Performance Evaluation of Public Works Construction Activities to Increase Access to Education in Ghana APRIL 2015 This publication was produced at the request of the United States Agency for International Development. It was prepared independently by Luis Rodriguez, Eric Allemano, Alberto Treves, Reynolds Kissiedo, Queenstar Ocansey, Kofi Mereku, Melissa Chiappetta, and Jean-Camille Kollmorgen of Social Impact, Inc. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES TO INCREASE ACCESS TO EDUCATION IN GHANA APRIL 1, 2015 Public Works Construction (PWC) Contract No. AID-RAN-I-00-09-00019 PWC Performance Evaluation Task Order No. AID-641-TO-15-00004 DISCLAIMER The author’s views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for International Development or the United States Government Performance Evaluation of the Public Works Construction Project to Increase Access to Education in Ghana i CONTENTS Acronyms ....................................................................................................................................... ii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... 1 Project Background ................................................................................................................................ 1 Evaluation Purpose, Questions, and Methods ...................................................................................... 1 Recommendations ................................................................................................................................... 2 I. PROJECT BACKGROUND .................................................................................................... 3 II. EVALUATION PURPOSE AND EVALUATION QUESTIONS ....................................... 4 Evaluation Purpose ................................................................................................................................. 4 Evaluation Questions .............................................................................................................................. 4 III. METHODS AND LIMITATIONS ....................................................................................... 5 Desk Review ............................................................................................................................................ 5 Key Informant Interviews in Accra ....................................................................................................... 5 Site Visits ................................................................................................................................................. 5 IV. FINDINGS ............................................................................................................................... 6 Evaluation Question 1 ............................................................................................................................. 6 Evaluation Question 2 ........................................................................................................................... 12 Evaluation Question 3 ........................................................................................................................... 13 Evaluation Question 4 ........................................................................................................................... 15 V. CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................................... 19 Evaluation Question 1 ........................................................................................................................... 19 Evaluation Question 2 ........................................................................................................................... 19 Evaluation Question 3 ........................................................................................................................... 20 Evaluation Question 4 ........................................................................................................................... 20 VI. LESSONS LEARNED .......................................................................................................... 21 VII. RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................................... 22 Annex 1 - Evaluation Scope of Work Annex 2 - Detailed Evaluation Design and Methods Annex 3a - Themes for Group Discussions and KIIs Annex 3b - Quantitative Questionnaire Annex 4a - List of Respondents Annex 4b - Sites Visited by Geographic Region Annex 4c - Annotated Bibliography of Documents Reviewed Annex 5 - Disclosure of Any Conflict of Interest Annex 6 - Results of the Quantitative Questionnaire Annex 7 - Building Adequacy Criteria Annex 8a - Analysis of FPMU FARA Agreement Annex 8b - Analysis of MiDA FARA Agreement Annex 8c - Analysis of AMA FARA Agreement Annex 8d - Analysis of TAP Cooperative Agreement Annex 8e - Analysis of FAS Consult Reports Annex 9 - Photo Report of Structural Observations Annex 10 - Qualitative Raw Data Performance Evaluation of the Public Works Construction Project to Increase Access to Education in Ghana ii ACRONYMS AMA Accra Metropolitan Assembly DEO District Education Office EMIS Education Monitoring Information System FARA Fixed Amount Reimbursement Agreement FGD Focus Group Discussion FPMU Funds and Procurement Management Unit G2G Government to Government GES Ghana Education Service GoG Government of Ghana IBC International Building Code IP Implementing Partner JHS Junior High School KG Kindergarten KII Key Informant Interview KVIP Kumasi Ventilated Improved Pit MiDA Millennium Development Authority MoE Ministry of Education MoFEP Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning PTA Parents and Teachers Association PWC Public Works Construction SMC School Management Committee SOW Statement of Work TAP Transition and Assistance Program TB Toilet Block USAID U.S. Agency for International Development Performance Evaluation of the Public Works Construction Project to Increase Access to Education in Ghana 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PROJECT BACKGROUND In working to address issues related to the lack of schools available to ensure access to education for all of Ghana’s youth, between 2010 and 2015, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) used three Fixed Amount Reimbursement Agreements (FARAs) to provide funding to the Government of Ghana (GoG) to build schools and educational facilities through Public Works Construction (PWC) activities. USAID also provided funding to Plan International/Ghana (Plan Ghana) through a cooperative agreement under the Transition and Assistance Program (TAP) between July 2010 and November 2013. PWC activities consisted of the construction, furnishing, and maintenance of: 159 educational structures by the Funds and Procurement Management Unit (FPMU) within the Ministry of Education (MoE), 4 junior high schools (JHSs) by the Accra Metropolitan Assembly (AMA), 24 latrines by the Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning (MoFEP) in cooperation with the Millennium Development Authority (MiDA), and 7 JHSs by Plan Ghana. The goals of the PWC activities, according to USAID, were to: 1) increase access to basic education; 2) increase enrollment in basic education; 3) improve the availability of basic education management infrastructure, and; 4) ensure schools have good sanitation and an environmentally friendly environment for pupils. EVALUATION PURPOSE, QUESTIONS, AND METHODS USAID contracted Social Impact (SI) in November 2014 to conduct a performance evaluation of the PWC activities. The evaluation purpose was to provide USAID/Ghana and other stakeholders with information about the effectiveness of the PWC activities, and to highlight lesson learned that can inform future projects. The evaluation questions included the following: 1) To what extent did the four PWC activities achieve the project purpose, outcomes, and expected outputs? 2) How were government officials and local beneficiaries involved in the ongoing ownership and maintenance of the construction facilities? 3) How do target beneficiaries perceive the PWC activities? 4) How effective were the implementing mechanisms, supervision processes and quality control activities for achieving the expected results in a timely and cost-effective manner? Evaluation Question 1: To what extent did the four PWC activities achieve the project purpose, outcomes, and expected outputs? Without a viable comparison group, it is impossible to attribute increased access to education to the PWC intervention (or any other intervention). However, the construction of PWC kindergartens (KGs) coincided with an increase in students attending KG, and the evaluation team could not find any other likely cause for the increase. Thus, PWC activities likely contributed to increased access to education amongst KG-aged children. Despite this jump in KG enrollment, data from the MoE and teachers did not show a similar jump for JHSs, and DEO staff and teachers reported that they did not think the project’s construction of JHS, DEOs, or latrines helped to increase access to education or overall enrollment. Teachers did say, though, that construction of JHSs increased relative enrollment (students moved from other schools to the new JHSs). The team found that DEOs improved the availability of basic education management infrastructure, even though they were constrained by overcrowded facilities and lack of electricity and equipment. Performance Evaluation of the Public Works Construction Project to Increase Access to Education in Ghana 2 The aim of creating an environmentally friendly atmosphere for learning was somewhat achieved, although lack of running water and gender segregated toilets remained barriers for proper use. Evaluation Question 2: How were government officials and local beneficiaries involved in the ongoing ownership and maintenance of the construction facilities? Government officials’ involvement in the maintenance of newly constructed facilities consisted of incorporating them into the District Assembly’s list of facilities to maintain. However, no additional budget was generated to facilitate maintenance. With the exception of communities surrounding Plan Ghana-constructed schools, local beneficiaries said that they were only involved in PWC activities during the time of construction, by providing food, shelter, labor, and security for building materials. Except in the case of Plan Ghana, implementing partners did not facilitate community ownership over these facilities. No other type of support has been provided by the MoE, donors, or any other institution since the end of construction to maintain these facilities. Evaluation Question 3: How do target beneficiaries perceive the PWC activities? Although communities had a favorable perception of the fact that an education facility (JHS, KGs, and toilet blocks) had been provided to them, when probed about how much these addressed their needs, many stakeholders voiced issued about the structures, such as KGs were not big enough to absorb current demand, and toilet blocks were not practical for use by male and female students. Only the construction of JHS buildings was unequivocally approved. All DEO personnel interviewed were happy that new facilities were created, and DEO officials also suggested that with power, water, and better equipment, their work would be much more efficient. Evaluation Question 4: How effective were the implementing mechanisms, supervision processes, and quality control activities for achieving the expected results in a timely and cost￾effective manner? The implementing mechanisms, supervision processes, and quality control activities were not effective enough to ensure project outcomes in a timely and cost-effectiveness manner, as the bulk of the PWC activities were not completed on time nor did they provide conclusive evidence of a structurally sustainable, friendly, and effective environment for the money spent. Many of the contracting mechanisms had imprecise language and parties did not follow through with oversight. RECOMMENDATIONS As a result of the evaluation findings, the team recommends: USAID test its development hypothesis through an impact evaluation of its next school construction project or a meta-analysis of other school construction projects in Sub-Saharan Africa; USAID and MoE agree upon a more holistic approach for school construction, with clear standards and guidelines; USAID consider contracts or more detailed FARAs to procure future construction activities; USAID require implementing partners to complete thorough technical, administrative, and financial qualification assessments of construction companies before contracting with them; USAID ensure that future school construction contracts or agreements include a participatory sensitization process; USAID conduct an assessment of existing educational facilities to determine whether it may be more cost￾effective to renovate existing facilities rather than building new ones; USAID ensure architectural defects identified in this evaluation and the FAS consult reports are fixed; USAID require that future implementing partners ensure toilet projects are gender sensitive. Performance Evaluation of the Public Works Construction Project to Increase Access to Education in Ghana 3 I. PROJECT BACKGROUND Ghana has been making great efforts to increase school enrollment as part its Universal Access to Education Policy. According to USAID documents, between 2003 and 2010, enrollment in Ghanaian kindergartens (KGs) almost tripled, creating significant pressure for adequate construction to respond to this increasing demand. Enrollment in junior high schools (JHSs) increased by 41 percent during the same period and is expected to continue increasing. This situation led to the overcrowding of existing schools and to the creation of informal education spaces also known as “schools under the trees.” According to government assessments, there were an estimated 4,000 “schools under the trees” as of January 2010. According to USAID and the Government of Ghana (GoG), as part of the increase in enrollment, the GoG created 46 new districts by subdividing older and bigger ones into smaller ones, increasing the total number of districts from 170 to 216. This created the need to build new district education offices (DEOs) in order to provide efficient administrative management in the new districts. However, according to MoE officials, many of these DEOs were not provided with separate buildings in which to operate. Finally, USAID identified that sanitary conditions in primary schools were still far from Ghanaian standards and international best practices as of 2010. Evaluation team site visits and conversations with head teachers revealed that children did not have buildings where they could go to relieve themselves. Girls in particular did not feel comfortable with the level of privacy and the sanitary conditions provided in school latrines, contributing to school desertion by girls. In order to address the situation of “schools under the trees,” overcrowding in KGs and JHSs, new DEOs without actual offices, and poor sanitary conditions in schools, USAID developed the Public Works Construction (PWC) activities, which used USAID-Forward Government to Government (G2G) Fixed Amount Reimbursement Agreements (FARAs) to construct, furnish, and maintain:  159 educational structures by the Funds and Procurement Management Unit (FPMU) within the Ministry of Education (MoE),  4 public schools by Accra Metropolitan Assembly (AMA),  And 24 latrines in flood-affected areas in the northern region of the country by the Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning (MOFEP) in cooperation with the Millennium Development Authority (MiDA). It also included funding through a cooperative agreement to Plan International/Ghana (Plan Ghana) to construct, furnish, and maintain 7 JHSs under the Transition and Assistance Program (TAP). In total, the PWC activities included construction of 194 structures between 2010 and 2015. The purpose of the PWC activities was to increase access to basic education in Ghana. According to USAID, the construction activities were based on the development hypothesis that by constructing and maintaining school buildings and other support facilities, more students would gain access to basic education. Expected outcomes of this activity were: 1) increased access to basic education; 2) increased enrollment in basic education; 3) improved availability of basic education management infrastructure, and; 4) good sanitation and an environmentally friendly environment for pupils, especially girls (see Annex 1 for more details). Performance Evaluation of the Public Works Construction Project to Increase Access to Education in Ghana 4 II. EVALUATION PURPOSE AND EVALUATION QUESTIONS EVALUATION PURPOSE USAID contracted with Social Impact in November 2014 to complete a final performance evaluation of the PWC activities. The purpose of this evaluation was to provide USAID/Ghana and other stakeholders (FPMU, MoE, AMA, MiDA, MoFEP, and Plan Ghana) with information about the effectiveness of the PWC activities, and to highlight lesson learned which can inform similar projects in the future. The objectives of the evaluation were to determine the following: 1. To learn to what extent the project’s objectives and goals have been achieved; 2. To explore how effectively the program has developed plans and structures to encourage ongoing maintenance and sustainability; 3. To understand how the activities were perceived and valued by beneficiaries; 4. To ascertain the effectiveness of the project’s management processes, including the implementation mechanism, supervision capacity and quality control; and 5. To identify lessons and best practices that can inform the design of future education construction and government-to-government projects in relation to enhancing access to basic education, both in Ghana and elsewhere. EVALUATION QUESTIONS USAID developed the following evaluation questions: 1. To what extent did the four PWC activities achieve the project purpose, outcomes and expected outputs? 2. How were government officials and local beneficiaries involved in the ongoing ownership and maintenance of the construction facilities? 3. How do target beneficiaries perceive the PWC activities? 4. How effective were the implementing mechanisms, supervision processes, and quality control activities for achieving the expected results in a timely and cost-effective manner. Performance Evaluation of the Public Works Construction Project to Increase Access to Education in Ghana 5 III. METHODS AND LIMITATIONS The team employed a mixed-methods approach, using both primary and secondary data. DESK REVIEW The team reviewed the following secondary documents prior to fieldwork: FARA and cooperative agreements, the site design documentation that was available, agreement amendments, activity technical and financial progress reports, and other reports on Ghanaian schools and construction. A full list of documents reviewed is provided in Annex 4. KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWS IN ACCRA The team spent the first week of fieldwork gathering information through 17 KIIs in with MoE officials from FPMU, AMA, MiDA, and Ghana Education Services (GES),1 and USAID officials. However, nobody from Plan Ghana was available to meet with the team until the end of the field visits. The semi-structured interview instruments used for the KIIs are included in Annex 3. SITE VISITS The evaluation team randomly sampled 50 percent of PWC sites in each of the ten regions of Ghana – for a total of 58 sites and a confidence level of 90 percent with a confidence interval of plus or minus ten.2 The sample included 30 percent of all 194 PWC construction sites, including 4 DEOs, 13 KGs, 20 JHSs, and 20 toilet blocks and Kumasi Ventilated Improved Pits (KVIPs)— this last category is referred to as latrines/toilets throughout the rest of this report. Please see the Table 1 in Annex 2 for a breakdown of the type of site visited by implementing partner. For each site visited, regardless of the type of construction undertaken, the team completed two major tasks: 1) a thorough evaluation of the planning, design, and constructions aspects of the building; choice of location, finishing details, connection to water and electricity networks, and adequacy of the building3 and 2) a group discussion with head-teachers, Parent Teachers Association (PTA) members, School Management Committee (SMC) members, and traditional chiefs. Group discussion participants were selected by school head teachers in advance of the team’s arrival to ensure efficient visits. The facilities evaluation was done alongside the Clerk of Works that worked at each particular site. Additionally, for sites where a latrine was built, the team also completed two focus group discussions (FGDs) with beneficiary students from all grades (one for each sex, led by a FGD facilitator of the same sex). Finally, for the DEO sites, the team completed a group discussion with field-based GES representatives and DEO staff at the new DEO site. In total, 563 individuals participated in group discussions during site visits. Please see Annex 2 for a breakdown of group discussion participants and more details on methodology and limitations. 1 GES is the sector of the MoE in charge of managing schools, teachers and curricula. 2 Over the course of the evaluation, the team successfully visited 57 of the 58 planned sites. Due to the lack of response from the implementing partner, the team was unable to locate and visit one of the Plan Ghana sites. 3 Although the evaluation was not primarily aimed at determining the structural integrity and quality of the facilities, understanding the extent to which the constructed facilities were designed and built according to plan and in accordance with Ghanaian Law and International Building Codes, is an essential prerequisite for understanding why the project may or may not have achieved its higher-level goals of improving access to education. Performance Evaluation of the Public Works Construction Project to Increase Access to Education in Ghana 6 IV. FINDINGS EVALUATION QUESTION 1: TO WHAT EXTENT DID THE FOUR PWC ACTIVITIES ACHIEVE THE PROJECT PURPOSE, OUTCOMES, AND EXPECTED OUTPUTS? The purpose of the PWC activities was again to: 1) increase access to basic education; 2) increase enrollment in basic education; 3) improve the availability of basic education management infrastructure, and; 4) ensure good sanitation and an environmentally friendly environment provided for pupils, especially girls. The evaluation team addresses each of these objectives below. Access to Education “Access to education” is defined as the increase in the percentage of youth who are able to attend school—in this case, due to the new construction of facilities under PWC agreements. Getting at true “access” requires information on the number of out-of-school (OOS) youth. And, unfortunately, the MoE does not track this information, and the team could not find data on this at the DEO level either. As such, the best that the team could do was look at enrollment data to determine if enrollments were increasing, and if so, if they were increasing in PWC beneficiary areas at a rate greater than they were in non-beneficiary areas. The evaluation team found that KGs had the greatest impact of all sites types on access and increased enrollment. For all the newly constructed KGs the team visited (all 13 of them), there were previously either no KGs or classes had operated under trees with a reduced number of children. As such, it was pretty clear that the introduction of KGs in these areas helped to increase access to education amongst children in Ghana. Furthermore, head teachers from each of these schools reported that enrollment increased from an average of 60 children before construction to 200 in the new building. Teachers reported the increase was possible because the old KGs only had one teacher that could not handle more than 60 children outside. In the new buildings, which each have two classrooms, a teacher, and a head teacher, it is possible to accommodate 200 students. However, not all students who want to attend a KG are able to. In fact, evaluators observed waitlists in all of the new KGs visited with an average of 200 to 300 children on them. In cases such as Tolon and Asuogyaman, this meant that head teachers decided to use the dining space as an additional classroom to accommodate as many children as possible, meaning they were able to increase access by more than the typical 233 percent. The evaluation team attempted to validate the KG access findings through analysis of MoE Education Management Information System (EMIS) data. However, this proved impossible, as the team found that KG enrollment had increased steadily between 2008 (when the government passed its KG policy) and 2012 (the latest year for which data are available) across the country—not just in PWC beneficiary areas (See Table 1 below for more information). As such, using data alone, it was impossible for the team to attribute the rapid increase in enrollment at the KG level to PWC activities. Performance Evaluation of the Public Works Construction Project to Increase Access to Education in Ghana 7 Table 1. Kindergarten Enrollment in Ghana, by School Year Year Number of Students Enrolled Percent of Youth Enrolled (Public or Private) Percent of Students Enrolled in Private Schools 2003-04 687,643 54.6 31.2 2004-05 778,109 60.1 36.8 2005-06 1,065,963 85.3 29.4 2006-07 1,142,784 89 18.9 2007-08 1,262,264 89.9 17.1 2008-09 1,338,454 92.9 19.4 2009-10 1,440,732 97.3 19.5 2010-11 1,491,450 98.4 20.8 2011-12 1,543,314 99.4 22.2 Source: (MOE-EMIS, 2012) According to head teacher interviews, JHSs did not have an impact on access to education. They reported that JHSs built by PWC implementers were either to accommodate students receiving classes under a tree or students who were already receiving classes in older buildings. Head teachers interviewed reported that the construction of JHSs through PWC mechanisms did not increase access for junior high students at all. On the contrary, it simply caused students enrolled in other schools in the same districts to move from old schools to the newly constructed schools because of the physical attractiveness of the structures. It was impossible for the team to gather data to validate this claim at the schools, as the head teachers were unable to find files for enrollment figures prior to PWC activities. The team attempted to gain access to this information through the MoE’s EMIS database. However, that database did not have information by school. Information comparing beneficiary and comparison districts are presented in Table 2 below (for districts where data was available for both 2009 and 2013). While these tables show that enrollment increased on average in the 12 beneficiary districts for which data was available and decreased on average in non-beneficiary districts, changes in enrollment cannot be attributed to PWC activities because: 1) not all of the schools in the beneficiary districts received new buildings; 2) some of the districts split, making it impossible to figure out enrollment figures before the PWC activities in these districts; 3) there are natural differences between districts that prevent the team from being able to directly compare districts. Also, the changes were relatively small in nature. DEO staff said they did not believe the introduction of the new DEOs made any specific contribution to access or enrollment. Due to the fact that they were operating without power, their EMIS was not able to operate efficiently. For that reason they were only able to conduct day-to￾day routine operations such as school visits. But, they were unable to make updates to EMIS or process or analyze the results of the introduction of new facilities on children’s access in their districts. Performance Evaluation of the Public Works Construction Project to Increase Access to Education in Ghana 8 Table 2: JHS Enrollment Rates by District Beneficiary Districts JHS Enrollment 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 % Change Akatsi 5,411 5,201 5,548 5,504 5,734 6% Upper Manya Krobo 8,007 8,007 2,874 2,785 2,820 -65% Yilo Krobo 5,404 5,442 4,935 4,750 4,776 -12% Asuogyaman 5,838 6,384 6,326 6,207 4,731 -19% Cape Coast 8,068 6,384 7,664 7,474 7,825 -3% Wassa Amenfi East 6,461 6,454 6,726 5,186 7,329 13% Aowin Suaman 5,603 6,004 5,807 6,207 6,078 8% Ejura Sekyedumase 4,211 4,413 4,949 5,223 5,463 30% Atebubu Amantin 4,040 4,082 3,944 4,401 4,441 10% Tamale 22,456 25,361 26,098 27,122 28,898 29% Tolon-Kumbungu 5,200 4,994 5,302 5,425 6,439 24% Zabzugu-Tatale 3,132 3,246 3,564 3,935 4,294 37% Karaga 1,350 951 1,374 1,719 1,965 46% Garu Tempane 5,328 6,403 7,339 8,364 7,953 49% Nadowli 5,580 5,626 5,824 5,813 5,819 4% Total Beneficiary Districts 96,089 98,952 98,274 100,115 104,565 9% Non-Beneficiary Districts Adansi-North 5,838 6,384 6,326 6,207 6,645 14% Asikuma-Odoben-Brakwa 7,248 7,146 6,825 6,746 6,768 -7% Adansi-North 5,838 6,384 6,326 6,207 6,645 14% Sekyere East 7,682 7,962 4,093 4,412 4,469 -42% Total Non-Beneficiary Districts 26,606 27,876 23,570 23,572 24,527 -8% Source: (MOE-EMIS, 2013) Enrollment4 Enrollment is a bit easier to define, as it is basically the number of children or youth who have signed up to attend a particular school. As described in the access-to-education section above, all newly constructed KGs the team visited (all 13 of them), experienced an increase in enrollment. Head teachers reported that this dramatic increase was due to the construction of an attractive building and the addition of a second teacher to these KGs. While access to education did not increase due to the introduction of the new JHS facilities, head teachers from the new JHSs did report increased enrollment at their schools due to the fact that students from other older schools wanted to move over to the newer schools. The DEOs visited could not confirm any of this due to the fact that they had no power to operate their computers. Further, as mentioned above, the team could not validate these findings through analysis of EMIS data because that data did not contain information by school. 4 The MoE’s EMIS database does not contain enrollment figures broken down by school. The DEOs visited by the team only had enrollment data for the current year, not longitudinal records. Performance Evaluation of the Public Works Construction Project to Increase Access to Education in Ghana 9 In terms of the effects of the new latrines on girls’ retention rates, FGDs with students from PWC construction sites suggested that the construction of the latrines had no bearing whatsoever on whether or not girls chose to attend or stay in school. In fact, girls from all 20 of the sites visited with a new latrine of some sort reported that the new latrines did not cause them to change their school attendance habits at all. Despite the obvious benefits of adding new toilet facilities at the schools, students (especially girls) had a difficult time looking at the positive with the toilets because they still saw many issues. Specifically, students cited lack of access to the toilets (at all of the schools the team visited, the toilets were not in use and were locked due to a lack of running water), inadequacy of the toilets, and lack of privacy, as well as inadequate hygienic conditions as factors that limited their use of toilets and a reason why they did not feel the toilets made girls more likely to attend school regularly, especially during their menstrual cycle. Moreover, at the time the team visited, none of the toilets had water. All of these challenges meant that at nearly all of the schools visited, students who participated in FGDs—including 100 percent of girls interviewed—said they did not use the new toilets and were instead going to the bushes to relieve themselves. Availability of Basic Education Management Infrastructure Despite the clear benefits of the new DEO facilities—the introduction of a new building where formally no building existed—DEO staff members reported many challenges with the facilities, and the evaluation team observed the same during their structured site observations of the four visited DEOs. Specifically, DEO staff reported, and SI staff confirmed through direct observations, that none of the new offices were completed or connected to water and electricity, hampering the DEO’s capacity to provide efficient education management services to its constituency as they could not operate their electronic office equipment. This prevented them from accessing EMIS, which limited their ability to upload new data or provide analysis of current data. It also meant that they could not use the toilet facilities provided in the building, and they had no way of ensuring health and sanitation of the staff since they could not wash their hands. Additionally, the new buildings were built to provide accommodation for 50 staff members. However, the actual number of staff in all DEOs visited was far greater than that number. On average, the DEOs housed a staff of about 60 people, suggesting an occupancy level of 120 percent. Further, DEO staff reports, implementing partner interviews, and evaluation team observations suggested that no provisions had been made to extend the buildings to accommodate these overruns—an endeavor that would be quite difficult given the design of the structures. The effect of this was that people had to share offices and desks (on average, the team found that four staff members were sharing one office at each of the sites), go on school visits not to overcrowd the premises, or take turns at using a non￾electrical office equipment. Next, according to DEO staff, the implementing partners made no provision to evaluate the state of office equipment and address any issues in that regard. While office equipment was not a specific part of the PWC activities, it would be difficult to conclude on the level of DEO management structure improvement without considering the equipment. Two of the four DEOs visited were completed and in use. The staff of these two DEOs reported that the equipment in their new offices had been transferred from an old office and was in disrepair and unusable. Staff from one of these DEO sites awaited the evaluation team with a list of equipment required to be Performance Evaluation of the Public Works Construction Project to Increase Access to Education in Ghana 10 able to do proper work. The list included desktops, a photocopier, a printer, and a scanner, among other essential office equipment. Good Sanitation and an Environmentally Friendly Environment for Pupils Environmentally Friendly Environment: This objective was achieved to some degree. From documents reviewed and the 57 sample sites visited, the evaluation team found that 93 percent of the facilities visited were completed and in use. All of the incomplete sites were FPMU sites; two of the four DEOs visited were not completed, one of the FPMU JHSs was not completed, and one of the FPMU latrines was not completed. Only four sampled FPMU sites (7 percent of FPMU sites visited) were still under construction—one was still in the very initial stages of construction, two others were about 50 percent complete, and one was 95 percent complete (one of the DEOs). Similarly, quarterly reports reviewed showed that 100 percent of AMA and TAP/Plan Ghana construction sites and furnishings were completed. The team confirmed this completion rate during their visits to two sites of each type (AMA and Plan Ghana), all of which were completed as planned. Finally, the team visited 7 of the 24 latrines in the flood-affected areas where MiDA PWC activities were implemented, and they found that the structures were 100 percent complete in terms of construction but not operating due to damages created by users in structures that were not built solid enough to stand any type of manipulation. Basically, the plastic pipes were all broken. However, and in spite of the increase in the number of facilities, people interviewed on site (parents, teachers, community leaders) reported that inadequate structures and amenities made the school environment less friendly than it could have been. Adequacy of Structures: A total of 80 percent of all informants interviewed during site visits said that the structures built were inadequate to meet the school or community’s real needs. Findings showed that with the exception of some of the JHSs, the great majority of new facilities were not adequate for use in terms of the student and staff ratio to the facility capacity level. For instance, according to a World Bank report called, “School Construction Activities for Universal Primary Education in Africa” and a similar United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) report, primary school classrooms in Africa should hold approximately 40 students. Yet, the PWC KGs visited by the team had on average 100 students per classroom. Added to this, the student-to-toilet ratio was on average 100 pupils to 1 toilet, according to data provided by head teachers. In one school, the ratio was 10 teachers to 2 toilets and about 600 students to 1 toilet for both boys and girls. The team developed a list of criteria for determining the adequacy of structures based on international best practices (see Annex 7). Finally, DEOs were too small for the number of occupants, as described above. Next, 56 of the 57 sites visited (98 percent), lacked water and electricity. In all cases, the toilet facilities were closed because of this. Nonetheless, the team was allowed into the toilet facilities, and they found that all but one of the facilities (19 out of the 20 toilets visited) smelled horribly, were not clean, and did not contain waste baskets. Only one of the schools visited had a clean toilet, and teachers and students from that school who were observed cleaning the toilet said the reason it was clean is because the DEO had called them the day before to tell them to clean it for the team’s visit. Further, the facilities were built with rough cement floors and plaster rather than tiled walls, which meant that even once water was turned on, the newly constructed facilities would quickly become unusable and a serious source of contamination for students. Performance Evaluation of the Public Works Construction Project to Increase Access to Education in Ghana 11 While the KGs, JHSs, and DEOs were nice, it is worth noting that in some cases the new facility built replaced an existing facility that could have been repaired with a fraction of the cost of the facility the PWC built. The evaluation team’s architectural expert estimates the cost to renovate the old facilities would have been roughly 25 percent of the cost to build the new facilities. Nonetheless, the “older” facilities remain unused on the site and are now considered a nuisance by many teachers on the school campus. Finally, the team found that despite the construction of two classrooms at the KGs and three classrooms and a small administrative area at the JHSs, the PWC implementers did not construct science or computer labs, libraries, or physical educations facilities, all of which are considered best practice in school construction. The implementing partners said the reason for this is that these facilities were not specifically required in their agreements with USAID. Provision of Amenities: Additionally, the FARAs and the cooperative agreement with Plan Ghana all required the provision of furniture in the buildings. In 30 out of 33 of the JHSs and KGs (90 percent) visited, furniture had been supplied for students. However, the sites varied in the quality and quantity of the student furniture received. The team found that 15 out of the 33 JHSs and KGs sampled (45 percent) received adequate furniture for students; 15 out of 33 schools (45 percent) had some furniture, but it was inadequate; and 3 out of the 33 (9 percent) had not yet received furniture at all. Additionally, only 6 out of 33 sampled schools (18 percent) had received any furniture for teachers. However, AMA provided furniture for teachers in all the schools they built (see Annex 6 for more details) Good sanitation environment provided, especially for girls: With few exceptions, site visit observations revealed that schools and DEO compounds were clean (without trash on the compound). However, as described above, the restrooms were not properly maintained—all exhibited a pungent smell and had very poor ventilation. Urinals did not have proper rinsing of the wall and floors. Toilet paper holders or waste baskets with a lid were not provided. The hand washing facilities were already broken or unusable. None of the toilets visited was equipped for students or teachers with disabilities, in clear violation of Ghana law. In all but two schools (90 percent or 18 out of 20), there were no waste bins, soap or water for use after using the restroom. Toilets were not gender-segregated and both boys and girls shared the same waiting area. Girls who participated in FGDs complained of not having necessary elements such as bins to dispose of their sanitary napkins, towels, and other menstrual items. They said that, as such, they often resorted to throwing their feminine products out on the ground outside of the latrines in plastic bags, which contributed to the contamination of the school site. All the girls interviewed at the various schools (an average of eight girls per site) expressed their discomfort in sharing a common waiting space with boys and teachers. Girls reported being picked on, bullied, and harassed by boys while waiting in line. In addition to that, the girls participating in the FDGs reported, and the evaluation team observed that, in many cases, toilets were not clearly marked (boys or girls); so, boys had the tendency to use both toilets. The design of both boys and girls toilets were the same, and girls expressed that they did not find conditions adapted to their specific needs, including things such as the provision of water and waste bins. Performance Evaluation of the Public Works Construction Project to Increase Access to Education in Ghana 12 EVALUATION QUESTION 2: HOW WERE GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS AND LOCAL BENEFICIARIES INVOLVED IN THE ONGOING OWNERSHIP AND MAINTENANCE OF THE CONSTRUCTION FACILITIES? Needs Assessment Participation In 48 out of 50 group discussions5 (96 percent) conducted, teachers and community members indicated that community members were not aware of whether USAID or the implementing partners had performed a needs assessment prior to PWC activities beginning. Furthermore, respondents in only 4 out of the 50 sites (8 percent) indicated that the community had some level of involvement in the needs assessment. Community members explained that the “needs assessment” consisted of a meeting conducted by the designated contractor with the goal of communicating to the community what was going to be built. In 49 out of the 50 sites (98 percent), respondents noted that community members were not involved in deciding what type of structure would be built. According to community members and head teachers interviewed, some head teachers played a small role in determining what the schools’ needs were through an annual MoE school census. However, the evaluation team could not determine a single case where the needs identified in the annual school census matched what a site or community received through PWC activities. As such, even though the structures constructed responded to some needs, community members interviewed said that they had other preferred needs that were not taken into account. For example, a community would have preferred that an existing school be refurbished, but instead was given a toilet block. Other preferred needs cited included housing for teachers and expanding the current schools for labs, an information and communications technology (ICT) lab, and other educational facilities. Ownership During and After the Construction of Facilities In general, community members interviewed through group discussions expressed that the community had some participation in the implementation process. Community members said that in some cases they provided food and/or lodging for construction workers, security for the storage of building materials, and/or some labor. However, beneficiaries were not aware of any information flow between community members, the DEOs, and various stakeholders, which hampered community involvement and the feeling of ownership in PWC activities. Although this limited community engagement is promising, the evaluation team could not find evidence of a planned community engagement strategy, as three out of the four implementing partners did not do anything to specifically try to engage communities. The exception is Plan Ghana, which was contractually obligated to conduct a community sensitization and training of PTAs/SMCs, which they did successfully. Beneficiaries from all other sites expressed during group discussions that they had only received information from contractors about the PWC activities when the construction was about to take place—so, there were limited possibilities for their involvement. In fact, one local chief said he was so surprised when a contractor began to build on his land without his consent that he thought he had to physically defend himself against the contractor. As such, in general, participation largely emerged as a show of the community’s appreciation for what was 5 The evaluation team was unable to arrange group discussion with stakeholders at the 7 MiDA sites, bringing the total number of responses to 50. Performance Evaluation of the Public Works Construction Project to Increase Access to Education in Ghana 13 given to them, instead of as a result of an empowerment and buy-in process, which might have created a sense ownership over the facilities built. Ownership in the Maintenance Process In addition to their limited involvement during the implementation process, community members also said they were not engaged in the maintenance process for the new facilities. None of the participants from the group discussions were able to articulate a clear maintenance strategy for the new PWC facilities, although parents interviewed expressed that they believed that head teachers would alert community leaders about any maintenance issues in order to communicate these issues to their District Assembly (the local planning and implementing institution created by the Decentralization Law). Head teachers confirmed that this was the case. Some respondents also knew that schools could use funds from capitation grants to fix minor damages. This process follows the school maintenance process that existed prior to PWC implementation. According to the National GES office budget, GES has allotted $80,000/year for maintenance under capitation grants prior to 2013, which comes to approximately $4/year per school. However, head teachers interviewed reported that capacitation grants have not come since 2013. Furthermore, major repairs remain the responsibility of District Assemblies with support from communities, according to USAID. Given that each of the implementing partner agreements included provisions for maintenance plans, evidence suggests that these provisions were largely not met. In a few rare cases, a handful of concerned parents who participated in group discussions said they had engaged in minor maintenance activities, such a cleaning occasionally or making small repairs to the facility without getting paid and on their own accord (not in line with any over-arching maintenance plan). While most communities were not engaged in maintenance activities and did not have guidelines to develop a sense of ownership to ensure maintenance, the evaluation team found that communities surrounding PWC sites constructed by Plan Ghana were more likely to be engaged than were communities surrounding PWC sites developed by other implementing partners. The TAP communities expressed that this was due to the fact that Plan Ghana led the community sensitization and training of PTAs/SMCs in order to engage and capacitate communities to play a key role in education improvement in their area. According to GES high ranking officers, government institutions such as the DEOs, the GES, and the District Assemblies do not have a clear strategy to address maintenance of their facilities. USAID officials reported that they have developed or are developing maintenance agreements for each of the implementing partners and the MoE in the immediate future. In cases where such agreements had already been made at report writing in March 2015, results from these new plans were not provided to the team for analysis. EVALUATION QUESTION 3: HOW DO TARGET BENEFICIARIES PERCEIVE THE PWC ACTIVITIES? Beneficiary Satisfaction The team assessed target beneficiary perceptions of the PWC project via group discussions with community members and teachers, group discussions with DEO staff, and FGDs with students. Overall, the team found that all beneficiaries interviewed felt the PWC project was an improvement over the previous situation, particularly in areas where pupils had to walk long Performance Evaluation of the Public Works Construction Project to Increase Access to Education in Ghana 14 distances in order to get to school. In one case, the head teacher, PTA, and school patron of a school the team visited in the Volta Region were very pleased with the new KG block, which was an immense improvement from the thatched shelter where the children used to have KG classes. The new KG was visible from the road, and the head teacher said that passers-by have noticed it and brought their children to be enrolled. In this case, the enrollment tripled from about 12 to 36 (a 200 percent increase), according to teacher enrollment records. In another example, a mayor expressed that the USAID-funded schools help him to abolish the shift system in his area. In other instances, communities were less satisfied with different aspects of the construction. One common complaint by community members interviewed was that the new PWC structures were too small to accommodate current students and staff. For example, head teachers and community members from the 20 KGs the team visited said the buildings were designed too small for the existing enrollment pressures in the communities. The exception to this finding was the new JHS blocks that were built to replace old ones, while maintaining the same number of students. Similarly, all DEO staff interviewed were concerned that the new DEO buildings were not big enough to accommodate the required number of DEO staff. Another source of dissatisfaction in most schools was the fact that the facilities provided under PWC did not meet with the needs of the schools, as described above. Some head teachers said that the lack of teacher’s desks and furniture for the head teachers’ offices was a serious issue. Other head teachers said that while it was nice to have three new JHS classrooms, there were other existing classrooms in the beneficiary schools that were in serious disrepair, with problems ranging from holes in the roof to missing doors. The head teachers said that they were frustrated that their schools’ needs had not been evaluated holistically and addressed in an appropriate manner. One said that it was like having a beaten-up old car: “One day someone comes to repaint it, install new seats and tires but neglects the faulty brakes, the oil leaks, and engine problems.” With regards to toilets, student FGD participants from all latrine sites visited expressed their dissatisfaction with the fact that urinals were difficult to use, toilet blocks were not gender sensitive, and there was normally no running water. Also as described above, while some head teachers reported that they requested classrooms for KGs or JHSs, most had identified teacher housing, equipped ICT labs, library books and text books to be higher priorities rather than toilets. The request for teachers and teacher’s housing was especially true of schools the team visited in isolated communities where it is harder to attract teachers. In one case, the head teacher at a school in an isolated community in Volta region that was receiving a KVIP said that he never found out why his school was not informed about the DEO decision to install the KVIP despite the community’s requests for teacher’s housing. The toilet in his school is still under construction. With the exception of the recipients of the latrine sites, all beneficiaries interviewed expressed overall satisfaction with the PWC activities even if the structure received did not always meet their full expectations. As one respondent expressed, “We are happy with the facility and we believe there will be more to come in the near future.” The vast majority of respondents asked the evaluation team whether PWC construction would continue, saying they were hopeful that something else would be built in their community more in line with their priorities. Performance Evaluation of the Public Works Construction Project to Increase Access to Education in Ghana 15 EVALUATION QUESTION 4: HOW EFFECTIVE WERE THE IMPLEMENTING MECHANISMS, SUPERVISION PROCESSES AND QUALITY CONTROL ACTIVITIES FOR ACHIEVING THE EXPECTED RESULTS IN A TIMELY AND COST-EFFECTIVE MANNER? Implementing Mechanisms with Implementing Partners The PWC activities were implemented through the collaboration of four implementing partners with varying scopes of work, geographical coverage, and contracting mechanisms. FPMU, AMA, and MiDA all had FARAs, whereas Plan Ghana had a cooperative agreement. According to a presentation given by a United States’ government contracts expert to staff at the Regional Development Mission in Asia (RDMA), the following are requirements of the FARA, among other things:  Length and Complexity of Project: Because of financial burden that the use of reimbursement financing places on the host government, FARAs are best for low-cost, short-term projects that are divisible into elements or units small enough to be completed within 9 to 12 months or less before receiving reimbursement from USAID.  Reimbursement for Self-Sustaining Units: Elements or units must be self-sustaining, useful, cost-effective, and desirable in their own right, regardless of whether other elements or units are completed – e.g. buildings or facilities of uniform size or capacity utilizing standard plans and specifications for design and implementation, such as a series of 100 similar or identical three-room school buildings. FARAs should not be used for large or complex activities with discrete elements or units that are dependent on the completion of other elements or units in order to be self-sustaining, useful, and cost-effective.  Definable Criteria for Completion: USAID and the host country government must be able to agree, at the outset, on criteria to be used to determine achievement of the end product (and any intervening benchmarks on which USAID will base disbursements).  Mission Resources: USAID Mission must also have available to it the necessary expertise, through its own or regional USAID staff or through contract, to ensure periodic inspections of the activity and to certify that elements or units to be reimbursed have been completed in accordance with agreed-to plans and specifications – for FARA arrangements involving construction or renovation of physical facilities, Mission must have available to it engineers with expertise to estimate the cost of the activity, to evaluate the progress of construction, and to concur in satisfactory completion of the end product.  Benchmarks and Indicators: Benchmarks must be narrow enough that they are readily and objectively verifiable. However, the evaluation team’s review of these agreements revealed that they did not specify the kind and quality of the end products that USAID expected. Also, there was no clear indication that the PWC activities were meant to increase access to education and enrollment. As such, no criteria or benchmarks were created to measure these “key activity outcomes.” See Annex 8 for a complete analysis of these agreements. Furthermore, in meetings with both the GoG and USAID, the evaluation team learned that USAID and the implementing partners had not agreed on clearly defined criteria for completion of the construction sites, nor did USAID produce a detailed project plan necessary for supervision and quality control independently of the contracting mechanism used to secure their participation. The lack of clear criteria for completion meant that it was impossible to hold implementers accountable for the key intended project outcomes of increased Performance Evaluation of the Public Works Construction Project to Increase Access to Education in Ghana 16 access and enrollment. The complexity of this project and the assumption that the new buildings would lead to increased access and education was a bit of a stretch for a FARA mechanism, according to the above criteria, and that may have been the reason USAID did not include these outcomes in the FARAs. However, this effectively prevented proper targeting of facilities and tracking to achieve these outcomes. Despite these challenges, USAID did complete periodic inspections of PWC activities (through FAS Consult Limited), as required according to the above. However, given the lack of clear criteria for deliverables, FAS Consult did not have much to compare construction quality against. Next, high ranking stakeholders also said that USAID failed to clearly define expectations for the quality, cost, and timing of PWC activities. According to interviews with implementing partners’ staff, the partners worked independently without a formal process of collaboration or exchange of information that could have benefited each of them, as well as the project as a whole. As such, there is evidence that USAID and GoG could have done more to adjust their administrative and technical structures to provide better oversight of the project. The evaluation team observed that USAID’s cooperative agreement with Plan Ghana, on the other hand, included several key deliverables and benchmarks, which, theoretically, would have made it easier for USAID to hold Plan Ghana accountable. However, the clearer expectations under the cooperative agreement were not due to the type of procurement mechanism but simply due to the way the agreements were written. Moreover, even though it was a requirement under both the FARAs and cooperative agreements, USAID reported that Plan Ghana was the only implementing partner that successfully presented a performance management plan (PMP) due to it being under contract or agreement with USAID to carry out a larger series of educational development projects, not just construction. The lack of PMPs for the other implementing partners meant that USAID did not have the tools it needed to be able to effectively monitor activity benchmarks, milestones, and performance. Despite the fact that Plan Ghana submitted a PMP, they did not meet their targets for most of the PWC indicators, and because they were contracted through a cooperative agreement rather than a contract, USAID was unable to hold them accountable for these outcomes. Capacity of Implementing Partners and Quality Control Mechanisms Another requirement of the FARAs according to the same RDMA presentation discussed above, is that they have the capacity to receive a FARA—in terms of both the technical expertise and the financial capabilities. As such, prior to accepting FPMU and AMA as implementing partners, USAID commissioned Price Waterhouse Cooper to assess the capacity of these organizations to receive a FARA. The Price Waterhouse report concluded that the procurement processes of FPMU and AMA were acceptable based on previous successful projects they had carried out. However, the Price Waterhouse report did not make any assessment of the planning, design, or other technical capabilities of FPMU or AMA. Despite this quality control mechanism, the team found during site visits that the readiness of these organizations in term of procurement to receive funds through a FARA did not translate into quality implementation, as many of the buildings the team observed presented evidence of decay (see Annex 9). To the knowledge of the evaluation team, there was no prior assessment of the capacity of MiDA or Plan Ghana. Performance Evaluation of the Public Works Construction Project to Increase Access to Education in Ghana 17 The evaluation team found evidence that implementing partners engaged in quality control procedures in order to accomplish the project objective. For example, FPMU did not have the authority to change the MoE project designs, thus limiting its role to overseeing and coordinating the construction done by private construction companies. In response, FPMU created a construction supervision strategy whereby Clerk of Works were charged with supervising 2-3 construction sites at the time. AMA also obtained acceptable construction results, although the evaluation team was not able to obtain any information on the processes followed by this organization. In comparing background documents to the structures at the sites visited, the evaluation team observed that important issues contained in the agreements (i.e. “All the schools, toilets, and DEO buildings financed by USAID will be constructed to a safe standard following the Ghana Building Code, Ghana Standards, and the Uniform Building Code of 1997, or the International Building Code—IBC—2006 or 2009” and “Standards for educational infrastructure planning, design, construction and operation shall include: 1—verification of environmentally appropriate site selection; 2—verification of basic good environmental management practices for construction; 3—provision of adequate potable water; 4—provision of adequate sanitation, including hand￾washing facilities; and 5—provision of suitable facilities for solid waste management.”), were not reflected on the ground in terms of construction quality (see Annex 9). Once the technical team of USAID started noticing the first problems concerning quality, USAID requested and FPMU subsequently developed a Quality Control Plan. This document is a very comprehensive description of “what should be done” to ensure quality of construction. Unfortunately, resources were not allocated for its implementation, and neither the construction companies nor the Clerks of Work were trained to use it in their daily activities. Project Timeliness The team’s review of background documents, and subsequent interview with implementing partners, show that many of the PWC activities were not completed in the planned timeframe. The last available FAS Consult report (Oct 2014) reviewing the PWC activities indicated that 86 structures had been handed over to the District Assemblies and were in use at the time of report finalization. Some had been supplied with furniture and others are yet to be supplied. It also indicated that 20 structures were substantially completed but had remedial work to be done on them. Additionally, it reported that 51 structures were yet to be completed, out of which 11 had been abandoned for the two months prior to the report; no progress was noted on 4 structures, and 24 structures were reported to have experienced slow progress. Finally, two toilet blocks in the Northern Region had not been started. Although MiDA successfully completed its structures within a month of its planned completion date, both FPMU and AMA received FARA extensions due to challenges which delayed implementation. A large challenge for FPMU was the coordination and supervision of 63 construction companies that started working in several sites around the same time. After a while, each project started having its own timing depending on its size, location, and the performance of the construction company. Originally, construction schedule for all construction companies ranged between 28 to 40 weeks. Almost all construction projects were scheduled to start in June of 2012, Performance Evaluation of the Public Works Construction Project to Increase Access to Education in Ghana 18 which would have meant that they should have wrapped up by the end of 2012. However, as of January 2015, out of 156 projects started by FPMU, only 109 had been completed and handed over; 22 received practical completion but had not yet been handed over, and 25 were due to be completed between January and February of 2015, suggesting that at least 30 percent of all FPMU sites were completed late. Funding delays also impacted implementation timeliness. The FARAs call for regular monthly advances of money from USAID to the implementing partners. However, documents reviewed, such as quarterly reports, with regards to FPMU finances showed that the monthly advances were regular at the beginning of the construction process, but eventually these advances became erratic. As such, according to a FARA modification, in May of 2013, USAID eventually changed their strategy and decided to pay against evidence of work completed. FPMU staff reported that this new payment method proved very burdensome to them, as it required that they consolidate requests for payment from more than 60 construction contractors before submitting a reimbursement request for funds to USAID. Payments were a combination of advances and reimbursements with average turnaround times of 60 days or longer. FPMU staff reported that these lags in funding were difficult for them, as they did not have excess government funds to spend to continue project activities during these delays. As a result, FPMU staff said that sometimes small construction companies had to pull their staff from construction sites during funding delays, which meant that job sites were abandoned and construction was not completed in a timely manner. Beyond delays created as a result of funding, the evaluation team’s discussions with some of the contractors disclosed that bad weather conditions delayed implementation by making roads inaccessible for parts of the year. Another factor mentioned by contractors was the unavailability of certain construction components in rural and isolated communities. These arguments are only partially valid since with adequate construction and resource planning, these constraints could have been foreseen and handled more efficiently. Project Cost-Effectiveness Based on a review of background documents and observations of the PWC activities in the field, the evaluation team found that the FARA implementing mechanisms, supervision and quality control strategies did not ensure cost-effectiveness. For instance, as described above, cost savings would have been possible if existing buildings had been renovated rather than constructing new buildings. Next, one of the benefits of the FARAs is that they eliminate the need for implementing partners to seek out three quotes for development activities (according to the RDMA FARA presentation). This means that costs for the same activity and same quality can vary quite widely. For instance, the four-seat toilet blocks built by MiDA in the Northern regions cost approximately $13,400 each, (compared to the $20,000 spent by FPMU on similar toilet blocks) even though both were built by the same construction company with a sole source contracting modality. This price variance could have been eliminated had USAID ensured its independent government cost estimate was conservative (in line with competitive ranges) and limited the FARA amount to the amount identified through this assessment (USAID did limit the FARAs; however, the amounts allowed for the type of differences shown above). According to the RDMA presentation, FARAs allow for such limits, with excess costs being the responsibility of the implementing partner. The cooperative agreement with Plan Ghana, however, required competitive cost comparisons. Performance Evaluation of the Public Works Construction Project to Increase Access to Education in Ghana 19 V. CONCLUSIONS EVALUATION QUESTION 1: TO WHAT EXTENT DID THE FOUR PWC ACTIVITIES ACHIEVE THE PROJECT PURPOSE, OUTCOMES, AND EXPECTED OUTPUTS?  The construction of KGs coincided with increased student enrollment, and is likely to have contributed to increased access to education amongst children. However, there is no evidence that PWC construction of JHS, DEOs, or latrines helped to increase access to education. Also, at least for KGs, more capacity is needed to address access needs.  Although it was impossible to attribute enrollment outcomes to PWC activities, the construction of KGs and JHSs appear to have increased enrollment in Ghanaian education facilities. KGs increased overall enrollment, whereas JHSs increased enrollment just in the new JHS facilities (likely reducing enrollment in other JHS facilities). Again, DEOs and latrines did not appear to have any effect on the enrollment or retention of students.  The creation of new DEOs improved the availability of basic education management infrastructure, as it meant more district-level education workers were available nearby to assist the schools in administrative tasks. However, the work of DEO officials was constrained by overcrowded facilities, lack of electricity and office equipment, and overall, lack of completion (in a few cases).  The objective of creating an environmentally friendly atmosphere for learning, especially for girls, was somewhat achieved, although locked toilet facilities, lack of running water and sanitary facilities, and no clear segregation of toilets for girls and boys remained barriers for proper use. PWC activities were successful in completing most of the planned construction, although issues remain with the capacity and sustainability of the structures. EVALUATION QUESTION 2: HOW WERE GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS AND LOCAL BENEFICIARIES INVOLVED IN THE ONGOING OWNERSHIP AND MAINTENANCE OF THE CONSTRUCTION FACILITIES?  Government and community officials’ feeling of ownership over and involvement in the maintenance of newly constructed facilities was limited.  Government officials were incorporated to some degree through the District Assembly’s list of facilities to address in their maintenance plan. However, no additional budget was generated to facilitate maintenance.  Local beneficiaries of FPMU, AMA, and MiDA activities were only involved in the PWC process during the time of construction, at which time they provided food, shelter, labor, and security for building materials. With a few rare exceptions, they were not involved in the maintenance of school facilities, and even when they were, there was no plan to ensure their involvement.  Plan Ghana’s construction of seven JHS facilities were an exception to this rule, as the organization facilitated community ownership over these facilities. Performance Evaluation of the Public Works Construction Project to Increase Access to Education in Ghana 20 EVALUATION QUESTION 3: HOW DO TARGET BENEFICIARIES PERCEIVE THE PWC ACTIVITIES?  Although communities had a favorable perception of the fact that an education facility (JHS, KGs, and toilet blocks) had been provided to them, when probed about how much these addressed their needs, many stakeholders voiced concerns about the structures, such as that KGs were not big enough to absorb current demand, and toilet blocks were not practical for use by male and female students.  Only the construction of JHS buildings was unequivocally approved.  All DEO personnel interviewed were happy that new facilities were created. However, they complained about the lack of power, water, and better equipment, saying they could be much more efficient if they had these things. EVALUATION QUESTION 4: HOW EFFECTIVE WERE THE IMPLEMENTING MECHANISMS, SUPERVISION PROCESSES, AND QUALITY CONTROL ACTIVITIES FOR ACHIEVING THE EXPECTED RESULTS IN A TIMELY AND COST-EFFECTIVE MANNER?  There is not sufficient evidence on the implementing mechanisms to confidently conclude that the mechanisms themselves were effective or not effective.  That said, the lack of specificity in the FARAs made it very difficult for USAID to hold the government implementing partners accountable for desired outcomes. Part of this was that the main intended outcomes of the PWC activities—increased access and enrollment in schools—were not even included as outcomes in the FARAs and were likely a bit complicated for enforcing under a FARA mechanism.  Next, due to this lack of specificity, USAID was somewhat handicapped in ensuring quality control and effective supervision.  As such, timelines for the PWC activities were all increased.  The FARA procurement mechanism did not help to ensure cost-effective implementation, and while it was impossible to compare costs between Plana Ghana and the FARA implementing partners, it is likely that the cooperative agreement would perform better in this category given that it still requires partners to get competitive quotes.  The implementing mechanisms, supervision processes, and quality control activities were not effective enough to ensure project outcomes in a timely and cost-effectiveness manner, as the bulk of the PWC activities were not completed on time or provided conclusive evidence of a structurally sustainable, friendly, and effective learning environment for the money spent.  The use for FARAs as a G2G mechanism used has the potential for enormous impact on education. However, imprecise definitions on the “rules of engagement” in the PWC implementer FARA hindered project planning, supervision, and quality control. Many of the parties involved did not follow through with oversight mechanisms such as PMPs and Quality Control Plans. However, implementers such as FPMU did put into place supervision strategies which were commendable. Implementers and contractors cited financial management issues, bad weather, and material unavailability as challenges to timely implementation. Performance Evaluation of the Public Works Construction Project to Increase Access to Education in Ghana 21 VI. LESSONS LEARNED Contracting Mechanism While both FARA mechanism could work well for procuring the construction of new school facilities, contracts would likely work better. Also, the FARAs for PWC activities did not include detailed criteria for ensuring completion of activities, nor did they include requirements that the implementing partners achieve key project outcomes. While the Plan Ghana cooperative agreement performed somewhat better for ensuring PWC outcomes, it lacks the teeth of a contract, and, thus, limits USAID’s ability to hold the implementing partner accountable for key outcomes. Development Hypothesis Needs to be Tested Due to all the complications in the timely completion of construction of PWC sites and the interacting effects introduced by the MoE’s new KG policy, this evaluation really did not work to test the development hypothesis that building new educational structures in Ghana would lead to increased access and enrollment. And, given the evidence in this report that access and absolute enrollment really did not increase that much (in isolation of the KG policy), the hypothesis may be faulty. As such, it would be wise for USAID to test this hypothesis through a future impact evaluation or a meta-analysis of other school construction projects throughout Sub-Saharan Africa. Needs Assessment It is imperative that future PWC projects are conducted based on current community level needs assessments in deciding exactly what to build. Needs assessments should be conducted just a few months before construction as part of the planning stage. Additionally, the needs assessment should be site-specific and comprehensive. In effect this would have high impact on the beneficiaries and increase the likelihood of beneficiaries achieving the project purpose. Community Participation and Engagement The PWC activities could have benefited from more community participation and engagement, especially concerning the maintenance of facilities. Plan Ghana’s community sensitization activities offer valuable insight into how these activities might work well with PTAs and SMCs. For the other sites, the absence of community participation and engagement led to a lack of ownership of the PWC project because communities were not engaged in the process and did not feel empowered to own the facilities. Maintenance Necessary guidelines, facility operation criteria, and management process should be given to beneficiaries and key users of the facilities to empowerment them to contribute to facility maintenance. Additionally, areas with scarcity of water problems should not be given facilities that demand high use of water particularly toilet blocks. Such facilities become unusable after just a short period of time. Communities and local government entities also need access to funds to pay for routine and preventative maintenance. Performance Evaluation of the Public Works Construction Project to Increase Access to Education in Ghana 22 VII. RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the observations and conclusions of the implementation process, the evaluation team recommends the following for future projects: 1. USAID should work to test its development hypothesis through an impact evaluation of its next school construction project or a meta-analysis of other school construction projects in Sub-Saharan Africa. It could be that USAID is missing a step in its results’ framework that is preventing it from reaching its intended goals of increased access and enrollment, and before the Mission spends too much more money on such activities, it should feel confident in this hypothesis. 2. Prior to rolling out future educational construction activities, USAID and MoE should agree upon a more holistic approach for school construction, with clear standards and guidelines to be followed in deciding on what to do and where, preparing site plans and floor plans, and selecting construction materials and techniques. These planning and design processes have to be in constant evolution, learning from projects done in the past as well as from international best practices. 3. USAID should seek to determine if contracts may be appropriate for constructing educational facilities in the future to ensure both that costs are efficient (through the requirement for three price quotes) and that deliverable timelines and indicator targets are met. Or, should it wish to continue working with the GoG to ensure their buy-in, they should ensure the FARAs contain more detailed, concrete deliverables and criteria for meeting those deliverables. They can also limit the price USAID is willing to pay for a particular deliverable in line with competitive ranges, and if the GoG spends more than that, they would not be required to cover it. 4. For future projects and/or project renovations, USAID should require implementing partners complete thorough technical, administrative, and financial qualification assessments of construction companies before contracting with them to ensure that they complete the task done in line with Ghanaian law, international building codes, and project specifications. An effective system of periodic site visits and reports should be implemented as well. 5. USAID should ensure that future school construction contracts or agreements include a participatory sensitization process and a deliverable for a plan for meaningful involvement of community leaders in choosing what should be built and where it should be located. 6. Prior to building new facilities in the future, USAID should contract for an assessment of existing educational facilities to determine whether it may be more cost-effective to renovate and/or repair existing facilities rather than building new structures and abandoning existing ones. 7. USAID should issue a contract or agreement to ensure architectural defects identified in this evaluation and the FAS consult reports are fixed immediately to prevent further damage and ensure sustainability of PWC buildings. The evaluation team recommends that all sites should be re-visited and construction/repairs completed, including by ensuring the connection of water and electricity. 8. USAID should require that future implementing partners ensure toilet projects are gender sensitive and fully equipped to meet the safety and hygiene needs of users. Annex 1: Evaluation Statement of Work SECTION C – DESCRIPTION / SPECIFICATIONS/STATEMENT OF WORK C.1 BACKGROUND/PURPOSE The purpose of this Task Order is to acquire the services of a contractor to conduct a performance evaluation of a set of Public Works Construction (PWC) activities in USAID/Ghana’s Education Office which were implemented between 2010 and 2014 through different procurement modalities with a total estimated cost of $22.8 million. In total, the PWC activities aim to construct and equip schools, toilets and District Education Offices (DEO) in all ten regions of Ghana. Over the past decade, Ghana has made great strides to increase school enrollment. Since the 2003/2004 school year, enrollment in kindergarten has more than doubled, from 637,115 children to 1,440,732, which has sent a wave of increasing class sizes throughout the education system. Over the same period, enrollment in junior high school increased by 41% and is expected to continue increasing. The rapid gains in enrollment have led to severe overcrowding in the existing schools. There are now approximately 4,000 schools which operate “under trees” due to lack of available school buildings. The Government of Ghana (GOG) recently increased the number of local districts from 170 to 216 to strengthen decentralization. Many of the newly created districts are in highly populated areas that lack adequate services and have limited existing office space. C.2 OBJECTIVES The PWC evaluation encompasses four activities that will be evaluated under the Task Order as summarized below: a. The construction, furnishing and maintenance of 159 educational structures through a Modified Fixed Amount Reimbursement Agreement (FARA) with the Funds Procurement Management Unit (FPMU) within the Ministry of Education (MOE); b. The construction, furnishing and maintenance of four public schools through a FARA with Accra Metropolitan Assembly (AMA); c. The construction of 24 toilets in flood-affected areas in Northern Region through a FARA with Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning (MOFEP), in collaboration with the Millennium Development Authority (MiDA); and d. The construction of seven Junior High Schools (JHS) under the Transition and Assistance Program (TAP), which was implemented through a Cooperative Agreement with Plan Ghana. C.3 STATEMENT OF WORK a. Basic Project Data The PWC project comprises four activities, three of which were implemented through FARAs and one which was implemented using a Cooperative Agreement. Overall, the FPMU activity accounts for 82 percent of the structures built, while MiDA, TAP and AMA account for 12 percent, 4 percent and 2 percent respectively. The basic project data of each of the activities is outlined below. FPMU AMA MiDA TAP Agreement Type Modified FARA Modified FARA Modified FARA Cooperative Agreement Project Title The Construction Equipping of Schools, Toilets and District Education Offices and for Conducting Substantial Completion Inspection of School Facilities Constructed through the USAID Transition and Assistance Program (TAP) The Construction and Equipping of Schools Design-build Sanitation Facilities and other Minor Works – Phase IB Transition and Assistance Program Project Number FY11-641-IL-008- FY11-641-SOIL- FY12-641-IL-008- 641-A-00-10- 009 008-009 011 00026-00 Project Dates February 10, 2011 - March 24, 2011 – October 16, 2012 – July 1, 2010 – February 9, 2013 October 8, 2012 April 30, 2013 August 31, 2013 (Extended to (Extended to March (Extended to (Extended to February 9, 2014 & 8, 2013, November 30, 2013 November 30, re-extended to re-extended to & re-extended to 2013) February 9, 2015) December 31, 2013 December 31, & re-extended to 2013) September 30, 2015) Project Funding USD 19,671,000 USD 2,300,000 USD 330,569 USD 9,619,200 Implementing Organization Funds Procurement and Management Unit, Ministry of Education Accra Metropolitan Assembly Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning Plan Ghana Contracting Officer’s Representative Nana Osei Akumia Jnr. Nana Osei Akumia Jnr. Nana Osei Akumia Jnr. Nana Osei Akumia Jnr. b. Project Intent The overarching purpose of the PWC project is to increase access to basic education in Ghana. The construction activities are based on the development hypothesis: If school buildings and other support facilities are constructed and maintained, then more students will gain access to basic education. The expected outcomes of the collective efforts were:  Access to basic education increased  Enrollment in basic education increased  Availability of basic education management infrastructure improved  Good sanitation and environmentally friendly environment provided for pupils, especially girls The table below outlines the expected outputs for each of the activities under the PWC project. Activity Expected Outputs FPMU 1. One hundred and fifty-nine educational structures (50 new kindergartens, 49 new junior high schools (JHS), 45 toilet facilities to serve school compounds, and 15 new DEO facilities) designed, constructed, furnished and maintained for 4,000 school children and 500 DEO staff across all ten regions of Ghana. 2. Final inspections and Certificate of Completion produced for seven schools and 13 ICT centers constructed under the TAP program. AMA 3. Four three-story, 18-classroom public schools for 3,000 school children constructed, furnished, inspected and on a schedule of regular maintenance 4. Digitalized records within AMA that comply with audit recommendations by PriceWaterHouse Coopers. MiDA 5. Twenty-four toilet blocks constructed in schools in flood-affected areas of the Northern Intervention Zone for 8,066 pupils, particularly girls. TAP 6. Seven new and fully-furnished Junior High Schools completed with disability ramps, girl￾friendly latrines, hand washing facilities, electricity and water, catering to 840 pupils. 7. Major repairs to 19 Junior High Schools completed using construction contractors, and minor repairs to 130 sites completed using community micro-grants. (Note that Output 7 will not be included in this evaluation). Initially developed under USAID/Ghana’s Strategic Objective 8: Improved Quality of, and Access to, Basic Education, the construction activities are a complement to the new Development Objective 4: Improved Reading Performance in Primary School, under USAID/Ghana’s Country Development Cooperation Strategy (CDCS) 2013-2017. Given that the implementing mechanisms included direct government to government funding, these activities link directly with USAID Forward objectives to strengthen partner country capacity and work through partner country systems. The activities support the achievement of the goals and objectives in the Ghana Education Sector Plan 2010-2020, particularly the following: make available public and private child-friendly basic education for all through the District Assemblies, the private sector, community-based organizations, non￾governmental organizations and faith-based organizations (Basic Education Goal 1); ensure equal basic education opportunities for all (Basic Education Goal 4); and ensure that all basic education schools meet national norms in health, sanitation and safety (Basic Education Goal 6). c. Project Approach and Implementation 1. FPMU The FPMU activity, signed in February 2011, was to be completed within 24 months. However, due to the late commencement of actual construction activities, the project deadline was extended to February 9, 2014 and then further extended to February 9, 2015. The postponement of construction resulted from: delays in allocating funding to environmental and technical site inspections, which had to be completed before finalizing the construction plans and designs; delayed submittal of disbursement vouchers to USAID; and delayed disbursement of monies by USAID. In response, USAID and MOE agreed to modify payment and financial reporting arrangements to enhance the timeliness of reimbursements to all contractors. In April 2012, FPMU procured the services of 63 contractors who began construction one month later. Before starting construction, FPMU created environmental mitigation and management plans, conducted site-specific geotechnical and geomatic surveys, and developed construction designs for the 159 sites. They gave all of these documents to the contractors to undertake the work. FPMU now manages and oversees the construction activities, and ensures accordance with British and Ghana Building Codes. To undertake the construction of kindergartens and JHS, MOE selected existing primary school compounds to assist with the provision of the complete range of basic education schooling – kindergarten, primary and JHS. MOE selected districts to receive new school buildings, furniture and toilets, based on demonstrated need for additional classrooms and evidence of good school governance. Specific criteria for selecting districts included: 1) Worse than average shortage of space for incoming students; 2) Worse than average ratio of primary to junior high schools; 3) Better than average primary completion rates, and 4) Better than average district-wide scores on student achievement tests. Specific school sites within these districts were selected by MOE and GES according to their demonstrated need for increased class space to accommodate the rising student population. The FPMU activity also supported construction and furnishing of DEO facilities in selected newly￾created districts to help the MOE and GES deliver needed education management services to these areas. MOE and GES selected specific sites for the DEO facilities based on the lack of adequate existing office space. Further, MOE and FPMU coordinated with Plan Ghana to conduct completion inspections of 39 JHS (including seven newly constructed schools, 19 schools with major rehabilitation and 13 schools with significant rehabilitation) and 20 library/ICT facilities constructed and/or rehabilitated under the USAID￾funded TAP project. TAP, a $10.5 million project implemented by Plan Ghana that ended in August 2013, aimed to expand and improve available spaces for JHS pupils and reduce barriers to JHS enrollment for pupils and their families. USAID/Ghana provided financial management and environmental compliance training to FPMU to manage resources efficiently and help construct quality schools and DEOs in a timely manner. In September 2013, USAID contracted a local engineering firm, FAS Consult Limited, for a period of eight months to provide inspection, monitoring, building certification, and capacity building services to support PWC activities. In April 2014, their contract was extended to December 31, 2014 in order to allow FAS Consult Limited to complete all inspections. With regards to maintenance, MOE signed a letter confirming their capacity to undertake ongoing maintenance of the school facilities. Current status: In their progress presentation to USAID in May 2014, FAS Consult Limited found that 83 of the 159 structures had been substantially completed. They defined “substantially completed” as a structure that was constructed but still required small-scale refinements and repairs, such as replacement of warped timber, painting or repainting of walls, and securing chalk boards to walls. Seventy-one (71) structures were still undergoing construction, and five (5) had not commenced construction. FPMU’s quarterly report for March 2014 found that 94 structures had reached “practical completion”, which defined a structure as complete if it was standing but still had some defects. The difference in numbers of FAS Consult’s “substantial” and FPMU’s “practical” completion resulted from slightly different thresholds in defining minor and major defects. It is anticipated that all structures will be completed by December 2014. 2. AMA The AMA activity was signed in March 2011 and was to be completed within six months. However, due to the delays in actual construction activities, the activity was extended to March 2013 and again to December 2013. The first extension resulted from late receipt of permits from the Environmental Protection Agency, relocation of electrical cables on construction sites, and issues encountered in the tendering and contract award processes. The second extension resulted from delays in releasing money to contractors for completed work which slowed down subsequent construction, slow procurement processes for the digitization of records, and delays in procuring furniture due to lack of adequate and secured storage facilities. AMA procured the services of four construction contractors using GOG procurement systems - Messrs Britnata Company Limited, Samaward Company Limited, High Trust Ghana Limited, and Thywill Business Investment and Consultancy Limited - to build four school compounds within the Accra Metropolitan Area. AMA was responsible for ensuring that the land for each school construction had a clear and good title. The original agreement included furnishing of classrooms with computers. However, given rising construction costs, AMA agreed to fund the computers while USAID funded the complete construction of the original four buildings. With regards to maintenance, MOE signed a letter confirming their capacity to undertake ongoing maintenance of the school facilities. Current status: All four AMA-constructed schools have been completed. Two additional schools were added to the FARA on June 17, 2014. To accommodate the construction of these extra schools, the FARA was extended for a third time to September 30, 2015. 3. MiDA Under the Rural Services Development Project of the Millennium Challenge Account Ghana Program, MiDA implemented the Phase 1B Schools Rehabilitation Project in three Northern Intervention Zones in 2008-2009. The educational facilities were made up of two, three and six-unit classroom blocks, kindergartens, teachers’ accommodation, among other things. The five-year program included the provision of toilets to schools rehabilitated in the Northern Agricultural Zone, using innovative biofil technology. However, due to budgetary constraints, the rehabilitated Phase 1B Schools that were commissioned in 2010 did not receive the toilet facilities. Although a contract had been signed with Messrs Biofil Technologies Limited for the construction of biofil toilets in these schools, the contractor had to demobilize on November 30, 2012. USAID/Ghana provided USD 330,568.76 to MiDA, through the Millennium Challenge Corporation, in June 2013 to provide appropriate sanitation facilities for 24 schools in flood affected areas of the Northern Intervention Zone. This activity, referred to as Design-Build Sanitation Facilities and other Minor Works – Phase 1B, involved the construction of 17 four-seater toilets/two-urinals, and seven two-urinal facilities for five Northern Districts. Messrs Biofil Technologies Ltd was commissioned to execute and complete the activity. Work commenced on July 2, 2013, with an anticipated completion date of November 30, 2013. The Contractor employed 53 local artisans and hired three permanent workers (accountant, project officer and procurement officer) to undertake the work. They provided hands-on training in construction with ferro￾cement and installation and plumbing of digesters to the local artisans. Current status: All works were completed by December 31, 2013. 4. TAP Unlike the other construction activities in this evaluation, the TAP school construction activities were a small part of the larger TAP project. This evaluation will only focus on the full construction of seven schools under TAP, not any of the other activities or outputs conducted by TAP. Implemented by Plan Ghana, TAP aimed to increase JHS enrollment and completion rates in 156 junior high schools across 13 districts in four regions (Brong Ahafo, Central, Eastern, and Greater Accra). USAID and Plan Ghana shared the costs of TAP, with USAID providing USD 8,000,000 and Plan Ghana contributing USD 1,619,200. Final project expenditures totaled $9,494,239.97. Plan Ghana submitted a request for a no-cost extension on July 22, 2013. USAID granted the no-cost extension on August 26, 2013, extending TAP’s completion date to November 30, 2013. Plan Ghana implemented two main activity components to achieve TAP’s objectives. The first component aimed to expand and improve classroom spaces for JHS pupils, while the second aimed to reduce barriers to JHS enrollment. The two components used community engagement as their core approach, and complemented each other in terms of getting poor Ghanaian children to enroll in and attend junior high school with the necessary infrastructure and quality pedagogy required at their schools. The project allocated USD 463,225.60 to the construction of seven schools under Component 1(Expanded and Improved Space Available for JHS Pupils within TAP). Specifically, TAP expanded and improved infrastructure for the seven schools to meet USAID standards by walling-in and strengthening classrooms, providing girl-friendly latrines and hand washing stations, enabling access for students with disabilities, and improving access to water and electricity in project schools. They built these schools in communities that had extremely poor or temporary school buildings. TAP used a direct contractor￾managed approach to build the school buildings to ensure uniformity, compliance to the GES design, and quality and timely completion of school buildings. The schools included three classrooms, a head teacher’s office, a storage room, and a staff common room. Upon selection of schools, the TAP project team facilitated an open-bidding process to select a private construction contracting firm for each site. Contractor selection was based on the proposal’s technical quality and the value presented. The TAP project team oversaw construction of the new junior high schools and they supported and trained School Management Committees to support school management upon delivery of the building. The work included sub-structure work, masonry wall repair, plastering and painting of walls, replacement of roofing structural beams and aluminum roofing panels, replacement of doors and windows, and installation of new blackboards and posting boards. Associates for Change, an external consulting firm, submitted a final performance evaluation of TAP in January 2014. The evaluation found that the TAP project increased learning spaces, improved physical infrastructure, and reduced socio-economic barriers to JHS enrollment and completion for pupils and their families across 156 TAP schools in 13 districts of Ghana. The evaluation includes information about the seven constructed schools, and will be provided to the contractor for reference. Current status: All construction works were completed, and the project closed on November 30, 2013. d. Target Areas The PWC activities encompass the construction of 194 sites across all ten regions of Ghana, including 50 kindergartens, 56 junior high schools, 69 toilet facilities, 15 district education offices, and four combined primary/junior high school buildings. The table below provides a summary of the number of construction sites by region and activity. Attachment J.2 gives a detailed list of construction sites, and Attachment J.3 provides a map of the 159 FPMU construction locations. Region FPMU AMA MiDA TAP Total Number of Sites Percentage of Total Northern 68 - 24 - 92 47% Upper East 22 - - - 22 11% Western 17 - - - 17 9% Volta 13 - - - 13 7% Eastern 10 - - 1 11 6% Brong Ahafo 7 - - 3 10 5% Central 7 - - 1 8 4% Ashanti 7 - - - 7 4% Upper West 7 - - - 7 4% Greater Accra 1 4 - 2 7 4% Total 159 4 24 7 194 100% e. Sources of Information The Contractor shall consult a broad range of background documents related to school construction efforts, both in Ghana and internationally. Quantitative data is also available, including enrollment rates, number of teachers and their qualifications, and annual Basic Education Certificate Examination results. USAID/Ghana can work with Ghana Education Service (GES) to obtain this data for target schools. District, regional and national level data is publically available online. See Attachment J.4 for a list of useful links for background research. A range of stakeholders should be consulted for the purposes of the evaluation, including USAID, FPMU, AMA, MiDA, MOFEP, Plan Ghana, FAS Consult Ltd, local construction contractors, DEO staff, District Assembly staff, Head Teachers, teachers, students, parents, and local community leaders. USAID will provide the Contractor with a package of briefing materials, including:  Cooperative Agreement, FARAs, Implementation Letters and related attachments  Modifications to Cooperative Agreement, FARAs and Implementation Letters  Monthly and Quarterly Progress Reports, and Completion Reports  Construction Quality Control Plans  Evaluation reports for contractor selection processes  Designs, specifications and contract documents for contractors  Site specific Geotechnical/ Geomatic Reports  Site specific EMMPs  USAID reports on field trips to construction sites  Reports of stakeholder meetings and consultations  Pictures depicting work progress at construction sites  FAS Consult Ltd’s Initial Technical and Financial Audit Report on FPMU Activities, as well as Quarterly and Monthly Progress Reports  Final Performance Evaluation of TAP Program  Presentation on Engineering Support Services C.4 EVALUATION RATIONALE AND QUESTIONS a. Purpose and Audience The evaluation is aimed to determine the following: 1. To learn to what extent the project’s objectives and goals have been achieved; 2. To explore how effectively the program has developed plans and structures to encourage ongoing maintenance and sustainability; 3. To understand how the activities were perceived and valued by beneficiaries; 4. To ascertain the effectiveness of the project’s management processes, including the implementation mechanism, supervision capacity and quality control; and 5. To identify lessons and best practices that can inform the design of future education construction and government-to-government projects in relation to enhancing access to basic education, both in Ghana and elsewhere. This evaluation is not aimed at determining the structural integrity and quality of the facilities constructed. FAS Consult Limited, a local engineering firm, will provide quality control data on FPMU sites to the Contractor as an additional data point that should be incorporated into the evaluation. However, the Contractor will not need to conduct these quality checks themselves. That being said, an engineering perspective will be useful for interpreting the construction documentation, and as such the Contractor should include such expertise in their staffing composition. The audience of the evaluation report will be the USAID/Ghana Mission, USAID/Ghana Education Office, FPMU, MOE, AMA, MiDA, MOFEP, and Plan Ghana. USAID and other stakeholders, especially GOG institutions, will use the report to strategize with regards to future construction projects. For example, the evaluation provides the opportunity to explore the effectiveness of both FARAs and Cooperative Agreements as implementing mechanisms for undertaking construction projects in collaboration with GOG. It is expected that implementing partners will have the opportunity to discuss the benefits, challenges and lessons learnt of the education construction activities. b. Evaluation Questions The questions for this evaluation, which should be considered of equal importance, are: 1. To what extent did the four PWC activities achieve the project purpose, outcomes and expected outputs as outlined in Section II.c? This normative question focuses on the overall progress of the project over its years of implementation, particularly with regards to students’ access to basic education. To answer this question, the Contractor should synthesize the project achievements and highlight areas that fell short of expected targets. Given that USAID received various reports from FPMU, AMA, MiDA, Plan Ghana and FAS Consult Limited, the Contractor shall analyze trends, explore differences, and describe linkages between target schools and enrollment rates sourced from GES’ Education Information Management System. The Contractor should seek to provide initial findings and analysis on whether the project has achieved its purpose, bearing in mind that some construction sites may have only recently been constructed. As such, the Contractor may wish to focus on sites that were constructed in the early stages of the project to ascertain whether any longer-term benefits have eventuated. 2. How are government officials and local beneficiaries involved in the ongoing ownership and maintenance of the constructed facilities? This descriptive question focuses on the sustainability of the project within the local community with a particular focus on: a) strategies to ensure quality maintenance of the structures, and b) ongoing environmental compliance based on USAID and GOG standards. The Contractor should seek to take into account the views and activities of a broad range of stakeholders, including DA staff, DEO staff, head teachers, teachers, parents and students. Data collection should go beyond methods that focus on self-reporting in order to ascertain a realistic picture of current school maintenance plans, guidelines, activities and processes. 3. How do target beneficiaries perceive the PWC activities? This descriptive question focuses on client satisfaction and perceived benefits and/or challenges with the PWC activities before, during and after project implementation. This includes beneficiaries’ perceptions of and involvement in selecting the location and structure type of building sites with respect to satisfying the needs of the community. Target beneficiaries include DA staff, DEO staff, teachers, parents, students, and community leaders. 4. How effective were the implementing mechanisms, supervision processes, and quality control activities for achieving the expected results in a timely and cost-effective manner? USAID/Ghana decided to use FARAs and Cooperative Agreements, rather than contracts, as implementing mechanisms for the PWC activities. USAID/Ghana experienced start-up delays as it negotiated the construction activities with GOG, and engaged an external consulting firm to assist with quality inspections of the FPMU activity. Given these realities, this descriptive question aims to ascertain the effectiveness of the project’s management processes with a specific focus on: (a) the utility of FARAs and Cooperative Agreements for financial and project management; (b) the capacity of GOG, particularly FPMU, AMA and MOFEP, to supervise building contractors; and (c) efforts to enhance quality control of the construction sites. Having answered these questions, the Contractor must identify innovative ideas that worked well within the project, challenges that limited its effectiveness and, importantly, lessons learnt and recommendations for future projects, particularly construction and government-to-government work. c. Gender Considerations Gender should be carefully considered when answering each of the evaluation questions. The USAID Education Strategy (2011) notes that educational programs “should promote gender parity, gender equity, and focus on improving education quality for both boys and girls.” USAID expects all evaluations to consider differences in the ways in which women and men participate in activities, as well as the number and percentage of each sex that are actively involved. Although the activities evaluated were not designed under the new strategic focus, they should adhere to Agency gender guidance and policies. For the purposes of this evaluation, the Contractor must highlight gender specific approaches, outcomes, participation and engagement to better understand successes and challenges of the PWC activities in enhancing equal access to education. For example, it would be useful to explore whether the toilet blocks constructed at schools are girl-friendly and used by girls. The Contractor may wish to use a gender analysis matrix, such as USAID’s Six Domains of Gender Analysis Framework, or other relevant frameworks to identify any gender-based gaps between males and females. C.5 EVALUATION DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY The PWC performance evaluation focuses on answering descriptive and normative questions. Descriptive questions seek to understand a program or process or attitudes towards it, and normative questions seek to measure progress against previously established criteria or norms. To answer the evaluation questions, USAID/Ghana the Contractor shall visit, assess activities, and collect information from stakeholders in 50 - 60 construction sites. The contractor shall have a robust sampling strategy that will allow them to effectively answer the evaluation questions, while taking into account the diversity of construction locations. The selected construction sites should vary by region, district and level of isolation. The Contractor must also take into account the diversity of languages spoken across the districts and include evaluation staff with the requisite language skills and/or use translators and interpreters. The contractor shall employ new, creative suggestions regarding this evaluation. The contractor’s methodology will be comprised of a mix of tools appropriate to the evaluation’s research questions. These tools may include, but are not limited to: 1. Review documentation 2. Analyze available quantitative data on target schools and districts 3. Organize focus group discussions with key stakeholders 4. Conduct stakeholder interviews 5. Undertake site visits and school/DEO observations 6. Develop case studies of one or more construction sites Prior to the start of data collection, the Contractor will develop and present, for USAID review and approval, a data analysis plan (as a part of their work plan) that details how qualitative data will be transcribed and analyzed; what procedures will be used to analyze qualitative data from key informant and other stakeholder interviews; and how the evaluation will triangulate qualitative and quantitative data to reach conclusions about the effectiveness and efficiency of PWC activities. The Contractor must also share data collection tools with USAID for review, feedback and/or discussion with sufficient time for USAID’s review before they are applied in the field. The data collected will be analyzed by the Contractor to identify correlations and establish what are the major trends and issues. Data will be disaggregated by sex to identify whether program inputs are benefiting men and women equally. USAID/Ghana will submit the final evaluation report within three months to the Development Experience Clearinghouse at http://dec.usaid.gov. All raw evaluation data sets must be provided to USAID upon completion of the final report. According to the USAID Evaluation Policy (2011), “All quantitative data collected by USAID or one of the Agency’s contractors or grantees for the purposes of an evaluation must be uploaded and stored in a central database…. The data should be organized and fully documented for use by those not fully familiar with the project or the evaluation.” It is important to keep in mind possible limitations of this evaluation. Although the evaluation should explore causal links where possible, USAID/Ghana understands that it will not authoritatively ascribe a direct causal relationship between observed outcomes and PWC activities. It will, however, be possible to access enrollment data for schools over a number of years to assist in comparing enrollment rates before and after construction. C.6 EVALUATION MANAGEMENT a. Logistics USAID/Ghana will provide extensive overall direction and advice to the Contractor, identify key documents and stakeholders, and provide input on the work plan, draft reports and final report. The Contractor will be responsible for its own logistical support, including scheduling appointments with key stakeholders, and arranging (with prior approval from USAID/Ghana) other meetings identified during the course of the evaluation. The Contractor will be responsible for arranging vehicle rental, drivers and flights; making their own accommodation arrangements; and procuring translation and interpretation services, administrative assistance, office space, computers, internet access, printing and photocopying. b. Scheduling The evaluation work, including analysis, reporting, USAID/Ghana feedback, and submission of final reports and data sets, is to be carried out over a period of 17 weeks. It is, however, important to note that four of the 17 weeks are allocated to USAID/Ghana’s internal feedback processes in Phase 3 and should therefore not be counted as work undertaken by the Contractor. Thus, the Contractor must seek to complete their work within the period of 13 weeks. A six-day work week will be authorized per Section F.5 below. Phase Timeframe Description 1. Planning No longer than 2 weeks Phase 1 work will be done through email and telephone. The team will set as many meetings and interviews as possible prior to arrival in Ghana. Key activities  Obtain and read major background documents  Prepare and submit draft work plan  Revise and submit final work plan based on USAID/Ghana feedback  Develop list of contacts and a preliminary interview schedule 2. Field work No longer than 7 weeks During Phase 2, the Contractor will fly into Ghana to conduct their field work. Information gathering and pre-testing of data collection instruments should take no longer than one week. The majority of the time must be dedicated to collecting data in the field. Key activities  Conduct in-brief with USAID/Ghana  Gather and review additional secondary data  Finalize interview and site visit schedule  Pre-test data collection instruments  Conduct data collection in field  Conduct debrief with USAID/Ghana  Conduct debrief with USAID/Ghana’s partners 3. Analysis and Reporting No longer than 8 weeks Phase 3 includes both the Contractor’s analysis and reports, and USAID/Ghana’s feedback on those reports. The first draft evaluation report must be submitted before the Contractor leaves Ghana. The Contractor has four work weeks to complete their work as outlined below, with the additional four weeks being dedicated to allowing USAID/Ghana time to provide comments and feedback on the first draft evaluation report (1 week), second draft evaluation report (2 weeks), and final evaluation report (1 week). Key activities  Undertake analysis and submit first draft evaluation report  Incorporate feedback and submit second draft evaluation report  Respond to TEAMS comments in statement of difference or by incorporating feedback into the final report  Submit raw data sets to USAID/Ghana C. 7. IMPLEMENTATION AND MANAGEMENT PLAN The Contractor shall provide contract management necessary to fulfill all the requirements of this Task Order. This includes cost and quality control under this contract. END OF SECTION C Annex 2: Evaluation Design and Methods EVALUATION METHODS The team employed a mixed-methods evaluation approach, using both primary and secondary data collection methods for this performance evaluation. Specifically, prior to mobilizing to the field, the evaluation team completed a desk review of secondary sources, including FARA and cooperative agreements, the design documentation available, agreement amendments, activity technical and financial progress reports, and other background documents.1 A full list of documents reviewed is provided in Annex 4. The evaluation team conducted primary data collection for this evaluation over a period of eight weeks from December 26, 2014 to February 10, 2015, incorporating the following methods: direct observation through site visits, key informant interviews (KIIs), and focus group discussions. Desk Review The secondary data was collected from documentation provided to the team by the implementing partners and USAID. The team collected follow-up documentation from individual meetings with the implementing partners and USAID. Key Informant Interviews in Accra The team spent the first week of fieldwork gathering information through 17 KIIs in Accra with MoE officials from FPMU, AMA, and MiDA; USAID officials; and other stakeholders. However, the team was unable to meet with a representative of the TAP/Plan Ghana until the end of the field visits. Additionally the team met with the USAID education office coordinator for the PWC activity and staff in charge of the project monitoring. Finally, the team also met with officials from Ghana Education Services (GES) and the MoE in order to better understand the government’s broad vision and impetus for carrying out the PWC activities. The team developed semi-structured interview instruments for these KIIs, and these are included in Annex 3. Site Visits The sample included 30 percent of all 194 PWC construction sites, including 4 DEOs, 13 KGs, 20 JHSs, and 20 toilet blocks and KVIPs. Please see the Table 1 below for a breakdown of the type of site visited by implementing partner. For each site visited, regardless of the type of construction undertaken, the team completed two major tasks: 1) a thorough evaluation of the planning, design, and constructions aspects of the building; choice of location, finishing details, connection to water and electricity networks, and adequacy of the building2 and 2) a group discussion with head-teachers, Parent Teachers Association (PTA) members, School Management Committee (SMC) members, traditional chiefs, and Clerks of Work who supervised the construction of the various sites. Group discussion participants were selected by school head teachers in advance of the team’s arrival to ensure efficient visits by the teams. The facilities evaluation was done alongside the Clerk of Works that worked at each particular site. Additionally, for sites where a latrine was 2 Although the evaluation was not primarily aimed at determining the structural integrity and quality of the facilities, understanding the extent to which the constructed facilities were designed and built according to plan and in accordance with Ghanaian Law and International Building Codes, is an essential prerequisite for understanding why the project may or may not have achieved its higher-level goals of improving access to education. built, the team also completed two qualitative focus group discussions (FGDs) with beneficiary students from all grades (one for each sex, led by a FGD facilitator of the same sex to ensure a safe space for participants to be candid about their experiences). Finally, for the DEO sites, the team completed a group discussion with field-based GES representatives and DEO staff at the new DEO site (none of which were yet completed or occupied). In total, 563 individuals participated in group discussions during site visits. Please see Table 2 below for a breakdown of group discussion participants. Table 1: Percent of Sites Visited by Type and Implementing Partner Implemen ting Partner DEOs Visited Total DEOs Built KGs Visited Total KGs Built JHSs Visited Total JHSs Built Latrines Visited Total Latrines Built Total Sites Visited Total Sites Built % of Sites Visited FPMU 4 15 13 50 16 48 13 43 46 156 29% AMA 0 0 0 0 2 4 0 0 2 4 50% MiDA 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 24 7 24 29% Plan Ghana 0 0 0 0 2 7 0 0 2 7 29% Total 4 15 13 50 20 59 20 67 57 191 30% Table 2: Number and Type of Group Discussion Respondents During Site Visits Group Discussion Respondent Type No. % of Total Interviews Head Teachers 25 4% Field-based Implementing Partner Staff 4 1% Contractors 1 0% Assemblymen 3 1% Teachers 177 31% SMC Members 71 13% PTA Members/Parents 37 7% Community Members* 47 8% DEO Staff 43 8% Students (Focus Group Discussions) 125 22% No. % Male 70 56% Female 55 44% Type Unknown 30 5% Total Respondents 563 100% *Community Members include Chiefs, Elders, and School Patrons The team developed standardized data collection instruments for structured site observations and protocols with key questions for the group discussions and KIIs (see Annexes 3 and 7 for these protocols). Additionally, in order to comply with best practices in evaluation ethics, Social Impact’s Internal Review Board (IRB) reviewed all instruments prior to use. Additionally, the team required that all respondents provide their informed consent before participating in the evaluation. Following the site visits, the team analyzed the data and quantified and tabulated individual responses into charts in order to demonstrate the recurrence of themes and/or the presence of key indicators. EVALUATION LIMITATIONS Selection Bias Given the limited sample frame, it is quite possible that the team ended up with a bias sample. Additionally, since the sample size for many of the disaggregated groups is very small (at times less than five—there were only four DEOs—for example), results should not be taken to be internally valid or representative of all PWC construction sites in Ghana. The project types were not equally represented given the challenges of simultaneously ensuring regional parity, project type parity, and implementer parity. Next, in most instances the evaluation team had little influence over participant selection during site visits for the community/school stakeholder group discussion, the student FGDs, and DEO staff group discussions. This is because the head teachers relayed information about the team’s visit prior to the team’s arrival at each site in order to maximize time by having all stakeholders ready for the discussions. Thus, despite instructions to keep the number of community group discussion participants to 6 to 10, the number of participants ranged from as few as 2 individuals to more than 30. The same was true for the group discussions with the DEO staff. The evaluation team found that with a group of more than 6 or 7, it was difficult to ensure all participants’ voices were heard. Response Bias Despite requests that the team be allowed to interview head teachers privately, this was often impossible because there were so many people in the school eager to participate that the head teacher did not allow privacy for these type of interviews. Also, the team’s time was very limited at each school given the number of sites they needed to cover per the SOW. As such, instead of interviewing head teachers separately, the head teachers joined the group discussion with community members. These group settings may have biased the responses of the head teachers or other stakeholders. However, since the trends in responses from head teachers appeared the same whether others were present or not (the team was able to interview two head teachers separately from the larger community group), the evaluation team is not too concerned about this bias. Next, the group discussions held at DEOs, sometimes included too many staff members for a balanced and participatory FGD to take place. Time Issues The evaluation suffered from two types of time limitations. First, the team visited a total of 57 school sites in remote areas over a three-week period.3 In order to adhere to this schedule, the team was limited to approximately 45 minutes at any given location. This meant that KIIs, group discussions, and site inspections had to be completed quickly, with limited probing and time for follow-up questions. Second, the fact that most of the structures visited were only very recently constructed meant that there was not enough time for the PWC activities to demonstrate their full effect. Many school studies suggest that it takes several years before the benefits of new construction are fully realized. As such, it was difficult for the evaluation team to identify meaningful comparisons of changes in enrollment (and attendance), resulting from the construction. In order to assess their impact on enrollment, end-of-year enrollment and attendance data would be needed for three (or at very least, two) school years. The fact that the KGs visited had mostly opened in 2014 -15 and in a few case in 2012-13, meant that there were not enough longitudinal data to develop meaningful and credible conclusions about their impact on overall enrollments in the district educational system (as there are often anomaly years in school enrollment and attendance figures, and it is impossible to rule out the 3 The evaluation team had planned to visit 58 sites but was unable locate one Plan Ghana site due to the fact that the implementing partner was not available to give directions. The total number of sites successfully visited is 57. possibility that results are not due to some external factor that may not exist in later years). Attribution Issues Although a comparison of enrollment rates to the timing and extent of PWC activities illustrates some trends in enrollment rates, it is impossible for the team to make a final determination of the causal linkages between PWC activities and this particular outcome. The reason for this is that there was no comparison group for this evaluation. As such, it could be that the trends the team identifies would have occurred with or without the PWC interventions. Secondary Data Issues Another major limitation for this study was its heavy reliance on secondary data, for which it is impossible to know what level of rigor, consistency, and care was taken during data collection. And, there is evidence to show that some of the data contain serious measurement issues. For instance, the evaluation team found that the JHS blocks essentially redistributed existing enrollments in the school system to make enrollment figures seem higher in PWC school sites, without adding any new students to the overall system. The only structures that were intake-points for new enrollments, and, thus, able to be assessed in the short-term, are the KGs. Availability of Partners The core Plan Ghana and MiDA activities were completed about one year ago, and most of the PWC implementing partner teams (including those for FPMU and AMA) were already dissolved at the time of the evaluation. As such, key informants who were involved in the process were in many cases no longer available to assist in providing first-hand information. Although AMA provided generic drawings, they did not supply project specifications, contractual documents, scheduling documents, or full cost information. MiDA provided complete technical information but limited contractual and financial information. The greatest challenge came with evaluating Plan Ghana’s work. The team was unable to visit some of the Plan Ghana’s sites due to the lack of response from the organization prior to fieldwork (again adding to selection bias). As such, the team had to complete some of the evaluation of Plan Ghana’s work through a desk review of documents provided by USAID, rather than interviews with the implementing partner. The evaluation team’s assessment of Plan Ghana’s work may, therefore, not be as robust as its assessment of the other organizations’ sites. The team did not encounter any challenges in acquiring information from USAID representatives, as these individuals generously shared their time and knowledge. USAID attempted to put the team in contact with the implementing partners throughout the evaluation, but were not successful in doing so for Plan Ghana until after fieldwork. Annex 3a: Data Collection Instrument – Interview Themes for Group Discussions and KIIs by Stakeholder Site ID: Date Visited: Region: District/Municipality: Site/Town: Structure/Type: Category: Status of Work: Interviewer(s): Parents, community and/or key leaders 1. How did you find out about the construction planned for your site? 2. Were you approached prior to the decision being made or were you informed after the fact? 3. In what ways did you participate/collaborate with the project (if you did)? 4. Did any local authority/stakeholder from the community (e.g. politician, influential community leader) have any intervention/participation in the choice of the site and/or the type of construction? 5. What did you do to help maintenance last year? What will you do in the future? School teachers and head teacher 1. How did the project come to be? Please describe the process (e.g. was there a letter from a head teacher?). 2. If someone sent a letter, can you describe any relationship the letter and the decision about the type of construction carried out? What did the letter say (e.g. stated a list of needs, only asked for help, mentioned a specific construction needs at this particular site)? 3. Please describe the construction decision making process. Did GES carry out a needs assessment? Was there a meeting at MOE with stakeholders to decide what to do and where? 4. What has changed in your school after receiving the construction (e.g. any tangible/measurable impact, or effect of receiving something new)? How did the construction (TB, JHS building, KG) solve the identified problem to be addressed such as access, overcrowding? 5. Have any books and/or textbooks been delivered to a library? 6. Was new furniture delivered? Is it in working condition? Female students (for Toilet Blocks): 1. Are these new toilets adequate to be used by girls? Please explain. 2. Do they provide enough privacy to be used comfortably? Please explain. 3. Do they provide all elements for personal hygiene (e.g. water, disposal of used products, etc.)? 4. Is it there toilet paper? 5. Is it there a latch to close door from the inside? Male students (for Toilet Blocks): 1. What is “plan B” for urination in case the toilet is busy and there is a long waiting line? 2. Do you feel comfortable being seen by girls while waiting for the toilet? Please explain. 3. Is it there toilet paper? 4. Is it there a latch to close the door from the inside? All stakeholders (for KGs and JHSs) 1. What is the impact of the KG/JHS constructions on access to education? 2. How has teacher’s work changed as a result of the new KGs/JHSs? 3. How well is equipment holding-up to “wear and tear” (e.g. quality, durability, maintenance)? 4. Are feeding facilities and other non-classroom facilities used? If so, how are they used? 5. Is toilet access appropriate? When are the toilets locked/unlocked? Do students/teachers have an alternative plan to relieve themselves if the toilets are locked? 6. Is the location of the KG/JHS adequate (e.g. up on a hill or other hindering factors)? Who chose the location of the KG/JHS? DEO Officials 1. Does the space fit the staff in the DEO? 2. Is there access for people with disabilities? 3. How and where do you store documents in the new facility? 4. Internet/equipment/furniture issues. Is it there central AC or window units? Why the latter? 5. How do you manage the relationship with schools? Is the relationship improved and/or more efficient? Annex 4a: Information Sources - List of Group Discussion and KII Respondents Accra-Based KIIs Respondent # Respondent Type Organization Respondent 1 Implementing Partner AMA Respondent 2 Implementing Partner AMA Respondent 3 Implementing Partner AMA Respondent 4 Implementing Partner AMA Respondent 5 Implementing Partner AMA Respondent 6 Implementing Partner FPMU Respondent 7 Implementing Partner FPMU Respondent 8 Implementing Partner FPMU Respondent 9 Implementing Partner FPMU Respondent 10 Implementing Partner FPMU Respondent 11 Implementing Partner MiDA Respondent 12 GOG MOE Respondent 13 GOG MOE Respondent 14 Implementing Partner Plan Ghana Respondent 15 Donor USAID Respondent 16 Donor USAID Respondent 17 Donor USAID Group Discussions During Site Visits Respondent # Respondent Type Site District Region Respondent 1 Deputy for Finance DEO Dzodze Ketu North Volta Respondent 2 Supervisor DEO Dzodze Ketu North Volta Respondent 3 Human Resources DEO Dzodze Ketu North Volta Respondent 4 Planning DEO Dzodze Ketu North Volta Respondent 5 DEO staff DEO Dzodze Ketu North Volta Respondent 6 DEO staff DEO Dzodze Ketu North Volta Respondent 7 DEO staff DEO Dzodze Ketu North Volta Respondent 8 DEO staff DEO Dzodze Ketu North Volta Respondent 9 DEO staff DEO Dzodze Ketu North Volta Respondent 10 DEO staff DEO Dzodze Ketu North Volta Respondent 11 DEO staff DEO Dzodze Ketu North Volta Respondent 12 DEO staff DEO Dzodze Ketu North Volta Respondent 13 DEO staff DEO Dzodze Ketu North Volta Respondent 14 DEO staff DEO Dzodze Ketu North Volta Respondent 15 DEO staff DEO Dzodze Ketu North Volta Respondent 16 DEO staff DEO Dzodze Ketu North Volta Respondent 17 DEO staff DEO Dzodze Ketu North Volta Respondent 18 DEO staff DEO Dzodze Ketu North Volta Respondent 19 DEO staff DEO Dzodze Ketu North Volta Respondent 20 DEO staff DEO Dzodze Ketu North Volta Respondent 21 DEO staff DEO Dzodze Ketu North Volta Respondent 22 DEO staff DEO Dzodze Ketu North Volta Respondent 23 DEO staff DEO Dzodze Ketu North Volta Respondent 24 DEO staff DEO Dzodze Ketu North Volta Respondent 25 DEO staff DEO Dzodze Ketu North Volta Respondent 26 DEO staff DEO Dzodze Ketu North Volta Respondent 27 DEO staff DEO Dzodze Ketu North Volta Respondent 28 DEO staff DEO Dzodze Ketu North Volta Respondent 29 DEO staff DEO Dzodze Ketu North Volta Respondent 30 PTA member Sremanu D/A KG Akatsi District Volta Respondent 31 PTA membe Sremanu D/A KG Akatsi District Volta Respondent 32 PTA membe Sremanu D/A KG Akatsi District Volta Respondent 33 PTA membe Sremanu D/A KG Akatsi District Volta Respondent 34 PTA membe Sremanu D/A KG Akatsi District Volta Respondent 35 PTA membe Sremanu D/A KG Akatsi District Volta Respondent 36 PTA membe Sremanu D/A KG Akatsi District Volta Respondent 37 School patron Sremanu D/A KG Akatsi District Volta No respondents No respondents Sremanu D/A KVIP Akatsi District Volta Respondent 38 Unknown Bormase-Hweyna D/A JHS Upper Manya Krobo Eastern Respondent 39 Chief Bormase-Hweyna D/A JHS Upper Manya Krobo Eastern Respondent 40 SMC Chair Bormase-Hweyna D/A JHS Upper Manya Krobo Eastern Respondent 41 PTA Bormase-Hweyna D/A JHS Upper Manya Krobo Eastern Respondent 42 Elder Bormase-Hweyna D/A JHS Upper Manya Krobo Eastern Respondent 43 Secretary Bormase-Hweyna D/A JHS Upper Manya Krobo Eastern Respondent 44 Elder Bormase -Hweyna D/A JHS Upper Manya Krobo Eastern Respondent 45 Elder Bormase -Hweyna D/A JHS Upper Manya Krobo Eastern Respondent 46 Elder Bormase -Hweyna D/A JHS Upper Manya Krobo Eastern Respondent 47 Member Bormase -Hweyna D/A JHS Upper Manya Krobo Eastern Respondent 48 Elder Bormase -Hweyna D/A JHS Upper Manya Krobo Eastern Respondent 49 Elder Bormase -Hweyna D/A JHS Upper Manya Krobo Eastern Respondent 50 Member Bormase -Hweyna D/A JHS Upper Manya Krobo Eastern Respondent 51 Elder Bormase -Hweyna D/A JHS Upper Manya Krobo Eastern Respondent 52 Treasurer Bormase -Hweyna D/A JHS Upper Manya Krobo Eastern Respondent 53 Teacher Bormase -Hweyna D/A JHS Upper Manya Krobo Eastern Respondent 54 Unknown Bormase -Hweyna D/A JHS Upper Manya Krobo Eastern Respondent 55 Vice PTA Bormase -Hweyna D/A JHS Upper Manya Krobo Eastern Respondent 56 Community Bormase -Hweyna D/A JHS Upper Manya Krobo Eastern Respondent 57 Community Bormase -Hweyna D/A JHS Upper Manya Krobo Eastern Respondent 58 Community Bormase -Hweyna D/A JHS Upper Manya Krobo Eastern Respondent 59 Community Bormase -Hweyna D/A JHS Upper Manya Krobo Eastern Respondent 60 Community Bormase -Hweyna D/A JHS Upper Manya Krobo Eastern Respondent 61 Teacher Bormase -Hweyna D/A JHS Upper Manya Krobo Eastern Respondent 62 Community Bormase -Hweyna D/A JHS Upper Manya Krobo Eastern Respondent 63 Community Bormase -Hweyna D/A JHS Upper Manya Krobo Eastern Respondent 64 Community Bormase -Hweyna D/A JHS Upper Manya Krobo Eastern Respondent 65 Teacher Bormase -Hweyna D/A JHS Upper Manya Krobo Eastern Respondent 66 Community Bormase -Hweyna D/A JHS Upper Manya Krobo Eastern Respondent 67 Elder Bormase -Hweyna D/A JHS Upper Manya Krobo Eastern Respondent 68 Elder Bormase -Hweyna D/A JHS Upper Manya Krobo Eastern Respondent 69 Elder Bormase -Hweyna Upper Manya Eastern D/A JHS Krobo Respondent 70 Elder Bormase-Hweyna D/A JHS Upper Manya Krobo Eastern Respondent 71 Elder Bormase-Hweyna D/A JHS Upper Manya Krobo Eastern Respondent 72 D/D Educ Bormase-Hweyna D/A JHS Upper Manya Krobo Eastern Respondent 73 D/D HRMD Bormase-Hweyna D/A JHS Upper Manya Krobo Eastern Respondent 74 D/D F&A Bormase-Hweyna D/A JHS Upper Manya Krobo Eastern Respondent 75 Head teacher Korm D/A JHS Yilo Krobo Eastern Respondent 76 Chief Korm D/A JHS Yilo Krobo Eastern Respondent 77 Chief Korm D/A JHS Yilo Krobo Eastern Respondent 78 Community Member Korm D/A JHS Yilo Krobo Eastern Respondent 79 Queen mother Korm D/A JHS Yilo Krobo Eastern Respondent 80 Teacher Korm D/A JHS Yilo Krobo Eastern Respondent 81 Teacher Korm D/A JHS Yilo Krobo Eastern Respondent 82 GES Korm D/A JHS Yilo Krobo Eastern Respondent 83 Teacher Korm D/A JHS Yilo Krobo Eastern Respondent 84 Community Member Korm D/A JHS Yilo Krobo Eastern Respondent 85 Teacher Korm D/A JHS Yilo Krobo Eastern Respondent 86 Teacher Korm D/A JHS Yilo Krobo Eastern Respondent 87 Teacher Korm D/A JHS Yilo Krobo Eastern Respondent 88 Teacher Korm D/A JHS Yilo Krobo Eastern Respondent 89 Community Member Korm D/A JHS Yilo Krobo Eastern Respondent 90 Community Member Korm D/A JHS Yilo Krobo Eastern Respondent 91 Community Member Korm D/A JHS Yilo Krobo Eastern Respondent 92 Teacher Korm D/A JHS Yilo Krobo Eastern Respondent 93 Teacher Korm D/A JHS Yilo Krobo Eastern Respondent 94 Teacher Korm D/A JHS Yilo Krobo Eastern Respondent 95 Community Member Korm D/A JHS Yilo Krobo Eastern Respondent 96 Community Member Korm D/A JHS Yilo Krobo Eastern Respondent 97 Community Member Korm D/A JHS Yilo Krobo Eastern Respondent 98 Teacher Korm D/A JHS Yilo Krobo Eastern Respondent 99 Community Member Korm D/A JHS Yilo Krobo Eastern Respondent 100 Community Member Korm D/A JHS Yilo Krobo Eastern Respondent 101 Community Member Korm D/A JHS Yilo Krobo Eastern Respondent 102 Male Student Korm D/A JHS Yilo Krobo Eastern Respondent 103 Male Student Korm D/A JHS Yilo Krobo Eastern Respondent 104 Male Student Korm D/A JHS Yilo Krobo Eastern Respondent 105 Male Student Korm D/A JHS Yilo Krobo Eastern Respondent 106 Male Student Korm D/A JHS Yilo Krobo Eastern Respondent 107 Female Student Korm D/A JHS Yilo Krobo Eastern Respondent 108 Female Student Korm D/A JHS Yilo Krobo Eastern Respondent 109 Female Student Korm D/A JHS Yilo Krobo Eastern Respondent 110 Female Student Korm D/A JHS Yilo Krobo Eastern Respondent 111 Female Student Korm D/A JHS Yilo Krobo Eastern Respondent 112 Vice Chair SMC Survey Line Primary KVIP Asuogyaman Eastern Respondent 113 Member SMC Survey Line Primary KVIP Asuogyaman Eastern Respondent 114 Village Head Survey Line Primary KVIP Asuogyaman Eastern Respondent 115 Pastor Survey Line Primary KVIP Asuogyaman Eastern Respondent 116 Head teacher Survey Line Primary KVIP Asuogyaman Eastern Respondent 117 Teacher Survey Line Primary KVIP Asuogyaman Eastern Respondent 118 District Director Asempaneye L/A KG Asuogyaman Eastern Respondent 119 Deputy Director Asempaneye L/A KG Asuogyaman Eastern Respondent 120 Deputy Director Asempaneye L/A KG Asuogyaman Eastern Respondent 121 Assistant Director Asempaneye L/A KG Asuogyaman Eastern Respondent 122 Head Teacher Asempaneye L/A KG Asuogyaman Eastern Respondent 123 Teacher Asempaneye L/A KG Asuogyaman Eastern Respondent 124 Teacher Asempaneye L/A KG Asuogyaman Eastern Respondent 125 Teacher Asempaneye L/A KG Asuogyaman Eastern Respondent 126 SMC Member Asempaneye L/A KG Asuogyaman Eastern Respondent 127 Chairman PTA Asempaneye L/A KG Asuogyaman Eastern Respondent 128 PTA Vice Chair Asempaneye L/A KG Asuogyaman Eastern Respondent 129 SMC Member Asempaneye L/A KG Asuogyaman Eastern Respondent 130 SMC Chairman Asempaneye L/A KG Asuogyaman Eastern Respondent 131 Unknown Asempaneye L/A KG Asuogyaman Eastern Respondent 132 Unknown Asempaneye L/A KG Asuogyaman Eastern Respondent 133 PTA Chairman Asempaneye L/A KG Asuogyaman Eastern Respondent 134 Unknown Asempaneye L/A KG Asuogyaman Eastern Respondent 135 Unknown Asempaneye L/A KG Asuogyaman Eastern Respondent 136 Unknown Asempaneye L/A KG Asuogyaman Eastern Respondent 137 Head teacher Aboom Zion Cluster KVIP Cape Coast Central Respondent 138 Teacher Aboom Zion Cluster KVIP Cape Coast Central Respondent 139 Teacher Aboom Zion Cluster KVIP Cape Coast Central Respondent 140 Teacher Aboom Zion Cluster KVIP Cape Coast Central Respondent 141 Teacher Aboom Zion Cluster KVIP Cape Coast Central Respondent 142 Teacher Aboom Zion Cluster KVIP Cape Coast Central Respondent 143 Teacher Aboom Zion Cluster KVIP Cape Coast Central Respondent 144 Teacher Aboom Zion Cluster KVIP Cape Coast Central Respondent 145 Teacher Aboom Zion Cluster KVIP Cape Coast Central Respondent 146 Teacher Aboom Zion Cluster KVIP Cape Coast Central Respondent 147 Teacher Aboom Zion Cluster KVIP Cape Coast Central Respondent 148 Teacher Aboom Zion Cluster KVIP Cape Coast Central Respondent 149 Teacher Aboom Zion Cluster KVIP Cape Coast Central Respondent 150 Teacher Aboom Zion Cluster KVIP Cape Coast Central Respondent 151 Teacher Aboom Zion Cluster KVIP Cape Coast Central Respondent 152 Female Student Aboom Zion Cluster KVIP Cape Coast Central Respondent 153 Female Student Aboom Zion Cluster KVIP Cape Coast Central Respondent 154 Female Student Aboom Zion Cluster KVIP Cape Coast Central Respondent 155 Female Student Aboom Zion Cluster KVIP Cape Coast Central Respondent 156 Female Student Aboom Zion Cluster KVIP Cape Coast Central Respondent 157 Female Student Aboom Zion Cluster KVIP Cape Coast Central Respondent 158 Female Student Aboom Zion Cluster KVIP Cape Coast Central Respondent 159 Female Student Aboom Zion Cluster KVIP Cape Coast Central Respondent 160 Female Student Aboom Zion Cluster KVIP Cape Coast Central Respondent 161 Female Student Aboom Zion Cluster KVIP Cape Coast Central Respondent 162 Male Student Aboom Zion Cluster KVIP Cape Coast Central Respondent 163 Male Student Aboom Zion Cluster Cape Coast Central KVIP Respondent 164 Male Student Aboom Zion Cluster KVIP Cape Coast Central Respondent 165 Male Student Aboom Zion Cluster KVIP Cape Coast Central Respondent 166 Male Student Aboom Zion Cluster KVIP Cape Coast Central Respondent 167 Male Student Aboom Zion Cluster KVIP Cape Coast Central Respondent 168 Male Student Aboom Zion Cluster KVIP Cape Coast Central Respondent 169 Male Student Aboom Zion Cluster KVIP Cape Coast Central Respondent 170 Male Student Aboom Zion Cluster KVIP Cape Coast Central Respondent 171 Male Student Aboom Zion Cluster KVIP Cape Coast Central Respondent 172 Male Student Aboom Zion Cluster KVIP Cape Coast Central Respondent 173 Male Student Aboom Zion Cluster KVIP Cape Coast Central Respondent 174 Male Student Aboom Zion Cluster KVIP Cape Coast Central Respondent 175 Male Student Aboom Zion Cluster KVIP Cape Coast Central Respondent 176 Male Student Aboom Zion Cluster KVIP Cape Coast Central Respondent 177 Head teacher O.L.A. Presby Primary KG Cape Coast Central Respondent 178 Teacher O.L.A. Presby Primary KG Cape Coast Central Respondent 179 Teacher O.L.A. Presby Primary KG Cape Coast Central Respondent 180 Teacher O.L.A. Presby Primary KG Cape Coast Central Respondent 181 Teacher O.L.A. Presby Primary KG Cape Coast Central Respondent 182 Teacher O.L.A. Presby Primary KG Cape Coast Central Respondent 183 Parent O.L.A. Presby Primary KG Cape Coast Central Respondent 184 Dist. Coord. Dir. Awutu Beraku DEO Gomoa East Central Respondent 185 Asst. Works Eng. Awutu Beraku DEO Gomoa East Central Respondent 186 Public Relations Awutu Beraku DEO Gomoa East Central Respondent 187 Asst. Dir. Awutu Beraku DEO Gomoa East Central Respondent 188 GES Awutu Beraku DEO Gomoa East Central Respondent 189 GES Achiase/Bedzeadze JHS Gomoa East Central Respondent 190 GES Achiase/Bedzeadze JHS Gomoa East Central Respondent 191 GES Achiase/Bedzeadze JHS Gomoa East Central Respondent 192 GES Achiase/Bedzeadze JHS Gomoa East Central Respondent 193 Plan Ghana Achiase/Bedzeadze JHS Gomoa East Central Respondent 194 GES Achiase/Bedzeadze JHS Gomoa East Central Respondent 195 Teacher Achiase/Bedzeadze JHS Gomoa East Central Respondent 196 Teacher Achiase/Bedzeadze JHS Gomoa East Central Respondent 197 Teacher Achiase/Bedzeadze JHS Gomoa East Central Respondent 198 Teacher Achiase/Bedzeadze JHS Gomoa East Central Respondent 199 Teacher Achiase/Bedzeadze JHS Gomoa East Central Respondent 200 Teacher Achiase/Bedzeadze JHS Gomoa East Central Respondent 201 SMC Chair Achiase/Bedzeadze JHS Gomoa East Central Respondent 202 PTA Chair Achiase/Bedzeadze JHS Gomoa East Central Respondent 203 PTA Vice Chair Achiase/Bedzeadze JHS Gomoa East Central Respondent 204 PTA Member Achiase/Bedzeadze JHS Gomoa East Central Respondent 205 SMC member Achiase/Bedzeadze JHS Gomoa East Central Respondent 206 PTA Member Achiase/Bedzeadze JHS Gomoa East Central Respondent 207 PTA Member Achiase/Bedzeadze JHS Gomoa East Central Respondent 208 SMC Member Achiase/Bedzeadze JHS Gomoa East Central Respondent 209 SMC Member Achiase/Bedzeadze JHS Gomoa East Central Respondent 210 SMC member Achiase/Bedzeadze JHS Gomoa East Central Respondent 211 Chief's Rep. Achiase/Bedzeadze JHS Gomoa East Central Respondent 212 Female Student Achiase/Bedzeadze JHS Gomoa East Central Respondent 213 Female Student Achiase/Bedzeadze JHS Gomoa East Central Respondent 214 Female Student Achiase/Bedzeadze JHS Gomoa East Central Respondent 215 Female Student Achiase/Bedzeadze JHS Gomoa East Central Respondent 216 Female Student Achiase/Bedzeadze Gomoa East Central JHS Respondent 217 Male Student Achiase/Bedzeadze JHS Gomoa East Central Respondent 218 Male Student Achiase/Bedzeadze JHS Gomoa East Central Respondent 219 Male Student Achiase/Bedzeadze JHS Gomoa East Central Respondent 220 Male Student Achiase/Bedzeadze JHS Gomoa East Central Respondent 221 Head Teacher Aniamote Methodist JHS Wassa Amenfi E. Western Respondent 222 Teacher Aniamote Methodist JHS Wassa Amenfi E. Western Respondent 223 Teacher Aniamote Methodist JHS Wassa Amenfi E. Western Respondent 224 Teacher Aniamote Methodist JHS Wassa Amenfi E. Western Respondent 225 Teacher Aniamote Methodist JHS Wassa Amenfi E. Western Respondent 226 Teacher Aniamote Methodist JHS Wassa Amenfi E. Western Respondent 227 SMC Chair Aniamote Methodist JHS Wassa Amenfi E. Western Respondent 228 SMC Member Aniamote Methodist JHS Wassa Amenfi E. Western Respondent 229 SMC Member Aniamote Methodist JHS Wassa Amenfi E. Western Respondent 230 SMC Member Aniamote Methodist JHS Wassa Amenfi E. Western Respondent 231 SMC Member Aniamote Methodist JHS Wassa Amenfi E. Western Respondent 232 SMC Member Aniamote Methodist JHS Wassa Amenfi E. Western Respondent 233 SMC Member Aniamote Methodist JHS Wassa Amenfi E. Western Respondent 234 SMC Member Aniamote Methodist JHS Wassa Amenfi E. Western Respondent 235 SMC Member Aniamote Methodist JHS Wassa Amenfi E. Western Respondent 236 SMC Member Aniamote Methodist JHS Wassa Amenfi E. Western Respondent 237 SMC Member Aniamote Methodist JHS Wassa Amenfi E. Western Respondent 238 SMC Member Aniamote Methodist JHS Wassa Amenfi E. Western Respondent 239 SMC Member Aniamote Methodist JHS Wassa Amenfi E. Western Respondent 240 SMC Member Aniamote Methodist JHS Wassa Amenfi E. Western Respondent 241 SMC Member Aniamote Methodist JHS Wassa Amenfi E. Western Respondent 242 SMC Member Aniamote Methodist JHS Wassa Amenfi E. Western Respondent 243 SMC Member Aniamote Methodist JHS Wassa Amenfi E. Western Respondent 244 SMC Member Aniamote Methodist JHS Wassa Amenfi E. Western Respondent 245 SMC Member Aniamote Methodist JHS Wassa Amenfi E. Western Respondent 246 Unknown Aniamote Methodist JHS Wassa Amenfi E. Western Respondent 247 Unknown Aniamote Methodist JHS Wassa Amenfi E. Western Respondent 248 Female Student Mansiso D/A Primary TB Wassa Amenfi East Western Respondent 249 Female Student Mansiso D/A Primary TB Wassa Amenfi East Western Respondent 250 Female Student Mansiso D/A Primary TB Wassa Amenfi East Western Respondent 251 Female Student Mansiso D/A Primary TB Wassa Amenfi East Western Respondent 252 Female Student Mansiso D/A Primary TB Wassa Amenfi East Western Respondent 253 Female Student Mansiso D/A Primary TB Wassa Amenfi East Western Respondent 254 Female Student Mansiso D/A Primary TB Wassa Amenfi East Western Respondent 255 Female Student Mansiso D/A Primary TB Wassa Amenfi East Western Respondent 256 Female Student Mansiso D/A Primary TB Wassa Amenfi East Western Respondent 257 Male Student Mansiso D/A Primary TB Wassa Amenfi East Western Respondent 258 Male Student Mansiso D/A Primary TB Wassa Amenfi East Western Respondent 259 Male Student Mansiso D/A Primary TB Wassa Amenfi East Western Respondent 260 Male Student Mansiso D/A Primary TB Wassa Amenfi East Western Respondent 261 Male Student Mansiso D/A Primary TB Wassa Amenfi East Western Respondent 262 Male Student Mansiso D/A Primary TB Wassa Amenfi East Western Respondent 263 Male Student Mansiso D/A Primary TB Wassa Amenfi East Western Respondent 264 Male Student Mansiso D/A Primary TB Wassa Amenfi East Western Respondent 265 Male Student Mansiso D/A Primary TB Wassa Amenfi East Western Respondent 266 Male Student Mansiso D/A Primary TB Wassa Amenfi East Western Respondent 267 Male Student Mansiso D/A Primary Wassa Amenfi Western TB East Respondent 268 Unknown Suhyenso KG Wassa Amenfi East Western Respondent 269 Unknown Suhyenso KG Wassa Amenfi East Western Respondent 270 Assemblyman Suhyenso KG Wassa Amenfi East Western Respondent 271 Head teacher Suhyenso KG Wassa Amenfi East Western Respondent 272 Headmaster JHS Suhyenso KG Wassa Amenfi East Western Respondent 273 Teacher Suhyenso KG Wassa Amenfi East Western Respondent 274 Female Student Adjakaa D/A Primary TB Aowuin Suaman Western Respondent 275 Female Student Adjakaa D/A Primary TB Aowuin Suaman Western Respondent 276 Female Student Adjakaa D/A Primary TB Aowuin Suaman Western Respondent 277 Female Student Adjakaa D/A Primary TB Aowuin Suaman Western Respondent 278 Female Student Adjakaa D/A Primary TB Aowuin Suaman Western Respondent 279 Female Student Adjakaa D/A Primary TB Aowuin Suaman Western Respondent 280 Female Student Adjakaa D/A Primary TB Aowuin Suaman Western Respondent 281 Male Student Adjakaa D/A Primary TB Aowuin Suaman Western Respondent 282 Male Student Adjakaa D/A Primary TB Aowuin Suaman Western Respondent 283 Male Student Adjakaa D/A Primary TB Aowuin Suaman Western Respondent 284 Male Student Adjakaa D/A Primary TB Aowuin Suaman Western Respondent 285 Male Student Adjakaa D/A Primary TB Aowuin Suaman Western Respondent 286 Male Student Adjakaa D/A Primary TB Aowuin Suaman Western Respondent 287 Male Student Adjakaa D/A Primary TB Aowuin Suaman Western Respondent 288 Chief of Boinso Boinso Presbyt. KG Aowuin Suaman Western Respondent 289 Unknown Boinso Presbyt. KG Aowuin Suaman Western Respondent 290 Youth leader Boinso Presbyt. KG Aowuin Suaman Western Respondent 291 Unknown Boinso Presbyt. KG Aowuin Suaman Western Respondent 292 Unknown Boinso Presbyt. KG Aowuin Suaman Western Respondent 293 Unknown Boinso Presbyt. KG Aowuin Suaman Western Respondent 294 Unknown Boinso Presbyt. KG Aowuin Suaman Western Respondent 295 Assemblyman Boinso Presbyt. KG Aowuin Suaman Western Respondent 296 Unknown Boinso Presbyt. KG Aowuin Suaman Western Respondent 297 Headmistress Boinso Presbyt. KG Aowuin Suaman Western Respondent 298 District Office Dadieso SDA JHS Aowuin Suaman Western Respondent 299 Circuit Supervisor Dadieso SDA JHS Aowuin Suaman Western Respondent 300 District Pastor Dadieso SDA JHS Aowuin Suaman Western Respondent 301 Headmaster Dadieso SDA JHS Aowuin Suaman Western Respondent 302 Asst. Head Dadieso SDA JHS Aowuin Suaman Western Respondent 303 PTA Chairman Dadieso SDA JHS Aowuin Suaman Western Respondent 304 Staff Secretary Dadieso SDA JHS Aowuin Suaman Western Respondent 305 Teacher Dadieso SDA JHS Aowuin Suaman Western Respondent 306 Teacher Dadieso SDA JHS Aowuin Suaman Western Respondent 307 Teacher Dadieso SDA JHS Aowuin Suaman Western Respondent 308 Teacher Dadieso SDA JHS Aowuin Suaman Western Respondent 309 Teacher Dadieso SDA JHS Aowuin Suaman Western Respondent 310 Teacher Dadieso SDA JHS Aowuin Suaman Western Respondent 311 Teacher Dadieso SDA JHS Aowuin Suaman Western Respondent 312 Teacher Dadieso SDA JHS Aowuin Suaman Western Respondent 313 Teacher Dadieso SDA JHS Aowuin Suaman Western Respondent 314 Teacher Dadieso SDA JHS Aowuin Suaman Western Respondent 315 Teacher Dadieso SDA JHS Aowuin Suaman Western Respondent 316 Teacher Dadieso SDA JHS Aowuin Suaman Western Respondent 317 Teacher Dadieso SDA JHS Aowuin Suaman Western Respondent 318 Teacher Dadieso SDA JHS Aowuin Western Suaman Respondent 319 Teacher Dadieso SDA JHS Aowuin Suaman Western Respondent 320 Teacher Dadieso SDA JHS Aowuin Suaman Western Respondent 321 Teacher Dadieso SDA JHS Aowuin Suaman Western Respondent 322 Teacher Dadieso SDA JHS Aowuin Suaman Western Respondent 323 Teacher Dadieso SDA JHS Aowuin Suaman Western Respondent 324 Teacher Dadieso SDA JHS Aowuin Suaman Western Respondent 325 Teacher Dadieso SDA JHS Aowuin Suaman Western Respondent 326 Assemblyman Atebubu Anglican JHS Atebubu Amantin Brong Ahafo Respondent 327 Teacher Atebubu Anglican JHS Atebubu Amantin Brong Ahafo Respondent 328 Teacher Atebubu Anglican JHS Atebubu Amantin Brong Ahafo Respondent 329 Teacher Atebubu Anglican JHS Atebubu Amantin Brong Ahafo Respondent 330 Teacher Atebubu Anglican JHS Atebubu Amantin Brong Ahafo Respondent 331 Teacher Atebubu Anglican JHS Atebubu Amantin Brong Ahafo Respondent 332 Teacher Atebubu Anglican JHS Atebubu Amantin Brong Ahafo Respondent 333 Teacher Atebubu Anglican JHS Atebubu Amantin Brong Ahafo Respondent 334 Teacher Atebubu Anglican JHS Atebubu Amantin Brong Ahafo Respondent 335 Teacher Atebubu Anglican JHS Atebubu Amantin Brong Ahafo Respondent 336 Teacher Atebubu Anglican JHS Atebubu Amantin Brong Ahafo Respondent 337 Head teacher Yawbraso JHS Ejura Sekyedumasi Ashanti Respondent 338 Teacher Yawbraso JHS Ejura Sekyedumasi Ashanti Respondent 339 Teacher Yawbraso JHS Ejura Sekyedumasi Ashanti Respondent 340 Teacher Yawbraso JHS Ejura Sekyedumasi Ashanti Respondent 341 Teacher Yawbraso JHS Ejura Sekyedumasi Ashanti Respondent 342 Teacher Yawbraso JHS Ejura Sekyedumasi Ashanti Respondent 343 Teacher Yawbraso JHS Ejura Sekyedumasi Ashanti Respondent 344 Teacher Yawbraso JHS Ejura Sekyedumasi Ashanti Respondent 345 Teacher Yawbraso JHS Ejura Sekyedumasi Ashanti Respondent 346 Teacher Yawbraso JHS Ejura Sekyedumasi Ashanti Respondent 347 Teacher Yawbraso JHS Ejura Sekyedumasi Ashanti Respondent 348 Teacher Yawbraso JHS Ejura Sekyedumasi Ashanti Respondent 349 Teacher Yawbraso JHS Ejura Sekyedumasi Ashanti Respondent 350 Teacher Yawbraso JHS Ejura Sekyedumasi Ashanti Respondent 351 Teacher Yawbraso JHS Ejura Sekyedumasi Ashanti Respondent 352 Teacher Yawbraso JHS Ejura Sekyedumasi Ashanti Respondent 353 SMC Member Yawbraso JHS Ejura Sekyedumasi Ashanti Respondent 354 SMC Member Yawbraso JHS Ejura Sekyedumasi Ashanti Respondent 355 SMC Member Yawbraso JHS Ejura Sekyedumasi Ashanti Respondent 356 SMC Member Yawbraso JHS Ejura Sekyedumasi Ashanti Respondent 357 SMC Member Yawbraso JHS Ejura Sekyedumasi Ashanti Respondent 358 SMC Chairman Yawbraso JHS Ejura Sekyedumasi Ashanti Respondent 359 SMC Member Yawbraso JHS Ejura Sekyedumasi Ashanti Respondent 360 SMC Member Yawbraso JHS Ejura Sekyedumasi Ashanti Respondent 361 Head teacher Amantin SDA KG Atebubu Amantin Brong Ahafo Respondent 362 Teacher Amantin SDA KG Atebubu Amantin Brong Ahafo Respondent 363 Teacher Amantin SDA KG Atebubu Amantin Brong Ahafo Respondent 364 PTA member Amantin SDA KG Atebubu Amantin Brong Ahafo Respondent 365 PTA member Amantin SDA KG Atebubu Amantin Brong Ahafo Respondent 366 PTA member Amantin SDA KG Atebubu Amantin Brong Ahafo Respondent 367 PTA member Amantin SDA KG Atebubu Amantin Brong Ahafo Respondent 368 PTA member Amantin SDA KG Atebubu Amantin Brong Ahafo Respondent 369 PTA member Amantin SDA KG Atebubu Brong Amantin Ahafo Respondent 370 Parent Amantin SDA KG Atebubu Amantin Brong Ahafo Respondent 371 Parent Amantin SDA KG Atebubu Amantin Brong Ahafo Respondent 372 Parent Amantin SDA KG Atebubu Amantin Brong Ahafo Respondent 373 Parent Amantin SDA KG Atebubu Amantin Brong Ahafo Respondent 374 Male Student Ejura R/C Prim. TB Ejura Sekyedumase Ashanti Respondent 375 Male Student Ejura R/C Prim. TB Ejura Sekyedumase Ashanti Respondent 376 Male Student Ejura R/C Prim. TB Ejura Sekyedumase Ashanti Respondent 377 Male Student Ejura R/C Prim. TB Ejura Sekyedumase Ashanti Respondent 378 Male Student Ejura R/C Prim. TB Ejura Sekyedumase Ashanti Respondent 379 Male Student Ejura R/C Prim. TB Ejura Sekyedumase Ashanti Respondent 380 Male Student Ejura R/C Prim. TB Ejura Sekyedumase Ashanti Respondent 381 Male Student Ejura R/C Prim. TB Ejura Sekyedumase Ashanti Respondent 382 Male Student Ejura R/C Prim. TB Ejura Sekyedumase Ashanti Respondent 383 Female Student Ejura R/C Prim. TB Ejura Sekyedumase Ashanti Respondent 384 Female Student Ejura R/C Prim. TB Ejura Sekyedumase Ashanti Respondent 385 Female Student Ejura R/C Prim. TB Ejura Sekyedumase Ashanti Respondent 386 Female Student Ejura R/C Prim. TB Ejura Sekyedumase Ashanti Respondent 387 Female Student Ejura R/C Prim. TB Ejura Sekyedumase Ashanti Respondent 388 Female Student Ejura R/C Prim. TB Ejura Sekyedumase Ashanti Respondent 389 Female Student Ejura R/C Prim. TB Ejura Sekyedumase Ashanti Respondent 390 Unknown Kabiriti KG Ejura Sekyedumase Ashanti Respondent 391 Unknown Kabiriti KG Ejura Sekyedumase Ashanti Respondent 392 Unknown Kabiriti KG Ejura Sekyedumase Ashanti Respondent 393 Unknown Kabiriti KG Ejura Sekyedumase Ashanti Respondent 394 Unknown Kabiriti KG Ejura Sekyedumase Ashanti Respondent 395 Unknown Kabiriti KG Ejura Sekyedumase Ashanti Respondent 396 Unknown Kabiriti KG Ejura Sekyedumase Ashanti Respondent 397 Unknown Kabiriti KG Ejura Sekyedumase Ashanti Respondent 398 Church Elder Amantin SGA KG Ejura Sekyedumase Ashanti Respondent 399 Parent Amantin SGA KG Ejura Sekyedumase Ashanti Respondent 400 Parent Amantin SGA KG Ejura Sekyedumase Ashanti Respondent 401 SMC Chairman Amantin SGA KG Ejura Sekyedumase Ashanti Respondent 402 PTA Chairman Amantin SGA KG Ejura Sekyedumase Ashanti Respondent 403 Parent Amantin SGA KG Ejura Sekyedumase Ashanti Respondent 404 Parent Amantin SGA KG Ejura Sekyedumase Ashanti Respondent 405 Unknown Amantin SGA KG Ejura Sekyedumase Ashanti Respondent 406 Unknown Bechem Model Girls JHS Tano South Brong Ahafo Respondent 407 Unknown Bechem Model Girls JHS Tano South Brong Ahafo Respondent 408 Unknown Bechem Model Girls JHS Tano South Brong Ahafo Respondent 409 Unknown Bechem Model Girls JHS Tano South Brong Ahafo Respondent 410 Unknown Bechem Model Girls JHS Tano South Brong Ahafo Respondent 411 Unknown Bechem Model Girls JHS Tano South Brong Ahafo Respondent 412 Unknown Bechem Model Girls JHS Tano South Brong Ahafo Respondent 413 Unknown Bechem Model Girls JHS Tano South Brong Ahafo Respondent 414 Female Student Bechem Model Girls JHS Tano South Brong Ahafo Respondent 415 Female Student Bechem Model Girls JHS Tano South Brong Ahafo Respondent 416 Female Student Bechem Model Girls JHS Tano South Brong Ahafo Respondent 417 Female Student Bechem Model Girls JHS Tano South Brong Ahafo Respondent 418 Female Student Bechem Model Girls JHS Tano South Brong Ahafo Respondent 419 Female Student Bechem Model Girls JHS Tano South Brong Ahafo Respondent 420 Female Student Kanvili Tuunayili Tamale Northern M/A Primary TB Respondent 421 Female Student Kanvili Tuunayili M/A Primary TB Tamale Northern Respondent 422 Female Student Kanvili Tuunayili M/A Primary TB Tamale Northern Respondent 423 Female Student Kanvili Tuunayili M/A Primary TB Tamale Northern Respondent 424 Female Student Kanvili Tuunayili M/A Primary TB Tamale Northern Respondent 425 Female Student Kanvili Tuunayili M/A Primary TB Tamale Northern Respondent 426 Male Student Kanvili Tuunayili M/A Primary TB Tamale Northern Respondent 427 Male Student Kanvili Tuunayili M/A Primary TB Tamale Northern Respondent 428 Male Student Kanvili Tuunayili M/A Primary TB Tamale Northern Respondent 429 Male Student Kanvili Tuunayili M/A Primary TB Tamale Northern Respondent 430 Male Student Kanvili Tuunayili M/A Primary TB Tamale Northern Respondent 431 Male Student Kanvili Tuunayili M/A Primary TB Tamale Northern Respondent 432 Head Teacher Bagabaga Demonstration JHS Tamale Northern Respondent 433 SMC member Bagabaga Demonstration JHS Tamale Northern Respondent 434 SMC member Bagabaga Demonstration JHS Tamale Northern Respondent 435 PTA Chairman Bagabaga Demonstration JHS Tamale Northern Respondent 436 Teacher Bagabaga Demonstration JHS Tamale Northern Respondent 437 Teacher Bagabaga Demonstration JHS Tamale Northern Respondent 438 Teacher Bagabaga Demonstration JHS Tamale Northern Respondent 439 Teacher Bagabaga Demonstration JHS Tamale Northern Respondent 440 Head Teacher KG Kalegu DA KG Zabzugu Tatale Northern Respondent 441 Head Teacher JHS Kalegu DA KG Zabzugu Tatale Northern Respondent 442 Teacher JHS Kalegu DA KG Zabzugu Tatale Northern Respondent 443 Teacher JHS Kalegu DA KG Zabzugu Tatale Northern Respondent 444 Teacher JHS Kalegu DA KG Zabzugu Tatale Northern Respondent 445 Teacher Kalegu Primary Kalegu DA KG Zabzugu Tatale Northern Respondent 446 Teacher JHS Kalegu DA KG Zabzugu Tatale Northern Respondent 447 Teacher Kalegu Primary Kalegu DA KG Zabzugu Tatale Northern Respondent 448 PTA Chairman Kalegu DA KG Zabzugu Tatale Northern Respondent 449 SMC Chairman Kalegu DA KG Zabzugu Tatale Northern Respondent 450 Teacher Kalegu DA KG Zabzugu Tatale Northern Respondent 451 Teacher Kalegu DA KG Zabzugu Tatale Northern Respondent 452 Head teacher Gor-Kukani D/A JHS Zabzugu Tatale Northern Respondent 453 Assistant Head teacher Gor-Kukani D/A JHS Zabzugu Tatale Northern Respondent 454 Teacher Gor-Kukani D/A JHS Zabzugu Tatale Northern Respondent 455 Teacher Gor-Kukani D/A JHS Zabzugu Tatale Northern Respondent 456 Teacher Gor-Kukani D/A JHS Zabzugu Tatale Northern Respondent 457 Teacher Gor-Kukani D/A JHS Zabzugu Tatale Northern Respondent 458 Teacher Gor-Kukani D/A JHS Zabzugu Tatale Northern Respondent 459 Head teacher Nwodua JHS Tolon Kumbungu Northern Respondent 460 Teacher Nwodua JHS Tolon Kumbungu Northern Respondent 461 Teacher Nwodua JHS Tolon Kumbungu Northern Respondent 462 PTA Chairman Nwodua JHS Tolon Kumbungu Northern Respondent 463 PTA Member Nwodua JHS Tolon Kumbungu Northern Respondent 464 PTA Member Nwodua JHS Tolon Kumbungu Northern Respondent 465 PTA Member Nwodua JHS Tolon Kumbungu Northern Respondent 466 Head teacher Ngani RC JHS Yendi Northern Respondent 467 Assistant Head teacher Ngani RC JHS Yendi Northern Respondent 468 SMC Chairman Ngani RC JHS Yendi Northern Respondent 469 SMC Secretary Ngani RC JHS Yendi Northern Respondent 470 Head teacher - primary sch. Ngani RC JHS Yendi Northern Respondent 471 PTA chairman Ngani RC JHS Yendi Northern Respondent 472 PTA member Ngani RC JHS Yendi Northern Respondent 473 PTA secretary Ngani RC JHS Yendi Northern Respondent 474 PTA member Ngani RC JHS Yendi Northern Respondent 475 PTA member Ngani RC JHS Yendi Northern Respondent 476 SMC member Ngani RC JHS Yendi Northern Respondent 477 Chief's representative Ngani RC JHS Yendi Northern Respondent 478 Chief's palace Ngani RC JHS Yendi Northern Respondent 479 Teacher Ngani RC JHS Yendi Northern Respondent 480 Teacher Ngani RC JHS Yendi Northern Respondent 481 Teacher Ngani RC JHS Yendi Northern Respondent 482 Head teacher & Sang Islamic KG Yendi Northern Assemblyman Respondent 483 Teacher Sang Islamic KG Yendi Northern Respondent 484 Teacher Sang Islamic KG Yendi Northern Respondent 485 Arabic teacher Sang Islamic KG Yendi Northern Respondent 486 SMC & PTA chairman Sang Islamic KG Yendi Northern Respondent 487 Teacher Sang Islamic KG Yendi Northern Respondent 488 Teacher Sang Islamic KG Yendi Northern Respondent 489 Teacher Sang Islamic KG Yendi Northern Respondent 490 Head teacher Gbungbaliga JHS Yendi Northern Respondent 491 Teacher Gbungbaliga JHS Yendi Northern Respondent 492 Teacher Gbungbaliga JHS Yendi Northern Respondent 493 Teacher Gbungbaliga JHS Yendi Northern Respondent 494 Teacher Gbungbaliga JHS Yendi Northern Respondent 495 Teacher Gbungbaliga JHS Yendi Northern Respondent 496 Teacher Gbungbaliga JHS Yendi Northern Respondent 497 Teacher Tolon-Kumbungu KG Tolon￾Kumbungu Northern Respondent 498 Teacher Tolon-Kumbungu KG Tolon￾Kumbungu Northern Respondent 499 Teacher Bediboade D/A JHS Zabzugu-Tatale Northern Respondent 500 Teacher Bediboade D/A JHS Zabzugu-Tatale Northern Respondent 501 Teacher Bediboade D/A JHS Zabzugu-Tatale Northern Respondent 502 Teacher Bediboade D/A JHS Zabzugu-Tatale Northern Respondent 503 Male Student Bediboade D/A Prim TB Zabzugu-Tatale Northern Respondent 504 Male Student Bediboade D/A Prim TB Zabzugu-Tatale Northern Respondent 505 Male Student Bediboade D/A Prim TB Zabzugu-Tatale Northern Respondent 506 Male Student Bediboade D/A Prim TB Zabzugu-Tatale Northern Respondent 507 Male Student Bediboade D/A Prim TB Zabzugu-Tatale Northern Respondent 508 Male Student Bediboade D/A Prim TB Zabzugu-Tatale Northern Respondent 509 Head teacher Fumbisi JHS Builsa Upper East Respondent 510 Asst. Head teacher Fumbisi JHS Builsa Upper East Respondent 511 Teacher Fumbisi JHS Builsa Upper East Respondent 512 Teacher Fumbisi JHS Builsa Upper East Respondent 513 Teacher Fumbisi JHS Builsa Upper East Respondent 514 Head teacher Fumbisi Primary/KG Builsa Upper East Respondent 515 Teacher Fumbisi Primary/KG Builsa Upper East Respondent 516 Teacher Fumbisi Primary/KG Builsa Upper East Respondent 517 Head teacher Christ the King KG/Primary TB Builsa Upper East Respondent 518 KG Teacher Christ the King KG/Primary TB Builsa Upper East Respondent 519 KG Teacher Christ the King KG/Primary TB Builsa Upper East Respondent 520 Male Student Kariyata TB Garu Tempane Upper East Respondent 521 Male Student Kariyata TB Garu Tempane Upper East Respondent 522 Male Student Kariyata TB Garu Tempane Upper East Respondent 523 Male Student Kariyata TB Garu Tempane Upper East Respondent 524 Male Student Kariyata TB Garu Tempane Upper East Respondent 525 Male Student Kariyata TB Garu Tempane Upper East Respondent 526 Male Student Kariyata TB Garu Tempane Upper East Respondent 527 Head Teacher Kugrago JHS Garu Tempane Upper East Respondent 528 Asst. Head Teacher Kugrago JHS Garu Tempane Upper East Respondent 529 Teacher Kugrago JHS Garu Tempane Upper East Respondent 530 Teacher Kugrago JHS Garu Tempane Upper East Respondent 531 Teacher Kugrago JHS Garu Tempane Upper East Respondent 532 PTA chairman Kugrago JHS Garu Tempane Upper East Respondent 533 Teacher Kugrago JHS Garu Tempane Upper East Respondent 534 SMC chair & Sub￾chief Kugrago JHS Garu Tempane Upper East Respondent 535 Sub-chief Kugrago JHS Garu Tempane Upper East Respondent 536 A.M.A. Zamrama Cluster (Dansoman) JHS Accra Accra Respondent 537 Project Officer A.M.A. Zamrama Cluster (Dansoman) JHS Accra Accra Respondent 538 A.M.A. Zamrama Cluster (Dansoman) JHS Accra Accra Respondent 539 GES Zamrama Cluster (Dansoman) JHS Accra Accra Respondent 540 GES Zamrama Cluster (Dansoman) JHS Accra Accra Respondent 541 GES Zamrama Cluster (Dansoman) JHS Accra Accra Respondent 542 GES Zamrama Cluster (Dansoman) JHS Accra Accra Respondent 543 GES Zamrama Cluster (Dansoman) JHS Accra Accra Respondent 544 GES Zamrama Cluster (Dansoman) JHS Accra Accra Respondent 545 GES Zamrama Cluster (Dansoman) JHS Accra Accra Respondent 546 GES Zamrama Cluster (Dansoman) JHS Accra Accra Respondent 547 GES Zamrama Cluster (Dansoman) JHS Accra Accra Respondent 548 GES Zamrama Cluster (Dansoman) JHS Accra Accra Respondent 549 GES Zamrama Cluster (Dansoman) JHS Accra Accra Respondent 550 GES Zamrama Cluster (Dansoman) JHS Accra Accra Respondent 551 GES Zaari JHS Gary Tempane Upper East Respondent 552 GES Zaari JHS Gary Tempane Upper East Respondent 553 GES Zaari JHS Gary Tempane Upper East Respondent 554 GES Zaari JHS Gary Tempane Upper East Respondent 555 GES Zaari JHS Gary Tempane Upper East Respondent 556 SMC member Kamahegu/Dafiama KG Nadowli Upper West Respondent 557 Chairman SMC Kamahegu/Dafiama KG Nadowli Upper West Respondent 558 SMC member Kamahegu/Dafiama KG Nadowli Upper West Respondent 559 SMC member Kamahegu/Dafiama KG Nadowli Upper West Respondent 560 SMC member Kamahegu/Dafiama KG Nadowli Upper West Respondent 561 GES (Headmaster) Gyilli D/A JHS Nadowli Upper West Respondent 562 GES (Teacher) Gyilli D/A JHS Nadowli Upper West Respondent 563 Contractor, building TB Bussie D/A Primary TB Nadowli Upper West Annex 4b: Information Sources - Sites Visited by Geographic Region Greater Accra Region 1 Ga West4 2 Teshie-Nungua DEO 3 Kotobabi Cluster of Schools 4 Zamrama Line Cluster of Schools Volta Region 5 Dzodze DEO 6 Sremanu D/A 7 Sremanu D/A Eastern Region 8 Bormase Hwyena D/A Primary 9 Korm D/A JHS 10 Survey line L/A Primary 11 Asempaneye L/A Central 12 Aboom Zion Cluster of Schools 13 O. L. A Presby Primary 14 Awutu Beraku DEO 15 Achiase/Bedzeadze Western 16 Aniamote 17 Mansiso D/A Primary 18 Suhyenso 19 Adjakaa D/A Primary 20 Boinso 21 Dadieso SDA JHS Upper West 22 Gyili D/A 23 Kamahegu / Dafiama 24 Bussie D/A Ashanti 25 Nsuta 26 Yawbraso JHS 27 Ejura Roman Catholic Primary Anyinasu 4 The evaluation team had planned but was unable to visit Ga West JHS as the implementer was unavailable to help the team locate the site. 28 Kabriti Brong Ahafo 29 Atebubu Anglican JHS 30 Ahotor Primary 31 Amantin SDA 32 Girls Model JHS, Bechem Northern Region 33 Kanvilli Tuunayili M/A Primary 34 Bagabaga Demonstration Sagnerigu JHS 35 Central Nuriya JHS 36 Fuo Mutariya 37 Gbanjogla 38 Garishegu 39 Nwodua JHS 40 Kpendua 41 Ngnani RC 42 Sang Islamic 43 Gbungbaliga RC 44 Gbungbaliga RC 45 Gor-Kukani JHS 46 Kworli D/A 47 Bediboabe D/A Primary 48 Kalegu D/A 49 Molishegu 50 Bagli 51 Bagkuli 52 Tamaligu Upper East 53 Fumbisi JHS 54 Fumbisi 55 Christ The King Primary 56 Zaari 57 Kugrago JHS 58 Kariyata Annex 4c: Information Sources - Annotated Bibliography of Documents Reviewed Anderson, C. (2011). Action Memorandum to the Regional Assistant Administrator. Ghana: USAID/Ghana. Associates for Change. (2014). Final Evaluation of Ghana Transition and Persistence Project: 2010- 2013. Accra, Ghana: Author. The project’s Final Evaluation, conducted by an external consultant, Associates for Change (AfC), found that the TAP project recorded enormous improvements by increasing learning spaces, improving physical infrastructure, and reducing socio–economic barriers to JHS enrollment as well as completion for pupils and their families across 156 TAP schools in 13 districts of Ghana. Bennett, A. (2013). FARA/FPMU Monitoring Report. Accra, Ghana: USAID. Bennett, A. (2013). Summary of Findings: MOE/FPMU Construction of 159 Facilities. Accra, Ghana: USAID. Bennett, A. (2013). Trip Report: Brong Ahafo, Ashanti, Eastern, and Volta Regions (April 24-May 3, 2014). Accra, Ghana: USAID. Bennett, A. (2013). Trip Report: May 29, 2014. Accra, Ghana: USAID. Aaron Bennett Engineer USAID/Ghana, made a series of field visits to assess progress in the construction of FPMU buildings. His findings, including these two, echo those of the PWC evaluation mission:  COWs are not inspecting forms prior to concrete pours; honeycombing, exposed rebar, wrong dimensions, multiple pours causing weak joints, forms not level and plumb, and insufficient rebar overlap are very common issues.  Many facilities used nails adjacent to screws that were too small to secure hardware. Biofilcom. (n.d.) The Biofil Toilet System. Retrieved from https://www.biofilcom.org/static/pdf/how-biofil-toilet-system-works.pdf The Biofil Digester is a simple compact on-site organic waste treatment system that uniquely combines the benefits of the flush toilet system and those of the composting toilets and eliminates the disadvantages and drawbacks of both systems. It is the model used for the KVIP toilets in the PWC program. FAS Consult, Ltd. (2013). Monthly Interim Report (November). Accra, Ghana: Author. FAS Consult, Ltd. (2014). Monthly Interim Report (July). Accra, Ghana: Author. FAS Consult, Ltd. (2014). Monthly Interim Report (March). Accra, Ghana: Author. FAS Consult, Ltd. (2014). Monthly Interim Report (May). Accra, Ghana: Author. FAS Consult, Ltd. (2014). Monthly Interim Report (October). Accra, Ghana: Author. FAS Consult, Ltd. (2014). Monthly Interim Report (September). Accra, Ghana: Author. FAS Consult, Ltd. (2014). Report on Furniture Supply. Accra, Ghana: Author. FPMU. (2013). USAID Construction Project: Quarterly Progress Report (December). Accra, Ghana: Author. FPMU. (2013). USAID Construction Project: Quarterly Progress Report (June). Accra, Ghana: Author. FPMU. (2014). USAID Construction Project: Quarterly Progress Report (June). Accra, Ghana: Author. FPMU. (2013). USAID Construction Project: Quarterly Progress Report (March). Accra, Ghana: Author. FPMU. (2013). USAID Construction Project: Quarterly Progress Report (September). Accra, Ghana: Author. FPMU. (2014). USAID Construction Project: Quarterly Progress Report (September). Accra, Ghana: Author. FPMU. (n.d.). USAID Construction Project: Quarterly Progress Report. Accra, Ghana: Author. FAS Consult was hired by USAID/Ghana to manage the PWC project and to ensure the project objectives were met. Many of the observations made by FAS Consult in one month were repeated in the following months. It seems that not much attention was given to its observations and recommendations by USAID. Millennium Development Authority. (2014). Design-Build Sanitation Facilities and other Minor Works – Phase 1B Project: Completion Report. Accra, Ghana: Author. The KVIP toilet was chosen as a model for areas, particularly in the North, where flooding and overflowing of cesspits pose a risk to the environment and public health. Logistical challenges in reaching remote locations and the need to train local artisans caused delays in this component of the PWC. Plan International USA, Inc. (2010). USAID/Ghana Transition and Persistence Program: Environmental Mitigation and Monitoring Plan. Washington, DC: Author. Plan International USA, Inc. (2014). Ghana Transition and Persistence Project: Ghana TAP Final Narrative Report: 2010-2013. Washington, DC: Author. Plan International USA, Inc. (2010). USAID/Ghana Transition and Persistence Program (TAP) Performance Monitoring Plan. Washington, DC: Author. The results of the Ghana Transition and Persistence Project (TAP) are summarized in the Associates for Change study of the project (above). PricewaterhouseCoopers (Ghana), Ltd. (2010). Final Report on the Pre-Award Assessment of the Accra Metropolitan Assembly (AMA). Accra, Ghana: Author. PricewaterhouseCoopers (Ghana), Ltd. (2010). Final Report on the Pre-Award Assessment of the Funds and Procurement Unit (FPMU) of the Ministry of Education. Accra, Ghana: Author. In 2010, USAID contracted PricewaterhouseCoopers to assess the capacity of the FPMU to manage the largest component of the PWC project. During the assessment, PricewaterhouseCoopers noted the following exceptions to the overall capacity of the FPMU:  Inadequate staffing to manage the USAID project;  Lack of training on USAID funded projects;  FPMU not included in annual audit plan;  No documented human resource management plan DSSEP. (n.d.) Part One: General Introduction to Maintenance Management Issues. School Maintenance Manual for Senior High Schools, pp. 1-104. This document defines the responsibilities of the main partners in school maintenance. The District Assemblies have overall responsibility for the process, which is implemented through school maintenance plans. Schools are encouraged to seek maintenance funds from government sources, external funding from NGOs or charities, and internal sources such as durbars and jumble sales. The PWC team did not find maintenance plans at the JHS and KG levels during the field research. Blueprints FPMU. (n.d.). Details: Proposed District Education Office. Accra, Ghana: Author. FPMU. (2012). One Stream Kindergarten Block. Accra, Ghana: Author. FPMU. (2012). Proposed 3-Unit Classroom Block for Junior High School. Accra, Ghana: Author. FPMU. (n.d.). Proposed District Education Office. Accra, Ghana: Author. FPMU. (2011). Proposed One Stream Kindergarten Block : Furniture Arrangement. Accra, Ghana: Author. FPMU. (2011). Proposed Seater KVIP Toilet Block & Urinal. Accra, Ghana: Author. FPMU. (2011). Seater WC Toilet Block & Urinal. Accra, Ghana: Author. Contract Documents Amendment No. 1 to Contract for Design-Build of Sanitation Facilities and other Minor Works Phase 1B. Millennium Development Authority-Biofil Technologies Ltd. (2013). Contract No. 3201202/1 Amendment No. 2 to Contract for Design-Build of Sanitation Facilities and other Minor Works Phase 1B. Millennium Development Authority-Biofil Technologies Ltd. (2013). Contract No. 3201202/1 Amendment No. 1 to The Construction of Equipping Schools, Toilets and District Education Offices and for Conducting Substantial Completion Inspection of School Facilities Constructed through the USAID TAP Program. USA-Ghana. (2013). Modified Fixed Amount Reimbursement Agreement. Amendment No. 2 to The Construction of Equipping Schools, Toilets and District Education Offices and for Conducting Substantial Completion Inspection of School Facilities Constructed through the USAID TAP Program. USA-Ghana. (2014). Modified Fixed Amount Reimbursement Agreement. Certificate of Completion: Construction of 3-Storey 18 Unit Classroom Block with Ancillary Facilities (Dansoman ‘1’ Cluster of Schools at Okpoti), Government of Ghana- The United States of America, (2014). Certificate of Completion: Construction of 3-Storey 18 Unit Classroom Block with Ancillary Facilities (Dansoman ‘2’ Cluster of Schools at Nasarawa), Government of Ghana- The United States of America, (2014). Certificate of Completion: Construction of 3-Storey 18 Unit Classroom Block with Ancillary Facilities (Mamprobi Salvation Army School Compound), Government of Ghana- The United States of America, (2014). The Construction of Biofil Toilets for Phase 1B Schools Built with MCC Funding in Northern Agricultural Zones of Ghana. USAID – MiDA. (2012). Fixed Amount Reimbursement Agreement (with Provisions for Advance). The FARA and the amendments listed above document the delays in constructing the KVIPs in remote locations. Biofil Technologies was the contractor hired by MiDA to do the work for USAID. The Construction of Equipping Schools, Toilets and District Education Offices and for Conducting Substantial Completion Inspection of School Facilities Constructed through the USAID TAP Program. USA-Ghana. (2011). Modified Fixed Amount Reimbursement Agreement (with Provisions for Advance). This is the fundamental document of the PWC initiative in that it defines the objectives of the program and the modality of implementation through the FPMU. The document’s Attachment II defines the design services, specifying that all the schools, toilets, and DEO buildings financed by USAID will be constructed to a safe standard following the Ghana Building Code, Ghana Standards, and the Uniform Building Code 1997, or the International Building Code (IBC) 2006 or 2009. USAID/Ghana Contract No. AID-641-C-00003. USAID-FAS Consult, Ltd. (2013). Amendment/Modification to USAID/Ghana Contract No. AID-641-C-00003. USAID-FAS Consult, Ltd. (2014). Ghana Transition and Persistence Program, USAID- Plan International USA, Inc. (2010). Cooperative Agreement No. 641-A-00-10-00026-00. Letter of Acknowledgement and Selection of Two Schools, Ghana Office of the Metropolitan Administration- USAID, (2014), A.010/18/43. Modified Fixed Amount Reimbursement Agreement (With Provisions for Advance), The Accra Metropolitan Assembly- The United States of America, (2011). Modification of Assistance 1. USAID- Plan International USA, Inc. (2010). Cooperative Agreement: 641-A-00-10-00026-00. Modification of Assistance 2. USAID- Plan International USA, Inc. (2011). Cooperative Agreement: 641-A-00-10-00026-00. Modification of Assistance 3. USAID- Plan International USA, Inc. (2012). Cooperative Agreement: 641-A-00-10-00026-00. Modification of Assistance 5. USAID- Plan International USA, Inc. (2013). Cooperative Agreement: 641-A-00-10-00026-00. Cooperative Agreement No. 641-A-00-10-00026-00 was signed on May 4, 2010 for a period of three years. The cost-sharing aspect of the Agreement is unique among the four IPs in the PWC. Plan International USA agreed to add $1,916,200 of the $8,000,000 grant from USAID. Total funding: $9,916,200. Plan International proposed a “whole school improvement approach” which emphasizes child-centered community development to achieve the project’s objectives. Plan’s strategy was to create a learning environment conducive to increasing enrollment and completion, while at the same time motivating and rewarding students, teachers, and communities to improve their performance. USAID Assistance Agreement No. 641-008, Improved Quality of and Access to Basic Education: Implementation Letter (IL) No. 10, USAID- Ghana Ministry of Education, (2011). USAID Assistance Agreement No. 641-008, Improved Quality of and Access to Basic Education: Implementation Letter (IL) No. 10 – Amendment 1, USAID- Ghana Ministry of Education, (2012). USAID Assistance Agreement No. 641-008, Improved Quality of and Access to Basic Education: Implementation Letter (IL) No FY11-641-1L-008-10-Amendment 3, USAID- Ghana Ministry of Education, (2013). USAID Assistance Agreement No. 641-008, Improved Quality of and Access to Basic Education: Implementation Letter No. FY11-641-1L-008-009,-Amendment No. 4, USAID- Ghana Ministry of Education, (2014). Other Documents (Titles): Biofil – Operation and Maintenance Instructions Community Services Activity: Provision of Latrines in Phase 1A &1B Schools: Justification for the adoption of Biofil Type of Toilet for the use of Phase 1A & 1B Schools Construction Invoice Receipts: District Education Office Block. Received from FPMU Construction Invoice Receipts: Junior High School, Kindergarten and KVIP Toilet Blocks. Received from FPMU Construction Invoice Receipts: Junior High School, Kindergarten and WC Toilet Blocks. Received from FPMU Cooperating Districts – FPMU/FPRA MiDA. Estimated Cost of Products: July 2009 Preliminary Cost Estimates of Recommended Toilet Facilities PRELIMS: District Education Office. Received from FPMU PRELIMS: Kindergarten, Junior High School, Toilet Blocks. Received from FPMU Revised Cost Estimates – Biofil Tiolet Facility (Phase 1B) Technical Audit Report on Basic School Structures (2012) Technical Specifications – Building Works. Received from FPMU Annex 6: Results of the Quantitative Questionnaire for Group Discussion and KII Participants1 Q1. Was a needs assessment done? Scale Response Could not be determined 48 No 0 Yes 2 Total responses 50 Q3. Were communities involved in deciding the type of structure? Scale Response No 49 Yes 1 Total responses 50 Q2. Community Participation (in needs assessment) Scale Response No evidence of community involvement 46 Some level 4 Strong level 0 Total responses 50 1 The evaluation team was unable to arrange group discussions or interviews with stakeholders at the seven MiDA sites sampled, bringing the total number of responses to 50. Response totals may vary depending on the relevance of the specific question to the sites visited. Q5. Provision of furniture for students Scale Response Not Provided 3 Provided but not adequate 15 Adequate 15 Total responses 33 Q4. Level of adequacy of structures: classrooms (KG/JHS) – student ratio Scale Response Inadequate 19 Adequate 18 Total responses 37 Q7. Level of adequacy of structures: TB/KVIP– student ratio Scale Response Inadequate 9 Adequate 5 Total responses 14 Q6. Provision of furniture for staff Scale Response Not provided 27 Provided but not adequate 3 Adequate 3 Total responses 33 Q10. Impact of TB/KVIP on retention of female students Scale Response Could not be determined 16 Impact was low 0 Impact was high 0 Total responses 16 Q9. Level of toilet privacy Scale Response No privacy 3 Some level of privacy 12 Adequate level of privacy 0 Total responses 15 Q8. Provision of sanitation elements (waste bins, soap and water) Scale Response Not provided 12 Provided but not adequate 3 Provided 1 Total responses 16 Annex 7: Building Adequacy Criteria The evaluation team adopted the following adequacy criteria based on technical expertise and bolstered by best practices in similar country contexts, in order to have a parameter to which to compare the observations derived from document review and field work. Quantitative Criteria JHS: The school should suit the needs of the students graduating from rimary School in the catchment area. In areas of population growth, a 20% extra capacity should be considered beyond the design capacity. Maximum of 40 students per classroom. KG: The school should suit the needs of the un-attended population in the age bracket in the area where students live. In areas of population growth, a 20% extra capacity should be considered beyond the design capacity. Maximum of 30 students per classroom. KVIP/ TB: One toilet for every 30 students. One sink for every 4 toilets. DEO: The office building should suit the needs of all the staff that presently works at the District Education Office. In areas of enrollment growth, a 20% extra capacity should be considered beyond the design capacity. Qualitative Criteria JHS: The school should include all the types of spaces that are needed to deliver the JHS curriculum including classrooms, laboratories, library, spaces for physical education, etc. Such spaces include the necessary utilities to run the equipment. Toilets should be in close proximity to the classrooms and have running water and drainage. Walkways between the school entrance and the main school buildings should be paved, accessible, and protected from rain. The same applies to walkways from classrooms to toilets, labs, etc. KG: The school should have appropriate finishes to allow educational activities to be conducted with no harm to students and facilities. KG design should also allow for growth beyond two classrooms with a proportionate increase in ancillary spaces like bathrooms, cafeteria, administrative offices, playground, etc. Exterior gates should be closed but not be locked during school hours. Grass and green areas are necessary for recreation and educational purposes. Large sand patches are costly and not sustainable. When steps are necessary, adequate railings should be provided. KVIP/ TB: Floors and walls should be covered with tiles up to regulation height. Fixtures, pipes, and connections should be heavy-duty in quality. Shut-off keys and meters should be concealed. Leads for inspection chambers and septic tanks should be removable only by authorized personnel. Doors for toilet stalls should me marked on the outside to designated use by boys, girls or professors. Doors for toilet stalls should be lockable from the inside and not from the outside. Urinals for boys should be roofed and placed away from the entrance of the girls’ toilets. Open urinals for girls are not acceptable. DEOs: Places for community gatherings should be placed preferably on the ground floor to facilitate access. Individual offices should be kept to a minimum, giving preference to open spaces with work stations that are more space efficient. Entrance halls and internal circulations should be kept to a minimum. External perimeter should be kept to a minimum. Structural system should be as simple as possible. Glass louvers should be avoided as much as possible and sliding aluminum windows should be used instead. Exterior doors should be of a higher grade than interior doors. Furniture dimensions should be the appropriate to the function. Doors in emergency exits should open to the outside and should not be locked. All working rooms should be air conditioned to avoid the dust that could damage office equipment. A central air conditioning system should be considered as it is much more efficient than individual wall units. For all constructions:  The perimeter of the school should be fenced and gated to provide additional security and safety to occupants and premises.  Buildings should be oriented to avoid excessive heat gain and dust.  Landscape should be designed to support education and to improve the livability of the built areas.  Building and site layout should comply with all regulations concerning accessibility of persons with disabilities.  As much as possible buildings should be located in flat sites and away from possible high water streams during the rainy season.  All hardware should be heavy-duty in quality and appropriate for intensive use.  Water and electrical controls should be accessible only to authorized personnel.  No pipes or electrical wiring should be exposed or left without protection.  Doors and window protections should have proper latching to avoid possible harm to occupants and to the facilities.  Walls and roofs should be insulated to prevent heat gain.  Paint jobs should be properly finished.  Rain gutters and water down spots should be firmly bracketed, especially when rain water is collected to further use.  Rain water contained in tanks should be processed before it is made available for human consumption. Further References on Building Adequacy In order to provide additional support to the Adequacy Criteria mentioned above, the evaluation team considered several sources of guidelines on international good practices in school design. The following provide useful references for evaluating the PWC activities and planning corrective measures to deal with identified program limitations.  Theunynck, S. (2008). School construction strategies for universal primary education in Africa should communities be empowered to build their schools? World Bank. This comprehensive compendium of good practices in school construction from Africa (or are applicable to the continent) covers some of the key issues raised during the PWC evaluation. First of all, the author explores the pros and the cons of centralized management of school construction. He concludes that if community support is important, a decentralized approach is best. One of the challenges of the PWC program was the top-down nature of its design and implementation. Besides providing land and support to construction crews, local residents had little or no involvement in the choice of structure that was eventually built in their communities. Since the beneficiary schools did not often receive what they had requested, there is little incentive for them to develop and fund maintenance plans. In order to address such a problem this book provides a road map for decentralized school construction and management, taking into account the risks of corruption in giving funds to local education authorities to contract local construction firms to build schools. The book provides useful guidance, with many references to established practices in Africa and other developing regions in the areas of: 1. Local procurement and contract management; 2. Setting up a community school management system; 3. Local involvement in school maintenance; 4. Dealing with corruption in school construction; 5. The role of external donors in supporting local initiatives.  De Spiegeleer, J. (1986). Primary school buildings: Standards, norms and design. Thailand: Unesco Regional Office for Education in Asia and the Pacific. Retrieved from: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0010/001017/101760e.pdf This document focuses on building small rural schools using local materials. It proposes school and classroom designs to support student-centered learning. The author provides techniques for calculating the demand for education in a school’s catchment area and providing larger classrooms for the lower grades. In Bhutan, as in rural Africa, KG and first grade have more students than 6th grade. JHS1 has larger enrollments than JHS3. The issue is the impact of grade repetition and dropping out, which means that out of a cohort of 100 students in 1st grade, 70 may complete 6th grade in rural areas. JHS enrollments follow a similar pattern. The document provides useful guidance on school location in relation to its physical environment as well as designing furniture of different sizes to accommodate younger and older students. The KG chapter is particularly useful for the Ghanaian context.  International Building Code. (2007). Retrieved March 1, 2015, from http://publicecodes.cyberregs.com/icod/index.htm The International Building Code (IBC) is a model building code developed by the International Code Council (ICC). The ICC documentation is comprehensive and should be used selectively in school design and construction in general, and in Ghana in particular. Annex 8a: Observations on the FARA between USAID and FPMU Page/ Point # Line or Paragraph Observation 1/1 … Substantial Completion Inspection… “Substantial Completion” is only a phase of the construction supervision process. Based on the letter of this contract nobody has been charged with the responsibility of making the final inspection. 2/2 … to make available $ 19 MM for the design …. According to USAID the designs were a contribution by the MoE. It is not clear how the money available for design was used. 3/3 Construction and furnishing up to: …. This is not precise contract language and it is prone to many possible interpretations. There is no description of the type, capacity, area or specifications of the buildings to be constructed. To the opinion of this evaluation team and according to international best practices, three classrooms and a small administrative area do no constitute a school. 3/4 … MoE/ FPMU will consult with the District Education Offices …. to determine the specific location of each kindergarten and Junior High School … The team’s observations indicate that school communities were not consulted in this process or not listened too. 3/5 … MoE/ FPMU shall submit to USAID detailed and site specific designs … According to USAID such designs were never submitted and USAID approved only generic designs. USAID did not enforced this clause of the contract. 3/6 Once approved by USAID, …. May not be altered of modified …. The team’s observations indicate that the generic designs were altered during construction and there is no record of USAID approval for such changes. 3/7 All the equipment, labor and materials …. will be in strict accordance with specifications, drawings …on internationally-accepted requirements … The designs used for these projects were model designs that the MoE was using for a long time without any adaptation to USAID requirements. There is no evidence that USAID conducted a review to enforce this point. 3/8 MoE/ FPMU will coordinate with Plan USA to conduct substantial completion inspections …. The team’s observations indicate that each of the implementing partners conducted their construction works inspections. 4/9 ... costs not to exceed the maximum USAID reimbursement per unit cost for each particular line item …. upon determination by USAID … The evaluation team was informed that FPMU provided the unit costs and USAID approved them. 4/10 … determination by USAID that specific works have been completed in accordance with the site specific designs and specifications approved by USAID … USAID did not have the opportunity to verify that works were completed in accordance to site specific designs, because site specific designs were never done for this project. 4/11 USAID’s agreement to reimburse the MoE ….is contingent on USAID approval of progress on the works and the final approval of the completed works. USAID did not have the administrative capacity to directly oversee work progress and completed work, and had to rely on FPMU and third parties for this task. 5/12 USAID will provide the MoE/FPMU with a monthly advance of funds … There was only one advance of funds at the beginning of the project. No other payment was provided on a regular monthly basis, but as a reimbursement of completed work. 5/13 USAID will provide … advances for conducting substantial completion inspections … This contract does not specify obligations by FPMU to do any kind of site inspections except for the substantial completion. 6/14 Financial management issues There is no evidence of a planned correlation between construction progress and money advances or reimbursements. 6/15 USAID … will inspect the works … in accordance with USAID regulations, policies and procedures … No regulations, policies and procedures for work inspections could be found at the USAID offices. 7/16 Parties understand … that USAID … will not reimburse the MoE/FPMU for any works … unless said works have been completed in accordance with this Agreement and the specifications, drawings and schedule as detailed in the site specific designs submitted and approved by USAID The team’s observations indicate that USAID made payments to MoE/FPMU without a consideration of drawings, specifications or schedule. 8/17 MoE/ FPMU shall provide USAID with a PMP within 45 days of this agreement. The PMP shall include a results table with indicators and targets to measure the results of the program. MoE/ FPMU did not prepare a PMP and USAID did not enforce this part of the contract. 8/18 The completion date for all works … will be 24 months … This time limit proved unrealistic considering that the program had insufficient planning and the necessary resources were not deployed to ensure the project would be completed in a timely fashion. 9/19 The Assistance Agreement requires the GoG to provide a cost-share match The evaluation team could not find any record of the exact amount or the breakdown of the GoG’s contribution. of at least thirty-three percent of the total value of USAID contributions. 9/20 As a condition for this agreement the MoE/ FPMU agrees to address all the recommendations in the pre-award assessment (report) conducted by Price Waterhouse Coopers …. There is no evidence that MoE/ FPMU has complied with all the recommendations proposed by PWC. USAID did not enforce this part of the contract. 11/21 The MoE/FPMU agree that if any reimbursements are made by USAID for work subsequently determined by USAID to be incomplete , nonfunctional of otherwise not in accordance with the terms of this FARA. USAID shall have the right to require a refund of any or all payments made by USAID for such work. At this point it is not yet certain if USAID will enforce this part of the contract. Annex 8a: Observations on the FARA between USAID and MiDA Page/ Point # Line or paragraph Observation 2/1 Attachments None of these attachments were made available for the evaluation team to review. 4/2 … the GoG through the Ministry of Education …and ensure the proper maintenance and repair of facilities constructed … for a period of two years .. The MOE did capacity to ensure the maintenance of any of its facilities, and USAID was aware of this situation at the time of signing this contract. 5/3 … USAID will not reimburse MiDA … for any activity …unless such activity has been completed in accordance with … the specifications, drawings … USAID did not have the technical or logistical capacity to verify the completion of 24 distinct projects, each of them in remote parts of the country. 6/4 Progress reports Progress reports were not available to the evaluation team. 6/5 Completion date The project was not completed by Feb 15, 2012. In January 2013 and in February 2013 MiDA requested extensions of the contract. 7/6 All works … will conform to the specifications, drawings and criteria … Such specifications, drawings and criteria could not be found at the USAID Mission. Annex 8c: Observations on the FARA between USAID and AMA Page/ Point # Line or Paragraph Observation 2/1 … and maintenance of schools … The evaluation team could not find any evidence that a specific maintenance strategy and resource stream has been implemented for these schools. A little over a year after completion, some of these projects already show signs of lack of maintenance. 2/2 Constructing, furnishing, inspecting and maintaining four three-story 18-classroom school These are very vague definitions. There is no indication of school level, dimensions, finishings, type of furniture or other specifications. 2/3 … AMA shall submit detail site￾specific designs … AMA was not able to provide to the evaluation team with copies of such designs. 3/4 The site-specific designs and specifications as approved by USAID … There is no evidence at USAID that the mentioned designs and specifications have been approved by USAID. 3/5 AMA will digitalize records and files … The evaluation team could not find any evidence that project records have been digitalized. 3/6 … and upon a determination by USAID that the specific Works have/ has completed in accordance with site specific designs…. USAID did not have any objective measure to determine the approval of works. 4/7 USAID’s agreement to reimburse … The reimbursement process is in contradiction with the intention stated above of making advance payments. 4/8 USAID will provide the AMA with a monthly advance of funds … According to AMA verbal testimonies, USAID did not honor the promise of advancing funds on a monthly basis. 4/9 … AMA shall prepare and submit to USAID a monthly cash flow projection of requirements … Neither AMA nor USAID were able to provide the evaluation team with any kind of cash flow requirements. 6/10 … USAID will not reimburse the AMA under this FARA for any works … unless said works has been completed in accordance to this agreement … The evaluation team has reason to believe that payments have been made to AMA, even though AMA did not comply with the terms of the agreement. 7/11 Reporting… Neither AMA nor USAID were able to produce copies of any of these reports for the evaluation team to review. 7/12 Environmental Mitigation Plan Neither AMA nor USAID were able to produce copies of the Environmental Mitigation Plan for the evaluation team to review. 7/13 Performance Management Plan Neither AMA nor USAID were able to produce copies a Performance Management Plan for the evaluation team to review. Annex 8d: Observations on the Cooperative Agreement between USAID and Plan International/Ghana Page Line or Paragraph Observation 5 Within 45 days of signing …. The recipient shall submit a final Performance Monitoring Plan. … The PMP presented by Plan Ghana called for features like “walling-in, girl-friendly latrines, hand washing stations, and access to water and electricity” None of these conditions were verified by the evaluation team’s observations on the ground. 9 USAID requires that the recipient … make every effort to comply with the objectives of the USAID Disability Policy …. The schools the evaluation team visited that Plan Ghana designed and built did not comply with Ghana law or USAID regulations in regards to accessibility for people with disabilities. 15 Our approach is … innovative … Plan Ghana claim that their approach is innovative could not be verified by the evaluation team in terms of school construction. The team observed that the constructions are very similar to the educational buildings Ghana has built for the past 10 years. 15 We propose to implement programs that are tested and have impacted enrollment…. One of the schools built by Plan Ghana (Tano South) that the evaluation team visited had declining enrollment to the point where teachers were 16 As a result of our concerned about a possible closure of the school. interventions we expect to see a 15% increase in enrollment at TAP schools…. 20 …emphasizes child centered ….participatory approach … The densely packed furniture lay out the team observed in the Plan Ghana schools indicates that instruction is teacher centered with little participation of students in their own learning process. 24 We will provide two handicapped accessible latrine cubicles with a ramp and wider door for wheelchairs … The evaluation team was not able to verify the existence of such facilities in the Plan Ghana schools visited. 1 Annex 8e: Observations on the FAS Consult Reports (March, May, June, July, September, October 2014) Fact: FAS Consult indicates that they have been engaged by USAID to manage the project and to ensure the project objectives are met. Observations: 1- The reports that the evaluation team reviewed indicated that FAS Consult observed buildings under construction and reported on their observations, but did not assumed management responsibilities. 2- The evaluation team could not find any evidence that the project management role of FAS Consult was communicated to the implementing partners. 3- The evaluation team could not find any evidence that FAS Consult had any contractual authority to “ensure” that the objectives of the projects were met. 4- The evaluation team did not see in any of the documents reviewed that FAS Consult had made any observation about the achievement of an increase in access to education which is the main objective of the PWC activities. 5- Many of the observations made by FAS Consult in one month are repeated in the following months with not much attention given to observations and recommendations. 6- Same of the progress photos contained in different monthly reports seem to be the same photos. 7- FAS Consult does not make any observations about cost overruns or schedule slippages, which normally constitute project manager observations. 8- Some of the observations of FAS Consult like “quality of work is questionable” do not lead to specific remedial actions. 9- All the monthly reports describe activities such as field visits and report writing. Very few include meetings with the interested parties for exchange of information and possible improvement in performance. Fact: FAS Consult makes several observations about what the contractors should do, or should have done. Observations: 1- The evaluation team did not find any evidence of an authority relationship between FAS Consult and the contractors. There is no clarity either about was supposed to happen after FAS Consult had pointed out important issues. 2- The evaluation team has not seen evidence of a close follow-up by either USAID or the implementing partners of the issues that FAS Consult pointed out. Fact: FAS Consult indicates that a number of projects had reached “substantial completion.” Observations: 1- There is no specific definition of what “substantial completion” means for FAS Consult or to USAID. 2- Usually in a construction project “substantial completion” is a very important phase that comes along with several documents. FAS Consult reports do not show any evidence of such documents. Fact: After the last report submitted, USAID decided to no longer use the services of FAS Consult. Observations: 1- The services of FAS Consult were hired when the project was quite advanced and serious problems related to planning and design could not be fixed in retrospect. 2- As an alternative to hiring FAS Consult, the project could have provided adequate training to construction companies and supervision teams. 3- Observations and recommendations that FAS Consult made are all self-evident and easy to detect by a well trained professional. 4- Observations by FAS Consult indicate that certain works were completed but make no reference to the quality, durability or sustainability of the works completed. None of the observations make a reference to adherence of the structures built to construction codes or other contractual obligations by contractors and/or implementing partners. Fact: FAS Consult was hired to make observations on the quality, dimensions and quantity of the furniture supplied as of June 2014. Observations: 1- FAS Consult noted that in some cases the specifications, dimensions and quantities were not met. Additionally, in some cases, furniture that required assembly was not assembled. 2- The evaluation team could not find of any record of action by USAID or the implementing partners to make sure that the furniture providers would carry out their obligations or correct the issues pointed out by FAS Consult. 3- FAS Consult does not make any reference to the adequacy of the furniture, which in many cases the evaluation team found to be too heavy and/or too big to efficiently use the space provided. 4- FAS Consult does not make any reference to the possible use of existing furniture in replaced classrooms or in rented administrative offices. Fact: In the Oct 2014 report FAS Consult mentions that non-destructive tests were conducted on concrete structures and wooden pieces. Observations: 1-There is no indication of a trigger for such tests or how the structures to be tested were selected among all the other structures. 2- The results of such tests were not made available to the SI evaluation team. Fact: The last available FAS Consult report (Oct 2014) indicates that 86 structures have been handed over to the District Assemblies and are in use. Some have been supplied with furniture and others are yet to be supplied. It also indicates that 20 structures are substantially completed, but have remedial work to be done on them. Additionally, it reports that 51 structures are yet to be completed, out of which 11 have been abandoned for the last two months, no progress has been noted on 4, and 24 structures have slow progress. Two toilet blocks in the Northern Region have not been started. Observations: 1- The evaluation team could not find any particular strategy to complete the unfinished structures other than extending the FARA agreements. 2- 51 uncompleted structures represent a high percentage of the overall project, which was meant to be completed in two years and is still far from completion after its fourth year anniversary. 3- Having about 1/3 of the planned structures not be operational also hinders the impact of the project in achieving the expected improvements in access to education. 4- Remedial work to be done in structures currently in use may require a strategy to ensure the safety to students and other occupants while work is in progress. Common themes in FAS Consult findings1: - Contractors at different times abandoned the sites and remobilized. - In abandoned sites weeds grow out of control. Excavations are not covered. - Remedial works were necessary in different locations and were performed by the contractors as requested. - In some cases wooden structural elements were exposed to rain for several months with advanced deterioration. - Slow progress is noted. - Structures build started to be used even though they had not been formally handed over, which significantly reduces the liability of the contractor and endangers occupants. - USAID branding was absent from completed jobs. - Common defects were: non-alignment of structural members, exposed reinforcements in 1 Several of the issues identified in the FAS Consult reports coincide with direct observations of the evaluation team during site visits. structural members, warping of timber members, cracks in screed and rendering, warping of timber members, exposed reinforcements in structural members and roof leakages resulting in damage to the ceiling. - Contractors have to be paid promptly. - There is further need to advocate for health and safety in construction sites, and well as for environmental issues. - Black boards were provided (without chalk) instead of white boards with markers. - Stones being used as window and door stays are damaging the hinges, doors and window panels. - Hinges are not properly fixed and are coming loose. - Disable ramps are too steep. - Sagging noggins and ceiling elements need to be reinforced. - Septic tanks and soak-aways do not have covers - Rebar in columns and beams are exposed because of defective casting or poor quality concrete. - Structural elements are not well aligned. - Previously noted defects were not corrected. - Contractor has no presence onsite. - Window frames are not properly fixed. - Wood for doors, windows and ceilings are not well seasoned. - Cracks on plaster and screeds are noted. - Photos of “substantially completed” works do not show any landscaping, only rough dirt. - Electrical wiring not in conduits. - Metal gates are not well fixed. - Termites are attacking door frames. - Interior floors are not leveled. - Paint is peeling off. - Toilet floors do not have proper slope. - Rain gutter is not completed. - Protective hoardings are non-existing or fallen down. - Furniture was supplied when construction was still in progress. - Water pipes leak. - Power connections are not done. - Part of structures had to be demolished and rebuilt.