USAID/Mali Democratic Governance Strategic Objective THIRD
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
USAID/Mali Democratic Governance Strategic Objective THIRD ANNUAL PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT SURVEY DATA ANALYSIS REPORT 15 January 2000 Contract No. AEP-I-00-96-90012-00/Task Order 807 Submitted By: In Collaboration With: John Uniack Davis, Team Leader Stephan J. Goetz, MSI Nicolas Sidibé, MSI Thomas M. Zalla, MSI Bakary Doumbia, Info-Stat Management Systems International 600 Water Street, SW Washington, DC 20024 USA TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF ACRONYMS....................................................................................................................v EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..............................................................................................................vi 1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND..........................................................................1 A. Civil Society and Democratization...............................................................................1 B. USAID/Mali and its Democratic Governance Strategic Objective (DGSO).................3 C. Performance Measurement of the DGSO....................................................................4 2. PREPARATION FOR THE DATA COLLECTION.............................................................7 A. Personnel...................................................................................................................7 B. Training......................................................................................................................8 C. The Pre-Test..............................................................................................................9 3. SAMPLING AND DATA COLLECTION.........................................................................11 A. Data Types..............................................................................................................11 B. The Sampling Frame ................................................................................................11 C. Sample Design.........................................................................................................13 D. Control Group .........................................................................................................16 E. Data Collection Supervision......................................................................................19 4. PROGRAM INDICATOR DATA ......................................................................................20 A. Weighting Digression................................................................................................20 B. Chi-Square Statistic .................................................................................................23 C. DGSO ANNUAL SURVEY III RESULTS.............................................................24 D. Exploratory Analysis of Cross-Sectoral Effects.........................................................69 5. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS...............................................................79 DOCUMENTS CONSULTED...................................................................................................... 83 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Comparison of 1999 and 1998 Sampling Frames..................................................... 12 Table 2. The Sample, By Gender and International Partner.................................................... 15 Table 3. Distribution of Target CO Sample by Region and Partner......................................... 15 Table 4. Comparison of Target COs and Control Group COs, by Sector .............................. 17 Table 5. Comparison of Target COs and Control Group COs, by Region.............................. 18 Table 6. Calculation of Sampling Weights after Re-Classification, 1999.................................. 21 C:\Temp\MAINRPT.DOC i Table 7. Percent of Target COs which Have Affected Local-Level Development, 1998 Decisions (Raw Frequencies) ........................................................................ 22 Table 8. Percent of COs which Have Affected Local-Level Development Decisions, 1998 (Weighted)..................................................................................................... 23 Table 9A. Percent of Target COs Which Have Affected Development Decisions, 1999 (Raw Frequencies).................................................................................................. 25 Table 9B. Percent of Target COs Which Have Affected Development Decisions, 1999 (Weighted).............................................................................................................. 25 Table 9C. Percent of Target COs Which Have Affected Development Decisions, Multi-Year Comparison (Weighted) ........................................................................ 25 Table 10A. Percent of Target COs Reporting Collaboration and Decisions Affected, 1999 (Raw Frequencies)........................................................................................................... 26 Table 10B. Percent of Target COs Reporting Collaboration and Decisions Affected, 1999 (Weighted).............................................................................................................. 26 Table 10C. Percent Of Target COs Which Have Affected Any Development Decisions In Collaboration With Other Organizations, 1997-1999............................................... 27 Table 11. Number of Arrondissement or Commune-Level Decisions Influenced by NGOs, Federations, and COs, as Reported by Local Officials, 1998-1999 ............. 27 Table 12A. Percent of Target COs Reporting a Partnership with the State, 1999(Raw Frequencies) ............................................................................................................................... 29 Table 12B. Percent of COs Reporting a Partnership with the State, 1999 (Weighted)................. 29 Table 12C. Percent Of COs Reporting A Partnership With The State, 1998-99 (Weighted).............................................................................................................. 30 Table 12D. Percent of COs Reporting a Partnership with the State, 1999................................... 30 Table 13. Target Communes and Arrondissements Sampled in Which Officials Report the Formation of New COs During the Previous Year, 1997-1999............... 31 Table 14. Percent of COs Pursuing Civic Action at the Arrondissement, Cercle, or Parastatal Level, or Contacting Their Député, 1999 (Raw Frequencies) .................................. 32 Table 15A. rcent of Target COs Reporting Expanded Development Services and Activities, 1999 (Raw Frequencies)......................................................................... 33 Table 15B. Percent of Target COs Reporting Expanded Development Services and Activities, 1999 (Weighted) .............................................................................. 33 Table 16. Democratic Self-Governance Criterion 1, 1999: Percent of Target Cos Reporting that They are Currently Voluntary in Membership (Raw Frequencies).................................................................................................. 35 Table 17. Democratic Self-Governance Criterion 2, 1999: Percent of Target Cos in Which Leadership Is Elected for a Specific Time Period Allowing Alternation (Raw Frequencies) ................................................................................ 35 Table 18. Democratic Self-Governance Criterion 3, 1999: Percent of Target COs Demonstrating Proof of Formal By-Laws (Raw Frequencies).......................................................... 36 C:\Temp\MAINRPT.DOC ii Table 19 Democratic Self-Governance Criterion 4, 1999: Percent of Target COs Demonstrating at least 60% rank-and-file General Assembly Attendance (Raw Frequencies).................................................................................................. 37 Table 20A. Percent of Target COs Practicing Democratic Self-Governance, 1998 ..................... 38 Table 20B. Percent of Target COs Practicing Democratic Self-Governance, 1999 ..................... 39 Table 20C. Percent of COs Practicing Democratic Self-Governance, 1998................................ 39 Table 20D. Percent of COs Practicing Democratic Self-Governance, 1999................................ 40 Table 20E. Percent of COs Practicing Democratic Self-Governance, 1999................................ 41 Table 21. Sound Management Criterion 1, 1999: Percent of Target COs Presenting Evidence of Formal Financial Systems (Raw Frequencies) .......................................................... 43 Table 22. Sound Management Criterion 2, 1999: Percent of Target COs Showing Evidence of Strategic Planning (Raw Frequencies) ................................................... 44 Table 23. Sound Management Criterion 3, 1999: Literacy Rates on Target CO Boards (Raw Frequencies)...................................................................................... 44 Table 24. Sound Management Criterion 4, 1999: Percent of Target COs Systematically Collecting Dues (Raw Frequencies)......................................................................... 45 Table 25A. Percent of Target COs Practicing Sound Management Techniques, 1998................. 46 Table 25B. Percent of Target COs Practicing Sound Management Techniques, 1999................. 46 Table 25C. Percent of COs Practicing Sound Management Techniques, 1998............................ 47 Table 25D. Percent of COs Practicing Sound Management Techniques, 1999............................ 47 Table 25E. Percent of COs Practicing