Evaluation and Analysis of USAID’s Political Party Strengthening Programs

2008 Special Request for Applications: Evaluation and Analysis of USAID’s Political Party Strengthening Programs

Date Issued: October 22, 2008
Extended Deadline: January 30, 2009

HED expects to make one (1) award of up to $685,000, contingent on USAID funding, for a two -year period of performance for an evaluation to identify the impact of USAID assistance on political party development and democratization, and advance technical knowledge and understanding in the field of political party strengthening. 

For further information regarding this RFA, please contact Amalia Alberti (202) 243-7680; aalberti@hedprogram.org. 

An interactive online conference with USAID/DCHA/DG/EPP was held November 19 and a summary of that conference is now available.  USAID officials answered questions about the specifics of the competition and the application process.  You may also find those questions and answers under the Frequently Asked Questions section in this RFA.

Background
Context of Evaluation
Project Goals and Objectives
Deliverables
Suggested Timeframe
The Evaluation Team
Roles, Relationships and Responsibilities
Eligibility
Budget Guidance
Criteria for the Evaluation of Applications
Application Format, Submission, and Review
Terms of the Solicitation
Frequently Asked Questions Updated (Jan. 14, 2009)!
Political Party Document Links new!
Office of Democracy and Governance, Evaluation Documents and Links new!

Background

U.S. Agency for International Development and Higher Education for Development

Higher Education for Development (HED) mobilizes the expertise and resources of the higher education community to address global development challenges. HED accomplishes this by administering a cooperative agreement (AEG-A-00-05-00007-00) funded by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). Under the Leader with Associate Cooperative Agreement, signed in September 2005, HED manages a competitive awards process to access expertise within the higher education community in coordination with the American Council on Education (ACE), the American Association of Community Colleges (AACC), the American Association of State Colleges and Universities (AASCU), the Association of American Universities (AAU), the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities (NAICU), and the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges (NASULGC). 

In September, 2008, The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) awarded an Associate Cooperative Agreement (EDH-A-00-09-00001-00) to establish a collaboration with the Elections and Political Processes Division of the Office of Democracy and Governance in USAID’s Bureau of Democracy, Conflict and Humanitarian Assistance (DCHA/DG/EPP).  The collaboration between DCHA/DG/EPP and HED is designed to promote USAID’s access to highly qualified professionals from the academic community who will provide technical assistance to DCHA/DG/EPP in developing evaluation tools and providing analysis on political party programs, as part of a broader effort to advancing technical knowledge and understanding in the field of political party strengthening. 

More information on USAID and its role in economic and humanitarian assistance worldwide over the past 40 years is available on our website.

Context of the Evaluation
 

For over 15 years, USAID has provided assistance to countries across the globe to support the development of political parties – under the operating assumption that democracy cannot emerge without competitive political parties within a multi-party electoral system.  USAID’s flagship elections program is a cooperative agreement competitively awarded to the Consortium for Elections and Political Process Strengthening (CEPPS), a joint venture composed of three non-governmental organizations – IFES, the International Republican Institute (IRI) and the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs (NDI). USAID issued its first award to CEPPS in 1995, and after re-competing the program several years later, issued a second award to CEPPS in 2001.  Moreover, in September 2008, USAID issued its third Cooperative Agreement to CEPPS, which further solidifies CEPPS’ role as a leading global institution.  To promote a diversity of institutional service providers and procurement mechanisms, USAID issued an indefinite quantity contract (IQC) for elections in 2005 comprised of three primary contractors:  Creative Associates International, Inc., IFES and Democracy International.  Thus, through contracts and cooperative agreements, USAID has supported a variety of political party development programs across the globe. 

Although USAID has supported political party development programs for several years, to date, there has been no systematic and rigorous evaluation or broader analysis which highlights the types of programs, political and/or electoral environments or circumstances that promote effective political parties in the context of democratization.  In fact, USAID lacks a solid analytical framework for conceptualizing effective political parties and an evaluation tool for measuring the impact of assistance on the development of political parties, and the role of political parties in advancing democratizaion.  USAID does have a Political Party Assistance Policy which provides guidance on assistance for political parties (see attached).  For years, USAID has relied on “tried and tested” approaches in the context of this policy to develop political party strengthening programs.  However, to date, USAID has not had the opportunity to examine the assumptions that underpin programs, identify parameters of effective political parties, and/or integrate lessons from recent research into new programs.  While USAID’s political party programs have been successful in many countries, USAID has not comprehensively evaluated their impact as part of a broader effort to show that USAID’s political party assistance.

• Encompasses the most relevant programmatic parameters reflecting up-to-date research and practical experience
• Creates the foundation for the most creative and strategic use of USG resources
• Sets the standard for high-impact programming

To enhance its institutional knowledge of political parties, USAID will launch an evaluation effort to advance the field of political party strengthening.  In doing so, USAID will develop an analytical framework on the effective functioning of political parties. From this framework, USAID will work in partnership with academic professionals (identified through this RFA) to complete three key products: 

1. A political party assessment tool, which can be used to identify needs and design new political party development programs; 
2. An evaluation tool that can be used to analyze the impact of USAID assistance on the development of effective political parties.  
3. An analytical paper highlighting the major accomplishments, trends and impact of USAID assistance on the development of political parties and democratization in USAID recipient countries. 

These tools will serve as guides to design and evaluate programs and will advance USAID’s institutional knowledge of political parties. 

Special Request for Applications (RFA)
 

HED, in cooperation with USAID, is issuing this RFA for a special project to develop evaluation and assessment tools, conduct field evaluations of USAID political party programs, and provide analytical services in identifying the impact of USAID assistance on political party development and functioning in USAID recipient countries.

Project Goals and Objectives

This project will enhance the state of the art in USAID’s political party strengthening assistance and provide new data and insights to academics, democracy implementers and donors.  It is anticipated that the evaluations completed under this project will help USAID determine whether, how and under what kinds of political conditions and/or electoral systems there is a relationship between USAID assistance, political party development and democratization in recipient countries. The evaluation and analysis should provide the foundation for a sustainable data set on USAID and other donor programs promoting political parties. 

The analysis, based on the results of program evaluations in USAID recipient countries, will highlight which program approaches are most useful under which types of circumstances and political environments/systems.  Recognizing the shortcomings of political parties, and the limits of party aid on political party transformation, the evaluation results will help USAID develop new assistance approaches that are useful for promoting more effective political party programs in various political and electoral environments. 

The linkage between academic experts and democracy practitioners is vital for the success of this project.  It is anticipated that USAID will work with the recipient to identify and convene a review panel comprised of practitioners from the donor and democracy implementer community.  This expert practitioner panel will review and comment on the major deliverables for this project, including the strategic framework and draft evaluation tools.  The role of the expert group is to apply practical lessons from field work to the development of a sound analytical framework and evaluation tools and help ensure the parameters of the evaluation approach are applicable and appropriate for USAID recipient country contexts. 

For the expert group to properly fulfill its intended function, the recipient will be expected to: 1) arrange for technical review of all major deliverables for this project (including the strategic framework and draft evaluation/assessment tools); 2) ensure timely delivery of the draft products to the experts; and 3) cover costs and logistical arrangements. 

USAID will collaborate with the recipient of the HED award to select members of the expert practitioner panel, and thereafter will expect the recipient to arrange for review of materials, feedback from the panel, and integration of advice from the panel into documents in close coordination with USAID/DCHA/DG/EPP.  Successful implementation of this project will also require close and regular collaboration with the USAID/DCHA/DG/EPP. 

The specific goals and objectives for the assessment of USAID’s political party strengthening program follow. 

GOAL I

USAID/W will have an evidence-based understanding of program implementation strategies and methods which have had an impact on political party development and advanced democratization in USAID recipient countries

1. Refining the USAID political party strategic framework will result in a valid and reliable conceptual framework that reflects up-to-date research and program innovation for political party development in the context of democratization.

2. Developing draft assessment and evaluation methodologies based on the revised political party strategic framework will result in

a. Field testing a methodology for political party assessment that results in a revised approach to developing new USAID political party programs

b. Field testing a political party evaluation methodology that results in evidence that demonstrates the impact of USAID assistance on political party development and democratization in USAID recipient countries

3. As a result of field testing draft assessment and evaluation methodologies to assess the role and impact of USAID political party assistance in selected countries, USAID/W will have:

a. A final assessment methodology for identifying program needs and designing new political party development programs

b. A final evaluation methodology that can be used to evaluate the role and impact of USAID assistance on political party development and democratization in USAID recipient countries.

c. An analytical paper highlighting the major accomplishments, challenges, trends, and impact of USAID assistance on political party development and democratization in each country selected for evaluation

d. An analytical paper aggregating knowledge and “lessons learned” from each country study which advances technical understanding of implementation strategies and methods that support political party development and democratization in USAID recipient countries

GOAL II

USAID/W will have an evaluation tool and assessment process that can be used to analyze the role and impact of USAID assistance on political party development and democratization, and will have participatory training modules to instruct USAID staff about using political party assessment and evaluation techniques.

Performance Objectives

1. Experience from field tests of the evaluation tool and assessment process will be utilized to develop training modules and materials for USAID personnel

2. Training modules will be implemented with select USAID personnel

Deliverables

The US higher education partner will deliver: 

• A final conceptual framework for effective political parties and democratization which reflects USAID’s previous work on a political party conceptual framework, practical applications of recent research and innovation, and expert practitioner review. 
• An assessment tool for analyzing the state of political parties and operating environment for USAID political party programs, which can be used for identifying needs and developing new programs.
• A political party evaluation tool which can be used for evaluating the impact of USAID assistance on political party development and democratization.
• After each field-trip (using either the assessment or evaluation tool) an analytical report that summarizes the main findings to be submitted to HED and USAID.
• An in-depth analytical paper, including a summary of lessons learned, that highlights results and consolidates analyses and results of all field evaluations.   This paper will describe trends, accomplishments, challenges, results and recommendations for future program directions.
• Training modules on the new political party assessment and evaluation tools.
• Training sessions on the new political party assessment and evaluation tools provided to all staff of USAID/DCHA/DG/EPP Team.

Illustrative Program Activities and Timeframes for Deliverables

USAID envisions a multi-pronged approach for this project.  The project is divided into three major phases. The first phase will involve the development of evaluation and assessment tools and expert practitioner panel review of such tools.  The second phase will involve testing the tools through field-based evaluations of USAID funded political party programs overseas.  The award recipient will be expected to work closely with USAID to identify which countries are most appropriate for evaluation.  The third phase will involve analysis and aggregation of results from each field study into an in-depth analytical paper that describes trends and limits of USAID assistance, accomplishments, challenges, results and recommendations for future political party programs.  This phase also includes the development and presentation of training modules to USAID staff on the use of the evaluation tools in USAID recipient countries. 

The applicant is requested to propose a work plan based on a 24 month timeframe to complete these three phases. Within the context of these phases, HED and USAID strongly encourage the use of innovative approaches and best practices in evaluation research to ensure that the evaluation methodology reflects the most up-to-date research and techniques.  

Phase 1:

Task 1.  Refine USAID’s Draft Conceptual Framework for Political Parties 

In collaboration with DCHA/DG/EPP Evaluation Team, refine USAID’s draft conceptual framework for political parties which can be extrapolated into an assessment and an evaluation tool.  Illustrative activities include:

• Collaborate with DCHA/DG staff to critique and refine USAID’s draft Conceptual Framework for Political Parties. 
• Work with HED and USAID to organize and facilitate a practitioner peer review of the proposed conceptual framework. 

Task 2.  Develop Tools

In collaboration with DCHA/DG/EPP, utilize the conceptual framework on political parties to develop two draft tools:  a) A political party assessment tool for analyzing the state of political parties and the operating environment for USAID programs in recipient countries, which can be used for identifying needs and developing new programs; and b) A political party evaluation tool which can be used to identify impact of USAID assistance on political party development and democratization.  Illustrative activities include:

• Utilize strategic framework to produce draft political party assessment and evaluation methodologies and highlight operating assumptions.
• Collaborate with the DCHA/DG/EPP Evaluation Team and HED to organize and facilitate review by the expert practitioner panel of proposed tools prior to field visits
• Develop appropriate metrics

Phase 2:    Field Work

In collaboration with DCHA/DG/EPP and USAID field mission staff, conduct political party assessment and/or evaluations in USAID recipient countries.  The joint USAID/recipient team will travel overseas to test political party assessment or evaluation tools and prepare reports (such as program design if testing the assessment tool, or program evaluation report that highlights lessons learned if testing the evaluation tool).  Illustrative activities include: 

• Participate in political party assessment and/or evaluations overseas with DCHA/DG/EPP staff.
•  Prepare analytical reports of field-work upon completion of each overseas assignment.
• Document how analytical tools were used, adapted, and refined i
• n each country context
• Refine tools as needed.

Phase 3:   Analysis and Training

Task 1: Prepare Analytical Paper on Lessons Learned in Political Party Programming

In collaboration with DCHA/DG/EPP Evaluation Team, utilize results of field evaluations to prepare an analytical paper which documents trends and lessons learned in USAID political party development programs.  Illustrative activities include:

• Examine and aggregate results of pilot evaluations of political party programs.  Highlight trends, accomplishments, best practices, challenges and lessons learned.
• Examine and aggregate results of political party assessments and highlight trends or needs for new programs. 
• Prepare and present a final analytical paper to DCHA/DG/EPP staff which summarizes findings of all evaluations.

Task 2.  Finalize assessment and evaluation tools

Based on experience using the draft assessment and evaluation tools in USAID recipient countries, refine and finalize assessment and evaluation tools to reflect implementation constraints and country context program realities. The result of this will be two key products:  1) A final assessment tool for examining the state of political parties, political environment and appropriateness for USAID-funded political party programs; and 2) A final evaluation tool for examining impact of USAID assistance on political party development, and the role of political party assistance in advancing democratiation.  Illustrative activities include:

• Consult with members of each field assignment on the appropriateness and applicability of evaluation/assessment tools in USAID recipient countries 
• Examine how each team adapted and refined the analytical tools in each country context
• Aggregate lessons and experiences using tools and finalize the assessment and evaluation tools.

Task 3.  Develop Training Modules on Tools/Provide Training to USAID Staff
 

In collaboration with DCHA/DG/EPP Evaluation Team, design training modules on using the new political party assessment and evaluation tools and provide training to DG Office staff in FY 09, with priority to EPP Division staff. Illustrative activities include:

• Plan and develop training modules on the political party evaluation tools.
• Provide training to USAID staff, including staff of the EPP Division, DCHA, regional bureaus and others who may serve as trainers for the DG fundamentals training and senior DG Officer training programs.

 The Evaluation Team
 

A range of expertise is required for this activity.  HED and USAID welcome applications which include an inter-disciplinary team comprised of staff with specialized experience in political science, political parties, applied research and impact evaluation design.  Academic professionals serving as long-term consultants are needed to work with USAID/DCHA/DG/EPP’s Evaluation Team for the duration of this activity.  In addition, short-term consultants may be needed to travel overseas for field assignments with USAID staff.  

Applications will reflect staffing patterns for key personnel and program management.  The curricula vitae of suggested participants must accompany applications.  Suggested illustrative team is described in Appendix A.
 

Local Advisers

In addition to the applicant’s suggested participants, each country included in the project will have at least one local adviser who will be expected to participate in the evaluation or assessment in his/her host country.  The local adviser will be a member of the assessment team in his/her host country and will work with the team to identify key institutions and individuals for meetings.  The local advisor will initiate contact with key informants, set up meetings, develop a meeting schedule, and provide advice on logistical support and/or cultural issues as needed.  The local advisor will also work collaboratively with the USAID DCHA/DG/EPP staff person on the team (who will serve as the team leader for each assignment) and USAID Mission contact to ensure the team is properly briefed upon arrival in the country.  As needed, the local advisor may facilitate meetings in the local language.  NOTE:  Candidates for local advisors should not be included in the application.  Candidates will be identified after the award is issued to the winning university.  Once countries are approved for evaluation/assessment, USAID DCHA/DG/EPP staff will work with USAID Mission staff to identify appropriate local consultants. USAID will refer those consultants to HED and the university recipient to ensure that all costs are covered by the agreement.  Thus, the applicant’s budget should include all appropriate costs for local coordination.  

Roles, Relationships, and Responsibilities

Each of the institutional partners in this program--USAID, HED and the university recipient-- plays a key role in the successful management and implementation of this project.  Since USAID elections and political processes programs operate in a highly politically sensitive area, USAID/DCHA/DG/EPP expects to work closely and collaboratively with the university recipient on the first two phases of the project.  In this regard, USAID staff will provide technical input, oversight and direction as needed for the project.  USAID staff work closely with the recipient to develop evaluation tools, identify key members for the expert panel and will lead the field evaluations in USAID recipient countries. The Team Leader of USAID/DCHA/DG/EPP Evaluation Team will serve as the lead manager for this activity.  S/he will be the key point person on all technical and/or analytical matters pertaining to this project.

The university recipient would be considered a core member of the DCHA/DG/EPP Evaluation Team and is encouraged to participate in all meetings and online discussions pertaining to this activity. The Elections and Political Processes Division has hired a Democracy Fellow to work almost exclusively on this evaluation activity.  The recipient is encouraged to work closely with the DG Fellow to complete deliverables and achieve the goals and objectives of this activity.  USAID staff will identify and make available appropriate USAID documents and materials for analysis by the recipient.  The recipient may utilize other documents and information that is publicly available; it is expected that these additional materials will be collected and annotated for USAID’s future use. USAID encourages the recipient to work collaboratively with EPP staff to plan and attend meetings with USAID’s current and/or future implementing partners.  Where contact with Missions or in-country operations is required, the recipient is strongly encouraged to work with USAID to plan field visits.  In collaboration with other EPP staff, the recipient may participate in briefings to the Department of State and other USG agencies on findings and conclusions of this work. 

The technical approach will require regular consultation with key USAID staff, implementing partners and colleagues at the State Department and/or peer review of evaluation tools. Members of the EPP Evaluation team will assist in organizing meetings with USAID staff and/or State Department staff.  The recipient is encouraged to provide logistical support for facilitating all discussions with outside experts, implementing partners and/or peer review of tools.

The Project Administrator at HED will be the key point person for all administrative matters pertaining to the recipient’s program.  The Project Administrator at HED will work closely with USAID/DG/DCHA/EPP Evaluation Team Leader and the recipient to ensure effective management, coordination and communications between all institutional partners.  The Project Administrator at HED will also ensure the recipient meets all the terms of the agreement and deliverables in a timely fashion, organize meetings between all parties as needed, and ensure effective management of the program.

Monitoring and Evaluation Plan

The Monitoring and Evaluation Plan as part of the application should include:

• A description of a monitoring and reporting plan to address the partnership planned activities and expected outcomes as described in the objectives;
•  A description of how progress towards objectives will be tracked, how results of partnership activities will be summarized, and how results will be communicated to HED and USAID

Eligibility

HED welcomes applications from the member institutions of ACE, AACC, AASCU, AAU, NAICU, and NASULGC, and from other regionally accredited, degree granting, U.S. higher education institutions. U.S. colleges and universities may apply individually, or in partnership with other institutions. HED encourages applications from or with the participation of minority-serving institutions.

Budget Guidance

USAID anticipates that field visits will include six countries or more for approximately three weeks each. In addition to professional services the budget should include:

1. travel expenses for teams of no fewer than two persons to each of six or more countries for approximately three weeks in each country

2. appropriate costs for local advisors and coordination including logistical support and translation services in each of the six countries
 

Criteria for the Evaluation of Applications

Peer reviewers will use the following criteria to evaluate applications:

I. Alignment with DCHA/DG/EPP’s goals     (10 points)

• The application makes a sound case of addressing the goals and objectives of the research as described in the RFA and appendices.

II. Research Design, Collaborative
and Institutional Potential                             (30 points)
 

• Proposed study design reflects substantive knowledge of appropriate research methods.
  The proposed approach demonstrates knowledge of current scholarly literature on political parties, democratization and political change.
• It is expected that the social scientist(s)/analyst(s) will have previous recent experience in collaborative research involving teams.   
• The division of effort among proposed team members reasonably reflects their individual experience and specific expertise.
• The design demonstrates potential for a team approach with relevant experience in data collection, management, and quantitative analysis functions.
• The lead institution (and cooperating institution(s), if any,) should demonstrate expertise in relevant subject matter. 

III. Quality of Key Personnel                     (40 points)

• Proposed team includes at least one senior political scientist with expertise in the study of political parties, democratization and political theory.
  Proposed team includes at least one senior evaluation expert with experience in appropriate fields of study.
• The proposed team reflects expertise in current scholarly literature on political parties, democratization and political change.
• Team members demonstrate strong writing and presentation skills, preferably through a publishing record in academic or policy journals.
• Credentials of the senior political scientist reflect recognized expertise and experience in cross-cultural research on democratization, political reform and/or other related issues.
• One or more of the proposed team members has experience communicating practical implications stemming from research to laypersons, policymakers, and other stakeholders.
• One or more of the proposed team members demonstrates the ability to translate study findings into appropriate participatory training materials for USAID personnel. 
• One or more of the proposed team members has experience with participatory training using adult learning techniques.

IV. Monitoring and Evaluation             (10 points)

• The application includes plans to provide regular feedback to USAID; plans to engage in regular dialogue with the USAID team to remain focused on research and goals of activity; and plans to ensure orderly and regular communications, delivery, follow-up and evaluation.

V. Overall Application                        (10 points)
The overall application reflects completeness, clarity, and a realistic timeframe for completion of the activity.

TOTAL POSSIBLE POINTS:    100 points
 

Application Format, Submission and Review

Application Format
How to Submit an Application
Peer Review

Application Format
 

Please provide the contents of the application in the following order:

1. Title Page (Please complete HED form in full and obtain signatures of authorized officials.)

2. Table of Contents

3. Abstract (not to exceed 3 typed, double-spaced pages, 12-point font, 1-inch margins). The abstract should contain a summary of the narrative, workplan and budget.

4. Narrative (not to exceed 20 typed, double-spaced pages, 12-point font, 1-inch margins) Address the criteria listed in Application Review Guidelines I-V (see above).

5. Appendices:
    * Annual workplan for the funding period (Use HED form for two-year awards).
    * Budget forms (Use HED form. Complete all tabs).
    * Résumés of proposed Senior Political Scientist, Senior evaluation Expert and other Political and/or Social Scientists on the assessment team, not to exceed 2 one-sided pages per person.
    * Signed letter from appropriate official at applicant institution verifying that all costs cited conform to established institutional policies and practices.

How to Submit an Application

Applications must be received at HED by 5:00p.m., Eastern Time (ET), January 30, 2009. Faxed or electronically transmitted applications will not be accepted. All elements of the application must be received by the deadline.

Applicants should submit the original application plus seven (7) hard copies of the complete application package containing title page, table of contents, abstract, narrative, and appendices (all on loose-leaf paper, clipped together — no three-ring binders, staples, or plastic bindings), and a diskette or CD (with files saved as Microsoft Word/Excel for PC) containing the entire application, including all budget forms, budget narrative, and other appendices.

Applications should be sent to: (*NOTE: This is a NEW address.)

Evaluation and Analysis of USAID’s Political Party
Strengthening Programs
Higher Education for Development
1 Dupont Circle NW, Room 420
Washington, DC 20036-1193

Once an application has been received, there is to be no contact with the HED program office until the completion of the peer review process in order to ensure fairness to all parties concerned. 

Peer Review
 

Applications will be reviewed by expert panelists, which include representatives from higher education, international development, and USAID.  Awards will be made on the basis of reviewers’ recommendations of merit, and USAID. Peer review of applications is slated for February/March 2009.

Letters of communication from members of the U.S. Congress in support of an application are discouraged as these may be thought to prejudice the peer-review process. Such letters will not be forwarded to peer reviewers.

Notification about awards is expected following the completion of peer review. Upon final announcement of awards, the person named in the application as partnership director may submit a written request for copies of the peer reviewers’ scores for the application. No personal reviews will be granted, and no comparative score tabulations will be shared.

Terms of the Solicitation

Execution of Awards
Post Award Briefings
Reporting

Execution of Awards

Awards will be executed as sub-agreements between the designated U.S. university, college, community college, or consortium, and the American Council on Education (ACE), through the Higher Education for Development (HED) office, under USAID Cooperative Agreement AEG-A-00-05-00007-00. The institution recommended for award will receive a draft version of the sub-agreements to review. The award recipient will be expected to submit a marking plan related to USAID branding as part of the sub-agreement that clearly indicates the support provided by USAID for activities conducted under the award.

Please note that no award nor cost share funds may be expended prior to a fully executed (i.e., signed by both parties) sub-agreement between ACE and the designated U.S. institution unless pre-award expenses have been approved as a part of the negotiation of the sub-award. Activities are expected to commence immediately after the sub-agreement is executed.

Award funds will be disbursed to the designated U.S. university, college, community college, or consortium, based on the applicant’s implementation of the work plan, stated budget, and submission to HED of financial, tax, and narrative progress reports. It is the designated U.S. institution’s responsibility to provide disbursements (reimbursements) for its collaborating partner(s) in accordance with the agreed-upon activity schedule and budget.

Post Award Briefings
 

Partnership directors, and/or their designees, are required to participate in two post-award briefings. The first briefing, conducted in a virtual format, will review reporting, monitoring and evaluation requirements. The second briefing via a conference call will address general requirements of the award.

Reporting

In addition to the evaluation deliverables for USAID enumerated in the RFA, Awardees will be required to submit to HED:

• Financial reports are due quarterly to record expenditures for the following periods: Jan. 1-March 31, April 1-June 30, July 1-Sept. 30, and Oct. 1-Dec. 31;
• Semi-annual narrative progress reports for the following reporting periods may be sent via e-mail: April 1-September 30 and Oct. 1-March 30; 
• Both financial reports and semi-annual progress reports are due within one-month after the corresponding reporting period closes: Jan. 31, April 30, July 31, and Oct. 31;
• A final narrative report (due 30 days after the conclusion of program activities); and
• Final financial reports (due no later than 90 days after the sub-agreement closing date).

Appendix A:  Illustrative Team
Expected team member qualifications are defined below.  Final approval of the proposed team by the DCHA/DG activity manager will be required after the award is made.

A.  Senior Political Scientist- (long-term level of effort)
The Political Scientist will be a core member of USAID’s EPP Evaluation team and will serve for the duration of activity.  S/he should have practical and theoretical understanding of democratization from a comparative perspective.  In addition, s/he should have exposure to foreign donor-funded democracy and governance programs, experience working in elections and political processes programs overseas and extensive knowledge of political parties.  S/he should possess excellent oral and written communication skills, excellent inter-personal skills, be able to work closely and congenially with USAID staff and must be able to produce deliverables within set timeframes.

B.  Senior Evaluation Expert – (long-term level of effort)
The Evaluation Expert will provide technical advice, critique and guidance to the universitiy partner and USAID on the development and implementation of the evaluation and assessment tools.  S/he should have extensive documented experience with evaluations in international development, with an emphasis on democracy and governance issues.  S/he must demonstrate significant experience with the design and/or implementation of evaluations and/or applied research overseas. The consultant should have exposure to foreign donor funded programs.  S/he should possess excellent oral and written communication skills, excellent inter-personal skills, be able to work closely and congenially with USAID staff and must be able to produce deliverables within set timeframes.

C. Political Scientists - (short-term level of effort)
Each of the proposed political scientists will be expected to participate in at least two overseas field studies and prepare a report of findings.  Prior to field trips, each consultant will participate in a training session conducted by the EPP Evaluation team on how to use the evaluation tool.  S/he should have practical and theoretical understanding of democratization from a comparative perspective.  S/he should possess excellent oral and written communication skills, excellent inter-personal skills, be able to work closely and congenially with USAID staff and must be able to produce deliverables within set timeframes. 

 Frequently Asked Questions

Q: What is the expected content of the analytical papers to be submitted at the conclusion the field visits?

A: These papers should include a brief description of the political context of the country, electoral system and legal framework for political parties, and should identify the main challenges to political party development and democratization within the local context.  It should also examine the role and/or limits of USAID programs in addressing these issues, and how/if USAID programs can be revised to addresses these problems.  The analysis should be rigorous and should reach beyond the scope of USAID’s programs but reflect the broader electoral and political parameters of the local environment. Analysis should reflect the inter-relationships between political parties and other key institutions, legal frameworks, legal and political rights, institutional development and any other key factors that play a role in political party development and democratization. 

Q: What is the current approach of USAID’s Office of Democracy and Governance on evaluation?  What are some of the lessons from your previous research and studies in this field?

A:  USAID has grappled with questions similar to some of those posed in this RFA since the mid-1990s.  What works and what does not in democracy and governance (or DG) programming?  What are the best ways to figure it out?

In 2001, USAID’s DG Center — precursor to the current Office of Democracy and Governance — launched an initiative to address these questions and to get away from approaches that we knew to be inadequate.  In 2003, as part of this initiative, USAID commissioned the Social Sciences Research Council to develop a methodological and analytical strategy for evaluating DG programs.  The SSRC recommended that USAID look prospectively as well as retrospectively.  They also recommended that evaluations focus on democracy ‘activities’ rather than a more general sectoral level.  In addition, they stressed that much can be gained from the use of multiple methodologies.

The Office of Democracy and Governance responded in a number of ways to these recommendations.  First, we created a detailed database of USAID DG expenditures since 1990 which enabled two large, cross-national quantitative studies of the impact of USAID democracy assistance.  These were carried out by a consortium from Vanderbilt University and the University of Pittsburgh.  These studies concluded that USAID DG programs have had a measurable, positive impact on democratic progress around the world.  Specifically, each $1 million in USAID DG assistance leads to a 50 percent greater amount of change on the Freedom House scale than the typical country would be expected to achieve if no USAID assistance had been provided.  The researchers also found clear positive impacts of DG assistance on specific areas of democracy, such as elections, civil society and the media.

While gratifying to USAID, these findings are not enough.  There is much they do not tell us, and the methodological approach only partially responds to the SSRC recommendations.  Seeking further methodological guidance, the DG Office approached the National Research Council (NRC) of the National Academies which, in 2008, published a report entitled Improving Democracy Assistance: Building Knowledge through Evaluations and Research.  This new report represents the culmination of years of work conducted with the aim of improving USAID’s ability to determine the effectiveness of its DG programs.  This seminal report now serves as the cornerstone for the DG Office’s approach to evaluation.  Included in the NRC recommendations is a pilot program of impact evaluations, including use of randomized design where appropriate.  Case studies, it is recommended, should be clustered to place DG assistance in the context of national and international factors.  The report also discusses the need for better DG indicators at the sectoral level.  The full NRC report can be downloaded for free as a PDF file from HED’s website, or purchased in book form.  The Social Sciences Research Council report is also available on HED’s website.

Q: Can you summarize USAID’s approach to political party strengthening assistance?

A:  USAID political party assistance is designed to facilitate the democratic process in newly democratizing countries.  Within this long-term, process-oriented framework, USAID political party assistance has four goals:

1. develop and consolidate representative democracies,
2. develop transparent political environments,
3. establish viable democratic parties, and
4. ensure conduct of free and fair elections

During the past 15 years, USAID has provided political party development assistance in more than 100 countries, which have benefited from technical assistance and training activities provided principally by our key implementing partners, the National Democratic Institute and the International Republican Institute. 

Broadly defined, the political party assistance activities funded by USAID can be organized under the classic tripartite conceptualization of political parties — parties as organizations, parties in governance, and parties in the electorate.  As USAID experiences in political party assistance have multiplied, USAID has also worked to improve its conceptual framework on political party strengthening, its assessment methodologies and evaluation of the impact of its programs.

In 1999, USAID produced its first "Guide on Working with Political Parties", which is a document intended to help USAID Missions when designing new political party programs.  In the last seven years, USAID has funded a series of studies, workshops and conferences focused on political parties and party systems in new democracies.  Below are some of the most notable results.

In 2005, USAID funded a series of studies called "Political Parties and Democracy in Theoretical and Practical Perspectives."  This project was led by NDI and released a series of research papers that examine four topics central to the role and function of political parties.  Two of the papers, party law and party finance, discuss regulatory mechanisms that directly impact parties, while the other two, intra-party democracy and communications, relate to parties' internal governance and organization.  You will find links to those documents on this website.  In 2005, the International Republican Institute also published a book, "Why We Lost?", that looks at the rise and fall of center-right political parties in Central Europe.

In 2004-2006, USAID funded a series of workshops and conferences organized by USAID or NDI to discuss political party assistance and emerging patterns in different parts of the world.  Most of the papers that resulted from these events eventually were published in academic journals including the journal of Party Politics.

In addition to the Office of Democracy and Governance, other regional bureaus of USAID/Washington have conducted studies and evaluations of political party assistance specific to different regions, such as East Central Europe and Central Asia or Latin America.  Most of these studies are available to the public through the USAID Development Experience Clearinghouse.

Q: There are many questions on the type of tool:  Here is a summary question:  The RFA refers to an “evaluation tool” to evaluate the impact of USAID programs.  Does this mean there should be a common methodology to answer all questions about all types of USAID interventions?

A:  No, it is up to the applicants to determine if more than one evaluation methodology is appropriate or necessary for determining the impact of USAID assistance on political party development and democratization.  We have gained key insights to evaluation through a recent study by the National Academy of Sciences, and other studies funded by our office. And we will post these studies on HED’s website for everyone to see. 

The National Academy of Sciences report, Improving Democracy Assistance (bottom of page), for example recommends using multiple evaluation methodologies, such as field experiments (or impact evaluations), comparative case studies, process tracing, and cross-national quantitative analysis.  Similarly, it argues that evaluation methodologies should focus on research questions based on USAID’s development hypotheses, and that different methodologies (or combinations of methodologies) may be necessary for examining different sets of research questions and in different research environments. 

If multiple methodologies are proposed, the applicant may not necessarily be able to field test all of them.  If, for example, the time and preparation necessary for carrying out impact evaluations would likely exceed the time period of the award, we will work with the university accordingly.  In sum, we would like the team to provide guidance on the use of appropriate methods, and how to adapt the methodology to different countries.

Q: Is the grant intended to evaluate the impact of party programs strategically in the long run (world-wide, over a decade and a half), or in creating an instrument to evaluate the work of specific country missions in the short-run (or both)?

A: Again, we are open about this.  Based on what we have learned, it is difficult to determine true impact in the short run.  Short–run types of analyses often give us just program outcomes, but not necessarily impact.  We are looking for methodologies that will offer evidence-based insights for developing programs in the future. 

Q: We have two related questions, and I will ask them together:  First, to what degree is USAID interested in assessing the internal development of parties (institutionalization, effectiveness of internal processes) versus more macro-level outcomes such as size and stability of vote support, time in government, nature of the legislative cohort?  And, second, should the impact of USAID political party activities be measured at the voter or elite level?

A:  One of the goals of the project is to update USAID’s strategic framework for working with political parties.  Our expectation is that the research team will outline a theoretical model of political party and party system development.  Based on the body of knowledge that political science research has accumulated over the last several decades, this model may outline what are the main factors that drive the consolidation of democratic political parties and party systems. 

The model should seek to explicate how political parties’ contributions work in reality.  What are the links between political party development and consolidation of democracy?  What are the most important democracy supporting functions of political parties?  What are some of the main challenges that political parties and party systems face today at the micro and macro-level that are specific to new democracies? 

To what extent should the traditional desired outcomes of political party strengthening assistance (such as: establishing representative parties; competitive parties and party systems; internally democratic parties; less corrupt parties; parties that accommodate social changes and produce good public policy) be benchmarks of the donor community? 

In short, we would expect the research team to consider all factors, at the party level as well as the party system level, that in your judgment are critical to consolidation of democracy.

Q: What data has USAID already collected and organized for the research team?  Is the draft "Conceptual Framework for Political Parties" available?  Is there data on spending by country and year — or will the country missions have to collect this data?

A: USAID is updating our strategic framework right now, which we would like the team to analyze and refine.  Since this is a work in progress, we would like them to bring their own expertise to this so that it will reflect the most recent research in political parties.  Another source of information is political party development documents adopted by our two main implementers, the International Republican Institute and the National Democratic Institute. Please check their websites for additional materials.  We also have other publications which are posted on HED’s website.

Regarding data on spending, please check USAID’s website for more materials.  You may also check individual USAID missions’ websites as well.  Just a tip – if you are looking at USAID performance reports which are available on our website, please refer to the Governing Justly and Democratically section.  Within this section, you will find USAID funding amounts for political party work under the consensus building and political competition program element.

Q: How will the countries for evaluation be chosen?

A:  We are open to identifying the countries with the university partner in consultation with USAID field missions.  USAID has different levels of investment and history in different parts of the world.  For example, we have a longer history of working with political parties in Eurasia and Latin America than in the Middle East, Asia and Africa. 

One could also argue that political parties are further along in their development in some regions than others.  Ideally, we will strive for a cross-section of these regions.  However, there are practical challenges as well -- the methodology may also call for a field study or assessment prior to the development of a new political party program.  If so, then USAID staff will identify those USAID Missions in the field that are at a stage in their program cycle where they are developing a new program, and thus ready for a field study.  In short, it will be an iterative process between USAID, academic partners and USAID missions. 

Q: Will the criteria for picking the six countries be up to each team, will they be dictated by USAID, or some combination?  I guess another way of phrasing the question is whether USAID has a sense of criteria for case selection, or whether they are going to leave that entirely open to the teams.

A:  As mentioned in the prior question, USAID will work together with the team and with USAID missions to determine the countries.  Our preferred countries to study are those in which USAID or the USG has made significant investments, or where USAID is just beginning to work on political parties where we’ll have a chance to collect good baseline data for further study.  But it will also depend on whether a USAID mission is at the appropriate place in its program cycle where they can benefit from this study.  Since this is a politically sensitive area, there may also be local sensitivities that we need to pay attention to. 

We would like to work this out with the research team and with USAID missions after the sub award is made.  For the purpose of this proposal, an expression of criteria for selecting countries that are good candidates for further study or evaluation would be useful.  For planning your budgets, please provide a notional budget value for the line item for case study travel.

Q: Can you describe the difference between an assessment and an evaluation in this context?

A:  In USAID-speak, we use the term “assessment” to describe an analytical process for examining the operating environment for a new program.  An assessment framework reflects the broad array of questions that we ask regarding the country’s political, institutional, technical, and operational opportunities and constraints.  The answers to these questions help USAID staff to determine new programs. 

Evaluations — in a traditional USAID context (which we actually hope to move away from) — are used to measure program results and determine program outcomes.  They often refer to programs either undergoing a mid-term review or at the end of the program.  The critical difference between these terms is that assessments are analytical tools used before a new program and evaluations are often used in the middle or conclusion of a program.  We will look to the academic team to help us define and develop appropriate methods to each of these tools.

One additional point -- for this study, we want to move beyond traditional USAID approaches to evaluation which examine whether our programs achieved their outcomes.  We want to develop evaluation tools reflecting recent research that will lead us to evidence-based insights about our work.  Once again, we encourage applicants to consider the most innovative approaches to developing these tools.

Q: The “assessment” tool for analyzing political parties, could it be based on survey instruments or should it be restricted to aggregate data?

A:  The research team is encouraged to use all data collection instruments and methodologies as needed and as budget permits. USAID expectation is that the research team will improve our data collection methods and instruments for establishing baseline indicators for future program assessments and evaluation.

Q: What are the roles of the implementing partners in this enterprise?

A:  USAID’s implementing partners for political party work — the National Democratic Institute (NDI) and the International Republican Institute (IRI) — are open to working with USAID and the HED award recipient on this project.  The first phase of developing a strategic framework may require gathering information from NDI and IRI, and they have expressed their willingness and desire to cooperate with us. 

Q: Do civil society links with political parties fall under the scope of this RFA?

A:  USAID staff acknowledges the influential role that political parties have over some civil society organizations.  These questions will be explored by the team (in partnership with USAID) as it analyzes and refines the strategic framework for political parties, which is one of the deliverables.

Q: Are we to assume that the usual Institutional Review Board issues apply to this research?  Will USAID require IRB-like approval from the foreign country government?

A:  To the best of our knowledge, this issue has never come up in our previous research activities.  However, we recognize the unique nature of this RFA and as such we will pursue this question further with the relevant organizations.  Please, check with HED again in the near future regarding this question.  We recommend that members of applicant teams should check with their own academic institutions to ensure that their activities satisfy the IRB requirements of those institutions.

Q: The training modules, how will they be supported in the future?  How many USAID staff are expected to be trained?

A:  After the HED award recipient(s) have completed the research phase and field-tested methods, we would like the USAID team to be trained in the methodologies.  The USAID Elections and Political Processes (EPP) team at present has nine members.  After the HED award recipient(s) provide training to USAID on how to use the modules, USAID staff will take the lead in providing future training to other USAID staff from the field.  The team will only be expected to train staff here in Washington, DC.

Q: Has USAID projected a desired time frame for each of the three major phases of the evaluation and analysis?

A:  Ideally, the first phase of refining the strategic framework and identifying appropriate methodologies will take about six months.  The second phase which is the field work should take about 12-16 months, and the last phase should take four to six months. This is the original plan; however, we will be working closely with the academic team and can adjust as needed.

Q: With regard to structuring country visits, will agendas and interviews (and logistical support and security where needed) be provided by USAID, or again, will those be responsibility of the project team, or a combination?

A:  The RFA suggests the inclusion of a local adviser — a person from the host-country who will serve on the team and help provide logistical support in country, such as arranging interviews etc.  That said, the USAID mission in the chosen country may also provide some assistance, although it will be limited.  Teams should ideally plan to have the local adviser provide logistical support, and if the USAID mission can help, it will.  Budgets should include funds for translation, transportation, etc.

Q: Would non-U.S. experts be viewed positively as proposed team members?  To what extent would non-U.S. citizenship be an obstacle to field testing?

A:  Non-U.S. citizenship is not a problem.  The academic institution and the expertise of its staff are important.  All academics affiliated with U.S. based academic institutions are eligible to serve as members of the research team, regardless of their citizenship.

Q: To what degree will advanced graduate student researchers be allowed to participate?

A:  Every team is free to decide on this issue as you see it relevant.  However, we expect all research to be led by senior political scientists with advice from a senior evaluation expert.

Q:   Can you give expanded examples of the possible team configurations you have in mind?

A:  Ideally, we would like to have two senior level staff. One would be a senior evaluation expert with knowledge of recent research on applied evaluation methodologies, who understands the challenges of working with political parties, and is able to identify innovative methods for working in with parties. . The other would be a senior political scientist with expertise in democracy and governance, with extensive experience with elections and political processes issues.  In addition to these two senior-level positions, the project may also call for other political scientists who are available to travel overseas with USAID staff for the research.  For further information, please refer to the RFA.

Q: There appears to be room for cooperation across multiple institutions -- does this leave room for multiple Principle Investigators (PI's)?

A:  We would prefer one lead institution/or PI.  HED requires it for fiduciary reasons.  However, applicants are encouraged to form teams across multiple institutions.  We are looking for the most competitive team with the most competitive skill sets. 

Q: May nonprofit, non-degree granting research institutes participate as a 'sub' to a primary organization?  For example, can international research centers be an organizational partner?

A:  Yes, research centers and nonprofit organizations can participate as ‘sub’ to a primary organization.  This is an issue that will be decided by each applicant institution.

Q: How will the ‘joint teams’ be financed?

A:  The sub-grant pays for the academic team expenses. Travel for USAID staff member who will join the team in field trips will be financed by USAID.

Q: Should the proposed budget finance the expert ‘team’ and country surveys for 6 (six) countries? 

A:  Notionally, yes.  However, if your proposed approach calls for fewer or more depending on the budget, we are open.

Q: Given that the countries for analysis will be determined at a later date, how should we develop budgets?

A:  Notional line items for budget. Since countries haven’t been identified yet and costs per trip may vary, a notional line item (estimate) would suffice.

Q: What is the scope of effort that USAID envisions for this proposal?

A:  This is not a level-of-effort type of contract.  Rather, it is a cooperative agreement, which includes a substantial involvement clause that enables USAID staff to work closely with the university selected through this RFA. 

We expect the academic team’s members to propose appropriate methods and be able to spend sufficient time on the project.  To this end, academic team members may need to work out arrangements with their respective institutions. We will leave it to the applicants to determine the appropriate level of effort for the proposed approach.

Q: Can we receive a list of countries for which political party assistance has been provided? 

A:  Please refer to USAID’s website.  The website includes many performance and accountability reports, as well as other useful resources.  For the past few years, please look under Governing Justly and Democratically Section, particularly under the political competition and consensus building program elements.  The Democracy and Governance Office section of the website may also provide some background.

Q: Can we receive a list of the political parties for which political party assistance has been provided?

A:  According to USAID’s political party policy, we work with all significant democratic political parties in countries where we provide assistance.  Please, refer to our [USAID] website or USAID mission-specific websites to determine countries.

Q: Would we have access to the quarterly reports filed by the implementing partners for all of the relevant case study countries?

A:  Yes, they are also available to the public through the USAID Development Experience Clearinghouse.

Q: What are the details on how the money can be used?

A:  Funds can be used for all direct intangible expenses required to fulfill the requirements of this project.  These expenses include salaries, hotel and travel expenses and the like.  Funds may not be used for tangible items including computers and vehicles.

Q: Is there a particular level of institutional cost share being sought?  What cost share level would be considered a good one by proposal evaluators?

A:  HED is pleased to announce that there is no expectation of cost share for this project.

Q: As the grant specialist for the College, my issues relate primarily to budget: what are eligible expenses?

A:  Direct costs such as costs for personnel salary and benefits; consultants; travel and hotel accommodation (in line with USG per diem) are examples of eligible expenses.  They do not include purchase of hardware or vehicles.

Q: Are indirect costs allowed?  If so is there a cap?  Is there a matching requirement?  Are there special budget guidelines for university overhead?

A:  Indirect costs are eligible expenses and must be covered within the funds provided.  Applicants cannot propose indirect costs which exceed their institution’s negotiated indirect cost rate or NICRA.  There is no matching requirement from the applicant institution.

Q: I note that contact with USAID officers is forbidden once the deadline is passed; what about prior?

A:  Potential applicants can contact HED.  HED will then draw on USAID resources as needed. 

Q: Does HED have any logistical role in the project?

A:  HED operates under a cooperative agreement funded by USAID and signed in September 2005.  Through this mechanism, HED creates a link between the institution chosen and USAID.  HED is responsible for monitoring and reporting on activities of the project, and will maintain financial records. 

Q: Are indirect costs part of the $685,000, or are they an additional expense that HED/USAID will support?

A:  Indirect costs are part of the expenses and must be covered within the funds provided.  Applicants should not exceed the negotiated indirect cost rate (NICRA).

Q: If a particular country requires additional security for the assessment team, will USAID provide this or is the applicant expected to provide for security? 

A:  Countries undergoing conflict are not good candidates for this type of work.  However, for other countries, the academic teams would be expected to pay for their own security, if needed.

Q:  How was this model of having academic institutions rather than a USAID contractor determined? 

A:  We gave this question careful thought.  USAID contractors are truly outstanding.  However, this is a unique research project which will be long term activity for USAID.  As such, we would prefer to have a direct relationship with an academic institution(s) conducting the research.  Academic institutions offer years of research experience, objective analysis, and insight from which we hope to gain.  In fact, we do not have adequate opportunities to work directly with academics, so we value a long-term partnership with academic institutions to help advance our field of work.

 Q:  Are the data gathered in the study proprietary to USAID or can they be used in academic projects as well as in the evaluation and assessment program?

A:  Title 22 Code of Federal Regulations (22 CFR) section 226.36 (intangible property) applies to the sub-recipient, and this specific language will be included in HED’s agreement with the eventual sub-recipient.  22 CFR 226.36 is as follows:   
 
§ 226.36 Intangible property.

(a) The recipient may copyright any work that is subject to copyright and was developed, or for which ownership was purchased, under an award. USAID reserves a royalty-free, nonexclusive and irrevocable right to reproduce, publish, or otherwise use the work for Federal purposes, and to authorize others to do so.

(b) Recipients are subject to applicable regulations governing patents and inventions, including government-wide regulations issued by the Department of Commerce at 37 CFR part 401, ''Rights to Inventions Made by Nonprofit Organizations and Small Business Firms Under Government Grants, Contracts and Cooperative Agreements.''

(c) The Federal Government has the right to: (1) Obtain, reproduce, publish or otherwise use the data first produced under an award; and (2) Authorize others to receive, reproduce, publish, or otherwise use such data for Federal purposes.

In other words, the data gathered in the study is not proprietary to USAID and may be used by the sub-recipient in academic projects, but USAID reserves a royalty-free, nonexclusive and irrevocable right to reproduce, publish, or otherwise use the data produced under the award for federal purposes, and to authorize others to do so. 

Q: FAQ notes that all countries in which there is USAID activity (http://www.usaid.gov/locations/missiondirectory.html) have some political party assistance programs, and that we can check the country lists for specifics.  However, we really liked the 1999 document (relevant section attached) that lists specific USAID political party assistance sub-activities, with countries under each.  This is incredibly useful.  Is there an updated listing?

A:  The 1999 document reflects the level of USAID’s work with political parties 10-15 years ago.  The lists in that document are only illustrative of part of USAID’s political party work at that time.  They are neither exhaustive lists nor can we attest to their accuracy or coherence.

One of the three objectives of this project is to produce a new strategic framework for working with political parties that will reflect both, USAID’s experience and its political party assistance goals that are outlined in USAID’s political party policy and the political science state of the discipline in political party research.  To the extent that the 1999 document helps your research team understand our past approaches to political party programming, we encourage your team to carefully consult that guide, as well as other documents listed on the HED’s website.  However, please note that that document may not be helpful in informing future USAID programming or any political party research undertaken under this project.

Q: The 1999 document also gives ideas for Defining and Measuring Impact of USAID's political party assistance programs.  Should these ideas serve as the benchmarks for success in the evaluation, or may we consider this a more system-level evaluation of the march of democracy in USAID target countries, allowing us to consider additional indicators of democracy?

A:  The value of those ideas in informing future USAID work in this field or research undertaken under this project may be limited.  One of our objectives for this project is to update our data collection methodologies and all other aspects of future political party assessments, future political party programming, and evaluation.  For guidance on current approaches of USAID’s Office of Democracy and Governance on project assessment and evaluation, please, refer to assessment and evaluation documents posted on the HED’s web site.

With regard to the study of linkages between political party assistance and broader democratic development in a given country, the research team is encouraged to consider all relevant variables.

Q: What is the specific start date of the grant so that we can devise a plausible work-plan for the RFA?

A:  The start date of the grant should be immediately after the award is made.  That should occur during March of 2009.

Q: Under the Application Format header, the item for No. 5 seems to be missing. What has been omitted?

A: There is no omission. Unfortunately this is a result of a numbering error. Please pardon our error, and find the correct numbering in red.

Q: Where should the requested references be placed?

A: Please add the requested references on an appendix page. It is not necessary to include the references within the body of the report, which has a 20-page limit.

 

Political Party Document Links

Research Design to Evaluate the Impact of USAID Democracy and Governance Programs (SSRC Research Design)

The 1999 USAID guide on working with political parties.

Janda, Ken. 2005. "Adopting Party Law." National Democratic Institute.

Norris, Pippa. 2005. "Developments in Party Communications." National Democratic Institute.

Scarrow, Susan. 2005. "Implementing Intra-Party Democracy." National Democratic Institute.

Johnston, Michael. 2005. "Political Finance Policy, Parties and Democratic Development." National Democratic Institute.

International Republican Institute (IRI)’s book “Why We Lost: Explaining the Rise and Fall of the Center-Right Parties in Central Europe, 1996-2002.”

USAID DG Assessment Framework

Office of Democracy and Governance, Evaluation Documents and Links

Initiatives to Improve Evaluation of USAID DG Assistance Programs: Strategic and Operational Research Agenda (SORA)
Note:  The Vanderbilt-Pittsburgh study on Effects of U.S. Foreign Assistance on Democracy Building and the National Academy of Sciences study for improving USAID evaluations of DG programs can be found at the above link.