Attachment_6_-Task_Order_1_CitizenEngagement.pdf

USAID/Serbia - Statement of Work for Political Economy Analysis (PEA) of Citizen Engagement Dynamics in Serbia

Introduction:

USAID seeks to engage a Serbian organization or a team/consortium of local consultants (“Contractor”) to conduct a Political Economy Analysis (PEA) of citizen engagement in Serbia. USAID is interested in identifying the internal and external drivers for citizen participation so that its programs can better support Serbian citizen engagement in democratic and economic reforms. To do this, USAID must first understand how citizens engage in addressing issues important to them, how they perceive the non-governmental actors who play a role in aggregating and representing those interests, and what constraints impact the ability of both citizens and civil society actors to advocate for the issues important for them and hold government accountable for addressing these issues.

The assessment must provide the USAID Mission with a set of findings, conclusions, and recommendations to inform current and future project design as well as more effective implementation of ongoing programs.

The Contractor must work with the Mission-based staff over a period of 13 weeks in Belgrade, the field and online, starting on/about December, 2017.

Purpose USAID/Serbia is committed to promoting locally-owned and led development by connecting local resources to local actors. As USAID/Serbia seeks to provide further support to Serbia’s European integration process, as reflected in its Country Development Coordination Strategy (CDCS) (2013-2017), its hypothesis is that assistance to engage citizens and civil society in Serbia’s reform processes will contribute to improving the inclusiveness of these reform processes, and result in the effective development and implementation of laws, policies, and practices that will enable greater and more inclusive economic growth and strengthen the development of Serbia’s democratic institutions. The PEA is intended to deepen the Mission’s understanding of this hypothesis and will serve two purposes: a) to inform current and future programming to better incorporate citizen engagement across the USAID portfolio, so that these programs are grounded in a deeper understanding of why stakeholders act as they do and utilize approaches that are best fit to Serbia’s current sociopolitical context, and b) to inform a new program explicitly focused on strengthening connections between citizens, civil society and government to enable more effective citizen engagement and government responsiveness.

Evaluation Methodology/Contractor Requirement

The PEA must have two phases:

Phase I: Literature Review The literature review must encompass the most relevant academic studies related to Serbia that can assist the Contractor in further refining and focusing the methodology and questions to be considered during the PEA fieldwork. Issues to be considered should include state/society relationships, power structures, the legitimacy of relevant civil society, government and political institutions and actors, and the evolution of accountability relationships since the breakup of Yugoslavia, as well as how that trajectory is influenced by ongoing historical, social, and cultural dynamics.

Phase II: Political Economy Analysis

The contractor must finalize a methodological approach, based primarily on USAID’s PEA framework, but that can also include other tools that the contractor feels are appropriate to answer these initial proposed illustrative research questions (for example, system network analysis or stakeholder mapping):

- What issues do citizens most care about?

- How do citizens organize around those issues? To whom do they address their concerns?

- How do citizens express their views and to whom?

- What factors would encourage citizens to engage further on issues of importance?

- What role do civil society organizations see themselves as playing vis a vis citizens?

- How are CSOs perceived by the public, and why?

- Are there CSOs who enjoy greater levels of public trust? Why?

-What role do citizens believe CSOs should be playing in representing their interests?

- What obstacles do CSOs face in effectively representing citizens?

- How does government respond to citizen or civil society advocacy?

- What are the structures by which government interacts with civil society organizations? Are there civil society organizations the government is consulting with, and why? And on what issues?

- Where has citizen action been effective in influencing policy or holding government accountable, and what made it possible?

- What are the opportunities now for citizens to effectively engage the government?

A total of approximately four weeks of fieldwork are envisioned in this PEA (depending on team size;

large team approaches may not need four weeks), both in Belgrade and throughout Serbia.

Deliverables:

1. Work Plan - Methodology and PEA Questions The contractor must provide a Work Plan which must include a refined methodological approach to the literature review and field work (which could include in-depth interviews, focus groups, including information on any sub-contractors or partners responsible for running the focus groups if these are deemed necessary), a refined set of research questions for the PEA, a detailed timeline and benchmarks. This deliverable will require multiple meetings with USAID/Serbia to discuss research questions and to familiarize the Contractor with USAID’s PEA framework, to the extent necessary. Length: 10-15 pages. Due within two weeks of award. This deliverable may be revised during the PEA process, with the agreement of USAID/Serbia, based on knowledge gained through the literature review and initial fieldwork stages

2. Literature Review Report Based on the final research questions identified, the contractor must conduct a literature review of academic and practitioner/project-based literature. The literature review must serve the purpose of identifying the current state of research on citizen engagement and to inform the Assessment Team’s agreement on the issues that require further analysis and how best to narrow the set of questions asked during the fieldwork. The literature review must present an overview of trends, findings and recommendations for incorporating these findings into the PEA methodology. The literature review deliverable will be a report that must be 8-10 pages in length, plus a full bibliography, and can include annexes that present the trends and findings in a visual way. Due within three weeks from date of approval of PEA Methodology and Questions.

3. PEA Deployment Plan The contractor must provide a deployment plan for field work, destinations and staffing for field deployment and draft interview guides to guide the fieldwork to be conducted. At least four different field work sites must be determined jointly by the contractor and USAID based on the final PEA questions and methodology. . Length: 5-10 pages, must include CVs of all experts engaged in field work or focus groups as an annex. . Due within 5 working days from approval of PEA Methodology and Questions.

4. PEA Draft Final Report Within two weeks following the completion of the fieldwork, the team must electronically submit to USAID a draft PEA report of 30-35 pagesthat summarizes all findings from the Political Economy Analysis, addressing the research questions agreed upon and including recommendations for where USAID could have the greatest impact in strengthening systems for citizen engagement in its future programming.

The assessment report must include the following elements:

● Introduction - summarizes the assessment purpose, audience, and questions (2 pages)

● Background - Summarizes the context in the which the assessment and its components took place, the problem addressed, and summarizes the current operating environment, including its challenges and opportunities (4 pages)

● Findings - Analytical findings collected by the team related to the assessment questions.

Findings must be supported by relevant data collected. (6-10 pages)

● Conclusions - Assessors’ interpretations and judgments based on the findings. (4-6 pages)

● Recommendations - Proposed relevant and practical actions based on and clearly supported by conclusions (4-6 pages)

USAID will have two weeks to submit comments to the draft assessment.

5. PEA Briefing The team must deliver a Power Point presentation of the primary findings and recommendations, to be presented in a workshop to be hosted by USAID to discuss the implications of PEA findings for future programming directions. The briefing will be held one week following the completion of field work.

6. PEA Revised Draft Report The contractor must deliver a revised report to USAID within seven days of receipt of feedback from USAID. The revised report must include a three to four page executive summary and a full report of up to 30 pages. The executive summary must clearly state the main point of the assessment; briefly present major findings, conclusions, and recommendations corresponding with the outlined assessment questions; and clearly distinguish findings, conclusions, and recommendations, clearly laying out the reasoning used by the assessors in reaching conclusions and proposing recommendations.

Additional material may be included as annexes. These annexes should include but are not limited to:

1. SOW

2. Description of methodology/ies used

3. List of persons contacted/interviewed

4. Bibliography of documents consulted

5. Glossary of Acronyms used

6. Data collection instruments

7. Meeting notes (3 pages)

Within seven days receiving feedback from USAID, the contractor must deliver a revised report, including a four- to-six page executive summary and a full report of up to 30 pages. Additional material may be included as annexes

7. PEA Final Report The contractor must incorporate feedback and provide its final report, with page length specifications as noted for the revised draft evaluation report. The final report is due one week following receipt of USAID’s final comments.

VI. Evaluation Team Composition

USAID/Serbia is seeking applications from locally registered organizations to conduct the Political Economy Analysis (PEA) according to the defined Statement of Work. Applicants should propose a team with the experience and skills necessary to complete this task. The team must include a mix of individuals with:

- At least 10 years of practical experience in conducting political economy analyses or using similar social science methodologies

- In depth knowledge of Serbian civil society and the social, political and economic conditions that affect the ability of civil society to represent citizens

- Detailed knowledge of Serbian governance institutions, including government efforts to engage citizens

The evaluation team will be responsible for all logistics, translation, and transportation related to conducting the evaluation.

Attachment 1:

Background Citizen engagement can play a critical role in supporting the development of transparent, accountable, effective democracies. In developed and responsive democracies, citizen voices and interests are regularly aggregated and galvanized through Civil Society Organization (CSO) activity. CSOs act on behalf of citizens who are their constituents, representing their views and serving as an effective communication channel towards the government. If involved in the policy and reform process from the onset, when broad questions of goals, priorities, and impacts on society and the economy are being discussed, citizens and CSOs can have considerable bearing on policy relevance, impact, and its successful implementation. Consequently, the process of citizen engagement further fosters a sense of co-ownership that increases compliance and perpetuates democratic norms. In addition, civic engagement can be transformative in redefining democratic culture - both for the governed and the governing; it promotes a sense of civic responsibility and agency for citizens, while building a culture of accountability, public service, and responsiveness in public officials.

However, in Serbia, citizens insufficiently engage in policy dialogue or in governance processes more generally. Citizens are highly critical of the effectiveness of the current governance institutions, and polling increasingly demonstrates a sense of ‘meaninglessness’ of democracy. A public opinion poll carried out by Center for Democracy and Free Elections (CeSID)1 illustrates low levels of public faith in governance institutions as well as a declining number of citizens who prefer democracy to any other form of government (the overall share of citizens who prefer a democratic form of governance is now 12% less than was the case in 2005), whereas there is a visible and growing number of those polled who believe non-democratic governments can be better than democratic ones. Simultaneously, without clear entry points or channels for changing the status quo or holding the government accountable for poor performance, citizens have abdicated responsibility for making change; other public opinion research has found that in many cases the state is perceived as the problem, but the state is also seen as the only entity with the power to generate solutions.2

Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) are seen by many as being disconnected from the citizens whose voices they are supposed to articulate and whose interests they are supposed to aggregate. The widespread distrust of civil society organizations3 exacerbates the general feeling of powerlessness on the part of citizens, and reduces the ability of CSOs to be truly representative and a channel for citizen engagement.

Public understanding of what civil society is and the role it can potentially play is weak, and is also highly influenced by the image that a small number of organizations played during the years of conflict in the 1990s. Some civil society organizations, oriented towards donor priorities, have failed to develop constituencies of citizens that would give them legitimacy in the eyes of the public and of the government. There have been some bright examples over the past decades in Serbia of civil society organizations and civic movements that have engaged citizens in initiating and carrying out political and social change. In order to have a vibrant and sustainable civil society, these movements will need to transform from responding to specific issues or situations, to promoting ongoing citizen engagement in policy and government oversight.

There remain few opportunities for citizen engagement in government policymaking processes, although there has been some improvement in recent years. Policy making in Serbia remains an overwhelmingly

1http://www.cesid.rs/uploads/lt/usaid/cesid-predstavio-rezultate-najnovijeg-istra-ivanja-javnog-mnjenja-o-politi-koj-situaciji-u-srbiji/CeSID_Konferencija-19.04.2016.pdf 2 http://www.cesk.org.rs/index.php/en/projects/14-projects/15-social-and-cultural-capital-in-serbia 3 http://www.cesid.rs/uploads/lt/usaid/cesid-predstavio-rezultate-najnovijeg-istra-ivanja-javnog-mnjenja-o-politi-koj-situaciji-u-srbiji/CeSID_Konferencija-19.04.2016.pdf legislative process which continues to involve citizens only in exceptional circumstances. The continued use of urgent procedure, which limits parliamentary debate on draft legislation, has limited transparent and efficient citizen or civil society participation in developing policies. At the same time, CSO involvement in policy development is often reactive and untimely, and the potential benefits of CSO involvement remain insufficiently proven to government officials.4 Despite the outlined challenges, there has been some improvement in the legislative framework for the cooperation between the public sector and civil society; the past year has seen an increase in parliamentary debate on proposed legislation and the introduction of issue-based caucuses that have effectively engaged the public and non-governmental stakeholders in policymaking processes. However, the larger and overarching issue remains the legitimacy of CSO advocacy and the extent to which CSOs are channeling the voice of the public and aggregating citizen interests. Citizens have not been acting as stakeholders in this process - either directly or through civil society - which has further weakened civil society’s impact and widened the gap between civil society and its constituencies.

The EU Accession process represents an opportunity for increasing citizen engagement through CSOs voicing citizen views and institutionalizing it as part of the policy making dialogue on all levels of government in Serbia, building a system more inclusive of citizen and CSO input. The platform of the Serbian Government elected in April 2016 also highlights the importance of a partnership with civil society in the reform process. Yet the reforms envisaged by the accession process, and the development of the democratic and economic institutions necessary for EU accession, represent significant changes to the environment, and will require substantive and continued buy-in from all elements of Serbian society if they are to be successful and sustained. Thus, it is critical that linkages between citizens and CSOs and CSOs and the government are strengthened if Serbia is to leverage the EU Accession process as an opportunity to deepen its democratic, political and social processes.

USAID defines civil society broadly, to include formal non-governmental organizations as well as formal and informal membership associations (including labor unions, business and professional associations, farmers’ organizations and cooperatives, and women’s groups) that articulate and represent the interests of their members, engage in analysis and advocacy, and conduct oversight of government actions and policies. 5 In Serbia, USAID has supported civil society organizations working on issues ranging from disability rights to improvements in the business enabling environment to issues related to philanthropy and corporate social responsibility. The Mission’s CDCS includes a cross-sectoral focus on civil society engagement that reflects the importance placed by the Mission on civil society contributions to overall Mission objectives. Moving forward, the Mission plans to continue to support civil society efforts to convene citizens, the private sector and government around issues of common concern in order to support the successful articulation and sustainable implementation of reforms. Yet despite the constructive roles that have been played by civil society in a number of reform processes, and sustained support from the donor community, civil society engagement of citizens and government still has not become a routine or widely-valued process.

4 https://dgap.org/sites/default/files/article_downloads/policy_brief_epc_serbia_- _civil_society_and_government.pdf 5 USAID Strategy on Democracy, Human Rights and Governance (June 2013), available at https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1866/USAID%20DRG_%20final%20final%206- 24%203%20(1).pdf

Thus, the Mission believes that understanding the historical and socioeconomic structures, the formal and informal rules and the current dynamics influencing citizen engagement and government responsiveness is critical to identifying the actors, means, and sequencing necessary to effectively support local efforts to increase the inclusiveness, effectiveness and accountability of Serbia’s governance system and its democratic and economic reform processes. USAID has developed a framework for the PEA that will be the primary basis of the methodological approach for this analysis. The PEA is a field-research methodology used to explore not simply how things happen, but to delve into the reasons why things happen. The PEA asks questions about the development context, including the factors that impact growth and governance such as politics, rules and norms, social and cultural practices, beliefs and values, and historical and geographical determinants. A PEA can also identify opportunities and actors and others that can contribute to moving reform processes forward.