Threshold Performance Evaluation 2010-2011

The Indonesia Threshold Program constituted a $55 million program to strengthen anti-corruption efforts and increase immunization rates as a means to improving Indonesia's performance on the MCC's Compact eligibility indicators. Investment for the Anti-Corruption component was $35 million and was intended to reduce opportunities for public corruption through administrative reforms, and:

• Increase transparency in the judiciary;
• Increase enforcement capacity to fight money laundering;
• Increase capacity to prosecute cases of public corruption; and
• Modernize public procurement systems.

The primary Government of Indonesia (GoI) counterparts were the Supreme Court (which oversees Indonesia's judicial system), the Financial Transactions Reports and Analysis Center (PPATK), the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK), and the National Public Procurement Policy Office (LKPP) under the coordination of the National Development Planning Agency. The program was managed by USAID and implemented by Chemonics, for judicial reform, procurement, and some activities under money laundering and corruption prosecution, and the United States Department of Justice International Investigative Training Assistance Program (ICITAP), for work on law enforcement related to corruption.

The ex-post Performance Evaluation was carried out to provide an independent, objective assessment into the effectiveness and efficacy of the Indonesia Threshold Program counter-corruption activities, using qualitative methods. The program evaluation serves three purposes: to provide lessons to MCC, the Government of Indonesia, and other program donors; uphold MCC's institutional commitment to measuring program results; and provide practical lessons for current and future Threshold Program partners in developing and implementing Threshold Program activities. An international consultant, assisted by an Indonesian researcher, was hired to evaluate the anti-corruption component of the Threshold Program (the Immunization Component is not covered by this evaluation).

The Evaluator used the following methodologies to conduct the evaluation:
(1) Document review
(2) Open-ended and semi-structured key informant interviews
(3) Vendor surveys

The evaluation was conducted in a series of field visits between December 2010 and October 2011.