The assistance approach generally incorporates four elements:  (1) rule of law, (2) governance (3) human rights, and (4) elections. Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

To assess the nature, impact, and sustainability of U.S. assistance programs  to strengthen democratic institutions in Bolivia, Colombia, El Salvador,  Guatemala, Nicaragua, and Peru, we first interviewed headquarters  officials in Washington, D.C., at the departments and agencies providing  rule of law, governance, human rights, and election assistance, including  USAID, the State and Justice Departments, the National Endowment for  Democracy, and the Inter-American Foundation. To analyze the overarching management issues that have affected program  outcomes, we analyzed project documentation, interviewed knowledgeable  officials, and reviewed assistance activities on field visits to the six  countries. In some cases, other  donors have taken steps to replicate or expand USAID’s programs. USAID also has been instrumental in supporting the creation of Human  Rights Ombudsman Offices in five of the six countries by providing  technical assistance, office equipment, and salaried professionals. Although U.S. election-related assistance has supported  efforts that have contributed to free and fair elections in the six countries  we reviewed, most of this assistance has gone to three of these countries— Nicaragua, Peru, and El Salvador—to help them improve electoral  institutions and enhance voter access. U.S. agencies have not always managed their programs in a way  that would leverage the contributions from all of these organizations,  particularly other major donors, and maximize the impact and  sustainability of U.S. funded programs. Furthermore, evaluation of program  results and sharing lessons learned has been limited among U.S. agencies  and implementers across countries where this assistance is provided. U.S. government agencies have not outlined a long-term,  strategic approach to this assistance that considers all of the major parties  and available resources and information. Donors and Latin American countries have been collaborating  regionally on anticorruption activities since the early 1990s. Agencies

The U.S. agencies implementing democracy assistance programs have not  consistently evaluated the results of their activities. Conclusions

Local resources for sustaining democracy programs are difficult to  mobilize given the serious economic problems in the countries we visited,  and funding shortages were often cited by program implementers and  beneficiaries as major obstacles to long-term program success. Therefore,  it is crucial that the U.S. government and other international donors  manage available international resources as efficiently as possible. Recommendations for Executive Action

To ensure that U.S. assistance activities designed to support and strengthen  democracies in Latin America have the maximum impact and sustainability,  we recommend that the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, and the  Administrator of USAID  develop more comprehensive interagency strategic plans at the regional  and country level for democracy assistance addressing how U.S.  agencies will cooperate with each other and other major donors to  achieve greater impact and sustainability in democracy programs;   establish a strategy for periodically evaluating democracy assistance  projects that is consistent across agencies, countries, and types of  programs; and  establish a systematic mechanism to share information on development  approaches, methods, materials, and results from all democracy  assistance projects among U.S. agencies and implementers. The Inter-American Foundation  did not comment on this report.
Why GAO Did This Study

Supporting democracy abroad is a major U.S. foreign policy objective. To better understand how this assistance has been implemented in Latin America, GAO was asked to review programs in six countries--Bolivia, Colombia, El Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua, and Peru--that have been of particular importance to U.S. interests in Central and South America. Between fiscal years 1992 and 2002, U.S. agencies have funded more than $580 million in democracy-related programs in these countries. This report discusses the impact of and factors affecting this assistance and the overarching management issues that have affected program planning and implementation.

What GAO Found

U.S. programs to strengthen democratic institutions in six Latin American countries have had a modest impact to date. These programs have primarily focused on promoting (1) the rule of law, (2) governance, (3) human rights, and (4) elections. U.S. assistance has helped bring about important reforms in criminal justice in five of the six countries, improved transparency and accountability of some government functions, increased attention to human rights, and supported elections that observation groups have considered free and fair. However, host governments have not always sustained these reforms by providing the needed political, financial, and human capital. For example, host countries often did not support training programs, computer systems, or equipment after U.S. funding ended. In other cases, U.S.-supported programs were limited and targeted, and countries have not adopted these programs on a national scale. Since host country resources for sustaining democracy programs are difficult to mobilize, it is crucial that the U.S. government and other donors manage available international resources as efficiently as possible for maximum impact and sustainability. Several management issues have affected democracy assistance programs. Poor coordination among the key U.S. agencies has been a long-standing management problem, and cooperation with other foreign donors has been limited. U.S. agencies' strategic plans do not outline how these agencies will overcome coordination problems and cooperate with other foreign donors on program planning and implementation to maximize scarce resources. Also, U.S. agencies have not consistently evaluated program results or shared lessons learned from completed projects, thus missing opportunities to enhance the outcomes of their programs.