This question was posed by an ACE user through the "Ask a question" function in Electoral Advice.

Electoral assistance programmes tend to be evaluated just a few months after the election and evaluators tend to focus on the implementation of the programme (e.g that pollworker materials were delivered, a voter information campaign was conducted, a technical advisor was present at the EMB for 6 months, etc) and less on sustainable processes such as empowering staff (including provincial offices) with relevant skills, institutionalising best practice, documenting processes and materials in an accessible form to staff at all levels and seeing the impact on an EMB’s performance a year or two later. Does anyone have any suggestions or know of any examples of how one can assess whether an assistance programme has long-term benefits beyond the short term “quick win” of helping deliver a technically credible electoral event on time?

Summary of responses:

Posted on 10 May, 2007.

It is a known problem that many post-election evaluations put much focus on the actual implementation of the programme rather than on the long term effects of the electoral assistance provided. However, there seems to be a recent trend in the direction towards more thorough post-election audits and looking at more aspects than only the implementation of the electoral assistance programme; and there is a greater understanding among the donor community that the development of political frameworks, electoral administration and a democratic culture in the country concerned are important variables to consider in the evaluation of the electoral assistance programme.

In order for this to be successful, it is necessary to include the long term effects in the terms of reference for the evaluation.

There are several examples below of how this has been done recently.

However, there is still a long way to go until this knowledge is fully applied in practice, one reason being the very dynamics of elections with short pre-election timeframes, making it difficult to ensure the inclusion of the long term effectiveness into the assistance programme plan. Another reason is the obvious one that while the long term effects such as a democratic framework and well-functioning institutions are desirable, they are also much more difficult to measure than the mere implementation of the assistance programme. There are currently ongoing endeavours to increase the cooperation and dialogue between the donor community and the recipients of assistance to find ways of improving the focus on long term effectiveness and the evaluation of electoral assistance programmes in this regard. Examples of this can be found in the International IDEA report Effective Electoral Assistance - Moving from Event-based Support to Process Support.

 Replies were received, with thanks, from:

• Carl Dundas
• Sue Nelson
• Noor Mohammad

Links to related resources:

• International IDEA Effective Electoral Assistance - Moving from Event-based Support to Process Support - Conference report and conclusions (2006)
• International IDEA’s Effective Electoral Assistance Programme  
• UNDP and Electoral Systems and Processes publication
• UNDP Evaluation Office Essentials Electoral Assistance journal Summarizes and synthesizes lessons learned and suggestions made by UNDP and other development agencies in the area of electoral assistance.

• UNDP and Electoral Assistance: 10 years of experience A comprehensive set of electoral assistance lessons learned and recommendations for UNDP country offices.
• UNDP website
• USAID website
• USAID Elections and Political Processes website

• Report from the EC-UNDP Joint Training on Effective Electoral Assistance 27 November to 1 December 2006 Dar-es-Salaam

Individual responses in full:

While it is true that many post-election evaluations place emphasis on programme implementation, the trend is to carry out a comprehensive post-election electoral audit which looks at all facet of a recently held election. A properly conducted electoral audit examines the management structure of the EMB concerned, the legal framework, including any constitutional provisions relating to the conduct of elections, the conduct of all election processes, the contribution of all stakeholders to the election and conduct of election officials. Pertinent to this particular question, sustainability issues are of primary concern to most election auditors, ranging from proper staff development programmes to cost-effective measures in election preparation and conduct. Similarly, much work is being done on steering EMBs towards adopting best practices in election  organization and this effort is linked to  post-election audits  and or  less extensive  evaluation. Many EMBs have routinely commissioned post-election audits which focus on performance as well as accountability. Among these EMBs are South Africa (Local Elections 1995-6), Botswana (1999 & 2004), Nigeria 1998-99 & 2003, Lesotho (2002), Liberia (2005-6) and Zambia (2007). 

Carl Dundas

Election observation tends to have the short-term focus on immediate impact, but a serious program evaluation should address all of the issues raised in your question. 

To ensure these issues are covered, they need to be incorporated into the terms of reference for the evaluation.  They usually start with an assessment of the project design.  For example, did it incorporate a longer-term perspective and did it contribute to the development of sustainable structures and systems?  If not, why not and what could be done to turn this around?  Then the evaluation should look at its implementation.  For instance, were there counterparts for technical assistance?  Were they the appropriate persons?  Did the expert work with his/her counterpart constructively?  Was there a transfer of skills and knowledge?  Does it appear that this assistance will reduce the need for outside help the next time around?  The same approach can be taken for the structures and systems provided by the assistance.  Were they appropriate and sustainable?  Did they have a national reach and enable better operations/communications/training, etc.  Were they institutionalized by the EMB and is it continuing to use these systems?  And finally, is the EMB protecting the assets provided in this assistance for use in future elections?

Most evaluations also include sections that identify best practices and lessons learned.  Good examples can be found on the UNDP and USAID websites.  For example, the final evaluation of the UNDP elections project in Indonesia for the 2004 elections identifies many good practices that were developed by that assistance project (especially in the area of training) and looks at issues of impact and sustainability.

Sue Nelson

I think the agency funding such electoral assistance should also be assessed.  The electoral registration process in Afghanistan during 2003-04 faced problems for smooth conduct of the process. The money for these elections did come, but not always in time. At the end expediency became the issue and activities that could have helped in maintaining a credible register even after the poll were neglected. The data entry was not done properly and now a fresh register has to be created and Afghanistan cannot hold its Municipal and District Council elections. Even now supply of funds is slow and if it continues, there will be last time rush in 2009 as well. Under these circumstances IEC or UNDP should not be held responsible for a sub-standard job at the end of the day.

Nigeria faced a similar problem.  Release of money was delayed and INEC did a very unsatisfactory job of it.  The presence of UN Technical Advisory Group, UNDP experts and IFES experts did not help.

In addition, evaluation of an election assistance programme as such should identify issues relating to sustainability of the EMB in future.  A detailed report on that should be given by auditors (who normally do only financial audit and not necessarily go on the sustainability issues).

I have seen cases where good international staff has to leave the project for lack of funding and his learning on the project goes a waste.  A new person comes and by the time that person is in a position to contribute, he/she has to go as there are no funds available. The evaluation has to be done in this respect also. Finally if the funds are there and a person has been given enough time and resources to deliver and if he/she doesn't, that person should of course be held accountable.