Skip to content
← Back to SearchPDF(1008 KB)

Final performance evaluation of Kazakhstan judicial program (KJP)

2020EnglishEvaluated project title: Kazakhstan judicial program (KJP) Rule of lawCODE: 115; Kazakhstan Central And Eastern Europe Eurasia

Metadata

Authors
Gjoni, Roland | Yergalieva, Nazgul
Contract/Code
72011518D00003 | 72011519F00012 | AID-176-A-12-00011
Institution
8414 - ME&A 8870 USAID. Regional Mission for Central Asia
Keywords
Courts | Independence | Judges | Judicial reform | Litigation | Public administration | Rule of law | Trusts JA32 Top/Government and law/The state/Public administration/Judicial reform (399.0) | Top/Government and law/The state/Rule of law (377.5) | Top/Government and law/The state/Courts (357.0)
ID
PA00WGCV
File size
1008 KB
Source
Open PDF

Abstract

The final evaluation of the United States Agency for International Development Central Asia (USAID/Central Asia) Kazakhstan Judicial Program (KJP), implemented by the American Bar Association/Rule of Law Initiative (ABA/ROLI), aimed to: 1) measure project success and identify any remaining gaps, 2) analyze monitoring and evaluation (M&E) systems and identify any issues with progress reporting, and 3) provide recommendations on future USAID interventions to increase public trust in Kazakhstan?s judicial system.


The evaluation team (ET) used a mixed-methods approach including desk review of project reports and sector literature, key informant interviews and focus group discussions, and quantitative and qualitative analysis of KJP?s M&E system.


KJP met its objectives by improving judicial decision writing capacity and enhancing court efficiency and accessibility. Facing limited support for judicial independence and accountability, KJP focused its assistance and resources on other areas. KJP?s interventions to increase Academy of Justice (AOJ) capacity had limited success due to institutional weaknesses and leadership changes. KJP worked to improve its M&E system to capture and report progress; however, most progress indicators relied on quantitative aspects (i.e., number of events, participants, trainings, materials distributed) rather than measuring the project?s effects and contribution.


USAID should continue to support: 1) public trust in the judicial system, by working with stakeholders to strengthen judicial independence and accountability systems, further modernize the courts, and improve judicial education; and 2) public demand for a transparent, independent, and accountable judiciary, by helping civil society organizations increase monitoring and reporting capacity through evidence-based policy research and advocacy efforts